Illegal Immigration – Part 3 of 3

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Many people are angry about the fact that people are here illegally and have become a burden to our tax system; yet the same thing was true after slavery ended. This rhetoric eventually led to the racist immigration laws of the 1920s. We cannot send back those who by culture, tradition, and bonds of community are a part of our community. It is our responsibility to serve these people as much as it was at the end of slavery.

The Emancipation Proclamation, while freeing the slaves, left African Americans in a perpetual state of political and economic poverty. Those who were freed were free to continue in the same economic system they were once oppressed by in slavery. Although they were no longer slaves, African Americans found themselves only one step removed from slavery; the same is true of the migrant farm worker in the U.S. today. As the Party of Lincoln, the Republican Party, once stood up for the slave and the freed slave, it is time for the Party of Lincoln to do so once again!

The Party of Lincoln

The Party of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party, gave America the 13th Amendment to our Constitution that ended slavery. When former slaves, now Americans (African Americans) continued to experience legal and political abuse, the Republican Party passed the 14th and 15th Amendments to guarantee their civil and political rights. And when 100 years later their rights were still being abused, the Party of Lincoln voted to pass the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965.

Having cast a new face on illegal immigrants to show how they’re being treated similar to slaves, we may also see how we may apply the three constitutional amendments to the current population of illegal immigrants. The sons and daughters of Mexico need the protection of these three Amendments. This is not only a test for the Republican Party, to see if they still hold true to their former values, it is an opportunity for the Party of Lincoln to lead our nation in the right direction once again.

The Party of Lincoln, the Abolitionists Party, worked against the tide of popular opposition to share their voice with slaves who had no voice in our political systems of government. Republicans put their political capital at risk for the interest of slaves. The GOP should serve the Hispanic community in this manner once again today. They need to answer the call to abolish the racist immigration policies of the past and secure the civil and political rights of these people over time whose only crime is coming to the U.S. without the proper paperwork. Conditional amnesty is a path that should be made available.

The Party of Lincoln, the Party in power in Congress, has it in their grasp to secure more than votes with the proper initiatives. America can include the mass of God loving, hardworking, family faithful members of our community into our system of law and order that we all enjoy. This means more than having them share the tax burden with the rest of us; it means we can include those who share our values into the ranks of voters. Most Hispanics are solid Catholics (Latinos), who love God, are opposed to abortion, and are willing to work hard to secure the future for their children. By helping them, we actually help ourselves.

Let’s reapply the 13th Amendment and make these “aliens,” members of our society. Let’s apply the 14th Amendment to secure their equal protection under our laws as citizens. And let’s apply the 15th Amendment to secure their access to our political institutions as voters. This is the goal that Republicans can and should have.

Although slaves were freed, they were not granted access to our shared systems of political and economic freedoms. They were denied them then. It is because of the Constitutional Amendments that the civil rights movements 100 years later had a legal foundation. Illegal immigrants have no rights in our current system of law and order and some people would like to keep it that way.

The Republican Party has a history under Lincoln of sharing their voice with those who have no voice in our nation’s political economy. Republicans gave their voice to the slave, the freed slave, and the unborn child whose only voice was a silent scream. And as Republicans passed three constitutional amendments, they also gave their vote in 1964 and 1965 to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act; without the voice of Republicans, African Americans would not have the equal protection of the law or the right to vote.

Republicans have a proud heritage that they may recapture and call their own in this generation. Republicans may share their voice with others and spend their political capital for other people besides themselves once again. This was once the greatness of the GOP and it can be again.

Illegal Immigration – Part 2 of 3

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Viewing Illegal Immigrants as Slaves

Put a new face on illegal immigration; instead of seeing Hispanics from Mexico coming into our nation illegally, view them as African slaves who were illegally confiscated and imported into this country 200 years ago. If we viewed illegal aliens with a different face, we would find new insights into the problems that we are facing with illegal immigration.

Slaves from Africa were once smuggled into the United States in the cargo holds of slave ships whereas illegal aliens are often smuggled in the cargo trailers of semi-trucks. Slaves from Africa were once treated like illegal migrants today; they were both abused by those transporting them into the U.S. And like some slaves who lost their lives on the voyage across the Atlantic, some aliens who come into this country illegally also lose their lives from the abuse they suffer.

Slaves from Africa continued to enter into America illegally even after the slave trade was outlawed on January 1, 1808. Although the Atlantic slave trade was considered piracy, abolishing it did nothing to free the 9 million slaves who still lived in bondage. Many solutions were presented to solve the problem of those who remained in the U.S. including sending them back to their native homes in Africa. Not knowing what country many slave families came from, Liberia was created as a colony for slaves to return to and the capitol was called Monrovia in honor of President James Monroe.

Today, we are trying to stop illegal immigration from Mexico (and the cheap labor that comes from them). But once this is done, what do we do with the 12 million undocumented workers who are already here? Do we send them back to their home country or do we provide for their assimilation into our nation’s system of politics and economy like we did with the slaves under the 13th Amendment?

Maybe we should create a new city within Mexico and call it Monrovia, Chihuahua? This new city would be the perfect solution to our current population of migrant farm workers and others who came to the U.S. from Mexico without proper documentation. I’m joking of course. Send ‘em back to Mexico and let them row all the way back across the Rio Grande in their canoes (ever heard that one before?). If you look at the history of America, these and other solutions (serious or not) have been offered to answer the problems we have faced with illegal immigration 200 years ago and now.

Racial Prejudice

Prae Judaicum is the Latin root of the term prejudice. Previous to the judiciary is what it means. Stare Decisis is another Latin term that means to stand by the decision. Each case brought before the Court yields a decision that becomes a precedent previous to a new case before the judiciary. Stare Decisis is a prejudice that should protect the liberties of people in our country and promote justice. Liberty under law is the original genius of America.

