New Zogby Poll on State of the War

President Bush is under fire over his Iraq policies, as a majority of likely voters nationwide say they are not pleased with his handling of the war there, a new Zogby Interactive survey shows.
As the President delivers his annual State of the Union message, 55% of the voting public favors a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, believing the U.S. has accomplished all it realistically can in the Middle Eastern nation.

Many disagree that the enemy in Iraq is getting worn down and that the U.S. will eventually win the war. Just 40% agree with that statement, while 59% do not. Similarly, while 41% favor escalating the Iraq conflict, using more missiles and heavy artillery against insurgents -- but a 56% majority opposes this approach.

The survey finds the nation sharply divided over the Iraq conflict, with 49% agreeing with the proposition that America cannot win the war in Iraq and that Iraqis should be left to sort out their own future without U.S. or allied intervention. However, just as many oppose that view.
Despite the misgivings of many about the war, a 53% majority of voters oppose an immediate withdrawal -- although 46% favor this position.

The survey does find that the groups that supported President Bush's 2004 re-election -- including conservatives, rural voters, Protestants and evangelicals, regular churchgoers, men, the investor class and Republicans in general -- are much more likely to favor continued involvement in Iraq and are more likely to reject arguments favoring withdrawal from the region. And NASCAR fans -- one of the groups closely watched during the 2004 elections -- are solid war supporters.

However, the President does not win the hearts and minds of a number of other groups, including moderates and liberals, large city dwellers, Catholics, women, non-investors, and households containing members of a labor union. And among a number of key swing constituencies, including small city residents and suburbanites, there are clear signs of fatigue with the war.

The President may also have his work cut out for him in retaining support on the subject from lawmakers who are eyeing a future White House run. Asked whether they would support a presidential candidate in 2008 who aggressively supports the Iraq War, 36% of poll respondents said they would. By contrast, 43% said they would instead support a 2008 presidential candidate who believes nothing more can be accomplished in the region and that a continued U.S. presence would be counterproductive.

The interactive survey of 13,456 likely voters nationwide was conducted Jan. 27 through 30. It has a margin of error of +/- 0.9 percentage points.

New Zogby Poll on State of the Union

As President Bush heads to the floor of the United States House of Representatives Tuesday to deliver his annual State of the Union speech, his biggest challenge may be to reassure a nation shaken in its confidence that his government can protect it from another act of terror, a new Zogby Interactive survey shows.

The President, who once had large majorities saying the nation was safer from terrorism under his watch, will speak Tuesday to a country where less than half (46%) agree we are safer than when terrorists slammed airplanes into buildings in New York and Washington more than four years ago.

"This is going to be one of the most important speeches President Bush ever delivers," said John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International, "because it's going to be important for him to win back his own constituency. Right now, his numbers are very, very low. Support for the war in Iraq is low, support for his handling of the economy is low, and even support for his handling of the war on terrorism is not where it has traditionally been."

In September 2005, 51% said they felt safer with Bush as President, down from numbers above
60% in earlier polls. Now, just 43% said they feel safer with Bush as President, while 53% said they feel less safe, the survey shows. This decline comes as both the new Zogby Interactive survey and a Zogby America telephone survey conducted last week showed the President's job approval rating hovering at 39%.

Highlighting public fears about safety, 87% said they expect the U.S. to be hit by another terrorist attack inside our country, with 54% believing such an attack will come before the end of Bush's second term in office. Almost half of those expecting an attack said they think it will come in the form of a suicide bombing, probably in a major U.S. city. Eleven percent expect a blast at a shopping mall, while 9% expect terrorists to strike at a sporting or other entertainment event at an arena somewhere in the country.

The new poll shows little decline in peoples' concern over terrorism on American soil, despite billions spent on homeland security and the elevation of the department created in the wake of the 2001 attacks to presidential cabinet level prominence. In June 2002, 89% said it was likely America would suffer another terrorist attack on American soil resulting in the loss of life.
In a sign of widespread concerns over terror, more than one in four (27%) believe their hometown is a likely terrorist target.

