24 February, 2017

Orwellian Hypocrisy: 5 '1984' Plank-Eyes that the Left Must Address

It's Friday, February 24, 2017 — one month and 4 days into Donald Trump's presidency. During this short period, he has indeed gotten a lot done — some of which has been met with relatively little obstruction; others, however, have been met with vehement opposition from the opposition party. One such problem position: budget cuts to the National Endowment of the Arts. In response to this attack, the notoriously left-wing media has decided to screen the film adaptation of '1984' despite the fact that the regime in that book has much more in common with the left than the right. How much exactly? At least the following 5 points.

For starters, the fictional totalitarian regime in Orwell's classic sci-fi thriller novel is, at the most fundamental level, a surveillance state. Devices called "telescreens" in the book resemble what we know as TVs, but with a sinister twist: they're used by the fictional state to spy on its citizens. The repeated slogan, throughout the entire book, is "Big Brother is Watching You", "Big Brother" being the book's fictional dictator. Although much less obvious and more subtle, the NSA's PRISM program was indeed a program of mass surveillance by the US government — and at the time, the Obama administration was in the driver's seat.

As obviously Orwellian as PRISM was when exposed, however, it wasn't the only Orwellian thing the left has done. There is also a part of the '1984' book, near the back, in which the fictional government gives certain minorities — among them, Jews and blacks — first dibs on high-level officer jobs in the fictional regime's secret police force, and basically tells them to use their jobs to get their revenge on those who once oppressed their ancestors. A similar attitude exists in real life in today's Democratic Party, which gives groups like BLM, the Black Panthers, and the Muslim Brotherhood special favors, not to mention gives them a similar message — namely, a manifestation of the lie that two wrongs make a right, when in reality the exact opposite is true — to spread around.

In another part of '1984', a furnace system is described — a bunch of pneumatic tubes that take papers dropped into them to a furnace, which incinerates them. Why? To destroy evidence. Obviously, if such info were to leak from a totalitarian government and the people were to obtain it, the result would indeed be disastrous, so any totalitarian regime must involve lying and destroying evidence. In 2015, a scandal came to the surface suggesting that as Obama's Secretary of State, 2016 presidential loser Hillary Clinton did exactly this: securely deleted 30,000+ emails from her private server using BleachBit. Why? Again, to destroy evidence — Congress could charge Hillary with perjury if they found any emails on that server containing classified information, which Sec. Clinton denied having ever received in her inbox. To say that destroying evidence is Orwellian behavior is an understatement.

In still another part of Orwell's infamous novel is the subversion of the English language as "Newspeak" — using definitional retreat as a means to turn the English language into a psychological weapon that the ruling party can then use against anyone with whom they disagree. The end goal? Dumbing the people down so that they continue to support the ruling party. What is political correctness? Yup, exactly this. Newspeak is a far more extreme form of political correctness, to be fair, but redefining such words as "racist", "bigot", and anything ending in the suffix "-phobia" with intent to politically weaponize such language is Orwellian indeed.

Finally, Orwell's novel talks about the different parts of cities like dystopian London, in which the novel takes place. There's the upscale areas, which are under constant mass surveillance, and then there are the slums, where the so-called "proles" live. These people are indeed given welfare by the government… but that's about it. The living quarters, despite the provisions, are still in total disrepair, and the people have, to put it in LBJ's words, "just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference". In 2016, Dinesh D'Souza, in his infamous movie Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party, called American inner cities "urban plantations," and they, like the Orwellian "proles quarters," are governed by similar antics: instead of shackles, the people have welfare, and instead of work, they have elections, but they're still, from an economic standpoint, de facto slaves.

So, let's review: PRISM — that's Orwellian, oppression Olympics — that's Orwellian, destruction of evidence — that's Orwellian, political correctness — that's Orwellian, and urban plantations — that's Orwellian. That's five planks in the eyes of the screeners of this movie, which makes me laugh my head off that they're even doing it. By screening '1984' as a means of protest, the American Left is only incriminating itself, and it's an example of gross ignorance on the part of the Democratic Party to falsely attribute books like '1984' with intent to fit their narrative.

22 February, 2017

HowTo: Make Ubuntu GNOME Look Like Chrome OS

As someone who has for a time exclusively used Chrome OS, I have since taken on roles ― like Android app development, which I just took a class last semester ― that have put me at odds with the Chrome OS target audience. As a consequence, I now find myself with three machines — an Asus Chromebit, an HP Chromebook 11 G4, and an HP Pavilion G72 desktop replacement laptop, which was originally my sister's, then got handed to my father, and finally handed down to me. Given that I have literally no respect at all for Windows, I decided to use the Chromebook — which was in developer mode at the time — to flash an Ubuntu ISO image to a 16GB USB flash drive using the following command:

$ wget -O - http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily-live/current/ubuntu-desktop/amd64.iso | sudo dd of=/dev/sdb

Then, I used that USB flash drive to  wipe the G72 clean. After installing, I then proceeded to "sudo apt-get install ubuntu-gnome-desktop", install Chrome (the browser, not the OS — particularly the dev channel version), and, finally, remove Unity, Firefox, and Compiz. However, it still took some getting used to — switching from a Chromebook to the G72 and back felt like playing a cat-and-mouse game each time due to the fundamental layout changes between operating systems. How could I make the G72 look more like what I have been used to on the Chromebook and Chromebit?

The first thing I did — and this is literally point 1 — was install the Paper theme, which gives both GTK+ and GNOME Shell Material Design makeovers. It doesn't look exactly like Chrome OS, but it's close. After I changed the GTK+ theme to Paper, I used the GNOME Tweak Tool, along with the Shell extension called User Theme (which I had to use the GNOME Shell Integration Chrome extension to install), to in turn change the GNOME Shell theme to Paper.

But wait, the font doesn't quite match up. For that, I ran "sudo apt-get install font-roboto", then used the Tweak Tool to change the GTK+ font to Roboto. Changing the Shell font, however, meant editing some CSS. I opened a terminal, ran "sudo gedit /usr/share/themes/Paper/gnome-shell/gnome-shell.css", and edited Line 19 to read "font-family: Roboto, Roboto Bold, Sans-Serif". Then I closed the text editor, pressed Alt-F2, and ran "r" to restart the Shell. The result was indeed Material, but still did not have the layout that I wanted. How could I make the desktop layout more like that of Chrome OS?

I decided to browse the extensions page some more, and stumbled across an extension called Dash to Panel, which provided 90% of the changes that I needed. Still, however, it didn't look exactly like Chrome OS because the result wasn't as transparent as the Chrome OS Panel is. So, I had to continue. I then ran across another extension called Dynamic Panel Transparency, which makes the panel fully transparent if no windows are maximized. Finally, to make sure that the notifications were in a position congruent to the position that they are in in the case of Chrome OS, I installed the Panel OSD extension. To improve performance, I also, in the Tweak Tool, opened the Extensions tab, clicked the small gear next to Dash to Panel, clicked on the Behavior tab in the resulting dialog, and unchecked "Animate Show Applications". In addition, on that same page, I also set the "Click Action" to "Minimize window". Ah, but wait, what about the wallpaper? A quick Google search will bring it up, but yes, I decided to make this image the default wallpaper, which can be done simply by right-clicking on the desktop.

Desktop
Overview Mode
The result is indeed something that is much easier getting used to — and vice versa, when I switch back and forth between Chrome OS and Linux, it is now very easy to transition both ways. Plus, unlike some distributions intended to be Chrome OS clones, like Chromixium and Cr OS, the result of this looks far cleaner — those others use Xfce, which, although great as far as performance is concerned, looks terrible as far as being congruent with Chrome OS is concerned. Why? Because Xfce does not allow pinning of apps/windows, one of the key Chrome OS features. This solution does. Moreover, the GNOME Shell overview mode looks much more like the Chrome OS overview mode than anything Xfce has yet offered. Definitely an easy transition, to say the least.

13 February, 2017

Judges should S.T.O.P. Misquoting the Constitution

While the app that I published to Google Play on New Year's Eve does indeed specifically refer to the Bible in its description and strings, it should be noted that the Bible is not the only document out there that the method that this app educates on is applicable to. An example of a piece of another document that was misquoted was the Ninth Circuit case Washington v. Trump, in which the people making the ruling ruled, while completely ignorant of context and of other laws, that President Donald Trump's travel ban on certain Muslim-majority countries violates the Establishment Clause, in spite of the fact that the Constitution was written for citizens, not for aliens. They should have thought about it further by thinking the same way that I, at least, think about the Bible — that is, by application of exegesis to the Constitution.

What is the situation or setting of the Establishment Clause? It's 1790 in the brand-new United States of America. Having been fed up with how hypocritical the Church of England has been with them, stifling the freedoms of Jews and of other sects of Christianity, the Founding Fathers had decided that enough is enough, and decided that the federal government should not give one church or synagogue official favor over any other. Were there Muslims in early America? Perhaps as slaves, but slaves were not US citizens until 1868. Did the Founding Fathers intend to give resident aliens constitutional rights? Per the Alien and Sedition Acts, supported by many of the Constitution's authors, the answer to that would be "No".

The type of literature that the Establishment Clause conveys, meanwhile, is obvious: a statement expressly forbidding the government from exercising a power that other governments at the time exercised on a regular basis. The Establishment Clause's object is, of course, whether or not the federal government should make one religion or sect thereof the official religion and outlaw all the others, and the prescription of the Establishment Clause is that the government refrain from doing the above. Does a restriction on immigration from certain parts of the world have anything to do with literally establishing an official religion for the United States, which is the only act — the ONLY act — that the Establishment Clause condemns? No. US citizens can still choose whatever religion they want to regardless.