The statue of lady justice presents an image of the impartial protection of liberty and justice for all that comes from the law. As lady justice wears a blindfold and holds the scales in one hand and the sword in the other hand, if lady justice pulls down the blindfold to peek at the color, race, or ethnicity of those before the court, she needlessly tilts the balance of the scales of justice and bears the sword adversely to the ruin of liberty. Liberty and justice cannot be served by looking at a person’s ethnicity. That is called racial prejudice.

Calling people from Latin America illegal is inherently prejudicial and works to dissolve their political and economic rights. I’m talking about U.S. citizens! Granted, many here in the U.S. from Mexico have not the proper paperwork to legally enter our country but how can you tell the difference by looking?! It is prejudicial and racist to call anyone ‘illegal.’

The slaves who were here before 1865 were not citizens of our country. The Dred Scott case proved that not all who are here need to be citizens to be granted the protection of our laws. Even though Dred Scott lost his case before the Civil War, he was vindicated following the Civil War as the 13th Amendment granted citizenship to all former slaves. I doubt those who stand for “the LAW” today as they do would be happy to know that they are standing firmly on the ground of legal precedent established by the Dred Scott case before the 13th Amendment. How will history look upon them 100 years from now?

It’s the LAW

“It’s the LAW!” shout angry people against illegal immigration. To solve this problem perhaps we need to write new laws that return people caught up north of the border back south of the border. We can even call it the Fugitive Immigration Act! Like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, laws were on record to return slaves caught North back to their masters in the South (remember Dred Scott). We can have laws today that punish illegal immigrants like the days of old. Again, the mean advocates of the law demand the strict enforcement of the law. So too did slave owners.

While arguing for the law, many people miss the point that God’s moral law and man’s written law are often two different things. Jesus, who taught us that love fulfills the law, taught us that the Good Samaritan helped the man robbed and beaten and left to die on the side of the road. It seems to me that many in politics have forgotten the teachings of Jesus.

By denying undocumented workers a job and illegal immigrants a home to rent, we are like those who robbed and beat the man in Jesus’ parable. Are we willing to leave the immigrant from Mexico on the side of the road while complaining about the law? That is what the misguided priest and Levite did, walk on the other side of the road as they tried to stay ritually clean before the Law of Moses. It is not enough to have passion for rule of the law, one must also have compassion for people.

Solutions

Sure, we have immigration laws to enforce; so let’s beef up the enforcement of the border. Let’s also increase the number of legal immigrants allowed to enter into this nation each year. And let’s begin a process of reconciliation for those who are already here. I’m suggesting partial amnesty or conditional amnesty.

And while we work together as a nation to deal with the 12 million people from Mexico, let us do so with respect and charity. The kind of law that speaks of compassion is the first law we should follow while we work to secure our borders and establish our national sovereignty. As a nation, we export humanitarianism worldwide. It won’t hurt us to import a little of it here into the good ole USA.

Illegal Immigration – Part 1 of 3

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

It may not seem obvious but the system of slavery that once existed in America continues today. That system has been modified but continues to facilitate and abuse people. The study of America’s political economy rarely explores the residual Manorialism that once incorporated slaves from Africa and continues to facilitate those who immigrate into America illegally for work. Although the extremes of slavery are not as severe today, illegal immigrants still have to live in the shadows of American society just like the slaves once did.

European and Colonial Manors

The political economy of most European countries in the 18th century was based upon Feudalism and Manorialism. The Kings of various countries divided the kingdom into fiefs that were governed by Lords. When the King went to war, the Lords brought their armies with them to fight for the King; this was Feudalism.

While Lords had privileges they also had duties to raise and feed an army. To feed them the people who lived on the lands of the Lords were allowed to farm the land but they also had to give all but a small portion of the crops and livestock to the Lord. Hence, subsistence living was the standard of the economy on these fiefs or manors, which is called Manorialism.

The people living on the fiefs were called serfs and they were like the more modern sharecropper who worked hard only to give all but a little of their produce to the owner of the land. In this system of Feudalism and Manorialism, the serfs had no political or economic rights. They lived in the shadows of society.

Serfin’ in the U.S.A.

As America was being colonized by Europeans in the 18th century, they brought with them their brand of political economy. Indentured servants once provided for America’s economy in the 18th century as did slaves but America soon declared its Independence and turned to a new style of political economy called Democratic Capitalism.

Although the Constitution and the idea of a free market place provided most citizens with a new opportunity for freedom and growth, it was not available to everyone. When the cheap pool of indentured labor dried up, slavery was viewed as more profitable and continued to dominate many aspects of the American economy in the 19th century.

American Manorialism, still present in the United States after establishing its Independence, could easily be seen in the South with the Southern Manors. America has never had a homogenous economy but heterogeneous one. Commercial markets and agrarian economies have always profited from the serfs who served in the Southern Manors – aka Southern Manorialism.

Although the civil war ended the use of slaves with the 13th Amendment, freed slaves continued to work like slaves but as sharecroppers. These people continued to be denied their political and economic rights in a Democratic Capitalist system. As they continued to be treated as serfs, not slaves, they also continued to live in the shadows of America’s dominant political economy – without any rights or freedoms.

Also in the 19th century, Chinese workers were treated as slaves doing the menial work in building railroads, washing clothes, etc. As they once dominated much of the servile work in California, we may say they were serfin’ in the USA long before the Beach Boys.

