September 24, 2016

List of Best Nutrition and Health Documentaries for Adults and Children

The chart shows obesity statistics from 1978 to 2011 in various countries, with the US displaying the worst results in increasing obesity in terms of larger industrialized nations. 
There are excellent documentaries that show the reasons why obesity is skyrocketing and what can be done about it. The bottom line is that there is big money in processed foods, in medicine, in MSM media propaganda, and in sugar lobbying, that have together kept valuable information from the public. Because some films offer simple and natural healing concepts, such as Beautiful Truth and Forks over Knives, these tend to draw the and vitriolic ire of the medical establishment.
I'm not offering any promises, claims, or certified health advice by presenting these films, just recommending that anyone interested in living a healthier and happier life should probably learn of the different views, studies and experiments that have been conducted. In my opinion, and my wife and children's opinions as well, these are the best ones we've seen. I'm sure that there are great ones that we haven't even seen yet. We don't agree with everything in each film, but most of it does make sense and seems very helpful. If you've never heard of "The China Study" you should probably watch Forks Over Knives, just to be aware of the largest nutrition and health study in history. As Christians, we are to be good stewards of all that God has given us, including our bodies. 

Recommended Documentary Films Available at Public Libraries and Netflix:

Films that Both Adults and Children Would Like:

That Sugar Film (2014): (pretty funny)

Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead (2010): (adventurous travelogue)

Beautiful Truth (2008): (15-year old boy narrates)

Films Geared Towards Adults:

Fed Up (2014): (American version with Katie Couric)

Forks Over Knives (2011)

Food Matters (2008)

Food, Inc. (2008)

(Chart Credit of Obesity rates from around the world by Mark Kelly, © 2012).

Tags: Best health films, best nutrition films, top documentaries on health and nutrition, funny documentaries on nutrition, film about organic foods, raw food film, the China Study, international obesity chart 1978 to 2011

September 20, 2016

Obama Blames Indie News For "Misinformation" - Set To Shut Off Internet Freedom

A Gallup Poll showed trust in mainstream news is at an all time low. 

Published September 14, 2016, the Gallup Poll displays a chart that has MSM news corporations and Hillary Clinton panicking. Trust in mainstream news is at an all time low, with only 32% trusting it.. The establishment means of manipulating public opinion is crashing and burning. Most of the MSM news supporting Hillary Clinton is so extremely and blatantly biased and unobjective that people are increasingly flocking to alternative indie news sources. One point of grave concern is, however, that Obama apparently intends to relinquish US control of Internet freedom to parties that most likely will be more totalitarian in their approach.

1. President Obama lashed out at alternative news sites and bloggers claiming that "misinformation" was being spread, shortly after this Gallup Poll was released by the pollsters on September 18th. This was ironic considering that the MSM has obviously become the main culprit when it comes to misinformation and distortion.

2. CNN then followed suit in the blame game, claiming that Donald Trump is, “taking credit for that drop in trust". CNN is perhaps at the top of the list, when it comes to MSM bias, disinfo and propaganda. See here, here and here for recent examples.
3. President Obama is now set to relinquish Internet freedom on October 1, 2016 to the globalist powers that be, that are not exactly freedom loving. This could jeopardize the presidential election and will likely wipe out Internet free speech in the long run. The Hill asks, "Why change it now and so close to the election?"

August 12, 2016

Video: 2016 Fiji Rugby Team Sings Hymn of Thanks to God After Winning Gold Medal

In case you haven't seen this... the Fiji rugby team won gold, and it was actually the very first Olympic medal in the country's history. And after the men sang a hymn, "We Will Overcome by the Blood of the Lamb" - with great emotion, they prayed and thanked God, giving God all the glory for their victory!
Pretty inspiring moment, I think. NBC probably didn't censor this because they had no clue what they were singing about. 

"The LORD reigns, let the earth rejoice; Let the many islands be glad." (Psalms 97.1 NASB)

Click the following link for the NBC video of the players singing:

Tags: Free video of Fiji rugby team signing hymn of praise to God at Rio Olympics 2016, Christian athletes Rio Olympics, Fiji rugby team video, 

August 10, 2016

Is Michael Phelps' Christian Testimony Missing Something?