The survey also finds widespread doubt about the federal government's ability to cope with terror or disaster. Asked to rate their perception of how well prepared the government was to deal with a range of scenarios, the federal government received failing marks on every front (see table). The questions, which included both man-made and natural calamities, find the public decidedly doubtful about government's ability to protect them – although respondents were, noticeably, more likely to predict government success dealing with another major hurricane than other disasters.

Meanwhile, in an indication of how weak public confidence in the federal government's ability to deal with catastrophe has become, when asked whether the government was more prepared to deal with another 9/11-type attack or another major hurricane like Katrina, a 46% plurality of likely voters said ‘neither.' Sixteen percent, meanwhile, selected the terror attack and 10% chose the hurricane.

Survey Finds Troubling News for Bush Critics as Well
Despite the negative news for President Bush in the survey, Democrats come in for criticism as well. When asked whether the federal government, the American people, and the two major parties had adopted a post-9/11 mentality or were living in a pre-9/11 world, respondents were only more likely to suggest the Democrats had not absorbed the lessons of 9/11, with 44% saying the party was still living in a pre-9/11 world – higher than the 27% who said the Democrats had adopted a post-9/11 mentality. This also places them well behind the Republican Party and the federal government, which 66% and 61%, respectively, said had adopted a post-9/11 mindset. Meanwhile, 38% said the American people had adopted a post-9/11 mindset, while 30% said they still have a pre-9/11 outlook.

The interactive survey of 13,456 likely voters nationwide was conducted Jan. 27 through 30. It has a margin of error of +/- 0.9 percentage points.

5 Scientific Reasons to Doubt Evolution

1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).

2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.

3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.

4. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight-lifting program pass his well-developed muscles on to his child. No mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring.

5. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.

Whose Ten?

With greater and greater frequency, we are hearing about court cases dealing with the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. The most notable case was in regards to Roy Moore in Alabama. Nearly every day I hear people on the news or in talk programs discussing “putting the 10 Commandments back into society.” In fact, one Sunday in May has now been designated at the First Annual 10 Commandments Day. I constantly hear that we need to post them in public schools, government buildings and even prisons, in order to help our society return to greater civility.

While I am keenly aware of the denigration and degradation of all of the societies in the world and can definitely see a steady downward slide, and while I would that everyone should become more moral and not less and the great moral law of the 10 Commandments sets a very high goal, I have to ask – “Whose 10 Commandments should we post?”

While you may think that this question is a bit rhetorical, it is a legitimate query. If we are going to allow civil government to use our tax dollars (or even private funds) to post the 10 Commandments on public property or buildings, we need to know whose version they are using. And in choosing a certain version, who is being alienated? What I have heard and seen used is often a generic, simplified version with only the basic principles outlined. To me this poses a difficulty.

The Catholic version, from their Bible, drops the commandment regarding making images and bowing down to them, since that practice is integral to their religious life, and takes another one and splits it in two. The first in the Jewish Commandments begins a verse or two before the traditional Christian version. As a Seventh-day Adventist who believes that you need to list the entire fourth commandment in order to show who it is who has the authority to command in the first place, I do not think any should be displayed that truncate that commandment. I could go on, but I think the point is made – “Whose 10 Commandments should we post?”

The dilemma is made even more troublesome when you add other religions into the mix or those non-religious. What about atheists, agnostics, pagans, Satanists, etc.? Why, when they go to a public, government building, possibly built and definitely maintained by their tax dollars, should they have to pass by a monument or display that they don’t care for at the least and despise at the most? Even if the majority supports them, was not this republic founded on principles diametrically opposed to such conflicts?

In order for everyone to agree to such displays as good, decent principles, would the commandments not have to be so watered down and PC’d as to nearly make them of no effect? If that were the case, then what is the purpose of having them posted anyway? Would it be to just make us feel better? That by having them posted in the courthouse and in the schools, we are somehow a more “religious” a more “moral” nation?