During WWII, the Bracero Program (Strong Arm Act or the Mexican Farm Labor Agreement) invited workers from Mexico to work the fields of American farm lands as the farmers went off to war. However, they and their children soon became known as migrant farm workers after the War. And as their children and grandchildren continue to seek employment from the United States, they are now called undocumented workers or illegal immigrants. And like the slaves before them, they are relegated to the political and economic shadows of America’s political economy.

From the 18th to the 20th century, workers have served as serfs in America’s economy, providing for both the Northern/Southern, Eastern/Western systems. In every instance their political and economic rights were denied (perhaps even legally in the Courts) while they worked in the shadows of American political economy. In each instance these people have suffered needlessly from an oppression that the general population was either unaware of or indifferent to.

Holy Holiday – The Reason for the Season

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

In the United States, we take for granted all the gifts God has given to us. We are so wealthy that we forget to stop and thank God for all He has done for us. Perhaps nothing is worse than having a holiday that we do not praise God in. In the effort to keep holidays Holy, let’s put the reason back into the season this Christmas!

When the choir of angels sang, “Glory to the new born King,” they knew what they were saying. “Peace on earth and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled.” The birth of Jesus was the beginning of the end of sin’s reign on the earth where every man, woman, and child are subject to the bondage and slavery of sin. “Born that man no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth.” We are born to die as a result of our sin but Christ was born that we may no more die an eternal death. While the shepherds in the field heard the angels in the field it remains for us in our high tech generation to listen clearly. “Hark! The herald (a herald is a bunch of angels just like a bunch of sheep is a flock) angels sing, “Glory to the newborn King!””.

Christmas is not a biblical celebration but a festival that comes from history. It is a combination of ancient pagan traditions with Christian symbolisms. The Puritans in England once refused to celebrate it. I had become so debauched that it was similar to the debauched pseudo religious celebration of Mardi Gras. Everything devolved into evil appetite and the indulgence of the flesh. In America, we have not gone to that level of absurdity but commercialism has capitalized on the spirit of gift giving and changed it into gift getting.

In our family we limit gift giving to children, small cash gifts to the teens, cards to the adults with some candy, and one large white elephant gift exchange on Christmas day limiting the dollar amount for the one gift. The gift exchange usually occurs before we eat lunch or dinner. And just before we eat, we stop to pray and reflect on the reason for the season giving thanks to God for the reason of the season. This is probably not atypical for most families. I think it is ok to celebrate Christmas by sharing gifts (within reason) but we must always take time to pause and thank God for the great gift he gave us that is commemorated on Christmas. Remember this is Jesus’ birthday. It’s not about the gifts we give and get it is about the great gift God gave us for the forgiveness of sin.

Jesus was probably not born in December but there is no reason why we cannot celebrate Christmas as long as our hearts are pure before the Lord. The entire holiday is established in our shared culture as a reflection on God’s great gift of his Son for the forgiveness of sin. And I do not say we should spend the day in sackcloth and ashes but as we decorate and commemorate this day, we should spend time giving God glory. You never know who of your family and friends needs to remember God’s great Love for them and Christ’s sacrifice for their forgiveness.

I must confess that while I aspire to be like the Puritans with their desire to keep holidays Holy, I will likely go to a movie Christmas night; this has become a new tradition with my friends. I would love to see a movie with a positive Christian theme. If you know of any, please let me know.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays J

The Big Bang is a Big Bust – Part 2 of 2

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

This post is taken from excerpts of my 2 books, The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Chaos and The Alchemy of Evolution .

The History of a Universal Temperature of Space

Associated with the idea of a ‘Big Bang’ was the idea of residual of energy that came from that primordial explosion. As matter may continue to have residual energy form the Big Bang it might exist in the background of space. Predictions of the Big Bang and of a universal temperature were apparently validated with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) in 1965, by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson. However, Penzias and Wilson were not the first to make measurements of the background radiation nor was it their purpose to validate evolutionary cosmology.

The first person to measure the background radiation of space was Andrew McKellar in 1941. However, he did not connect his measurements with any model of cosmic origins. McKellar measured the average temperature of space, which he reported as 2.3 K. This was a band averaged measurement averaged the intensities of wavelengths together without making specific reference to any particular wavelength and its intensity.

Between the late 1940s and early 1950s, Alpher, Gamow, and Herman authored or coauthored 10 separate papers detailing the view of a developing cosmic expansion and a residual temperature of the background radiation, which they calculated as being between 5 K and 50 K. These were not measurements but calculations of what they thought might exist in space.

Alpher and Herman published an article on this subject (“Remarks on the Evolution of the Expanding Universe”; 1949) predicting a background radiation of 5 K. Although they did not mention a microwave region within the radiation band, they suggested the cooling of the radiation would put it at the millimeter wave band (microwave region).

Frederick Hoyle, who coined the term ‘Big Bang’ to deride the idea of cosmic expansion was an advocate of a steady state universe; he was also the first person to connect the dots between the idea of a universal expansion and McKellar’s measurements. In 1950, Hoyle published a review, in The Observatory (Vol. 70, p. 194-197 (1950)), of a book coauthored by George Gamow and C. L. Critchfield titled, Theory of Atomic Nucleus and Nuclear Energy-Sources (1949).

