Home

Main Menu


Warning: Parameter 1 to modMainMenuHelper::buildXML() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/masscom/public_html/libraries/joomla/cache/handler/callback.php on line 99

Latest News


Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/masscom/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 109

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/masscom/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 109

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/masscom/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 109

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/masscom/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 109

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/masscom/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 109
 

Popular


Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/masscom/public_html/modules/mod_mostread/helper.php on line 79

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/masscom/public_html/modules/mod_mostread/helper.php on line 79

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/masscom/public_html/modules/mod_mostread/helper.php on line 79

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/masscom/public_html/modules/mod_mostread/helper.php on line 79

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/masscom/public_html/modules/mod_mostread/helper.php on line 79
MassNews.com- Masschusett's Conservative Voice
Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye- upcoming debate PDF Print E-mail
Written by E.F. Winslow   
Thursday, 30 January 2014 01:20

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye- Upcoming Debate

 

In one week, on Feb 4th, Ken Ham from the Creation Museum will debate Bill Nye, the famed “Science Guy”, on the question of whether Creationism is a viable scientific model in contemporary society.   Despite the fact that the debate will be in Ham’s headquarters, packed with his staunch supporters, Nye will likely run roughshod over Ham, and here’s why:


1:  Wrong Choice for the Debate Question:   The formal question is stated as such: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?”   The problem this poses for Ham is that it puts the onus on him to prove that Creationism is scientific, which would mean that as a hypothesis, it is somehow measurable, and  falsifiable (able to be tested to be proven or disproven).  Ideally, a good hypothesis has predictive qualities of what type of evidence one would see in the future.   Unfortunately, Creationism- or more specifically Ham’s version of Creationism-  has nothing to point to that can lend credence to it in a “scientific” fashion.   Much of what is discussed in creationism is aimed at showing the improbability of evolution… however that is NOT adding anything to the argument for creation.   By analogy, if you were a prosecutor in court, and the onus was on you to prove that Mr. Smith committed a heinous crime, it doesn’t add to your case by simply presenting all of the people in the city that weren’t at the crime scene.   You would still have to demonstrate that the defendant WAS there, and had the means and a possible motive.   If the question for the debate was “Are there enough scientific problems with Darwinian Evolution to prohibit it from being the sole theory of origins?”, then that would be a slam dunk for Ham.   One could go on for days with examples of things that would keep Nye answering “We don’t understand how that works yet”, or “Yes, its improbable, but given enough time” to the point that it would be clear that evolution does not deserve the scholastic monopoly it has in many schools and universities.


2. Ham’s False Dichotomy of “Historical” Science versus “Observable” Science:  In many debates, Ham has said that since creation is an historical event, it is “historical science” which has nothing to do with any empirical methodology, which he considers “observable science”.   He then goes on to say that the Bible is a book of historical science, and thus feels comfortable with the premise that if its in the Bible, then it is (historical) science.  Unfortunately, most people see the flawed logic and circular reasoning.  Ham will sometimes fall back on the argument that because we live in a fallen world, all observable science is suspect, and should not be admissible as evidence for anything.


3.  Ham’s Rejection of Established Natural/Physical Law:  It would be an pretty decent slug-fest if Nye and Ham would argue the events around the point of Creation/singularity/Big Bang.  The confirmation by astrophysicists that the universe had a finite beginning, starting essentially from nothing was a terrible blow to naturalists and atheists who generally believed in an infinite, static universe.  However, Ham  frequently rejects things like the constancy of the speed of light, radioactive decay, and other measurable qualities lest they open the door to the idea the universe is more than 6,000 years old.

 

The majority of people commenting on the debate have thought that Ken Ham will take the upper hand over Nye.  Even atheist Richard Dawkins has weighed in on his opinion that Bill Nye is unprepared for the type of reasoning and attack that Ken Ham will use.   However, despite what will likely be a raucous crowd cheering for Ham, it is highly unlikely that Ham will likely be able to prove the thesis.  Expect to hear a lot of appeals to the crowd with statements like "But I believe what GOD said!" while he waves his Bible, or thought-terminating cliches like "So you're saying nothing created something... and you think that is scientific?" 