So, in the original context, no, the Establishment Clause is not applicable to aliens, no, it is not applicable to foreign tourists, and no, it is definitely not applicable to those who overstay their visas or cross borders without proper documentation, breaking US immigration laws in the process. Only citizens have Establishment Clause protection, and anyone who rules otherwise is quote mining the Constitution in a manner that people like Neil Gorsuch and Antonin Scalia are/were sternly, vehemently opposed to. The judicial branch is the judicial branch. It was never intended to and is never supposed to have legislative power. Judicial activism is a total usurpation of the separation of powers as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States and is therefore an unconstitutional mindset in itself.

09 February, 2017

Biology Does Not Lie: Why abortion is evil

Is it sexist to make moral judgments about abortion? If it is, then it's also sexist to make the moral judgment that it's sexist to make moral judgments about abortion. If it's intolerant to weigh in on people's choices, then it's also intolerant to weigh in on someone's choice to weigh in on people's choices. If it's bigoted to claim that premarital sex is wrong, then the claim that it's bigoted to claim that premarital sex is wrong is also bigoted. If it's bigoted to force morality, then it's also bigoted to force the morality that morality shouldn't be forced.

Those are all called self-refuting statements, and they're all coming from leftists in the United States. They're completely and utterly false, because they all violate the law of noncontradiction, which states that A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time. It's just like the claim to be absolutely certain that absolutes don't exist. It's just like the claiming that it's true that there is no truth. It's just like, for a more morbid example, using English to claim to be unable to speak a word in English.

When it comes to abortion in particular, it isn't even the woman's body that we're talking about with respect to the above, and anyone who blindly asserts the "my body, my choice" lie is, by the leftist definition at least, a science denier. Why? Because a body part has the exact same DNA as the body that it's a part of. Is an unborn child's DNA 100% identical to the mother's DNA? No, because you need both a sperm and an egg to make a child. Not only is the unborn child genetically distinct from the mother, but, because of the fact that a female mother can carry a male child, also chromosomally distinct half of the time as well. When it comes to the unborn child, the mother is simply that — a carrier. Saying that abortion is "your body, your choice" is logically on par with implying that someone driving or riding in a car is physically part of the car, which is completely false.

Ah, but a car is not a human being, while the mother is, you say, right? How often is there a dilemma with regard to saving lives? Only 0.7% of abortions are because of rape — the only case where there is no choice 9 months before pregnancy, and even then, aborting what someone else can otherwise adopt is implying the malignantly narcissistic narrative that if you cannot take care of a child then no one else can — and only 0.3% of abortions are because of some life-threatening complication (like an ectopic pregnancy, for example) to the mother resulting from a pregnancy. Another 0.7% are due to birth defects, but a significant number of the birth defects in question are non-fatal and therefore inexcusable. That leaves 98.3% of abortions for purely, get this, economic reasons. Or, as I like to call them, selfish, greedy, sexually narcissistic, lame excuses.

Why do I call them that? Because anyone who cannot afford a child cannot afford sex either, period. It doesn't matter how much you enjoy sex, it's there for one purpose and one purpose only — to manufacture children — and must therefore never be had in vain. When two impoverished youth consent to sex, regardless of whether or not they want to admit it, they are actually having sex in vain, which is the most selfish, self-centered, malignantly narcissistic attitude toward sex that one can possibly have. The sexual narcissism — not to mention greed — that is having consensual sex out of wedlock while being unable to afford a child is the root cause of what the pro-life movement is truly opposed to. Until leftists begin to make this connection between premarital and/or extramarital sex and abortion, they will continue to suffer under the Trump/Pence administration.

Ah, but wait a minute, isn't sex difficult to regulate? Once temptation spreads around, then and only then is it difficult to regulate. Educating people on the dangers of not being abstinent, however, is the easiest way in the world to solve this problem. Sex education must mean educating kids as early as humanly possible — I'm talking the upper grades of elementary school — on the dangers of loose sexual morals. It means gratuitous, graphic images in 4th grade health books of exactly what sexually transmitted infections do to the body. It means correcting the record — before puberty — on the porn industry's narrative of sexual behavior. It means giving statistical comparisons of the various methods of birth control and their effectiveness of stopping pregnancy, noting that only abstinence is 100% accurate. This is choice. Abortion isn't.

27 January, 2017

Cultural Hell Is Not Theological Hell

WARNING: The following are paragraphs, not individual sentences or phrases. Ignoring the whole-paragraph contexts to respond to bits and pieces of them is quote mining.

If God is loving, then why would He send you to hell for rejecting Him? This seems to be one of many key questions that nonbelievers wrestle with in our culture, and very prominent Christian apologists like Frank Turek have been presented with it. The problem, however, is that many people who raise this objection don't even know what Hell is. Some think it's just a place of divinely sanctioned torture, but is that true? There are indeed many words that the Bible uses to describe Hell, but the most basic concept is simply the separation from God. If you reject God, then you're rejecting all of His attributes — justice, order, mercy, faithfulness, humility, and selflessness — and embracing their opposites: injustice, chaos, lack of mercy, betrayal, pride, and narcissism.

Notice, however, that none of these negatives can exist unless their positive opposites are defined. You cannot have injustice if justice doesn't exist or is subjective. You cannot properly define chaos if order doesn't exist. You cannot have a lack of mercy without mercy to lack. You cannot properly define betrayal without first defining faithfulness. You cannot have pride if you don't know what humility is. You cannot have narcissism if you don't first have a standard of self-sacrifice by which to measure it. Either the good that becomes evil (in these cases) exists or it's undefined, and if good is undefined, then evil is also undefined. If evil is undefined, then can you call out any egregiously evil act as such? No, and if there were no God as atheists love to claim then all of the above would be completely undefined.

We can, in a sense, think of anarchy as a kind of hell on Earth: Without standards, without order, everyone can do anything and everything that he or she wants, including that which harms others. The result? A kind of socially Darwinistic society in which the strong become stronger, the weak become weaker, and everyone suffers. Anarchy creates chaos. It gives evil ones free reign to inflict evil on each other, creating and multiplying more evil. Instead of keeping them civilized, anarchy turns men into savages.

Now, take that anarchy and lengthen it to an eternal scale. That's what hell is: eternal anarchy. Without God's order, the result is an evil free-for-all where all inhabitants can all inflict as much evil on each other as they desire, but they only distance themselves further and further from God in the process. It's nothing like the stigma that we've given it by any means. Rather, it's simply what happens when there is absolutely no control whatsoever: inhabitants can do whatever the **** they want to each other, including the most grotesque of evils imaginable, and even including evils beyond comprehension.

In this context, we can see that the answer to the question posed in the introductory paragraph does become clear: You send yourself to hell. The assumption behind this loaded question is that God does the sending — not true at all. It's a quarantine for evil — it's where inhabitants fight evil with evil, and evil magnifies itself in an endless death spiral. If you reject God's order, you create chaos. If you reject God's love, you create hate. Hell is the creation of its inhabitants: like an inner city controlled by gangs or a country controlled by terrorist organizations, it's where eternal infighting creates eternal decay. That's what you get if you reject the gift of substitutionary atonement — the only thing that can keep us from this fate.

22 January, 2017

Hypocrites March on Washington: No Pro-Life Women Allowed

WARNING: The following are paragraphs, not individual sentences or phrases. Ignoring the whole-paragraph contexts to respond to bits and pieces of them is quote mining.

While the peaceful transition of power — one of the things that makes this country great — has indeed been successful, people on the left continue to make hypocritical arguments that in every way are completely contradictory to their own actions. Take, for example, Madonna, who claims to express vehement opposition to objectification of women… after having offered to perform oral sex on men who would have voted for Hillary before the election. Madonna's entire career was built on self-objectification, which shows a total mismatch between her words and her actions — obvious hypocrisy. Her march on Capitol Hill is only more proof of how hypocritical she is, because it completely excluded pro-life women, despite being labeled a "women's march".

It's no surprise, however, that the left continues to traffic in rhetoric and actions that fundamentally contradict each other when their underlying position on which all others are based — moral relativism — is a self-refuting idea to begin with. The idea that it's wrong to impose morality is itself a moral claim that someone is imposing. See the problem? The claim and the standard that it conveys fundamentally contradict each other. It's just like the truth claim denying the existence of truth, the use of English to claim to not be able to speak English, the use of a philosophical assumption to claim that the only way to determine whether something is true is via the scientific method, or the judgment not to judge.

Ah, but wait a minute, doesn't the book of Matthew, second chapter, first verse, say that Christians in particular shouldn't judge? The situation of Matthew 7:1 is the Sermon on the Mount. The type of literature that Matthew 7:1 conveys is a single-verse fragment of the commandment that is and should always be quoted as the Matthew 7:1-5 paragraph. Its object is a judgment not against judging in general (which would be logically self-refuting precisely because it's a judgment), but against committing specific sins and then going on to hypocritically judge others who commit those exact same sins without first repenting, and it is prescriptive, not descriptive. One must S.T.O.P. and think about not only what he or she is quoting but, in this case, the following 4 verses as well before quoting, because if not, then it's completely out of context.

How does this apply to abortion, you may ask? Because all the arguments that the left makes on that matter are completely relativistic. "My body, my choice", "that's not morality, that's tyranny", and countless other arguments like those are relativistic, self-refuting statements. Not only that, but they also conflate the unborn child with a body part, which is science denial to boot. If the DNA of the unborn child is not 100% identical to that of the mother — which it clearly isn't, because you need a sperm *and* an egg to make a child, which in turn means that the unborn child has 50% of the mother's DNA and 50% of the father's DNA — then "my body, my choice" is a lie.