This book is mainly concerned with the properties of atomic nuclei. The first nine chapters and the eleventh are clearly written and provide a store of information indispensable to the astrophysicist, indeed the book is one of the best aids to astrophysical research that has become available in post-war years. …

To the reviewer the success, or otherwise, of astronomical research depends on a balance being reached between observation and theory. It is an elementary error to suppose that the data supplied by the observational astronomer consist simply of a series of undeniable facts. From experience the theoretician finds it wise to treat with caution results obtained from any optical equipment, working near its limit of performance, especially if the results are only attested by a single observer or closely associated groups of observers. …

When the astrophysical chapter of Gamow and Critchfield’s book is examined from this point of view it soon appears that the serious neglect of this requirement is the main cause of the decline from the general high level of the remainder of the book. A few examples will not be out of place. There is an appendix relating to the section dealing with the origin of the heavy elements. In this the authors use a cosmological model in direct conflict with more widely accepted results. The age of the Universe in this model is appreciably less than the agreed age of the Galaxy. Moreover it would lead to a temperature of the radiation at present maintained throughout the whole of space much greater than McKellar’s determination for some regions within the Galaxy. [Hoyle; Review of Theory of Atomic Nucleus and Nuclear Energy-Sources]

McKellar measured the temperature at 2.3 K but the model Gamow put together would have it at 11 K (Hoyle’s calculations). Hoyle suggested the theory didn’t match the measurements and criticized the authors for that.

In 1965, Penzias and Wilson measured the temperature of the background radiation to be approximately 3 K noting it was in the microwave band of electromagnetic (EM) radiation. They were working for Bell Labs in the 1960s using a Holmdel Horn Antenna to detect echoes from a balloon satellite. As they tried to remove all noise from the background, they discovered that the noise came from outside the galaxy. They did not know its source nor were they searching for this phenomenon. It was a chance discovery, not a validation of a predictive theory.

After their discovery, Penzias and Wilson learned of the work of Robert Dicke on the idea of a microwave background noise from a common friend. Once reported to Dicke and company, they quickly heralded the measurement as a discovery proving the Big Bang had occurred. Far from being the first to measure the background radiation, they were the first to make a specific measurement in the microwave region. And far from trying to prove the Big Bang, their work was adopted by those who thought it did.

We see the work of measuring the temperature of space (McKellar) preceding new ideas of background radiation (Alpher, Gamow, and Herman). Following in their footsteps Dicke was notified of another measurement that supposedly validated the thesis of the Big Bang. Far from corroborating the idea of a Big Bang, the discovery of Penzias and Wilson was simply a measurement in the microwave band instead of a band averaged measurement from McKellar. Penzias and Wilson had no intention of validating a speculative thesis. Theory actually followed the measurements made by McKellar and Penzias/Wilson.

To date, it is unclear to this writer whether or not a full measurement of the background radiation has been made. Taking the EM spectrum all the way from ionic radiation, through photonic radiation, to RF radiation (1 pm to 100 Mm wavelength), making accurate measurements of all the EM bands would be a foundational task for science to undertake. Having ‘ground truth’ of the temperature of space (spectral radiant measures) would be the work of a Tycho Brahe whose data was used by Johannes Kepler to discover his laws of planetary motion. Before we conclude as to what works in space, we need to know what is active in space.

The Problem with Dark Energy

Until recently, the Big Bang theory was the standard model in cosmology in the minds of many within the scientific community. The expansion of the universe was understood originally to be in the form of a simple recession or a constant velocity based upon observations of light coming from distant galaxies and red shift. Now, with recent observations (1997) of type 1A supernovae, we understand that the universe is expanding at a changing velocity or acceleration. Whereas the Big Bang explained the universe’s expansion at a constant velocity, Dark Energy attempts to explain the expansion of the universe at an accelerated rate or changing velocity. However, Dark Energy is suspect as it attempts to reformulate many old ideas of cosmology that were discarded in the past into the cosmological ‘trash can.’

The simplest way to explain Dark Energy (and dark matter for that matter) is that it is a ‘place holder’ for things we currently do not fully understand. From observations of what matter is missing in the universe, some people have attempted to explain it in terms of Dark Energy; but in doing so, they have no direct empirical evidence to support their claims. In truth, their explanations have turned to cosmological myths once put to rest into a cosmological ‘trash can’ to fill this ‘place holder’ with old ideas. Let me explain.

Years ago, Sir Isaac Newton once suggested that along with a gravitational force there was a repulsive force, which he called a centrifugal force. However, with modern physics we understand that there is no such thing as a centrifugal force as it is simply the absence of a centripetal force. The repulsive centrifugal force of Newton is a fictitious force that has been relegated to the trash heap of science. Although there are other forces that are repulsive (magnetism and electrostatics), there is no guarantee that Dark Energy is a repulsive force.

An old idea in the cosmological trash can is the ancient idea of a static ether. An ether is the place that Aristotle and Ptolemy used to explain the circular motion of planets and the stars around the earth but this was put into the cosmological trash can following the Copernican revolution. While the ether helped explain a static or steady state universe in ancient days, it has now resurfaced to help explain an expanding universe and Dark Energy. Instead of a fixed ether we are now told that we have a moving ether with an expanding fabric of space. This is another item once relegated to the cosmological trash can has been put into the ‘place holder’ of “Dark Energy.”

The willingness of some to turn to the cosmological trash can to find an explanation of why our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate is incredible. Einstein, who once believed in a static universe, created what he called the cosmological constant to make his equations fit a static universe. After learning of Edward Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe, Einstein threw away his cosmological constant into the cosmological trash can and proclaimed it was his biggest blunder. Now greater minds than his own have taken this cosmological constant and are touting it as one of Einstein’s greatest discoveries. An odd twist to be sure as another item in the cosmological trash can has been removed and put into the ‘place holder’ of “Dark Energy.”

In ancient philosophy and myth, the idea of original matter constituted the four elements of earth, water, air, and fire. A fifth element, called a quintessence, was supposed to be a part of the ether surrounding the earth. Modern chemistry has redefined the elements and dismissed any notion of a quintessence but it has resurfaced again with “Dark Energy.” As there are four basic energies (strong/weak nuclear and strong/weak electromagnetic), Dark Energy represents a fifth energy or a quintessence in an expanding ether. More cosmological trash thrown into the ‘place holder’ of “Dark Energy.”

