Is Human Life Worth This?

March 9th, 2013

Here is an article ( that delves into the messy intricacies that develop with modern medical expertise… Especially when it comes to fertility and surrogacy.

The story “pits” the surrogate mom as a pro-life person… and the genetic parents as some kind of compassionate and human people. In addition, inserts some unexpected twists.

It is an interesting read; however the clinical discussion of human life is a bit off-putting. But continued reading revealed some interesting bits in the emotional stand-off of the parties involved.

One cannot help to detect the unstated bias of the author, she writes of the so-described humane genetic parents, “They wanted something better for this child.” In this declaration, she states two irreconcilable things. The first opinion, that abortion is something better than life. The second, most importantly, truth… that the unborn baby is indeed a human child.

While the surrogate mom does indeed have “issues,” she emerges a hero, of sorts. We all have heard the age-old lie from the enemy… that we can be like God. In this story, it is presented in a compassionate way as the surrogate mom remembers, “They said I should try to be God-like and have mercy on the child and let her go.”

I still cannot help but to think all concerned acknowledge the life in the womb as a CHILD. Yet, there are some who, in cold-blooded fashion, openly advocate for murder of such. (There is no other description for this crime.)

What follows is a sickening discussion of what the monetary value of this baby was, the surrogate mom decided at about $15,000 and the genetic mom, about $10,000. Is this what it comes down to these days, money?

However, the baby is eventually born and her prospects for a long life are not very good.

Nevertheless, what say you, ought we not to leave the playing God part to God?

I say no to playing God in this… and that Baby S is infinitely valuable, as Christ died for her, too.


This Stuff Hurts Brains, Don’t Try it at Home

February 28th, 2013

I came across this today:

In it the author, Ryan Stringer, offers a logical “proof” of how God does not exist. I read and thought it a great proof. But it stumbles at premise three.

Ryan would have you believe, that “A being’s omniscience entails, among other things, that it has all experiential knowledge.” He alleges this to be “necessary truth.”

At first glance, it would seem to most people to be an acceptable premise… but is it? I don’t think so.

It seems that for the premise to be true, God is ONLY omniscient. But there are other things we know about God. One that is the most offensive to us is that He is holy. That means He does not sin.

Even his offered salvage of the argument fails, considering that God is holy. Case being, to support his contrivance, he necessitates it is logically possible for God to learn. I don’t think so. If he has already granted the premise that God is omniscient… it is not logically possible there is anything left to learn.

So thinking as men do, we limit God by our minds, when it ought to be the other way.

God, being holy, does not know what it is like to sin. As it is evidenced by this, that this so-called experiential truth is not necessary to omniscience in any way. It destroys premise three, and anything conclusive is incorrect, save that there is experiential knowledge humans have that it is impossible for God to have.


Please Help Update

October 27th, 2011

Hi Y’all,

The last eight months have been hard. I want to thank all the friends and family that have helped us pay our rent and bills. It is time for a new chapter.

We have decided to give up our apartment and move in with a friend until things get better and we can provide for ourselves again. This will greatly reduce our expenses. God has provided funds to store our stuff and lots of strong backs to move our stuff into storage. I have done what I can to pack our stuff but have mostly relied on friends and family as I wear out very quickly.

My cardiologist tells me that I have a rare condition known as Diastolic Heart Failure. What this means is that my heart does not relax enough to fill up very much, even though it is pumping out about 50% of what is in it. I can do some walking or light work for a short time but I get winded very soon and have to rest about half an hour before I can do much again.

The stroke I had was mostly reversed by the TPA I received in time. The multiple mini strokes I had before the major stroke continue to make me weaker on the left side and affect my speech sporadically. Sometimes I sound almost normal. Often I stutter badly and cannot say certain words and have to come up with another way to say something.  Thankfully I can still write fairly fluently. The intense pain and coldness in my hands and feet has gotten somewhat better, so I can type a little longer now.