Ah, but wait a minute, aren't there potential health risks to the mother that need to be explored as well? According to the available statistics on the matter, only 0.7% of the 60+ million abortions performed since Roe v. Wade are due to rape or incest and only 0.3% are due to the health of the mother being at risk (and the percentage of that percentage that is merely mental or emotional stress — an inexcusable reason — is unknown but probably high). Another 0.7% are due to birth defects, but again, the percentage of those defects that are incapable of killing the child anyway before birth (like Down syndrome for example) and therefore inexcusable are also high. That leaves 98.3% of abortions, for, get this, economic reasons. Think about that. 98.3% of 60+ million unborn children are killed out of pure lust, greed, selfish ambition, and outright sexual narcissism.

People selfishly think that they can have sexual intercourse out of wedlock and kill the child before he or she is born so that they don't have to pay the price of having the sex out of wedlock in the first place, why? Again, because they're selfish, greedy, and stupid. Either don't have sex in the first place or give the child up for adoption, but it's tyranny of the parents to think that you can use abortion as a mere sexual crutch, greedy to force taxpayers to pay for the sexual crutch in question, malignantly narcissistic to think that if you can't take care of the child then no one else can, and all of the above to have the nerve to think that it's OK to even have that impromptu sex in the first place. It's for this reason that we elected Trump and Pence as President and VP: because at least their administration will treat political dissidents with the same degree of dignity as those with whom they agree, unlike Obama, who gave special favors to lobbyists with whom he agreed while at the same time completely ignoring or even attacking those with whom he disagreed.

06 January, 2017

What Mixing Matter with Antimatter Tells Us About Genesis 1:3

WARNING: The following are paragraphs, not individual sentences or phrases; therefore, picking them apart is quote mining.

Of all the parts of the Bible that come under atheistic attack, which one comes under attack the most? It seems like the first book, doesn't it? Why is that? Is it because they think that it somehow contradicts science? News flash: not if examined closely enough. The verse that really sticks out, based on the interchangeability of matter and electromagnetic energy, is Genesis 1:3.

According to that verse, what existed before matter? Light. Light is energy, is it not? Not only is light energy, but it's energy in its purest form. Granted, the vast majority of light is invisible — radio waves, microwaves, heat (infrared) rays, ultraviolet rays, X-rays, and gamma rays are all just invisible forms of light (some of which can be deadly, but that's another topic entirely) — but it's still light regardless. It's given off by everything from wood fires, to filaments in light bulbs heated by electricity, to explosives, to nuclear weapons, to even the ultimate in thermonuclear reactors: the Sun. Notice, however, that the more you tear matter apart (or fuse it together), the more light you generate?

Ah, that's where we come to the ultimate energy source: combinations of matter and antimatter. Antimatter, by definition, is like matter but with opposite electric charges. The antimatter equivalent of a proton, for example, is of the same mass and composition as a proton but with a negative charge. The equivalent of an electron, likewise, is of the same mass and composition as an electron but with a positive charge. When such particles — antiprotons and positrons, respectively — come into contact with protons and electrons, respectively, they completely annihilate each other, and in so doing convert each other into 100% pure energy — not 4% energy (the matter conversion efficiency of an H-bomb) but 100% pure energy. What kind of energy? That's right, light! Deadly, mostly invisible light, but still light.

If matter and antimatter are indeed convertible into energy, which they are, and if the energy that results from matter and antimatter annihilating each other is light, which it is, then isn't the reverse — energy being converted back into matter and antimatter — also possible? That scenario is exactly what Genesis 1:3 is on about. In a universe where total destruction of matter's (and antimatter's) building blocks yields various forms of light, you'd expect those building blocks to themselves be fundamentally made of light in some fashion. By doing experiments with complete destruction of subatomic particles, that is exactly what we see.

As Frank Turek says, "Science doesn't say anything; scientists do." Science on its own is just a method. It's merely a tool for scientists to use, and the scientists therefore must come up with some interpretation based on the evidence that they see. These experiments with subatomic particles are no exception to that rule, and because of the way the Bible is worded, such that light is the very first thing that ever existed according to its pages, I for one am all the more convinced of its veracity by examining the results of these experiments, which do nothing short of confirm the Bible's implication in Genesis 1:3 that the smallest building block of matter and/or antimatter is in fact a photon.

23 November, 2016

Party of Prejudice: The Democrats Still Haven't Learned Their Lessons

What is prejudice? To anyone who is etymologically and linguistically sane, the definition is very clear: it's based on the prefix "pre-," meaning "before," and the root word "judice" which is just a fancy word for judging. It literally means judging someone without thorough enough investigation. Based on this definition, the Democratic Party has never ceased being the party of prejudice, and prejudice is bigotry no matter who it's used against.

It all started when Democratic Party founder Andrew Jackson's vice president, John C. Calhoun, came up with the rather absurd idea that slavery is beneficial not only to the slave owner but also to the slave, which is indeed an absurd idea to say the least. From then until the Civil War, the Democrats — and every single slave at the time of the Civil War was owned by a Democrat (this is about slave owners, not slavery supporters, so support of slavery is a red herring in this regard) — would often assume that all African-Americans were property and give them absolutely no civil rights whatsoever. Any stray African-American was pre-judged as a runaway slave even if he or she had entered the United States from somewhere else. It was complete tyranny.

After the Civil War, however, when the GOP began to gain full control, they literally found themselves scrambling. Not only did they proceed to create a militant arm — the KKK — that perpetrated the mass murder not only of African-Americans but also of white members of the GOP, but they also often pre-judged African-Americans as sexual predators of white women to justify lynching. They went on to use this same prejudice — judging people as rapists simply because they're black — in the 20th century to justify their support for Jim Crow laws, which also did not end well.

After this period ended, the prejudice never did. It simply changed forms. How so? Instead of pre-judging blacks, they turned their attention entirely to pre-judging Republicans and other conservatives. They perpetuate the "big switch" narrative despite the fact that, A, less than 20 of the 1600 most racist of the Dixiecrats switched (thanks, Dinesh), and B, the reason why non-racist whites (in the 1980's) and blacks (in the 1930's) switched parties was because of money, not because of racism. They take the positions of people like Strom Thurmond and smear them onto the Republican Party as a whole (hasty generalization), then pre-judge Republicans in general as racist, pre-judge pro-life Christians as sexist, pre-judge Christians in general as gullible, pre-judge those who don't agree with the homosexual agenda in its entirety as homophobes and transphobes, and pre-judge fiscally conservative African-Americans as "coons" and "Uncle Tom" without doing any research whatsoever.

Regardless of whether it's prejudice as a slave, prejudice as a sexual predator, or prejudice as <enter -ism or -phobia here>, prejudice is prejudice, period. Just as Ida B. Welles taught that prejudice must die and just as the GOP of the 1860's and 1870's taught that prejudice must die, so too am I teaching now that prejudice must die. They accuse all of their opponents of being "haters" prejudicially, in spite of the simple fact that prejudice is hate and that pre-judging opponents as hateful is hypocrisy on top of hate.

18 November, 2016

Political Correctness is Verbal Marxism

I get it, just as I didn't like Obama, there are people out there who just don't like Trump. During the early stages of the primaries, when Ben Carson and Marco Rubio were still candidates, I was one of them — it was only after pro-life Mike Pence became Trump's running mate that I gave him a chance. For the most part this anti-Trump sentiment is due to out of context spin, but let's leave that aside: Why is it that when Obama won and McCain and Romney lost, there were no conservatives rioting, yet when Trump won and Hillary lost, there are rampant rioters all over the place, vandalizing buildings, committing the arson of cars, physically assaulting people who voted for Trump, and even murdering police officers? Why is it that Hillary's supporters cried foul when Trump at the debates claimed to have the right to challenge the election results if reasonable suspicion in the form of fraud was granted, yet are protesting against at best and rioting in response to at worst the results of the election now that Trump won?

Their hypocrisy is certainly showing in this move to protest Trump, that's for sure. If they truly were Democratic as they claim to be and not ochlocratic, then they would be accepting the results of an election that Trump won fair and square. "HRC won the popular vote by 2 million" you claim? Aside from the fact that the electoral college is a critical weapon in the fight against the "parish pump politics" — small areas with high population density could force their own local agendas on the rest of the country at whim — of the UK as it was before the Americas were settled, it should be noted that 3 million HRC voters were undocumented immigrants, who by law are barred from voting and whose votes are therefore fraudulent. That alone makes Trump win the legitimate popular vote by 1 million. Add in the number of fraudulent votes cast in the names of dead people (also at least 1 million), the number of votes cast multiple times in multiple states, the number of stuffed ballot boxes, and other dirty tricks that the Democratic Party had up its sleeve, and the problem solves itself really quickly.

The root of this problem is something called political correctness. Basically, there's this notion from the left now, where, essentially, if you don't adhere to relativism, then they have the right to shut you up. They don't even argue, they just attack. In their eyes, anyone who discusses illegal immigration must be racist, when in reality, there are just as many Hispanics and Latinos who hate illegal immigration — that is, because they're documented Latinos who feel cheated by their undocumented brethren — as there are white people who hate it. These same people also label anyone who wants to gentrify the inner cities as racist, despite the fact that when people in the inner cities get jobs, the crime rates go down and African-American prosperity increases. Leftist SJWs are a class of false dichotomy creators: "either agree with us or you must hate us".