Now I’m not saying everyone is wrong and I’m right (well, maybe so). But it appears to me that this new phenomenon, unobserved by modern scientists is not being explained very well. Instead of adding it to the Big Bang timeline, Dark Energy should dismiss the Big Bang as the universe is not expanding at a constant rate of change (velocity) but a changing rate of change (acceleration).

The idea of Dark Energy actually disproves the idea of a Big Bang as it was originally modeled. Modern models of evolutionary cosmology try to present an original explosion from the Big Bang that is concatenated with Dark Energy. For some reason, evolutionists cannot dismiss the Big Bang and embrace Dark Energy exclusively. The Big Bang is like a Linus Blanket that modern cosmologists cannot throw away as it covers their past mistakes. And as they cannot throw some useless ideas of cosmology into the trash can, it appears they are scouring the bottom of the cosmological trash can for new ways of explaining Dark Energy. Perhaps it is time for new explanation of universal expansion in a different light!

A New Idea for Cosmology

Given the logical argument above, one may conclude that the Big Bang is without merit. Not only so, but the idea of Dark Energy is without merit never having been observed. So if one were to characterize both the Big Bang and Dark Energy, one might conclude that these are models of the environment effecting a galaxy by which said galaxies are displaced (one by a constant rate of change – the Big Bang and the other by a changing rate of change – Dark Energy).

Taking the idea of universal expansion as a given and that the universe is expanding (galaxies are moving in relation to each other) at an accelerated rate (changing rate of change), one may dismiss the idea of environment acting upon a galaxy to cause it to move and focus instead on the galaxy itself. Where is the requirement in cosmology that galaxies move because they’re effected by their neighbors in intergalactic space? Who said galaxies have to be modeled as an open system subject to their environment? Why not instead offer a premise that galaxies are propelling themselves as closed systems?

A speculative thesis to be sure but “galactic self-propulsion” proposes that galaxies may be modeled as closed systems and that galaxies may cause their own displacement in space (accelerated movement) due to the interplay of matter and energy within itself. I have no proof of this thesis but offer it only as one possibility that has yet to be explored in the world of cosmology.

Conclusions

The Big Bang has gone bust. The time between the beginning and the end of the explosion that supposedly caused all matter to be scattered was less than a second. The idea of universal expansion by an impulse lasting any longer is not acceptable to the standard cosmology. After putting recession to rest some cosmologists have turned to inflation. And as the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, this may cause depression in some cosmologists as it invalidates the original Big Bang theory. The data no longer supports a Big Bang.

The problem with the Big Bang is that the foundation is gone. There cannot be a bang that caused matter to move at an accelerating rate, and stars cannot be formed by gravitation, nor can gravitation start the engine of fusion in a star. Observations of the same supernova explosions that suggest stars can make heavier elements out of lighter ones also shows that expansion is accelerating, which proves there was no Big Bang. Ergo, there goes the Big Bang and the whole idea of ancient nucleosynthesis and the standard cosmology unravels. Its time to go back to the drawing board.

Tiananmen – A Mini-Charta

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

In May 1989, leaders of a student movement in China, pressing for reforms, were granted a petition to remain on Tiananmen Square until the end of the month. The concessions made by the government were small but important. Yet some members of the student body leadership decided to break the agreement and continue protests into June of that year. The result was the massacre of innocent civilians in a government shutdown of the protests and the loss of what could be described as a Mini-Charta.

The massacre at Tiananmen Square 26 years ago may have faded in the minds of most Americans but it is not forgotten. The original reporting of the popular media in America missed important aspects of this student demonstration that is typical of a liberal media bias. The media covered a similar massacre in 1970 as students at Kent State University (Ohio) were protesting the Vietnam War. These students were breaking the law by burning their draft cards for a public demonstration. When the National Guard was called in to quell the protests, students refused to comply with the government order to disband. When they became aggressive with the Guard and some Guardsmen opened fire and on May 4, 1970, 4 people were killed and 9 were wounded.

The media siding with the students again the Vietnam War did not point out the illegal behavior of the students. Kent State is deeply ingrained in the minds of U.S. citizens just as Tiananmen must be in the minds of the Chinese. It has been used as a propaganda tool by the liberal left in America to protest the government’s involvement in the War. When the Tiananmen Square Massacre occurred 19 years later, the liberal media presented it in the same frame of reference it had the massacre at Kent State.

The problem with both protests in America and in China is that students were breaking the law. Certainly no one wants students to die as a result of protests. But protests in America must comply with the law just as they should in China. When students break the law and actively challenge the government authority, they jeopardize their position and unfortunately their lives.

I hate to say it but we’re talking about children in their late teens and early twenties. Adolescents who know little more than “all I want is everything and when I want it is now!” These are not leaders in either country mature enough to espouse social, legal, or moral change; these are children who need to mature (grow up) before they can become leaders of a popular movement.

The freedoms we enjoy in the United States did not occur over night. The United States inherited many traditions from Great Britain before we separated from them in 1776. One of those traditions came from the Magna-Charta (1215). This was a document that forced the King to rule by Law and respect the Rights of the People. Outlined in the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Rights of the People come from God and are tempered by the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. There are no rights to do wrong. Self-government was an idea that says ‘behave yourself,’ not ‘do whatever you damn well please!’

The beginning of concessions by the government in China was given before the end of May 1989 to the students on the square at Tiananmen. But they didn’t recognize its importance. Certainly it wasn’t a Magna-Charta (Great Charter) but a Mini-Charta. But whatever gains they could have had they dismissed when they insisted on staying on the square past the month of May. The students in their immaturity lost their advantage because their ambition was not mature and they broke the law.