 

Last Updated on Thursday, 30 January 2014 01:36
 
The Hard Facts About the Boston Marathon Bombing PDF Print E-mail
Written by Eric Francke   
Friday, 24 May 2013 13:53

In the hours and days after the Boston Marathon Bombing, there were a number of false leads and dead ends that were pursued not only by amateurs in social media, but many of the largest media outlets in the country. Among those were the stories that there was a Saudi national arrested, then released, plus several pictures of individuals now known to have nothing to do with the attack. There was even (and still is) a portion of the population that believes the bombing was either staged, faked or orchestrated by the Federal Government in order to execute martial law in Boston for a day. Here are some of the facts as we now know them:

  • The Tsarnaev brothers (Tamerlan, 26 and Dzhokha, 19) planted and detonated a pair of bombs made of pressure-cookers near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday, April 15, killing three people, including an 8-year-old boy, and injuring more than 260 others.

  • They shot and killed an MIT campus police officer on Thursday,

  • Shortly after that shooting, Tamerlan was killed in a shootout with police, while Dzhokhar was injured and later captured. In the incident, they utilized pressure-cooker bombs against police, and similar devices were found in their residence.

  • In subsequent interviews with family members, and confirmed by Dzhokhar himself before he was read his Miranda rights, their motivation was a hatred for America inspired by radical Islamic teaching.

  • Although they apparently carried out the bombing alone, several friends are considered accessories after the fact for helping destroy evidence, and it is possible that Tamerlan's wife may have helped in the preparation of the bombs.

In such an event that is perpetrated by either a single individual or a small number of low profile people, using low-tech materials, is admittedly a difficult one for law enforcement to forsee and even harder to foil. However the more we learn, the more we realize that these two, particularly the older brother should have been at least a “person of interest” before the Watertown shootout, and possibly even before the initial bombing event. Regarding our intelligence on him, we know:

  • Twice Russia had contacted the FBI about the Tamerlan's radicalization and their concern regarding his contacts in Russia. First in 2011, and the FBI interviewed Tamerlan but found no incriminating evidence. Then while he was in Dagestan in 2012, he apparently met with, or at least communcated with two Islamic radicals there, William Plotnkov and Masur Nidal. Tamerlan was unders surveilance by Russian counter-terrorism forces at this time. Nidal was killed by Russian special forces in May. On July 14th, 2012, Plotnikov was killed in a shoot-out with police. Russian counter-terrorism authoritiees were searching for Tamerlan but he had disappeared and fled back to the United States. Russia again contacted the FBI, but received no response.

  • The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia sent a written warning about Tamerlan Tsarnaev to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2012, according to a senior Saudi government official. They had human intelligence that indicated he was going to detonate a bomb. Saudi Arabia had also denied Tamerlan a visa to visit Mecca in 2011, citing concerns about his radical stances.

  • Tamerlan was on two US terror watch lists, as was his own mother.

  • At least Tamerlan, possibly Dzhokar, were involved in an unsolved triple homocide that happened in Waltham, on September 11th.. (not a coincidence), 2011.

With these facts in mind- that intelligence agencies from 2 foreign governments contacted us in the last year to tell us that an indivdual who was already on the watch list was seeking out violent terrorists overseas and possibly planning a bomb attack on a public event- how is that when bombing victim Jeff Bauman fingered the image of the individual that placed the bag down that had the explosives- the FBI and homeland security STILL did not know who the individual was? Instead the FBI held a press conference to ask for the public's help in identifying them. 

Exactly what is the FBI and Homeland Security doing if they are ignoring shared intelligence from other countries counter-terrorism agencies?