It seems that, instead, the direction that it takes us is to that of a pure democracy. It may surprise many, but our nation is a representative republic, not a democracy. A democracy is a majority rule state, where the will of the majority is imposed upon the minority. This mentality is especially repugnant in areas of conscience. Combined, the Judeo-Christian population is the majority in America. If posting of the 10 Commandments becomes as widespread as many desire and are working toward, it will be that group attempting to impose it’s will on the minority. That is one of the main reasons why, in a letter he wrote in reference to the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson wrote that it was to establish a “wall of separation” between the church and the state. Due to mostly well meaning Christians, that wall is being slowly chipped away and I fear that someday in the near future may crumble completely. When that takes place, God help those who disagree and dissent.

So, you tell me – “Whose Ten?” if any.

New Zogby Poll on Abortion

As the nation marks the 33rd anniversary of the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade that established abortion rights across America, a slight majority believes abortion should be always be available, or should be available without government financing, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The survey shows that 52% favor abortion, including 10% who saying they believe it should be available, but that the government should not pay for it.

Forty-three percent oppose abortion, though most of those believe there should be exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnancy posed a grave threat to the life of the mother. A total of 9% said they “always oppose” abortion.

Among women, 50% said they favored abortion in all cases, while another 8% said they favor it but do not want the government to pay for it. Thirty-eight percent of women said they opposed abortion outright, or with certain exceptions. Among men, 59% said they oppose abortion completely or with certain exceptions, while 35% said they favor it always. Another 12% said they favor it but do not want the government to pay for it.

“What’s striking to me is that the numbers were radically different ten years ago,” said John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Ten years ago, maybe just seven or eight years ago, pro-choice forces were in the ascendancy and posted pro-choice numbers in the area of 65% to 68%.”

They still represent a majority, but just barely, the survey shows.

The Zogby survey highlights a dramatic partisan split on the question. While 74% of Democrats said they favor abortion in all circumstances, just 9% of Republicans feel the same way. And while 78% of Republicans oppose abortion either completely or with some exceptions, only 17% of Democrats agree.

Among independents, 45% said they always favor the right to an abortion.

Among Republicans, 77% said that “abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter,” while 13% disagreed with that statement. Among Democrats, 15% believe that abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter, and 70% disagreed.

The poll comes as the U.S. Senate is preparing to vote soon on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Judge Alito, nominated last year by President Bush to take the seat now occupied by moderate Sandra Day O’Connor, is considered a conservative that could change the balance on the court on this issue and others.

The partisan divide over abortion is most dramatic when considering whether parents should be notified before a daughter’s abortion. While 88% of Republicans agree parents should know ahead of time, just 26% of Democrats agree. One in every two independents say parents should be told ahead of time.

The national split extends to the question about late-term abortion. One-third opposes late-term abortions except when the mother’s life is in danger; one-third opposes the procedure except when the overall health of the mother is at risk, and 20% said they opposed late-term abortions in all circumstances. Another 11% said they did not agree with any of those circumstances.

I See - REALLY FAST

Your eyes are quicker than anyone ever thought.

For you to see an image, a huge number of chemical and electrical reactions must take place in sequence. Science still does not fully understand all the reactions. Science does know that each set of chemical or electrical reactions must take place in a sequence that leads to the next set of reactions. Obviously each of these reactions in the chain must take place extremely rapidly for us to see what is happening while it is still happening.

Researchers have been studying how quickly light causes the first chemical changes in the eye that finally lead to you seeing an image. This type of chemical change is called a photochemical reaction. Photochemical reactions are the basis of photographic prints. However, the photochemical reactions that result in a printed photograph take place much more slowly than the photochemical reactions in your eye. Now, for the first time, scientists have timed the first photochemical reaction in the eye. They have found that the eye's photochemistry is among the fastest ever studied. They report that the first reaction takes place in 200 thousandths of one thousandth of a millionth of a second!

Clearly the many chemical and electrical operations involved in sight could not have developed by trial and error, step by step, over huge spans of time. Our Creator has given us the ability to see so that we could see His handiwork in the creation. Even the process by which we see clearly shows the excellence of His work!

Tax Time Again at Disney World

Ever notice that when you put THE and IRS together it spells - THEIRS!