We still have a long way to go and may never get back to normal. If you can help we would appreciate it. Below is a PayPal link. If you would rather send a check our new address is:
PO Box 770681
Coral Springs, Fl 33077

Thanks a lot,

Brad and Julie Thompson



World’s Largest Atom Smasher May Have Detected ‘God Particle’

April 23rd, 2011


This should really be interesting!

World’s Largest Atom Smasher May Have Detected ‘God Particle’ –

Okay… basically, they are saying, “Nothing to see here. Move along, people!”

A Church Unique Snapshot of Potential Church

March 29th, 2011

Hmmm… is church where you go to learn about Jesus and what He has done for you?

I didn’t know it was supposed to be about kingdom concept, vision and strategy.

Where does Jesus fit into this?

They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious – Jeremiah 6:14

MegaPink MegaChurch: A Church Unique Snapshot of Potential Church – Will Mancini

Maher Questions Obama’s Christianity

February 13th, 2011


Wow! If the heathens can figure it out, what does that say?

Though we Christians, speaking for the ones I know who have learned to discern, knew it all along. The first obvious clue is the worship that is expended upon the man, and his outright acceptance of it. He has placed himself on God’s throne.

Second, is his lack of humility. When displayed, it is feigned and fleeting. These things tell me, he does not know Jesus.

And third, there is no possible way he could have been acquainted with the Savior under the tutelage of Jeremiah Wright. Mr. Wright taught a different Jesus than the one taught in the bible.

But my hope and prayer is that President Obama does come to know the Savior, and repents of his sins.


February 12th, 2011

This is a movie not to miss.

Obama Refers to Himself as the Gipper

February 11th, 2011


“And then somebody — I don’t remember who it was — turned and said, ‘You know what? What about Gibbs’ tie? What about Gibbs’ tie? That might look good.’ And, frankly, Robert didn’t want to give it up because he thought he looked really good in the tie. But eventually he was willing to take one for the Gipper, and so he took off his tie, and I put it on. And that’s the tie that I wore at the national convention.”

It’s a nice story. But Obama is not “The Gipper.” Perhaps if you pronounced the word differently, with a soft “g” sound… now that title fits, but somewhere in the back of my mind, I think that brings disrepute to gypsies, my apologies.

But the definition sticks… one who defrauds or one who swindles…

You can read more at Real Clear Politics.

Obama and the Shadow Socialist Group Behind Egypt’s Fall?

February 5th, 2011
By Michael Savage and Greg Lewis
© 2011 by Savage Productions, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Barack Obama has been playing a critical role in making sure that Egypt, one of our staunchest allies in the Middle East, is positioned to become the next member of the Union of Iranian Radical Islamist Republics headed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Every single word out of the president’s mouth, every single move he’s made has had the effect of stabbing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in the back, of opening the door to Islamist radicals taking another step on their way to restoring an unholy caliphate in that region.

The historical precedent for Obama’s actions can be found in those of another weak liberal Democratic president, Jimmy Carter. In the late 1970s, the Shah of Iran ruled that country in much the same way Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt, through maintaining tight control over the population with a strong military and the support of the United States. When Carter withdrew his support of the Shah in the name of “human rights,” he enabled the Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran from his exile in Paris and assume leadership of the country.

It looks very much like Obama is following directly in Carter’s footsteps. The problem is that the situation is much more serious today than it was 30 years ago. Blame that on Jimmy Carter. Carter’s turning over Iran to the mullahs has allowed Islamist radicalism to establish a soon-to-be-nuclear outpost in the region. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is set to expand his influence and power by abetting the overthrow of nations such as Egypt that retain ties with and receive support from the west. There is no doubt that Ahmadinejad sees himself as the leader of an Islamist union that wields power over the entire Middle East and threatens western civilization as well.

Since the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the left in America has come out on the side of Islamist radicals. They cheered as the Twin Towers fell and American lives were lost. With the election of one of their own as president of the United States, the left moved even closer to realizing its aim of bringing down our country.

