I had expected to have it ready by now, but I’ve decided to go big with it, so in conjunction with the author of thylibertyinlaw.com, I’ve decided to produce some multimedia to go with the challenge.  So it might take longer than I first thought.  Nevertheless, it will be posted, so keep watching.  Best bet is to subscribe to my RSS feed (and don’t worry…I produce about 1 post per year, so you certainly won’t be over-loaded with crap from me.)

* I use the term “friend” here somewhat loosely, as Craig and I are not “friends,” per se.  In fact, I don’t know him at all and our only interaction has been more adversarial than friendly; but I don’t hate him and he kept his debate civil, so I’ll consider him a friendly opponent rather than an enemy.

On the surface, this is a big story because it potentially hails the end of the lengendary privacy of Swiss banking.  That would be fairly big news in and of itself; but when you consider the other alarming trends in the world, a more dangerous shadow movement is shown in its proper light.

Consider this: If prevailing world circumstances can be sufficiently manipulated to effectively force UBS to bail on the defining characteristic of Swiss banking–secrecy–it serves to place one more arrow in the quiver of those who have as their grand design the collapse of all world goverments and institutions and the birth of a new “one world” order of government, which of course, places at the top of that government those who delivered it.  This particular arrow is that of accountability.

In this particular case, UBS employees have been accused of (and in some cases have admitted to) aiding wealthy Americans in hiding money in UBS accounts for the purpose of avoiding the requisite tax on said money.  Had this been an American bank, with American customers only–entirely on-shore–this would not have been so problematic.  But considering the state of the American economy at present, and considering that this scandal leaves the American shores and involves a Swiss bank, the only way accountabilty can be enforced is to threaten UBS to comply with the demands of American law makers and enforcers by providing detailed account information about these American customers, which flies completely in the face of the self-appointed mandate of Swiss banking.

You can see, then, that the obvious next step for the one-worlders–who have infiltrated to the highest levels of American and foreign governments (don’t kid yourself into thinking they haven’t…Obama)–is to propose a preventative measure for this kind of fraud by unifying the banking systems of the world into a single bank, on a single monetary currency, in order to be able to “watchdog” this kind of tax evasion and prevent it from happening.

Sounds crazy, eh?  Watch it happen.

Now, the real moral of this story is this: Accountability is a constant.  It will be enforced regardless of the measures we take to avoid it.  Sooner or later, the piper will be paid.  We can see by this example that when people stop taking accountability for themselves (avoiding taxes), the end result is the loss of liberty for everyone.  So while people are responsible and accountable, the banking instruments that allow for privacy remain in place because the trust that those instruments will not be abused remains unbroken; however, once that trust is broken in attempt to hide from accountability, accountability will find a new angle from which to exact its due–loss of privacy in banking.

Funny how the ones griping about loss of privacy and civil liberties are also the same ones who are implicated in these kinds of liberty-stealing endeavors (see Tom Daschle).

Yeah, yeah…it’s a conspiracy theory.  Maybe a stretch.  But watch…it will happen.

This is what happens when a culture of people are conditioned, by religion or politics or other, to devalue human life on a regular and systematic basis.  In this case, and the case of Islam as a whole (and don’t kid yourself for a second that this has nothing to do with religion), Sharia Law allows for and even demands the complete disregard for the sanctity of human life to the point that men are expected, excused and even extolled for murdering their own wives and daughters if they should break faith in any way (to be judged, of course, by the same primitive cowards that throw the stones and light the fires).

Unbelievable…because the kid didn’t finish his homework.

P.S. What other group devalues human life on a regular and systematic basis?  Liberals.  (See abortion)

* I’m not actually quoting a specific source, just the general apologetic commentary that we keep hearing from media and cowardly political leaders who won’t call a spade a spade for fear of escalation or (worse for them) vote loss.

Those same liberals, consistent as they always are on the issues, complain that the American involvement in Iraq causes greater security problems than they had under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.  The say the same generally of American presence in the Middle East.

So I guess for liberals, civil liberties are more important than security here in America, but elsewhere in the world, security is more important than civil liberties. How convenient that their very strong and very loud opinions would change so readily from one continental context to the next as long as it appears (on the surface) to suit their liberal, anti-American agendas.

On one hand we have Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection.  I need not get into specifics about this theory; it has been posited in schools world wide for decades, so I’ll assume that most are generally familiar with it. A summary of the theory will suffice for our purposes here.

Darwinism is built on the assumption that, due to apparent similarities among the species of Earth, the origins of species can be traced back to a single ancestor, specifically a single-celled organism that spontaneously sprung to life through some unknown process in some sort of indefinable “primordial soup.”  Over the course of millions of years, and for no apparent reason given thus far by “science,” this single-celled organism evolved into increasingly more developed and complex organisms, eventually finding its way out of the soup and onto land, through amphibious and reptilian stages and finally into its primate stage.  In simplistic terms, according to evolutionary theory, man is the highest form of primate, having evolved from apes.

The evidence to support this theory is weak at best.  There is certainly scientific evidence of evolution over time within a given species; but, after all the years of evolutionary study, there is yet to be uncovered even a single shred of scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution across species, that is, evolution from one species into another.

The genesis of life is still unknown to evolutionary biologists, theorists and other scientists.  Also unknown is any reason why our supposed single-celled ancestor would have needed to evolve at all.  What was the impetus for evolution?  As far as the pro-Darwinist scientific community can explain, our single-celled parent sparked to life with a serious java jones and began evolving in hopeful anticipation of getting to the nearest Starbuck’s a few short millions of years down the road. 