This is literally a Marxist tactic. During the early days of Communism, when the Communists tried to take over their first target — Russia — they engaged in much of the exact same stuff. Anyone who didn't support them, they complained, must be a member of the bourgeoisie. Back then, however, Marxism was fiscal. Now, these same leftists are applying this exact same Marxist tactic to social issues, labeling people with all sorts of -isms simply because they don't agree 100% with their agenda. The left has gone from fiscal Marxism to verbal Marxism, branding, with the most hateful of labels, all protected free speech that they disagree with.

Now that the people have spoken and Trump is in charge, the days of this should soon be over. From a millennial to his fellow millennials: Stop crying like babies. Use your education to get jobs and start businesses. America needs to be built up, not torn down — it's already in enough disrepair as is. And please, grow up! Hearing stories of college professors bringing in Play-Doh to quiet college students down (thanks, Sean Hannity) is honestly making me question their mental capacity to even enter a college class in the first place. Then again, this problem of political correctness happens to be the root cause of this immaturity epidemic, so take that political correctness away and it should hopefully get better.

07 November, 2016

Donald Trump is America's Solomon

Although I have been getting praise by a lot of fellow Christians for supporting Donald Trump ever since he became the GOP nominee in order to stop the lying, crooked, self-refuting, illogical, abortion extremist, and, as recently exposed by WikiLeaks, Satanist hag that is Hillary Clinton, I have been getting a lot of flak from others, particularly GOPe holdouts. They allege that Trump has too many flaws to be the nominee, but what do they not realize? That politicians are human, not divine, that Romans 3:23 speaks on this problem, and, perhaps most importantly, that even some of the greatest Biblical patriarchs are the leaders who also were the most flawed.

Take, for example, King Solomon. The man was a beacon of wisdom, to say the least — a master builder who managed to construct the First Temple in, at the time, record speed, a master philosopher, someone who put Israelite national security first and foremost, who strengthened the Israelite military, and, last but certainly not least, a very rich man — he was worth, in today's money, about 10 billion US dollars. What, meanwhile, were his flaws? "Multiplying wives" and (patently false/fallacious) allegations of xenophobia against the Phoenicians and Philistines. Doesn't this sound a lot like Donald Trump?

There are some differences, to be absolutely fair — 500 wives/concubines is *far* more than Trump's history of divorces and remarriages, and while it doomed Solomon, Trump publicly repented of this, allowing Luke 15:7 to apply. Also, Trump's second-in-command — Mike Pence — is not only a *strongly* devout Christian, but also, like Lee Strobel and Greg Koukl, an apologetics prodigal: he left the faith in college while being talked out of it by an atheistic professor, then returned through apologetics. As an apologist myself, I for one would be more than glad to put someone like that in charge of the Senate especially, because he has amendment power: self-refuting bills can be exposed as such through amendments *before* they get to Trump's desk, rendering them unenforceable if signed.

Those who vote third party or stay home — and as someone who voted for Johnson in 2012, I know first hand that this is a grave mistake — are inadvertently helping an anti-Christian, demonic hag get elected. Trump is definitely better than Hillary, and, most importantly, better than Obama. That makes him a general step in the right direction, paving the way for an even better 2024 nominee that would uphold most if not all values that we Christians want represented. Today, November 7, 2016, I therefore encourage you: Get out and vote! We cannot let this country fall to globalist dictators who want to destroy us.

15 October, 2016

Details of Yesterday's Foiled Clinton Hit Attempt

It's time for a little intelligence briefing on the Clintons. For what, exactly? A possible failed hit attempt on me on Friday, October 14, 2016 between approximately 10:15 AM and approximately 11:00 AM in southern Orange County, CA. My father, ex-CIA, ex-Mossad, 4th-degree blackbelt Cliff Strawn and I left home — father in the driver's seat, me riding shotgun — to make three stops: Southern California Skin and Laser in Laguna Niguel (corner of Pacific Park Drive and Aliso Creek Road), where my father needed skin biopsies done; and the Social Security office on Acero Road in Mission Viejo, where some business regarding health insurance benefits needed to get done.

The first stop took about 45 minutes, and my father decided to let me get breakfast at the Starbucks next door. Fine. It was when I was done, however, that something really strange happened: The *instant* I sent out a tweet regarding one of the Podesta emails suggesting that Podesta was the man who *carried out* a hit on Scalia, claiming that Podesta *is* the Clinton hitman in response to someone else claiming that he needed to watch his back, a man in a brown leather jacket stood up out of his seat, and I caught him out of the corner of my eye.

The instant I looked up at the man, however, he not only panicked, stepping backward about 6 feet, but he also slipped an object into the pocket of his brown leather coat that was black and looked suspicious. The manner in which he slipped it into his pocket was also suspicious — quickly and in a panic so as to hide it from me. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from this pattern of behavior is that this man in the brown leather jacket had a weapon. When I got a closer look before darting out, however — the tall stature, tall face, gray hair, olive skin, and glasses — I knew that this has to have been either John Podesta himself or his identical twin (which he doesn't have one of). This was at about 10:30 AM.

Fast forward to about 11AM, and the setting is different: the SS office. When my father and I get there, I see this same tall man in the parking lot, speaking face-to-face with a short, blond-haired, round-faced, old woman wearing dark attire — a woman who looked just like Hillary Clinton. This time, they're both trying to hide each other from me, knowing that their plan had been foiled. That's when I stepped back and used my phone camera to attempt to take a picture of them, but before I could they were so panicked that they just ran into their cars and sped off.

Fast forward to last night, and there was an actual Clinton rally in San Francisco. They could therefore easily, easily have stopped in SoCal on the way there from somewhere else — this to me was probably the smoking gun, because now I have all the information I need to expose this view of the Clintons as cold-blooded killers to voters.

I can see that there may be a few Podesta lookalikes and a few Hillary lookalikes out there, but the odds of a mere Podesta lookalike in a conspiracy with a mere Hillary lookalike to attempt to kill someone — who, just the day before, was picking the perfect arguments to trap Hillary trolls into logical dilemmas on YouTube so as to shut them up — being anyone but Podesta and Hillary themselves are extremely, extremely low. It was obvious at that point that I had caught Hillary and Podesta in an attempted-murder-for-hire scheme red-handed.

This also gives some valuable information on their M.O., and how to beat them in their game: Their M.O. is to try to catch you purely by surprise. They're cowards: the instant you know what they're doing, they panic. That's why they don't want you to know what weapons they may have in their possession. That's why they deleted all those emails. It's because their biggest fear is getting caught trying to do things like this, so if their intended victims know what they're up to, it foils their whole operation. I therefore encourage this information to be spread to as many people as possible, knowing that this information is highly valuable to other potential targets.

01 October, 2016

The Multiverse Idea is an Inadvertent Faith Leap

WARNING: The following are paragraphs, not individual sentences or phrases, and the whole paragraphs are what combine to provide context. Failure to include the surrounding contexts of quotes in your replies is quote mining.

Update 12/11/2016: Some atheists in response to this have resorted to appealing to the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity to attempt to justify their claims about more than one universe existing. There are two problems with that: A, the laws of quantum mechanics govern how subatomic particles interact with each other. Subatomic particles cannot interact with each other if they don't exist, and before the universe existed, they didn't exist; if those subatomic particles don't exist outside space-time — which they don't — then quantum mechanics don't exist outside space-time either. B, the general theory of relativity depends on the existence of gravity, which in turn depends on the existence of mass and density, both of which also depend on the existence of matter — again, matter cannot exist outside the universe. Neither can time and neither can space. Without space, time, or matter existing, quantum mechanics and general relativity cannot exist either; therefore, trying to bring them up and claim that they're evidence of multiple universes existing is circular reasoning.

Also, smashing subatomic particles together in an accelerator like CERN's Large Hadron Collider destroys matter. It doesn't create matter, and it certainly doesn't create space or time. It emulates conditions in the first seconds of this universe's existence, sure, but it does so on an *extremely* small scale, and depends on space, time, and matter already existing in order to do so; therefore, appealing to these experiments and the data associated with them is also circular reasoning.

Original post continues below.

One thing that atheists seem to be very good at when arguing with intelligent Christians like Sean McDowell, Greg Koukl, J. Warner Wallace, and myself is finding ways to circumvent the cosmological argument. If space, time, and matter all had beginnings simultaneously, according to this argument, then the "uncaused first cause" must transcend space, transcend time, and not be made of matter — all three of which are attributes of the God of the Bible. Atheists often just avoid this argument, how exactly? By positing theories like the "multiverse" that on their own merits are even more impossible to prove absolutely — not just impossible to prove empirically but also impossible to prove forensically and archaeologically — than Christianity.

Right off the bat, there's a problem with calling the multiverse a "theory". A theory must be provable by definition. Is the multiverse provable? If it were, then it would be possible to travel physically from one universe to another and back and live to tell about it. That alone is physically impossible proof, why? Because even at the speed of light, our own universe takes *billions* of years to cross. How many years, therefore, would it take to travel from one universe to another if multiple universes exist? Trillions? The astronauts would be fossils by the time they got there — if it was even possible to leave this universe without the spacecraft self-destructing.

Self-destructing? How can that be, you may ask? Because all the constants within the confines of this universe are just perfect for matter to exist. The instant you step outside the universe and enter something else, you enter a place where matter cannot physically exist! What does a spacecraft, at that point, do? There's no forces outside space-time that can sustain matter, so immediately that presents an enigma if talked about from a purely materialistic standpoint. Put short, even if we could travel outside this universe, we might not make it to another universe (if such a thing exists at all) without first running into a complete space-time dead zone capable of destroying all matter at the subatomic level.