Q: What's a difference between you and members of congress?
A: When their hands get cold they put them in YOUR pockets.

I hope Pixar will forgive me for borrowing and twisting a line from the modern classic Finding Nemo. "Um, excuse me, we're looking for the EIC." (As in Earned Income Child Credit) And like the movie, as you're doing your taxes, swim through the trench, not over it!!!!

And speaking of Pixar, they have produced some really great movies, and used Disney/Buena Vista for distribution. The Pixar company environment has really added to the creativity and production of some fantastic movies. But big bad Mickey doesn't like that the little upstart doesn't think they need him anymore and is looking to buy the whole company. Hey, Tinkerbell, please tell the suits on the board that there is plenty of magic to go around. Let Pixar do what they do best and you do what you do best - whatever that is. (Oh, maybe that is why you want them. You've lost some of your magic.)

I beg your apologies for the sarcasm.

Supreme Concerns

If you have been watching the process of adding Supreme Court members, you've seen the best of (or worst of, depending on your political leanings) Washinton, DC. Being in broadcasting, I am a bit of a news junkie. (BTW, does everyone know what news stands for?) If Samuel Alito is nominated, and it does look like that is likely at this date, then, out of 9 justices, there will be 5 Catholics and one Episcopal - a denomination that has basically fully re-unified with the Catholic church. Does this not concern anyone? Basically there will be 6 out of 9 that are from the same church. I have concerns about this from a viewpoint of Bible prophecy and the history (including recent history) of the Papal influence, power and agenda. However, I would also be very concerned if the majority were all Jehova's Witness, Mormon, Baptist or even Seventh-day Adventist. Is anyone else troubled by this, or am I the only one?

Not Just Pat

After New Orleans Mayor, Ray Nagin's comments last Monday, I see that it is not just Mr. Robertson who says absolutely outrageous things.

Movie Review/Recommendation

I think I'll take a break from what appears to be contentious postings to suggest a movie for you to watch. Last night the family and I ate pizza and watched "Rabbit-Proof Fence." What a movie. It's a thought-provoking movie based on a true story about 3 little girls in Australia who were taken away from their mother because they were half white and half aborigine. They escaped from the "school" they were taken to "to properly train them" and walked 1,500 miles to get home. Very inspiring. The racism that it showed was so terrible. Even our 3 and 4 year olds watched it and asked questions. Really opened the door to talk about racism and how bad it is. One of the stars is Kenneth Branaugh, one of my favorite actors. If you do watch it, make sure you watch the beginning of the credits at the end. It tells the rest of the story. Amazing, amazing, amazing.

The big "J"

Ahh, the big "j" word. "Judgemental" Some ideas are just not to be touched. Some thoughts are not allowed. Some opinions go so against the majority that they become unacceptable. How dare anyone call anyone else an apostate. Question for all. If you are a Bible believing Christian, is there ANY way to Heaven except by grace through faith in Christ? Do any of our works have any merit in securing our salvation however sincerely those deeds are done?

Pat - Sit Down and Be Quiet!

Ok, this is a bit of a rant. So sorry. I would like to call for Pat Robertson to cease and desist from all public comments. His latest, about Ariel Sharon's stroke being a judgement of God, reveal, not only an insensitivity that is totally antithetical to the teachings and practice of the Jesus that he claims to follow, but also a total misunderstanding and misapplication of Bible prophecy. Hey, Pat! The Jewish nation, as a whole, rejected Christ. Individual Jews are still able to be part of God's chosen people, but Israel no longer has this special title. That belongs to every believer in Jesus Christ. Prophetically, the world doesn't revolve around Jerusalem any longer.

This Wednesday, he sent a letter of apology to Mr. Sharon's son. He stated that "My concern for the future safety of your nation led me to make remarks which I can now view in retrospect as inappropriate and insensitive in light of a national grief experienced because of your father's illness. I ask your forgiveness and the forgiveness of the people of Israel."

This comes a few months after he said that the US should change it's policy regarding assasinating a foriegn leader. For which he also had to issue a clarification and apology. This from a man who claims to be a follower of the Prince of Peace? I just praise God that Pat's attempts at becoming the President of the United States have failed. Imagine if he had been elected!