It is not out of the question that Barack Obama is actually working to insure that our allies in the Middle East, including Egypt and Jordan, follow in the footsteps of Iran in installing a radical Islamist government. It is not out of the question that Obama seeks the demise of our staunchest ally, Israel.

What is becoming clear is that, like Jimmy Carter, Obama is on the side of Islamist radicals. When Iranian students staged an uprising after the rigged elections in that country insured that the totalitarian government of  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would remain in power, Obama was on vacation in Hawaii and treated the Iranian insurrection as nothing more than a nuisance.

Instead of intervening and speaking out strongly in favor of the students and the overthrow of a truly heinous enemy regime, Obama declined to take sides, saying “it is up to Iranians to decide who Iran’s leaders will be.” By not speaking out and taking the lead in denouncing the Iranian regime, Obama revealed where his sympathies lay.

Only a few weeks earlier, Obama had delivered one of his more insipid speeches. Speaking in Cairo, he had called for America to end torture and close the prison at Guantanamo Bay in order to reclaim its “moral authority.”

His insistence that “the people of Iran” should decide who their leaders are simply ignored the fact that the Ahmadinejad regime had rigged the election. The point was that there was no way the Iranian people could decide who their leaders would be. By saying what he did, Obama came down solidly on the side of the Muslim dictatorship and rigging elections in order to achieve it.

Less than two years later, the Cairo insurrection against one of America’s staunchest allies, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, provided Obama with another chance to speak out against Islamist radicalism. Instead he’s again waffled and backtracked and stabbed Mubarak in the back by demanding that the Egyptian president step down immediately.

Nobody is saying that Mubarak’s government is a paragon of democratic rule. What Mubarack has done, though, is to provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. He’s the closest thing to a friend that Israel has in the region. He’s helped Israel secure its borders, and he’s kept the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood from gaining power in Egypt by outlawing them. He’s accepted U.S. foreign aid, primarily in the form of military equipment, and used it to maintain his country’s strength.

Our foreign aid, which Obama has publicly considered withdrawing to punish Mubarack, represents money well spent. We get back much more in increased Middle East security through the sale of military equipment to our ally than can be measured simply in dollars.

After watching silently for several days as demonstrators overran the streets of Cairo, Obama did what he would not do in the Iranian situation: He said that Mubarak must step down immediately in order to pave the way for “free” elections.

But as it turns out, it’s not quite as simple as that. Obama’s words to the contrary, it’s highly likely that our president had a strong hand in bringing about the riots in Egypt. Beyond that, he was aided and abetted by the very man who engineered the financial meltdown that enabled Obama to get elected in the first place: George Soros.

The U.S. knew as early as December, 2008, that groups opposed to the Mubarak regime were already developing a plan to overthrow the Egyptian government. They received the information from a young dissident who the U.S. had sponsored to attend a meeting for international political activists that took place in New York City.

In addition, according to documents exposed by WikiLeaks, U.S.  Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey was aware of the plans of the Mubarak opposition group. Leaked documents also show that while the United States publicly supported the Mubarak government, U.S. Embassy officials continued to communicate with the activist in question throughout 2008 and 2009.

The problem is that in order for a country to hold “free” elections, it must have a democratic infrastructure, a democratic culture. In the most important sense, there is no Middle Eastern country that has this, except for Israel. Even our attempts to establish democracy in Iraq have done little to combat the influence of Iran or to insure that democracy will survive after we leave.

When you try to establish a democracy in the Middle East, Islamist radicals move in and take over. It’s exactly what happened in Gaza. In the elections of 2005, the terrorist group Hamas was the big winner over Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah Party. By 2007, Hamas had drive the Fatah Party out of Gaza. And when Abbas, still the nominal president of Gaza, called for elections in January of 2009, Hamas said that anyone who participated in the election would be “dealt with by the [Hamas] ministry or by other means.”1

In other words, if you vote you die. That’s what the term “free elections” means in the Middle East. It means that a radical terrorist organization will move in, intimidate the population, and make sure that its candidates are elected.