Is the multiverse theory still possible? Of course. Is it reasonable? Based on the Christian definition, yes, but based on the atheistic definition of reason, absolutely not. When people posit theories like the multiverse, what they're essentially doing is copping out. They're trying to replace God with some impersonal entity that not only is it physically impossible to obtain empirical support for — just as with the God of the Bible — but it's also physically impossible to forensically support, and, to add insult to injury, physically impossible to archaeologically support. If you have not only no empirical evidence but also no manuscripts or artifacts supporting a theory, then what you have is a theory that takes more faith to believe than Christianity — hence the title of Frank Turek's book, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist".

27 September, 2016

Fallacious Politics: Ten Common Logical Fallacies the Media Uses to Silence Us

When media anchors claim to be impartial, I always ask a very important question: Are they logically and intellectually honest with themselves? If there's anything that counts as evidence of bias, it's fallacious logic. If the media were truly unbiased as they claim to be, then they would know better than to commit these ten egregious logical foibles, but do they refrain from doing so? The answer to this question may surprise you, and per my examinations, it's a big fat 'NO'.

1. Quote mining

In June 2015, Donald Trump made a bunch of statistically valid remarks about illegal immigration: Despite liberal claims to the contrary, the ratio of criminals to good people is much higher among illegal immigrants than among both legal immigrants *and* people who stay in countries like Mexico. How did Trump get painted as a racist, therefore? This is how: the media harped on "they're sending rapists… they're sending drug dealers…" while completely ignoring "and some, I assume, are good people". That last sentence is something called a context clue: it provides the entire context of what's being said. Quote mining is exactly this: placing quotes outside of their surrounding contexts and attacking people over them. Why is this number 1 on my list, you may ask? Because it applies to this blog post as well: *Any* quote of the following parts of this post that is in any way snipped and placed into a context different than that which its surrounding text already places it in will make you guilty of committing this fallacy.

2. Ad hominem

"Racist". "Sexist". "Homophobic". "Xenophobic". "Islamophobic". "Basket of deplorables". Should we go on? These have absolutely nothing to do with the topics, the ideas, the key problems that this country has faced since Obama took office. Instead, they're all about attacking people personally. They're a distraction: instead of going after the issue, they're attacking a person's character directly and going off topic in the process. Yup, that's exactly what the definition of ad hominem is, and you wonder why in the world these people who claim to be the logical, reasonable ones are committing it.

3. Association fallacy

Just because someone supports an (allegedly) divisive candidate does not under any circumstances mean that the person in question is also divisive even by the same definition. Accusing people of being racist or sexist merely for associating with people, even if those people actually are, is called the association fallacy, and applying it towards people is ad hominem on top of the association fallacy. This is aside from the fact that when talking about Trump in particular, the alleged divisiveness is a false accusation that one needs to commit fallacy #1 in order to support.

4. False dichotomy

"I respect you as a human being, but don't agree with you on [name key issue]." "Homophobe!" "Transphobe!" "Woman-hater!" "Evolution-hater!" (thank you, my good friend and mentor Sean McDowell, for that one). The assumption in this accusation is obvious: it's that anyone who disagrees with you hates you. Irony: notice how the person responded with name-calling? That makes the liberal twice as hateful as the conservative in this case! If calling someone a f****t or t****y is hateful — and it is hateful indeed, even by my own conservative standards — then calling someone a homophobe or transphobe is equally hateful. A false dichotomy, by definition, is assuming that there are only two options when there are in fact more than two. In this particular case, you have complete agreement at one end of the spectrum, total hate on the other, and tolerance in the middle — three options, not two.

5. Poisoning the well

The fallacy of "poisoning the well" is a fallacy in which irrelevant (and abusive) information about an opponent is presented with intent to distract an audience. Since fallacy #1 (quote mining) is the fallacy that the media used to give people the impression of Trump being a racist, this fallacy was something that the media has been guilty of right from the get-go, and the "basket of deplorables" remark would also qualify as this. So, accusing Trump of committing a hasty generalization, are we? You're committing this fallacy by doing so.

6. No-true-Scotsman

This fallacy is something that secularists obsessively attack Christians over when they try to distance themselves from people who engage in violence in the name of Christianity (which, mind you, is at best Judaizing because A, none of the Old Testament punishments are ever repeated in the New Testament, which makes them descriptive of ancient Israel, not prescriptive for modern Christians, and B, it is completely contrary to the teachings not only of Jesus but of Paul, Peter, John, and all other New Testament writers as well). You'd think, therefore, that the Godless Left, which is loaded with far more atheists and agnostics than the right, would know better than to commit this fallacy, right? Wrong! When someone responds to issues like Islamic terrorism and illegal immigration with "not all Muslims are terrorists" or "not all Mexicans are drug dealers," respectively, they are doing exactly this: claiming to not be a true Scotsman. The statistical realities are that the majority of post-9/11 terrorists are Muslims and that the ratio of criminals to good people is higher among illegal immigrants than among legal immigrants, but liberals love to simply ignore statistics and reverse them thinking that we can take the bait. No, it won't work here.

7. Straw man

Before one attempts to smear an opponent for saying, doing, or wanting to do something, one must always ask oneself if that's exactly what that person said. Simply injecting words into an opponent's mouth without thinking — essentially lying about what an opponent says — is called creating a straw man, and it's a Logic 101 fallacy, as is most other stuff here. This is something that Trump himself actually took to Twitter to condemn, and rightfully so, because of just how fallacious it is.

8. Hasty generalization

This one is related to the false dichotomy and association fallacy, but worth noting. Yes, there are indeed some right-wing nutcases who are just as extreme as some factions of the left, and members of groups like the AoG and Westboro are denounced by the vast majority of us. Trump has denounced David Duke numerous times. He also denounced other members of the KKK that expressed support for him, and to boot, the KKK's main "Grand Dragon" ― Will Quigg ― endorsed Hillary for the presidency, which means that any KKK member who supports Trump is actually rebelling against his own hate group. Does the left care? Unfortunately not. They adhere to the blatantly fallacious view that adherents to these extreme factions somehow apply to the right wing as a whole, when they're really just the right wingtip feathers.

9. Ad populum (bandwagon fallacy)

Is it popular? Yes. Is it a good thing to believe? Not necessarily. When people fallaciously think that what's popular in parts of the country that have the highest population densities is what's right, they have committed this logical blunder. Back home in the UK, prior to colonizing what would eventually become the early United States, the Founding Fathers' ancestors were victims of so-called "parish pump politics" where small areas could use high population density to push local ideas on the rest of the country in a politically corrupt manner. The electoral college solves this problem by giving states with small populations a fair say in who gets elected, thus using geography as a "check and balance" if you will against small areas with high population densities and agendas that people in areas with less population density oppose. Electoral college abolitionism is therefore a commission of this fallacy, because without the electoral college we'd have the very "tyranny of the majority" that the Founding Fathers railed against.

10. Circular reasoning

When the left tries to attack us, do they even think about it? Unfortunately not. When the premise and conclusion are the exact same thing, that's called circular reasoning. Some examples are to the effect of "Christians are dumb, because… Christians are dumb," "DNA and homology point to Darwinism and not to OEC because… DNA and homology point to Darwinism," "Trump supporters are racist because… Trump supporters are racist", or, for an example that goes contrary to forensic evidence, "People who think Christianity is objectively true are closed minded… because <repeat>". Failure to use anything other than circular reasoning to defend a position makes you the closed-minded one.

05 September, 2016

Debunking the Anti-Trump Rhetoric of our Enemies

WARNING: The following are paragraphs, not individual sentences or phrases. Picking them apart and responding to individual phrases outside of their whole-paragraph contexts is quote mining.

Where are the accusations of racism from before Trump's presidential campaign began? From 2014? From 2013? 2012? 2011? 2010 or earlier? If there's an article PUBLISHED BEFORE June 2015 accusing Trump of racism, then I want to see it, because all accusations "going back decades" of racism have been raised ex post facto. If ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, then so are ex post facto accusations unconstitutional.

About the Central Park Five: The people involved weren't exonerated until 2002. Could Trump have known in 1989 that all of the people in that case were innocent of all charges? Absolutely not. Granted, he shouldn't have jumped to conclusions about it, but if these people were on death row as long as most are today, then they likely would have been on death row long enough to get exonerated for it before the government got a chance to kill them. Moreover, since 1989, forensic technology has greatly improved to say the least. We have more powerful microscopes. We have more accurate means of collecting DNA that can go almost completely undetected to would-be murderers. We have better training for police detectives in detecting the smallest of small samples. Comparing 1989 with 2016 on accuracy of finding out who's guilty and who's innocent is committing the historian's fallacy.

Now, about that wall, which seems to be the main talking point for those accusations of racism — why is it that Mexico can secure its southern border with Guatemala, and that's not racist, yet it's racist for us to secure our southern border? That's a plank in the Mexican government's eye. Tear down all fortifications ― fences, walls, everything ― on your southern border, Enrique, and then we'll reconsider our southern border wall. Don't even think about citing Snopes on their denial of the existence of the Mexico-Guatemala barrier either, because its staff are Hillary donors and therefore biased. The point isn't whether or not a wall across the Mexican-Guatemalan border already exists, the point is whether or not Mexicans are calling for one to exist, and according to a very popular Mexican newspaper, yes they are:

http://www.elmanana.com/sialmurofronterizo%E2%80%A6peroenelsurdemexico-3351816.html

Translation: "Yes to the border wall… but in Mexico's South." And, to translate the subtitle, using my 3 years of Spanish class and 9 years of experience communicating in Spanish: "In the southeast of Mexico there are two borders: one with Guatemala and one with Belize that don't bring benefits; on the contrary, only problems are induced because those crossings are being used for a new invasion: one of Central Americans using our country to cross into the United States."

