Tough Questions? Or Stupid Questions?

By Rick Blumenberg @rickblumenberg

I have been an independent most of my life and have always voted for candidate rather than party. But the solidly pro-abortion democrats and their constant emphasis on solving all our problems with expensive government programs that obligate people to support them in order to survive (rather than becoming free and independent citizens) is driving me more and more into the republican camp.

Thinking about last night’s republican debate I’m reminded of a comment reported to have been made by CNBC spokesman Brian Steel:

"People who want to be President of the United States should be able to answer tough questions."

Here is my view of Mr. Steel’s comment.

It isn’t that the questions were tough. Mr. Steel. It’s that too many were irrelevant to the real issue, which should have been “What is your position on this important matter?” And “Why should we vote for you?” Some of the questions were clearly an attempt to show the candidates in a bad light and either bias the listeners against them, or gain standing for the moderators with their bosses and colleagues.

In too many cases they weren’t “tough” questions, they were “stupid questions”.

Note to the moderators at CNBC: It’s not about you!

Nobody cares what you think about the candidates.

What we care about is can you do your job effectively and professionally? Can you give information that provides insights to help us make sound judgments about who should be our next president? Should he or she come from the democratic or republican party?

Are there any issues where the party candidates (either democrat or republican) all agree? (Other than wanting to defeat the opposing party?)

Is there a clear difference between the two parties? I realize this will become more important once the two parties choose their candidate and his or her running mate. We need to know which party platform most fully resonates with us as citizens of these United States.

As I watched the last Democratic Debate my thought was that I wouldn’t want any of these people to be my president. The only one I resonated with at all was Senator Jim Webb and he must have had really bad make-up help, because he looked so washed out I felt sorry for him. His looks reminded me of the first Nixon-Kennedy debate where Nixon refused make-up and thus looked so bad on television it was difficult to hear what he was saying.

Near the close of last night’s Republican Debate I told Carol (my wife), “I think I could vote for any one of these candidates if they became the nominee. Maybe even Donald Trump” (I'm not so sure about the last part of that statement.)

I’m Rick Blumenberg, and politically speaking from the heartland, that’s

  My View from Tanner Creek.

     

Darwinism Dying a Slow Death

By Rick Blumenberg @rickblumenberg

Charles Darwin said if his theory was correct it would eventually be confirmed by the fossil record. He probably really believed evolutionary creation was true science. It may have been in Darwin’s time. It was a legitimate theory in his time if you were not a believer in divine creation. One purpose of science is to test theories of the physical world, discover what proves true, and discard the others.

Many scientist still cling in slavish blind faith to Darwinism as true science while believing Divine creation the very opposite of science. But science is proving them wrong.

The DNA record has convinced more and more genuine scientist that there had to be intelligence behind such amazing design. Some such scientists are Christ-followers, some Jewish or Muslim, and some don’t know what to believe, but many now admit that if they use the genuine scientific method—following where the evidence leads—Darwin’s theory just doesn’t hold up. There must be another answer to origins of the universe and to life on earth.

Some astronomers are firm Christ-followers. Others, while not in that camp, are still ready to admit that the telescopes available today show a universe that is finely tuned, and an earth amazingly situated for life (as opposed to any other known place in the universe.) Some admit (and others firmly proclaim) that earth is so amazingly suited for life and the universe is such an awesome place that somebody must have planned it and planned well.

Honestly study any area of science and we must admit that our world from the tiniest cells of the smallest creatures, to the immense galaxies that make up space, is so wondrously complex it couldn’t possibly have just happened—there must be an amazing intelligence behind it.

Some non-believing scientists laugh at such beliefs as being unscientific—they particularly dislike the “young earth theory” that some Christians hold. However, the Bible actually does not teach a young earth. The age of the earth is left totally open as shown in Genesis 1:1-2^(NIV) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

Note verse one emphatically gives God his rightful place as Creator of the heavens and the earth, (in other words, the entire universe). However Genesis 1:2 is not about the beginning of the universe but the beginning of life on earth. At the time this narrative begins earth was already here, but “formless and empty”, dark, and either fully or mostly covered with water over which “the Spirit of God was hovering….”

In verse three of Genesis One, we see God speak light into existence. This was his modus operandi throughout all of the Bible’s creation account, with the exception of the creation of mankind. Apparently mankind was unique and created in a special way. With our current ability to study earth and the universe with modern knowledge and sophisticated instruments, science also reveals much the same—our world was uniquely made for life on earth.

Apparently schools still teach Darwinism as “real science”. And it may have been so a hundred years ago when it was a legitimate theory for scientists who did not believe in God. Modern scientists, however, with blind faith in Darwinism, still proclaim it genuine science and refuse to admit there is no evidential support. Darwinism is a theory thoroughly discredited by modern science and any scientist who is willing to follow the evidence. The popular press, educational publishers and many public school teachers still teach Darwinism as truth, rather than a mere theory, but in the last thirty or so years it has been greatly discredited.

Praise God, our Creator, Maker of heaven and earth!

For those of you who want to study on a deeper level, One book I recommend is “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel. Strobel has extensive references to scientists and their professional writing, so by following the references you can go as deep as you want to go.

I’m Rick Blumenberg and that’s  

My View from Tanner Creek”.

  

“Trumped” and “Hillaried”

By Rick Blumenberg @rickblumenberg

I think we’ve been “Trumped” and “Hillaried” by the media. For weeks it appeared the only Republican running for the presidential nomination was Donald Trump. Most made fun of him, but some supported him. Hillary was either promoted or demonized (depending on their political leanings) by almost all as if she was the only possible Democratic nominee. The result of the bias in media makes it almost impossible to hear real and genuine news about the current status of US presidential politics.

Tonight is the Democratic debate and I will try to watch it. I meant to watch the Republican debate but missed it due to a scheduling conflict. As you can probably tell, I am a political junkie. For tonight I am very familiar with Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders, only because the media chose to reveal the two of them to us. As for the other two debaters, at this moment I can’t even remember their names and know nothing about them. Why? Because our media sources decided I didn’t need to know.

Apparently they wanted me to know Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton. Some of the media hate Trump, but puff him up with either unfair criticism or faint praise. I think those think he is the one republican it would be easiest for Hillary to beat. Others apparently think he is a realistic candidate and want to see him win.

Fox News claims to be fair and balanced. They may be fair (in the sense that they are neither totally superior nor absolutely inferior) but they are certainly not balanced in the sense of giving a balanced view of American politics.

These days, those who are openly supportive of the democratic candidates and are anti-republican seem to be turning their attention to Dr. Ben Carson. I think they have decided he could be a viable contender for the nomination and have therefore decided to distort his statements, make fun of his abilities and in general smear his character. They are obviously hoping to make him a “Has-Ben”. I’m not yet at the point of openly endorsing his candidacy, but, on the other hand, I doubt he is waiting with bated breath for my decision.

I read Dr. Carson’s first book many years ago soon after publication. That was before he had any known political ambitions. Since then I have been an outspoken fan. He is a man of wisdom and integrity and smart enough to be a brain surgeon. Come to think of it, he is a brain surgeon and very successful.

So this is a call for unbiased political news coverage. What’s that? “Dream on in your delusion!?”

Yeah. You’re probably right. It is, more than likely, just a dream. But a pleasant dream, even if it is delusional.

I’m Rick Blumenberg and that’s My View from Tanner Creek”