It’s exactly what is likely to happen in Egypt, even if an “orderly” transition to free elections takes place. First, it’s very likely that even if the uprising against Mubarak in Egypt began spontaneously, it’s no longer spontaneous. Ahmadinejad applauded the insurrection loudly when it began, and there is no doubt that his agents are involved on the street and in the backrooms where strategies against Mubarak are being plotted.

To this point: One of the key figures in opposition to Mubarak is Mohamed ElBaradei. He’s the former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director. In that capacity, he whitewashed Iran’s nuclear energy program, essentially saying that Ahmadinehad was not pursuing nuclear weapons when it’s clear to everyone that he is.

On January 18, before the uprising in Egypt had begun, AlBaradei, in what was a veiled call to action for Islamists, warned that a “Tunisia-style explosion” could occur in Egypt. AlBaradei has emerged as a key figure in a “shadow parliament” that has formed in Egypt.2 The shadow parliament consists of opposition leaders who are trying to develop plans for a transition to a new regime through “free and democratic” elections. Included in the group are representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical terrorist group responsible for the assassination of Egyptian Premier Anwar Sadat in 1981 and the seed group for other Islamist terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. The Muslim Brotherhood seeks nothing less than a government based on Islamist principles, including the implementation of Shariah Law and waging jihad against the west.

AlBaradei, given the fact that he looked the other way when inspecting Iran’s nuclear facilities, is very likely a puppet of the Iranian regime. In April, 2009, AlBaradei told the press that “more U.S. engagement with Tehran’s leaders would increase regional security.”3 Although many say he’s unlikely to play a key role in the upcoming elections, he’s nonetheless one of the agents seeking to give Islamist radicals a voice in the Egyptian government.

It’s no coincidence that AlBaradei showed up in Cairo only two days after the uprising began and was immediately named a negotiator by the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, he had been waiting in the wings for quite a while. He’s on the board of an organization headed by George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski called International Crisis Group. Brzezinski is the same man who supervised the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Another board member of the ICC is one Javier Solana. Solana is one of the most powerful figures in the European Union. Because of his Marxist sympathies and his support for the regime of Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Solana was once on the USA’s subversive list. Former U.S. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who once smuggled incriminating documents out of the Clinton White House by hiding them in his clothing is another Board Member, as is General Wesley Clark, once fired from his NATO command. Monamed ElBaradei also sits on the ICC’s Board.

The organization’s stated aim is “working to prevent conflict worldwide.” The group promotes itself as “the world’s leading independent, non-partisan, source of analysis and advice to governments, and intergovernmental bodies like the United Nations, European Union and World Bank, on the prevention and resolution of deadly conflict.”4 The true purpose of the ICC is exactly the opposite of its stated purpose. It seeks nothing less than the political downfall of moderate regimes in Muslim countries which maintain friendly relations with the United States, with the ultimate purpose of destroying our country and promoting Islamist regimes.

Soros continues to exert a strong influence on the policies and pronouncements of Barak Obama and his administration. His influence includes promoting the Muslim Brotherhood to a position of power in Egypt. To that end, Frank Wisner, a former U.S. ambassador to Egypt, met secretly with Issam El-Erian, a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, at the Obama administration’s request. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the fate of Egypt after Mubarak was deposed.5 It is also reported that Obama himself met with members of the Muslim brotherhood in 2009. 6

While the situation in Egypt is still fluid, with Mubarak proposing to remain in power through the elections scheduled for September, the fact is that Egypt is the key player in what is almost certainly a larger movement to unseat current governments in the region and replace them with Islamist friendly regimes.

This week, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry said that President Obama’s call for an immediate transition from the government of President Hosni Mubarak has incited violence. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki said “What foreign parties are saying about ‘a period of transition beginning immediately’ in Egypt is rejected. He added that such calls “inflame the internal situation in Egypt.”