The alleged hasty generalizations of all Mexicans as rapists, meanwhile, stopped a year ago. Give me one instance from March 2016 or later in which Trump hastily generalized all Mexicans as rapists or as drug dealers and then we'll talk, because if you still believe that 13 months after he said it, then you're believing old news, for one. Two, what exactly did Trump conclude that paragraph with? "And some, I assume — some are good people." Leaving that sentence out of a Trump quote is also quote mining, which means that whoever is making that charge is making it on a fallacious premise.

Finally, if you go to accuse Trump of being a hypocrite, perhaps you should look at your own candidate and, *especially*, her VP pick first. Tim Kaine claims to be a Catholic. Hillary claims to be a Methodist. On abortion, both the Catholic and Methodist churches use the Bible's position as their own, and the Bible's position is staunchly pro-life (if you attempt to quote a single Bible verse to support a pro-abortion view without also quoting everything else around it, then you're quote mining). What, meanwhile, do Hillary and Kaine both support? The self-refuting lie that is moral relativism: if it's immoral to impose morality, then it's also immoral to impose the moral claim that morality shouldn't be imposed — that entire view is false by its own standard. They think they can have their cake and eat it too on this issue by claiming to be Christian and for abortion at the same time, which is an act of blatant hypocrisy. That is a plank in Hillary's eye (and Kaine's eye) that must also be addressed before they can go on to accuse us of anything.

27 July, 2016

What happens when politics and self-refuting ideas collide

In July, I published a post to this blog pointing out that many of the claims that atheists make don't even meet their own standards. To review that post, those claims are "there is no truth" (that claim can't be true either if that's the case), "all truth is scientific" (that claim is philosophical and therefore false by its own standard), "all truth/morality is relative/subjective" (that statement claims to be true not only for the claimant but also for opponents, making it false by its own standard), "Christians are hypocrites" (A, hasty generalization, B, tu quoque, and C, anyone who tries to arbitrarily make up a standard oneself has the burden of living up to it; if they don't, then they're also hypocrites), and "you shouldn't judge" (A, that statement is a judgment, and B, quoting Matthew 7:1 without also quoting Matthew 7:2-5 at the same time is quote mining). It's the number 3 self-refuting statement — "all truth/morality is relative/subjective" — however, that even some presidential candidates still don't see the problem with.

Who can't see this problem? Hillary Clinton, that's who, and her vice-presidential pick Tim Kaine is just as bad when it comes to failure to call this self-refuting idea — and the self-refuting statement that accompanies it — out for what it is: false by its own standard. It's almost hilarious, really, that Tim Kaine hasn't been excommunicated from the Catholic Church over his relativism regarding abortion in particular, why? He claims that abortion is bad for him and his family but also claims to not care what others who might support abortion think about it. Blatant lie: because moral relativism is self-refuting and therefore false, the only thing that can be true in this regard is a moral absolute, which means that it's either good or evil. Since the Catholic and Methodist Churches, for that matter, both consider abortion to be an absolute evil, both Kaine and Hillary should be excommunicated from their said churches, at the very least.

Ah, but Trump is also an abortionist, you claim, right? For two reasons, that's a false claim: A, just because someone claimed to support abortion 16 years ago doesn't mean that claim is up-to-date (that's a fallacy called slothful induction), and B, there was reportedly a change in his position in 2011 when a friend of his wanted to abort his wife's child only to not go through with it, then seriously regret the contemplation once he met his own child face to face. Further, the Republican candidate for VP — Mike Pence — has a record as governor of Indiana that is about as pro-life as any candidate can possibly get on this matter — he reportedly used state *executive orders* to strip Planned Parenthood of all Indiana state tax funds, and as a result multiple abortion clinics in Indiana are closing down. As VP under Trump and as Senate President, Pence would likely use his Congressional powers to push acts into law that take his actions against PP in Indiana to the national level.

Also, enough with the claim that "it's a danger to women's health" to have a pro-life position! For starters, there's a difference between caring about both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child vs. caring about the life of the mother at the expense of the life of the unborn child. "The unborn child is just part of the mother" you claim? According to the science of genetics, that's a lie. If that claim were true, then the DNA of the unborn child would be 100% identical to the DNA of the mother. That's not the case. Instead, the instant a sperm enters an egg, the DNA of both fuse together. The result? A genetically distinct cell that is genetically programmed, genetically wired, genetically predestined to grow into an embryo, a fetus, and then, finally, a child outside the womb. To jump to the conclusion that an unborn child is a part of the mother's body simply because of the location inside the womb is to flat-out deny science, and to say "it's my choice to abort" is again an act of believing the self-refuting lie that is moral relativism.

No one that tries to bring self-refuting ideas to Washington belongs in the White House. Claiming to be Christian means refraining from "nullifying the word of God" for the sake of anything else. The Pharisees, according to Jesus (Mark 7:13), "nullified the word of God" for the sake of tradition. The misnomered "Democrats", meanwhile, do the same thing: they "nullify the word of God" for the sake of moral relativism. Either they're pro-life Christians, pro-abortion atheists, or hypocrites. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

14 July, 2016

Calling ANY Field of Science 'Settled' while Claiming to be a Beacon of Reason at the Same Time is Hypocrisy

WARNING: The following is an essay, not individual sentences and not individual paragraphs. Quoting part of this work without also quoting the surrounding context ― the context that is the whole thing ― is quote mining.

It's almost laughable, the nerve that some scientists, particularly those that are also atheists, have. They claim to be beacons of reason. They claim to be rational. They go on to claim that all who don't agree with them and their opinions about Christianity must be deluded simply because they're not 100% materialistic. They group Christianity together with other religions that bear far more radical ideologies, then commit the hasty generalization of assuming that anyone who is against, for example, abortion or homosexuality is just as evil as Muslim terrorists. There's an irony in this, however: What about their own science communities? Is there discrimination there too?

Notice the standard that these accusations imply: Don't stop thinking. Always make absolutely certain to examine every piece of evidence closely. Never jump to any conclusion. This is a standard in which absolute certainty about any field of science is impossible. Do the scientists themselves do this? Do they refrain from jumping to conclusions? Do they keep thinking about everything without stopping their thoughts about anything? Do they explore every possible explanation, regardless of consensus about the evidence that they find, or do they shove all of that evidence through some materialistic worldview filter?

Ah, the answer is the latter. "[Darwinism] is a fact" they claim. "The science is settled." "There is no other possible cause for life than a naturalistic one." This is doing precisely the very thing ― namely, stifling thoughts that they disagree with ― that they accuse us of. Although I do kind of agree with them based on the fact that it's a consequence of the deadly sin that is greed, climate change is also a field of science that people pull this trick on. Same thing when it comes to other modes of politically and (ir)religiously motivated science, like science that pertains to homosexuality for instance. A consensus is NOT an objective truth! It's an opinion of a multitude of intelligent people, sure, but without God, an opinion is an opinion regardless of how many people hold it.

Moreover, if only science yielded truth as atheists claim, then guess what? The claim in and of itself would be false by its own definition. The claim that "all truth is scientific" isn't scientific, it's philosophical. I'm always willing to go back to the Craig v. Atkins (1998) debate on this issue: we have a case in which Peter Atkins claimed that science is the only thing that yields truth, and what is William Lane Craig's response? You cannot use the scientific method to prove math, nor can you use it to prove philosophy, nor can you use it to prove history… most importantly, you cannot use science to prove science itself, why? Because the mathematical formulas that science depends on must simply be assumed true in order for science to even be conducted!

So, without much further ado, it's hypocrisy to be skeptical about everything without also being skeptical about skepticism itself. Whenever you exempt a claim or view from its own standard, what you get is a breeding ground for hypocrisy, and unfortunately, that's exactly what the nature of most of these charges is.

12 July, 2016

The Apologetics of 'Bel and the Dragon'

Is Christian apologetics really 'tyranny of the experts'? Some lay believers seem to think so. They cherry-pick 2 Timothy 3:16 while at the same time ignoring 1 Peter 3:15. That aside, what exactly did the oldest of patriarchs use to defend their views? Did they resort to apologetics as often as we did? As Bill Dyer points out, even Abraham did, by believing that if God can create everything from nothing, then He can also raise Isaac from the dead — granted, Abraham also is told by God not to go through with the sacrifice. Now this is a trivial example, but is it the only one?

In fact, no — at least not if you look to deuterocanonical and/or apocryphal sources. The book of Daniel as we know it — at least the book of Daniel as Protestant Christians (including Lutherans like myself) know it — is not the same book of Daniel that adherents of Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, Russian Orthodoxy, and Coptic Orthodoxy know. Why? Because the Hebrew Bible was canonicalized by three different groups of Jews which each canonicalized it in their own entirely different ways.

These three versions of the Tanakh are called, by scholars, the Egyptian, Palestinian, and Babylonian traditions. The version that is present in most Protestant Bibles is the Babylonian one, which is also the one that most modern Jews have in their canons. The Palestinian version, meanwhile, is the one that the Ethiopian Church uses, and the Egyptian version is the one that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches use. It's in this version of the book of Daniel — particularly the end of it — where things get interesting. It's a story of an idol — Bel/Marduk — and a dragon-like beast, and how Daniel proves both of these to be false.

First, we have the Bel idol. This bronze statue is given food, and it disappears the next day, and Nebuchadnezzar is portrayed in this epilogue as begging the question about this idol's nature, that the idol must be eating the offerings. So, Daniel pours ashes on the temple floor one day. Then, the next morning, footprints in the ashes leading to a secret door are discovered, proving that the idol's own priests are taking the food to a secret area to trick everyone. Then the people see that this idol — the one that Nebuchadnezzar is the most devoted to, mind you — is no more than a fraud, and Nebuchadnezzar's theory is debunked.