China has over 1 billion people. Their society, or any other society, cannot tolerate 1 billion protestors who want to do ‘whatever they damn well please.’ American liberty is based upon laws that protect the rights of others and hold us responsible when we injure others. Liberty under Law is the genius of American democracy. The youth of China must reconcile with adult initiatives of being responsible and declare that whatever the government says they should do, they are already doing it. The whole of idea behind a limited government is that people are already being responsible for their own actions and more government is not needed to put limits on the people. Sadly, the Tiananmen Square Massacre represents a missed opportunity as much as it was a loss of so many young lives.

Like America 200 years ago, the Chinese government today is based in part on the British system of laws. The right to vote did not occur in the United States until the colonists in America were familiar with serving on juries where they voted on the cases before them. Juries are where we learned both the value and responsibility of voting in cases brought before the law.

The rule of law should be an advocacy system that works for the freedom and justice of individuals and not the state (advocacy not adversarial). New calls for reform in China may center on a Jury system where the people of China determine the outcome of cases brought before a Court much like the common law system in Britain and early America. Through serving on a jury, the people of China will become familiar with the rule of law and understand its value to the Chinese people. A few decades later, people who are already behaving themselves may find a call for popular elections of representatives will be in order.

Nearly 30 years after the Tiananmen Square Massacre the Chinese people have made few gains. This is not completely the fault of the government in China but of immature students who do not know enough about the freedoms and liberties they are asking for. Sadly in America, a modern libertarian movement is continuing the adolescent advocacy of politics. They also want to ‘do whatever they damn well please’ without government intrusion or laws to stop them; they have become pseudo-anarchists. They too forget that liberty is under law – this is the original American genius for self-government. There is no right to do what is wrong. And as the liberal press is unwilling to hold people accountable to a standard of morality and liberty under law, they had no capacity to report this concerning the events on Tiananmen Square.

My heart and my prayer for the Chinese People is that they resolve under God to represent mature values and goals, and be responsible with their own lives long before the government tells them to do so. In this way, it will be easier for 1 billion+ people to advocate for legal reform and finally have their own Magna-Charta for individual liberty.

 

Righteousness – The Gift of God

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Salvation is more than being forgiven of our sins. Salvation means we get a free gift from God – righteousness. We are saved from our sins (and the penalty of sin) when we believe in the work of Jesus on the Cross. But as we are freed from sin, we are also free to do what is right, not in our strength but in the strength of the Holy Spirit; that is also the gift of God. Righteousness is the gift of God just for believing in Jesus.

Many preachers compare salvation with a bank account. Say you have a debt you cannot pay (-$10,000) and you ask the bank manager to forgive the debt. While most people would not do this, God has chosen to forgive our debt of sin. However, God does more than just clear the debt off the books. He also adds a positive balance, say +$10,000. God not only forgives our sins, he also gives us the ability to do what is right – by His Righteousness.

The Bible is clear on this matter. There are several verses to present on this topic:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,   22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,   24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,   25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,   26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.   2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.   3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.   4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Romans 10:8 “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.   10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

In Romans Paul is talking about God’s righteousness, not about ours. Our Christian life begins by receiving the forgiveness of sin, which comes by believing in Jesus (ask Him to be Lord of your life believing He was raised from the dead (after He paid for your sins on the Cross)). But it is clear, the Righteousness of God does more than forgives us of our sins; the gift of righteousness is given to everyone who believes in Jesus.

We are often taught to abandon and forsake our sin but we should also be told to abandon and forsake our own righteousness. That should not be a problem when we realize we have none apart from God. Our job is not to build our own self-righteousness; we are to abandon what we thought we had (which truly is nothing but filthy rags) and accept the gift of God for righteousness by faith in Jesus (a clean robe). Christianity is a humble religion where people realize they are in need of God’s grace and mercy for their sin. We are also supposed to be humble in receiving God’s gift of righteousness so that we may do what is right in our everyday life.

Pray this simple prayer:

God of heaven, I believe in Jesus Christ and what he did for me on the Cross. I believe that he paid for the penalty of my sin, which I admit I have done. I ask for and thank you for your love and I ask for your forgiveness of my sin. Please bring me closer to you so that I may know you. By your Holy Spirit, please make in me a clean heart, a renewed spirit, and a right mind that I may do those things that are pleasing to you. Thank you God, Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and now my Father in heaven. Thank you!

Merit and Metrics (Update) – Marijuana and Spice

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

How sad it is that people think recreational drugs are harmless. Marijuana is not a victimless crime as it ruins the emotional, spiritual, and physical health of people. This casual treatment of marijuana as a recreational drugs has a new side effect. A synthetic drug called Spice mimics the effects of marijuana but has added consequences for those using it casually like marijuana. Like marijuana, Spice can lead to severe mental and physical health problems but it can also lead to death.

I recommend a website that you may review on this subject to get detailed information on this topic: http://Spiceaddictionsupport.org/side-effects-of-Spice-use/. The following excerpt highlights some of the dangers of using Spice.

The side effects from smoking synthetic marijuana can be the same – or far more dangerous – than those of real weed.

The side effects you experience depend on which of the many different synthetic cannabinoids you put into your body, how much you used and how you ingested it.

Reports indicate the pleasant side effects of Spice are similar to marijuana, but more intense. These include elevated mood, relaxation and altered perception.

However, many users of synthetic cannabinoids, poison control centers and emergency rooms report far less pleasant and sometimes dangerous side effects are common. These include:

  • psychotic episodes
  • paranoia, increased anxiety and hallucinations – typically much more severe than after smoking marijuana.
  • increased heart rate
  • agitation
  • vomiting
  • seizures
  • uncontrollable body movements
  • lack of emotional attachment
  • sweating and loss of control
  • red eyes
  • dry mouth.