We now know that they were busy going over the phone records of the Associated Press, tracking the whereabouts of Fox News reporters, and issuing dire warnings about the dangers of conservatives, vets coming back from the war, and pro-life Roman Catholics. Truly enemies of the state, no doubt. At least they are to Eric Holder, Janet Napalitano and Barack Obama.

The bombings were terrible tragedies, without a doubt. But it is likewise tragic that the Federal Government – again- was looking for terrorists in all the wrong places. Just as in the years before 9-11 in New York, the FBI and Department of Justice under Louis Freeh and Janet Reno were focused on “Right Wing”- particularly Christian extremists- as outlined in their plans from the “Project Megiddo” directive.

 
Who Won in the Healthcare Ruling? PDF Print E-mail
Written by Eric francke   
Friday, 29 June 2012 14:27

For all the banter thrown around about the SCOTUS ruling on healthcare law, it is a little disconcerting about how few people actually understand what the court was ruling on, and the ramifications of the final verdict.


The Supreme Court is not there to weigh out the merits of universal healthcare, or the coverage of pre-existing conditions, and the other particulars. The only question before it was the constitutional question- “Can the Federal government force an individual, simply because they are alive, to buy a product?”. On its face, it seems absurd, but that is the only germane question they had to wrestle with. To take it to the logical extreme, if the answer is “yes” then I would like to pass a law saying that everyone, under penalty of law, must buy a new Toyota. After all, everyone needs to travel in a car sometimes. Otherwise, they have to take public transportation, or bum a ride from someone else, in either case, they are becoming a burden on others around them. An individual mandate that everyone buys a new Toyota solves that problem, and we won't have so many old clunkers breaking down, with big repair bills. The law would be doing everyone a favor. Especially Toyota dealers.


The ruling on Thursday gave the answer. “Yes”. The government can tell you that you must buy a product, even a product from an evil, for-profit corporation. The rationale behind it is that the refusal to buy the product carries a fine from the IRS- an additional tax. And, (here is the punchline) the federal government can create and levy a tax anytime, anywhere, for whatever foolhardy thing they want, and send the IRS after you to levy, audit, punish, seize your assets and even imprison you if you don't pay it. This might explain why the Healthcare law allocates millions of dollars to the IRS for enforcement. For those paying attention, they may recall that during the budget debate over the healthcare law, a large part of the revenues for the law was from those fines.


So the bottom line is that yes, the government can force individuals to buy a product- any product- as long as the penalty for not buying it is a tax. As long as they can ram it through Congress, no matter how many falsehoods they can spread about it (ie. “It won't raise the deficit” or “this will lower health costs”). It doesn't even matter how regressive the tax is. In this case, it hits working class families the hardest, since a “family” pays more for health insurance than a single person, or a couple. It disproportionately hurts small entrepreneurs, since they don't have a larger company plan to come under. It favors public employees, who tend to have a better benefits package with healthcare included as a pension. You now can be told what you have to spend your money on, or face the wrath of the IRS, with penalties, interest rates, and fees that no bank in America could ever get away with.


So before people start dancing around saying “hooray! Our side won” consider what was lost. This represents the biggest tax hike in our country's history. Even more disturbing, it codified as a precedent, that government can force you to do ANYTHING as long as the penalty for not doing that thing is a tax. That represents a terrible reversal in individual rights in the United States. This wasn't a “Democrats win” and “Republican lose” ruling. This is losing proposition for all Americans. Perhaps, except for the health insurance companies. Whom you now have to buy from, courtesy of Obama, Congress, and Justice Roberts.

Last Updated on Saturday, 30 June 2012 01:29
 
Menino's "Open Letter" a Clear Abuse of Power PDF Print E-mail
Written by Eric Francke   
Thursday, 26 July 2012 04:56
Sergey Brin is the co-founder of Google, which most of us would recognize as a very successful company with employees seem to be exceptionally happy to be working there. 