The next one is of the dragon-like creature, which Darius the Mede claims must be divine because it does eat and drink. So, what does Daniel do? Poison it. He gives it food that has been contaminated with a poison that, when the dragon ate it, would give off enough gas to make the dragon's stomach explode. The dragon eats it, bursts open, dies, and what does Daniel tell Darius the Mede? Because it's not immortal, it's not divine either. This version then goes on to say that it's for this offense — killing the dragon — that Daniel is thrown into the lions' den.

Notice how in this account, Daniel doesn't just simply assert that Babylonian idolatry is fake. He goes on to provide evidence proving the Babylonians wrong about what it is they're worshipping. That's apologetics, is it not? So, we have Abraham, we have Daniel… why should our faith be any different? We have a whole wealth of arguments at our disposal to debunk worldviews like atheism that present a similar threat to Christianity today, so why not use them the same way the patriarchs did? I for one would rather just get with the program and follow in these patriarchs' and other apolosists' footsteps.

07 July, 2016

Distinguishing Between Biological and Psychological Transgenderism

WARNING: The following are paragraphs, not individual sentences. Picking those paragraphs apart and responding to single sentences while ignoring the rest of the paragraphs is quote mining, and, therefore, fallacious.

In the history of the church, no issue has resulted in more hatred, not only from the church but also of it, than those which are LGBT-related. Just three months ago, Target made highly controversial headlines, how? By removing gender signs from bathrooms simply to support a small minority of the population, one that insists that they are female when really male, or vice versa. Why is it that people would insist this, however? Is it scientific or deluded? Is gender based on chromosomes or on thoughts?

There are, in fact, some extremely rare biological exceptions to the gender issue. One, XX male syndrome, is a genetic disorder in which someone has sex organs that are clearly male but at the same time has two X chromosomes ― thus, genetically female despite masculine anatomy. Another, complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, is a disorder in which someone who has both an X and Y chromosome ― that is, genetically male ― is neurologically insensitive to testosterone and hormones structurally similar to it, resulting in anatomic femininity. These cases are, however, extremely rare ― only 4.5 per 100,000 in the XXMS case, and similar numbers in the cases of CAIS and XYGD. How many people who claim to be transgender actually have these disorders?

Considering that only about 0.7% of the population is transgender, it seems like it's a very high percentage at first. 9 per 100,000 (provided that the figures for XXMS and CAIS are identical), however, is only 0.00009, or 0.009% of the population. What percentage of that 0.7% is this value, therefore? Divide 0.009 by 0.7, and you end up with approximately 0.013% of the transgender community. 0.013% of 0.7% of the population, based on these estimates, is truly, biologically transgender.

What about the other 0.687%? Are they rational or deluded? Psychological studies seem to suggest the latter. Back in April when the whole debate over Target's decision was going on, psychologists managed to perform brain scans of transgender people and compared them to brain scans of people who are of the opposite sex. What they found was that the transgender brainwave patterns seemed to match with the gender with which they identified. The conclusion that the article drew, however, was that the people were not deluded, that they were in fact opposite genders trapped in the wrong body. However, is there another explanation? In fact, there is. Scientists did similar brain scans of people who look at porn, and what they found was that people actually think they're having sex when they look at it. In the same way, wouldn't it make sense that people who think that they're something they aren't, if they think about it long enough, may just end up becoming something they aren't, psychologically? If you're deluded when you do drugs and deluded when you look at porn, then you're also deluded if you think you're not what you are biologically. The scientists who conducted this study completely ignored these precedents suggesting that thoughts can physically alter the structure of one's brain — ignoring precedents is just as un-scientific as ignoring science in general.

So, based on this evidence, are we to sacrifice the rights of the majority to support the rights of a minority as small as 0.7%? Doing so is tyranny of a minority. By trying to support 0.7% of the population, Target is offending 50% of the population at the same time, why? Because it opens up a security hole. Now, all a male pedophile has to do is say "I feel like a woman" to get into a women's restroom, and he'll be able to do all kinds of evils to women and girls who are already in there. Why not just add a third restroom with an "Other" sign on it, a lockable door, and no stalls? From a privacy standpoint, it actually makes even more sense ― just lock the door to the whole restroom and you'll have even more privacy than those who use the stalls. No, instead, they would rather use the bathrooms with less privacy in the name of equality, twisting the definition of "equality" in an Orwellian manner. Hopefully Target learns lessons from the resulting boycott that I happen to be participating in; if not, then shareholder action to oust the current CEO must be taken.

09 June, 2016

Atheism and Self-Defeat: The Burden of Non-Contradiction Is On The Claimant

One of the first questions I ask, before even getting into an Internet debate at all, is "Does the claim that I'm about to refute meet its own standard?" Why? Because any claim that doesn't meet its own standard is false, by its own definition! Such a claim is called a self-refuting or self-defeating statement. Below are just several examples, and I don't know about you, the reader, but I can spot their own admissions of self-defeat just by asking that question, starting, of course, with the obvious.

1. "There is no truth": If this is the case, if there is really no truth, then this very claim cannot be true either! This admission of self-defeat, however, doesn't stop atheists from using it. I've encountered it on the Internet all too often, and more than once it's used by people who claim to be beacons of reason and logic, as atheists often claim to be. Anyone who claims to be a beacon of reason only to make a claim like this one is not only contradicting his own claim in the debate but also contradicting his claims to reasonability in the process.

2. "All truth is scientific": Is this claim scientific in nature, or is it a philosophical assertion? Can one test this claim using the scientific method? Look at a written or printed copy of this claim under a microscope to see if you can find hard proof that the claim itself is true hiding somewhere in the pixels that make up the hard copy of the claim? No. It's a philosophical claim by nature. It's false, therefore, even by its own standard!

Moreover, even science itself hinges on unprovable assumptions, as William Lane Craig alluded to in a debate with Peter Atkins back in 1998. Can one prove Einstein's general theory of relativity using the scientific method? No. We have to simply assume that the general theory of relativity is true in order to conduct physics experiments. Since science also depends largely on mathematical truths — again, can we prove math using science? No we can't. We have to simply assume that, for example, F=(Gm1m2)/d^2 in order to calculate what kind of gravity an object has, or that water consists of 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Are these science? No, they're mathematical truths that science presupposes. In his book, Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make their Case, Frank Turek does a fantastic job of going over this problem.

3. "All truth is relative/all morality is subjective": If all truth were relative, then why is the claimant making this claim if I can hear or see it? If all truth is relative, then so would the claim that all truth is relative be relative! Is it? Not if proclaimed publicly. The person telling me that I can't force my truth or my morals on him or her has just claimed objectively that all truth is relative, regardless of whether it's stated implicitly or explicitly — see the problem? The instant it's shouted out loud, this claim undergoes logical decoherence from truth to falsehood.

4. "All Christians are hypocrites": This claim commits the tu quoque fallacy, for starters. Just because a worldview's adherents are hypocrites doesn't mean it's not true. Secondly, who has the burden of coherence when it comes to living up to a moral standard? The one who makes up the standard in the first place, that's who. If there is no God, then morality is either relative or arbitrary. If it's relative, then point 3 applies. If it's arbitrarily defined by people, then those people have the burden of living up to the moral standards that they arbitrarily define. If they don't, then they're also hypocrites! They, therefore, cannot raise this charge if they're guilty of it themselves. Third, only some Christians are hypocrites, not all of them, which makes this a hasty generalization to boot.

5. "You shouldn't judge": Is this claim a judgment? You bet it is. It's a self-defeating judgment not to judge! But wait, didn't Jesus make this same judgment not to judge? Those who say this have committed the fallacy of quote mining. The passage in question is Matthew 7:1-5. In this same passage where Jesus says "judge not, lest you be judged," Jesus also tells us to "take the plank out of our own eye before taking the speck out of a brother's eye". Taking the speck out of another's eye is making a judgment, is it not? Jesus was simply telling us that if we judge, we must make sure we're not also guilty of the same thing that we're making the judgment about. Much different from the self-defeating claim of "don't judge, period".

There are, of course, countless others, but these are the most common ones. I hope that by posting this I can make sure fellow case-makers can be empowered to use this law of non-contradiction to debunk these rather silly (if thought about) claims — let's be clear: if one claims to be a beacon of reason only to make claims like these, he or she is doing a terrible job of living up to that reason claim.

17 May, 2016

Why I Am A Christian and Not An Atheist: The Historical/Legal Method

Update 6/7/2016: Warning: The following are paragraphs, not individual sentences. Either read them as entire paragraphs and attempt to refute them as entire paragraphs, or your entire response hinges on the quote mining fallacy, and, therefore, is a baseless argument.

Is the Bible really accurate in its claims? I mean, as a middle schooler (and on the fine line between Christianity and atheism at the time), I had quite a few doubts about its reasonability. It wasn't until 9th grade (2007-08) that the first of those doubts began to get debunked, and it wasn't until I learned the historical-legal method in my third full year of college (2014-15) that I began to really see how accurate the claims in the Bible are (I did indeed believe the Bible to be true before the apologetics lessons of March 2014, March 2015 [McDowell], and March 2016 [Koukl], but didn't have all the answers to give for why I believed), since that's when Sean McDowell (who just turned the big 40 today — congrats!) showed up at my church and used the same method to prove that the Bible is accurate in its claims. This post, therefore, is dedicated to going through how I got to that conclusion in detail.