One side effect not shared with natural marijuana is increased hunger. Most herbal incense users report a lack of appetite when using the drug. Some lose 20 or 30 pounds while using Spice, then lose even more when they withdraw.

Like many others, I didn’t eat anything for days after I quit.

I know many people want to think of marijuana as a toy drug that they can play with any time they want. But Spice is not a toy! Please be warned, never play with SPICE!!!

And for those who are in denial about the effects of natural marijuana, download a pamphlet that highlights 10 myths about this drug: Marijuana Myths and Facts. Marijuana is not a victimless drug. If you use it, you are the victim.

The Big Bang is a Big Bust – Part 1 of 2

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

This post is taken from excerpts of my 2 books, The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Chaos and The Alchemy of Evolution .

The origin of the universe is an old topic filled with speculation. In the 18th century Emmanuel Kant advocated the idea of universal gravitation of interstellar gas to form stars and planets. The Nebular Hypothesis postulated a universal contraction of matter that was accepted throughout the 19th century. However, in the 20th century, this idea was largely abandoned and replaced with a new theory of universal expansion. The idea of a Big Bang was an explanation of galactic expansion following the work of Hubble and Lemaitre. The problems with both of these explanations have never been fully resolved. Cosmology faces new challenges in the 21st century and new explanations of galactic expansion are yet to be explored.

The Problem with Universal Contraction

The idea of the Nebular Hypothesis began with matter in a nebulous state that contracted according to Newton’s law of gravity:

EQ1

The idea of star formation based upon universal gravitational (Fg) contraction (within the context of universal expansion) means that as matter (M and m) is moving away from each other (expansion), it is also gathering together at various points along the way (contraction). However, the further away from one point all of the matter in space goes, the greater the distance (r) between each bit of matter. The gravitational force (Fg) will then be diminished the farther in time expansion proceeds.

The ability of gravity to create a star has been shown to be invalid. Not only is it impossible for gravitation to create a star, the matter that is supposed to form a star by gravitational contraction is also supposedly expanding away from itself at the same time it is supposed to be contracting. The problem with this universal expansion/contraction model of cosmology is that it cannot explain the origin of our universe or of stars themselves.

In the 19th century, two scientists who followed the idea of the Nebular Hypothesis and universal contraction postulated how stars like our sun produce energy. The Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism of gravitational contraction was available from the idea of star formation to present the idea that as the sun contracted in upon itself, it released energy. However, scientists have shown that if one integrates the equation of the force of gravitation, one can gather the total potential of the sun’s energy. Given that the collapse of only half of the sun’s mass (viral theorem) will generate energy, and assuming that the luminous output is constant, one can determine the maximum time of energy output as being approximately 9 million years. This became a problem when considering that if geological and biological evolution were true, it requires billions of years to operate under the sun. The model of universal contraction had to be abandoned as it did not allow sufficient time for evolution to occur for those who believed in evolution. Needless to say, universal contraction is largely dismissed in the scientific community.

In the 20th century, Arthur Edington postulated a variable mechanism of nuclear fusion for the production of energy in the sun. This idea was apparently validated by Hans Bethe. Although this idea proposed a mechanism of solar energy production, it was still based upon the notion of a nebular origin of the stars and the gravitational collapse of matter that formed them. The problem of how the sun currently generates energy may have been resolved but the matter of how fusion originally began remains a mystery.

Although universal expansion was the new norm, the idea that the solar system contracted at some point to form provided a partial solution to how the sun began producing energy with gravitational contraction. The problem with this is that the gravitational collapse of matter even in an ideal state is insufficient to generate the heat needed for a star to begin the process of fusion. If stars indeed generate energy by fusion, then they had to be created that way, they could not have evolved.

According to theory of nuclear fusion, once it begins it can be self-sustaining. Hydrogen atoms are combined in a star to form helium with some residual matter and energy released. This model of energy production seems valid. For some time there was a lack of neutrinos found that should be the result of fusion but a new idea of the ‘flavors’ of neutrinos has been offered as a solution to the missing neutrino problem. It seems valid to report that the sun generates its energy from fusion but how that fusion began in the context of universal contraction/expansion is not clear.

The Problem with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

The idea of stellar nucleosynthesis began to form following the introduction of the idea of stellar fusion for the production of our sun’s energy. If lighter elements could form into newer elements in the hot temperature of the sun, then possibly heavier elements could form as well. Fred Hoyle (1950s) showed that supernovas cause this process to occur during an explosion. Thus the idea has some merit with the research into the activities of contemporary stars that explode today. But the idea of Big Bang nucleosynthesis from the first explosion and ancient stellar nucleosynthesis is not empirical as it is not a witnessed event and is a matter of conjecture.

Taking lessons from the idea of nuclear fusion in a star and the understanding of stellar nucleosynthesis in contemporary supernovae, many cosmologists have speculated that the explosion of a primordial atom (filled with neutrons) in the Big Bang could account for the formation of the first atoms of hydrogen and helium, or the lighter elements. Although no one ever witnessed this event, it has become the standard model of matter’s origin in the universe. This is called Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

Following the formation of original matter, galaxies are thought to have developed (evolved) from the nebulous matter that came from the Big Bang. And through stellar evolution in numerous galaxies, heavier elements are said to have formed in the stars. This is called Stellar Nucleosynthesis. Galactic/stellar evolution also has never been witnessed.

However, before galaxies were discovered, the Nebular Hypothesis postulated that the universe was once a single collection of stars that were formed from loose (nebulous) dust in the universe. Through gravitational contraction stars would be formed (which doesn’t occur). But the Big Bang follows the model of universal expansion and not contraction. Modern cosmology, however, adopts this premise to suggest that after the Big Bang, as matter was expanding, it was also contracting to form multiple galaxies and multiple stars within these galaxies. This is a contradiction and confusion in both the ideas and terms involved.