He happens to be Jewish, and recently it came to light that he made a million dollar donation to Hebrew immigrants, and also met with Shimon Peres, the president of Israel, at Google headquarters.  In the process, he was asked by a Jewish paper if he supported Israel, and he said he was.  For arguments sake, lets say hypothetically that he said "guilty as charged". 

In comes Mayor Menino and the rest of the lib-tards.  "Google, you can't do business in Boston" he says, "because your company hates Palestinians, and is probably Islamophobic, and discriminates against anyone who is Arabic."   And he proceeds to direct the city to block Google from anyone's computer, and make sure that citizens can't get results from Google even if they want to.   Because, the reasoning goes, if you personally support Israel, then your company must have a murderous hatred for Arabs, right?

Welcome to liberal bizarro land.   Its sound crazy, but that is exactly what we are looking at with Mayor Menino and Chick-Fil-A.   Dan Cathy is the president of Chick-Fil-A, and is unapologetically a southern Baptist.   He said to the BAPTIST PRESS in an interview on July 16th that he supports traditional families, and of that he was "guilty as charged". 

Dan Cathy wasn't issuing some type of hiring directive to his franchisee owners.  They hire whoever they want.  He has always said that his company isn't even a "christian" company- although they operate on biblical principles... which typically relate to integrity, customer service, and work ethic.  In America, you are allowed to express your opinion, as Dan Cathy did.  As a privately owned company, they can even define the code of conduct for their employees.  And it should be noted, that Chick-Fil-A has rarely run afoul (pardon the pun) with the EEOC.   Certainly less than most other establishments of their size.

Mayor Menino is using his power over the apparatus of the state to try to squash a business because of his irrational and misconstrued ideas of what Dan Cathy said.  Menino even said in an interview that the company would be singled out, and treated differently than other companies, in order to keep them from progressing as a normal expanding business.  And that is an abuse of power.  

So for all the supporters of Menino in this case-  you've earned your lib-tard badges.  You've won the "I Don't Know or Care What the Constitution Says" award.  You are well on your way to being supporter of a fascist state, where the whims of dear leader trump the individual's constitutional rights. 

The sad part of all this is that virtually no one will stand up and say anything in defense of a private citizens personal beliefs.  They will applaud the corrupt abuse of power that Menino has so brazenly spoke of, because they fear the shame and the heckling of the lib-tards on the left. 

Just keep in mind that the pendulum is always swinging.  If you want to celebrate the state throwing its weight against an individuals business because the Mayor doesn't think he likes the CEOs religion or his opinions... lets just hope that it isn't your private opinion that catches the attention of the ire of the next mayor, senator, or president. 
 
Obama Wishes you a Happy "Fifth of the Fourth" PDF Print E-mail
Written by Jim Feinstein   
Saturday, 05 May 2012 14:07


In a classic gaffe, the language-challenged President Barack Obama wishes everyone a happy Cinco De Quatro ...or a happy "Fifth of Fourth".

Funny how this didn't make it to any of the major news outlets!
Last Updated on Saturday, 05 May 2012 14:13
 

Warning: Illegal string offset 'active' in /home/masscom/public_html/templates/rhuk_milkyway/html/pagination.php on line 90

Warning: Illegal string offset 'active' in /home/masscom/public_html/templates/rhuk_milkyway/html/pagination.php on line 96

Warning: Illegal string offset 'active' in /home/masscom/public_html/templates/rhuk_milkyway/html/pagination.php on line 90

Warning: Illegal string offset 'active' in /home/masscom/public_html/templates/rhuk_milkyway/html/pagination.php on line 96

Warning: Illegal string offset 'active' in /home/masscom/public_html/templates/rhuk_milkyway/html/pagination.php on line 90

Warning: Illegal string offset 'active' in /home/masscom/public_html/templates/rhuk_milkyway/html/pagination.php on line 96
«StartPrev123NextEnd»

Page 1 of 3
Copyright © 2014 MassNews.com- Masschusett's Conservative Voice. All Rights Reserved.
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.