Mr. Robertson - sit down and be quiet!

UPDATES

Royce, welcome to the blog.

Everyone, get ready for the next controversy. Coming soon!!!

Karl

Pagan Apologies

Weepingwillow (and any other pagans who may come across this blog), my apologies if you believe that I misspoke regarding pagans worshipping on Sunday and Christmas being a pagan based holiday. Maybe I should have said non-Christians instead of pagans. I must tell you that I have much respect for you and some similarities. I too tend to the gentle side, I too am peace loving, and appreciate and will defend freedom of thinking. Beyond that, I am a vegetarian as well. I am these things because my Bible tells me to be. My Bible tells me that Jesus is my gentle shepherd and I should be like Him. One of His names is the Prince of Peace, so I am to be peaceloving. I appreciate freedom of thinking because my Jesus never forces anyone to believe on Him to salvation or to believe in Him at all. You have every right to believe whatever you want and I will defend that right in any peaceful ways I can. I am a vegetarian because my Bible tells me that original diet given by God was fruits, grains, nuts, seeds, herbs and vegetables. The interesting thing is that all scientific research backs up the fact that a vegetarian diet is the best one. I want you to know how much I appreciate your respect for the earth and the creatures on it.

"Santamentalism"

Boy, I guess I touched a nerve with the first post. My apologies to my pagan friend. I had no intention to offend.

I want to make it clear, I love Christmas time. It is wonderful to spend time with family and friends, to exchange gifts, to put up special decorations. The season provides such warm fuzzy feelings. No matter how sentamental it is, though, it is not Biblical.

For centuries, everyone believed, and taught, that the world was flat. Did that fact make the world flat? Absolutely not. The world was as round then as always. Just because something is taught and believed by billions does not make it true, if it does not match up with the only eternal constant - God and His Word. This includes Christmas and all it's trappings.

Christian Hypocrisy

During the previous month we heard prefessed Christians decry the fact that big business, the ACLU, (insert any of the hated organizations), was trying to "take Christ out of Christmas." This was spouted loudly and repeatedly so much it nearly made you want to hurl. Pllleeze!

OK, let's get this straight, Christ was not born at Christmas time. It was a PAGAN holiday that the apostate church "sanctified" in order to help the pagans feel more comfortable coming to church. The season never really has been about Jesus. It was about the re-birth of the SUN at the winter solstice. Now, when some businesses decided to say, "Happy Holidays" or call them "Holiday Trees", the Christian community in America seemed close to starting an uncivil culture war. Got a question, what on earth does a pine tree have to do with the birth of Christ, besides tradition? Nothing!

This same mentality vehemently defends going to church Sunday, another holiday (holy day) that has nothing to do with Christ - except that He made light on that day. Worshipping on that day was instituted, again, when the apostate church "sanctified" the day in order to help pagans feel more comfortable in church and has nothing whatsoever to do with worshipping Christ when He asks us to.

Those who follow truth in these last days of earth's history - DO NOT BE DISTRACTED! Don't buy into all this furor. Maybe, just maybe, Jesus is tired of His birth being connected to a pagan day of worship and He impressed and inspiried companies to take His name off. Maybe He doesn't want His name to endorse such a thing.

Am I glad that Jesus was born? Absolutely! Do I have to have it plastered on every item and repeated on every lip in order to continue to appreciate it? Not a chance.

One last thought, maybe all of this is part of Satan's plan. He's gotten Christians to become nearly violently angry for apparently taking Christ out of one pagan-based tradition (Christmas). Maybe he's just conditioning them to get angry when, apparently, some would demean and disregard another pagan-based tradition (Sunday worship).

Don't be fooled.

New Blog - New Purpose

OK this is my second blog. The first one - kingdomlike.blogspot.com, focuses on the things of life that point us to Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven. I hope this one will as well, but, I am at times an opinionated person. This site is my place to post thoughts and ideas that are not necessarily as overtly religious as the other one. Hope you enjoy and that my thoughts get you thinking.

Karl