Equally unknown is how one species evolves into another.  With no evidence to examine, science doesn’t have any idea how one species knows what to evolve into or how to evolve into it.  Development of tissues, organs, etc. is all based on instructions provided by DNA.  So how a species knows to overcome its own DNA and instruct its own development is as yet unexplained.

All of this says nothing about the collection of conditions required to create, support and sustain life, whether or not it evolves as Darwin purports.  The best explanation that science can come up with, so far, is randomness.  (Don’t get me started on the impossibility of randomness, that’s for another post).

On the other hand we have God.  Not God as defined by most religions–i.e. the unknowable, nebulous super-being whose relationship to man is the subject of endless speculation and debate–but God as He really is.  A perfectly evolved being who was once as man is now.

Is this definition of God so hard to swallow?  Look at it this way: Man has existed for generations spanning at least thousands of years.  During that time–a relatively short span relative to the age of the universe–man has progressed in discovery and innovation in tremendous, even miraculous ways, and this with limited resources and brain function (which science still can’t explain, by the way).  Now project man a hundred million years into the future.  Is it not reasonable to assume that such progress would continue?  Is it not reasonable to assume that man’s understanding of the laws of nature and universe would continue to purify, allowing him to overcome many of the limitations that we now face?  Now suppose that progress continued eternally.  Suppose that man’s intelligence and identity continued eternally, not only man’s, but a man’s, each human’s intelligence and identity.  Suppose life continues in some form or another after the life that we understand and observe as mortal life.  If each individual’s life continued for eternity, would it not be reasonable to assume that, given an endless amount of time to continue learning and progressing, man would achieve a state of existence so elevated that to humans such as us, such a being would appear in every way divine?

How is this difficult to accept?  On the first hand we are expected to accept the notion of cross-species evolution.  Why, then, would not the end (or at least the future) of that evolution for mankind be something akin to godhood?

If, then, it is true that the simple answer is better or more reliable than the alternatives, why would science be more than happy to jump to the conclusion that man has evolved from an ultra simple single-celled organism into a highly complex species? If nature tends towards simplicity, why would natural selection and evolution move a species from super simple high efficiency to super complicated high maintenance?

Further, why would life have evolved into separate sexes, male and female, if certainly the simplest and most efficient method of reproduction is asexual? It could be fairly argued that the dynamics of human male-female interrelations are among the most complicated in nature, and yet that is how “nature” has designed the species, and according to Darwinists, per natural selection and evolution, this complicated way is superior to the alternatives; otherwise it would not have survived the generations of evolution, much less been the result of the generations of evolution.

So either science is completely wrong about the principle of Ockham’s Razor and they cling to it out of complete lack of anything else of substance from which to base observational conclusions; or science is completely wrong about evolution.

Don’t get me wrong: Science is not bad or inherently evil. But the science being pimped in the press and institutions of the world is obviously grossly lacking in power and substance.

Maybe it’s finally time to admit that science as the solitary pursuer and provider of truth is not, as they say, a perfect science.

They’re such cowards.

Anyway, the only reason this is worth note is that it exposes a couple of patterns that are so common to academia, which for the large part means liberals. I’m counting this guy as “academia” since he went out of his way to mention his dissertation and grad school in his goofy video. He’ll consider such designation on his behalf a compliment, I’m sure.

First, notice how testy he gets when I expose the irony of his criticism. Granted, maybe he’s more testy that I exposed the “I hope this video makes me famous” intent of his video. Either way, he can’t just take it on the chin and laugh it off, even with the playful tone that I used in my opening comment. (Granted, again, tone is a hard thing to interpret in such informal writing, especially when it’s written as criticism as it certainly was.)

Next, notice how he completely abandons the real substantial part of my criticism of his criticism–the part that calls him out for trying to blame Mitt Romney or his campaign for a grammatical gaffe made by some independent support group of Romney’s. On that point he conveniently and suddenly falls mute, instead choosing to focus the full measure of his analytical prowess on whether or not its appropriate to terminate an interrogative phrase with a period, as validated by this or that style guide. Who cares? (Note the appropriate use of question mark.) The only reason I even brought up the punctuation at all was because I found it amusing how his self-congratulations was so vigorous as to make him overlook an obvious grammatical flaw of his own (style guides bah…only academics follow them anyway).

Finally, notice the dead giveaway of a liberal who has lost an argument (again, I can’t say for sure if this guy is a liberal, but he’s sure playing from their playbook). Rather than, “thanks for visiting,” or “thanks for the comment, we disagree,” or “you’re wrong, and I’ll prove it,” he chooses “go away! I don’t care about being corrected, or listening to anyone who doesn’t agree with me…I prefer the Kos-style liberal echo chamber to actual debate!”

So predictable.

Final Note: I submit that I may be WAY over-selling this entire thing. There’s probably not much here at all, really. Maybe I’m just tired of people taking pot shots or making criticisms without any foundation in reality or fact and I took it out on this poor wanna-be YouTube celebrity. So on his behalf, let me say, I hope the DailyKos was watching and that they are about to offer him a regular feature on their totally valid and rational site.

UPDATE (6:56 PM): In a stunning development, the ping-back from this post to the idiots’ post linked above was (*shocked gasp*) removed by the “editors!”  Unbelievable!  Liberals manipulating reality and shutting down the opinions of others?  Unheard of!