While dismissing the Nebular Hypothesis overall, evolutionary cosmologists continue to accept it for the formation of stars, which is impossible. Further, modern evolutionary cosmology suggests that once universal contraction formed the stars, the ancient stars began producing new elements that were higher on the periodic table of the elements than hydrogen and helium. Again, this is a matter of speculation as ancient explosions have never been witnessed.

The production of the first elements from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and heavier elements from Stellar Nucleosynthesis is simply a matter of speculation. The history of ideas should not allow for the confusion of them in one grand synthesis of speculations. Either contraction or expansion is the true; either the Nebular Hypothesis is true or it isn’t; either the formation of the sun and stars came from contraction or they didn’t, and if they did form from gravitational contraction, then stellar fusion is not possible. Evolutionary cosmology wants their cake and eat it too. But the irrational model established by modern evolutionary cosmology is invalid.

The Problem with Universal Expansion

Lemaitre and Hubble both considered the expansion of the universe at a constant rate of speed. Hubble became famous for his study of the red shift of galaxies he viewed in his telescope. He postulated that the reason the light from distant galaxies shifted towards the red spectrum was that they were receding (at a constant velocity or speed) from our galaxy. Recent observations, however, prove that galactic (universal) expansion is moving at a changing rate of speed (acceleration). This presents a problem for the idea of a receding universe at a constant rate of speed that the Big Bang is based upon.

Modeling the Big Bang with the principle of linear impulse and momentum (PLIM), we have a foundation for the bang that originally propelled matter as the universe began expanding. The derivation of PLIM comes from integrating both sides of Newton’s equation of force:

EQ2

In other words, given an initial momentum (mv1) and an impulse (the explosion of the Big Bang), the result is a final momentum (mv2) at a constant rate of speed. The explosion of the Big Bang (modeled here as the integral of F: an impulse) can only propel matter to a higher speed. As this speed is constant, a ‘Big Bang’ explosion cannot continuously accelerate matter beyond the duration of the impulse (duration is from t1 to t2).

Observations of type 1A supernova in the mid-1990s have presented science and cosmology with a dilemma. The idea of a Big Bang is based upon an initial explosion that moved all the matter in the universe away from a single point and after a few seconds continued to move a constant rate of speed. Hubble observed this in the form of Red Shift and concluded that the universe was expanding at a constant rate of speed (recession or velocity). If the universe is expanding at a changing rate of speed (acceleration and not a constant velocity) than an impulse like the Big Bang cannot account for that expansion. Therefore, the Big Bang, as originally presented, is invalid.

The Cross of Jesus Christ

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Problem

Sin has entered into the world and through sin death has entered in as well. The separation of man from God in the Garden of Eden represented spiritual death after which physical death occurs. The sin problem of mankind was chief on the mind of Jesus Christ who paid for the penalty of sin by his death on the Cross. And by trusting in his work on the Cross for our forgiveness of sin we have renewed access to God by His Holy Spirit.

Jesus said that the person who commits sin will become the slave of sin. That is true for everyone whether it is the sin of adultery, homosexuality, theft, murder, or lying. Everyone has sinned and everyone has a problem with sin. The more we do it, the more we are compelled to continue doing it. No matter what it is, sin is sinister.

Solution!

Jesus died on the Cross and made an authoritative statement as the Son of God declaring at the Cross that all sin is sinful. No matter who has lived on the planet earth, all have sinned. No matter who believes in it, all have sinned. No matter who complains about it, all have sinned. The sovereign Lord of the universe, Jesus Christ, has declared for all humanity, past and present, that sin is sinful. This is the first of two points to know about what Jesus did on the Cross.

Having declared sin to be sinful, Jesus also paid for the penalty of sin. He was not satisfied to leave people in judgement against their sin. He declared that no one should judge another; that was His job! The Bible tells us to seek justice and to love mercy; nothing is closer to the heart of God other than his love for mankind. Jesus judged sin as sin and paid for the penalty of sin by his own death giving us mercy.

The Cross of Jesus Christ not only has a dual message, it has a dual purpose.

First, all the bad things that a person could do are judged by the single penalty of death. The wages of sin is death, the Bible says. The many wrong things we have done in our life do not add up to more than this final penalty of death. At the Cross, Jesus dealt with the penalty of all our wrong deeds; deeds that are wrong in the eyes of God called sin.

Second, Jesus took all our good deeds and gave us one better. For all of the good we can do on earth, the Bible tells us it will never be good enough. We often think we have to be good enough for God but Jesus took care of that at the Cross. His good work on the Cross brings us closer to God as we believe. Faith, not works, is what brings us closer to God; faith in the work of Jesus on the Cross for the forgiveness of our sin.

Conclusions

The Cross of Jesus Christ is a powerful message. What Jesus did was to reconcile all our bad deeds and good deeds in one single event. By His work on the Cross, all our sins are declared sinful and by our faith in Jesus they are also declared forgiven. The choice you have is to believe or not to believe. Try harder to be good and you miss the point. The Cross of Jesus Christ requires a response from you. Choose today!

Pray this simple prayer

God of heaven, I believe in Jesus Christ and what he did for me on the Cross. I believe that he paid for the penalty of my sin, which I admit I have done. I ask for and thank you for your love of all mankind, including me; and I ask for your forgiveness of my sin. Please bring me closer to you so that I may know you. By your Holy Spirit, please make in me a clean heart, a renewed spirit, and a right mind that I may do those things that are pleasing to you. Thank you God, Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and now my Father in heaven. Thankyou!