Let's start with the Honesty Test: The claims that women are the first ones to discover the empty tomb (in ancient Israelite culture, women's testimonies were seen as completely worthless), that one of the Apostles denied Jesus three times, that, in the OT, an Israelite soldier by the name of Achan steals an offering during the Conquest and provokes YHWH's anger as a result, and that the writers of Exodus claim that their ancestors were slaves (the chronology and archaeology are different topics altogether, but one should also take note that all who conclude that the Exodus did not happen do so because they all look in the wrong chronological period) all fall under the criterion of embarrassment. Further, the introductory statements to certain Gospels, like that of Luke for example, that don't claim to have been written by an apostle make claims that the writers *investigated* all the content available to them, using Roman forensics methods, not unlike what J. Warner Wallace did back in 1996. Conclusion: not only do the Gospel writers claim to care about truth, but the entire Bible is *loaded* with embarrassing admissions that serve to back that claim up.

So, fine, they cared about truth, but that was 2,000 years ago, so how do we know that's what they said? That's where the Telephone Test comes in. For the New Testament alone, we've got 24,000 (and counting) copies or portions (not counting mummy mask teardowns, which are making that number even higher still), not to mention a time gap of only between 25 and 50 years in the case of the Rylands Papyrus P52, and in the case of the 1st century Mark fragment obtained from a mummy mask teardown, less than 40 years. Compare that to Cicero, where the earliest manuscript dates to AD 400 and there are only 15 manuscripts available, and we have a situation in which the New Testament is (24000/50)/(15/400) = 480/0.0375 = 12,800 times more reliable than Cicero. Try to use Sallust and it gets even worse: we've got 20 manuscripts — slightly more than Cicero, sure — but the earliest manuscript is from — wait for it — the 10th century AD! We're talking a *quadruple-digit* time gap in Sallust's case, which would make Sallust and Tacitus tied at 1,000 years removed with only 20 manuscripts. This results in a situation in which the New Testament is (24000/50)/(20/1000) = 480/0.02 = 24,000 times more reliable than both Tacitus and Sallust, and this is based on the most conservative estimate possible. What about Caesar's own works, that he himself allegedly wrote? We've only got 10 manuscripts in that case and also a time gap of 1,000 years, making the case for the historicity of Jesus 48,000 times stronger than the case for the historicity of Caesar if self-published sources are preferred. Plato? Even worse: Try 1,200 years removed and only 7 manuscripts available. Thucydides? 1,300 years removed and only 8 manuscripts to choose from. Suetonius? 800 years removed, only 8 manuscripts to choose from. Even the Iliad, which is already in second place to the Bible with regard to this test, only has 1,757 manuscripts available and a time gap of 500 years! So, does one affirm the historicity of Jesus, doubt the historicity of both Caesar and Jesus, or is he or she a hypocrite? Because these numbers are incriminating evidence that affirming the historicity of Caesar while at the same time doubting the historicity of Jesus is hypocrisy.

Ah, but wait, do others outside the Bible also affirm claims within it? Some people are too hostile, so that's where the Corroboration Test must be applied. It's funny, really, that Tacitus, whom we know almost everything about ancient Rome from, despite being hostile towards Christians and despite epically failing the telephone test in comparison to the NT, happens to make the assumption that Jesus was indeed historical (see Annals 15.44.3). Tacitus certainly does not assume other radical claims like those mentioned in the Bible, but he does indeed assume that Jesus existed — why? Same thing with Josephus (Antiquities 8.3.3), a Jewish religious leader, who goes even deeper still (some claims may have been edited in by Christian scribes, but only a minority of them). Pliny (Letters 10.96-97), despite being given orders to persecute Christians, also makes a claim — the claim that the earliest believers worshipped Jesus "like a God" — that just assumes that this Jesus whom they worship actually existed.

So, honesty test — pass, telephone test — EPIC pass, corroboration test — pass. If the Bible passes all these tests, then it must be true, and if it is true, then all the claims within must be true, and if all claims within the Bible are true, then Christianity itself is true. The lesson I learned, however, is this: Although we Christians must be ready to defend our faith and make sure people know that the "blind faith" charge is patently false, blind unbelief is just as irrational as blind belief. One needs to examine (and cross-examine) both sides before taking a side.

27 April, 2016

Exodus Evidence, Part 2: The Biblical Connection to Lower Egyptian Dynasties XIV and XV

In my previous post, I made a rather strong case against the habit of looking for Exodus evidence in the wrong time period. Towards the end of the post, however, is a claim that refers to Khamudi as being the Exodus Pharaoh, as opposed to someone from Dynasties XIII (Rohl) or XIX (mainstream). Little do people realize, however, that the archaeological pattern from Avaris and other associated sites matches much more closely with the chronology of the lower kingdom of Divided Egypt than anything else. So, I'm using this post as an explanation for why I personally think that the Lower Egyptian dynasties are far more important, Biblically speaking, than the dynasties from Upper Egypt or from a unified Egypt.

A very important discovery was indeed made, right at the beginning of the earliest possible Avaris settlement. A Syrian-style house, very similar to the kind of house that Abraham, Isaac, and/or Jacob would have built in their hometown of Harran, Syria, was found at this location, and was subsequently flattened. On top of this flattened house, a palace was constructed. This palace was huge. It contained courtyards, speech chambers, a robing room, a front entrance with 12 pillars supporting it, and a garden in the back containing 12 tombs. Note this interesting pattern of 12's here: There was only one Semitic culture at this time, bar none, that considered 12 to be a number of cultural significance, and that culture was ancient Israel.

The one tidbit that *really* gets interesting, however, is that one of these 12 tombs behind this Avaris palace was shaped like a pyramid. Extremely unusual, why? Because only Pharaohs and queens had pyramid tombs at this time — not even viziers had pyramid tombs! Imhotep certainly didn't. Neither did any other highly important vizier in ancient Egypt, before this period or after. The person buried in this tomb, however, was a foreigner. His cult statue shows him with red hair (!), yellow skin (!), a throwstick (!) across his shoulder, and painted to look like he's wearing a multi-colored coat(!). Either this is indeed Joseph himself, or his career is identical to Joseph's.

The Pharaoh who was ruling at the exact same time that this palace and tombs were constructed in Avaris was Amenemhat III. His statue is a much more drab complexion compared to Joseph's: he's depicted with ears turned out so as to listen to people's concerns, and with a facial expression that is much more indicative of worry than of prosperity. It was during his reign that "Bahr Yussef" — the "Waterway of Joseph" — was constructed to divert half the water from the Nile into the Faiyum, a marshy lake that was used to grow crops like rice and wheat during times of plenty. Making it bigger means it's possible to grow more, and according to the Bible, Joseph interpreted the dreams of Amenemhat as seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine, correct? During a time of drought (definitely a famine-causing phenomenon) on the Nile, the Faiyum would have still been large enough to hold water for much longer than 7 years.

After Amenemhat III, however, something really interesting happens: One kingdom becomes two. Dynasty XIII (the one that Amenemhat was a member of) rules Upper Egypt, and a brand new Dynasty XIV — Joseph's dynasty — rules Lower Egypt. Amenemhat was probably *so* impressed with Joseph's famine-foiling tactics that he decides to give half of his kingdom to Joseph and his descendants as a gift — the fact that he's buried in a pyramid tomb, the *only* vizier throughout Egyptian history to do so, seems to suggest exactly this.

But wait, what about the "Pharaoh who knew not Joseph"? Skip forward about 200 years to the reign of Upper Egyptian pharaoh Djedneferre Dedumose II. During his reign, Egypt goes from two peacefully coexisting kingdoms — Upper and Lower — to civil war. How did this happen? Right around this time, Dynasty XIV is replaced with Dynasty XV. A coup d'├ętat occurs in Lower Egypt, and this new dynasty, instead of being friendly to the Upper kings, is hostile to them. This dynasty is also Semitic, but not Jewish. It was a dynasty of pagan Semites, who worshipped not Yahweh but Baal, Har, and other false idols along those lines, and the first king in that dynasty was a powerful one indeed: Sheshi. He certainly would have a motive to enslave the pious Jews, and it's to persecute them for worshipping one God instead of many.

Supporting this hypothesis is what happens when the Israelites reach the border with Canaan but decide to grumble instead of conquer (Numbers 14:33), then conquer 40 years later. If they had absolutely no contact with this region, why did the Israelites grumble? It was the promised land! How did they know about the Canaanites and Amalekites and how horrible they were if they went through that land hundreds of years earlier and found no one there? The only feasible explanation for this is that Dynasty XV, which began with Sheshi and ended with, that's right, Khamudi, happened to be of either Canaanite or Amalekite origin.

Making Khamudi the Pharaoh who confronted Moses (and, by extension, Apepi II as the Pharaoh that instituted the drowning policy and whose daughter adopted Moses, according to Exodus 2:23) would also make perfect sense from a standpoint of how this powerful Lower Kingdom was able to get overrun and how this bloody civil war ended so abruptly: The plagues and the Red Sea crossing would mean that Khamudi would suffer the loss of his slave force, the loss of his crops, the loss of his firstborn, and the loss of his army. The Exodus would weaken the Lower Kingdom, sure, but the Upper Kingdom? The Upper Egyptians would be saying "You know this Lower king, Khamudi? His slave force is free, his army is under the Red Sea, and all his firstborn are dead — here's an opportunity for us to take him out." Right after the Exodus, this is exactly what happens: Khamudi is killed by an Upper Egyptian Pharaoh by the name of Ahmose I, who conquers the now largely abandoned Lower Egypt and founds the reunified New Kingdom on top of the Lower Kingdom's plagued, pillaged, abandoned, tattered ruins.