Tunisia’s government was dissolved and its president, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, fled the country after protests against joblessness and corruption overwhelmed Tunisia’s security forces in a situation that foreshadowed what is happening in Egypt.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II has also dissolved the parliament in his country in response to protests similar, although not as violent and widespread, to those in Egypt and Tunisia. Abdullah has also promised free elections within six months.

The situation is ripe for Islamist terrorist organizations to move in and take control of the Middle East. And Obama is their enabler. He is the epitome of a weak liberal president. He mouths utopian leftist platitudes while the governments of our allies in the Middle East are challenged.

Obama actually said the Muslim Brotherhood “must reject violence and recognize democratic goals” in one interview. His lack of understanding of the consequences of this type of rhetoric and of the positions he holds is unfathomable. It may well be that at heart he is true to his Muslim upbringing and is bound to cede the power of the Judaeo-Christian west to Islamic tyrants.

He supports the demonstrators when there is a chance that his support will lead to the overthrow of our allies, but he keeps his mouth shut when truly dictatorial Islamist regimes are threatened by popular uprising. His weakness is having the effect of enabling a new caliphate to be formed in the Middle East. We’re very likely witnessing the formation of a new Islamist alliance led by Iran.

Reaction from people who understand the true urgency of the situation has universally condemned Obama’s positions. One article about Obama’s “betrayal” of Mubarak was titled “A Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam.”

That piece went on to describe “the politically correct diplomacy of American presidents throughout the generations” as “naïve.”7 Israeli lawmaker Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said, “I don’t think the Americans understand yet the disaster they have pushed the Middle East into.”8

The United States, upon realizing the seriousness of the situation in Egypt, should have immediately come to the aid of President Mubarack and the maintenance of stability in Egypt and the region. We should have deployed naval assets to the Suez Canal in order to protect that channel through which nearly 10 percent of the world’s goods pass on their way to their destinations. We should also have made it clear that we support our allies, Egypt and Israel, and we will do everything in our power to maintain the status quo, even as Egypt moves toward liberalizing its government.

We should also have made it clear that intervention by other countries, especially Iran, will not be tolerated. Obama needed to come down on the side of maintaining our allies in the region. Instead, he sided with Islamists. The invitation to hold “free elections” in Middle Eastern countries with no history of democracy and no democratic infrastructure or culture in place is nothing less than a naive invitation to Islamist radicals to step in and take control. Such a transition, if it can be made at all, must be very gradual.

People with no history of establishing and maintaining democratic institutions must be led into their formation. As Murabak supporters clash with anti-Mubarak forces in the streets of Cairo, the country’s fate rests more and more with the Egyptian military and with Omar Suleiman, Egyptian Intelligence Chief who is now Vice President. It is just possible that, if the military is able to retain power and if Suleiman is able to take over from Mubarak, that the Middle East can retain its precarious balance. But don’t look to Barak Obama for help.


1 “Hamas in Gaze elections warning,” BBC NEws, October 28, 2009 (

2 Levinson, Charles, and Steve Stecklow, “Inside Opposition’s War Room, Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2011, p. 1.

3 Tirone, Jonathan, “Iran Divides Mubarack’s Troubleshooter, Opposition’s AlBaradei,” Bloomberg, February 2, 2011 ( s-elbaradei.html).


5 Klein, Aaron, “U.S. ‘held secret meeting with Muslim Brotherhood,’” World Net Daily, February 1, 2011 (

6 Bar’el, Zvi, and Avi Isacharoff, “’Obama met Muslim Brotherhood members in U.S.,’”, April 6, 2009 (

7 Hamilton, Douglas, “Israel shocked by Obama’s ‘betrayal’ of Mubarak,” Reuters, January 31, 2011 (

8 “Some in Israel see Obama administration reaction to Egypt as naïve,” The Western Star, February 3, 2011 (—World/Society/2011-02-03/article-2194672/Some-in- Israel-see-Obama-administration-reaction-to-Egypt-as-naive/1).