I've read a number of catchy headlines implying that Michael Phelps is a true Christian with a powerful Christian testimony, but there is something important missing in each account, that is, Christ. Phelps told ESPN that the The Purpose Driven Life book, “turned me into believing there is a power greater than myself and there is a purpose for me on this planet.”
Michael Phelps has broken several kinds of world records. When he won his 19th Olympic medal, he officially had won the most Olympic medals in history. He is truly an astounding athlete. However, there was a low point in Phelp's life, after he had already become famous as an Olympic swimmer, when he was heavily into drugs and feeling suicidal. It was at this point Phelps hit "rock bottom" about the time photos surfaced of Phelps taking a hit off a bong. "I was like a time bomb, waiting to go off. I had no self-esteem, no self-worth. There were times (when) I didn't want to be here. It was not good. I felt lost," he said. At his low point, Phelps received guidance from Christian and NFL linebacker, Ray Lewis, per this account:

August 02, 2016

Key Points on the "Christian Vote" in 2016

There is a tendency today for Christians to avoid discussing politics. But stakes are higher in this presidential election and I'm hoping that you'd like to be informed. I'll address common objections to politics by Christians and then move on to aspects of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Wayne Grudem, a Christian ethics teacher for 39 years, wisely encourages Christians to respectfully discuss and debate politics in the US. His article, "Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice" emphasized that: "...we need to keep talking with each other – because democracies function best when thoughtful citizens can calmly and patiently dialog about the reasons for their differences."
The discussion of ideas is a part of a normal democracy
Firstly, those involved directly in ministry work often feel that any talk of politics will jeopardize their non-profit tax status. And this shunning of political talk can reverberate through entire church congregations. This position, in my opinion, is not helpful to society regarding the Church's historical role as salt and light, and may even imply subservience to the state over the conscience. Secondly, an opinion is that political conversations might thwart evangelism. Amy Gannet considers evangelism the top priority of the Church and, therefore, directs others to avoid any political involvement, just to be safe. This may be her personal conviction, but she offers no reason why her generalization should apply to all Christians. Personally and prayerfully following conscience, many find that reducing abortions, or other issues, may take precedence over evangelism in any given election. Thirdly, many Christians believe that talking politics is not appropriate, or it is less spiritual for Christians, because Jesus never talked politics. Again, like the previous point, this generalization does not reflect the biblical New Covenant tenet that the Holy Spirit guides all of us Christians of the universal Church today as individuals and by conscience. William Wilberforce, for example, had a very strong conviction to politically oppose slavery in England. Had he not done so, it is conceivable that slavery would have continued much longer. Fourthly, some contend that pointing out documented corruption in a political candidate is slanderous. But let's be clear, the definitions of "slander" and "libel" relate only to making false statements.

Not voting altogether

There are a number of people promoting the "purist" position that Christians should not vote at all, if candidates hold any positions that they do not agree with, or have serious character issues. If by prayer the Holy Spirit is personally guiding someone not to vote, I would agree with this purist position. But most of the reasoning I have heard to justify this position seems to be based solely on ill-founded logic. For example, Catholics and Orthodox I dialogue with oppose the, "lesser of the evils" approach and claim that this is in fact embracing a utilitarian philosophy that is not Christian. But this appears overly simplistic. On any given day, we perform numerous tasks based on the pragmatic or utilitarian approach to problem solving, to achieve the most happiness. Voting for the lesser of the evils in no way makes us official philosophical "utilitarians" than choosing to use both bleach and soap in the laundry washer makes us philosophical utilitarians. One could argue that Trump speaks with more sinful language and overtones but that Clinton acts with more evil intent, breaking more laws, therefore, Clinton is the lesser of the two evils. I would offer that these types of questions all come down to personal convictions. Romans 14.23 outlines that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. So a key factor is to ask if we have peace and any inner convictions, after we prayerfully consider not voting altogether, or voting for a certain candidate. But we should not confuse this type of answer with excuses employing faulty logic. Philip Swicegood wrote a long article on Trump with this conclusion: "He (Trump) is not entitled to it (your vote), and you will not be helping Hillary Clinton if you choose not to." The second phrase is plainly false. If Trump and Clinton have a close election and many Christians choose not to vote simply out of apathy or frustration, clearly this could help Clinton to win.   

July 26, 2016

Wikileaks Shows How Democrat Party Exploits Hispanics

The Democrat exploitation and racism against Hispanics will probably not be mentioned in biased mainstream news. And neither will the ethical illiteracy on display with the celebration of law breaking at the Democratic National Convention (DNC). But in social media, we are the news. The main DNC strategy email reveals not one iota of interest in the needs of the Hispanic community, rather, it highlights different aspects in which Hispanics can be stereotyped as a consumer group for exploitation in the political process by Democrats for this purpose: "capture this demographic."
"The document makes sweeping generalizations about Latinos (which on planet earth is usually referred to as “racism”) in order to sell them, as “consumers,” on the Democratic vote."
Some of the comments insinuate that Hispanics do not consider facts, logic or critical thinking at all, but make decisions entirely based on "brand loyalty" and "story telling." I would find this extremely insulting if I was Hispanic. With the Democrats alleging that Trump is a racist for wanting to build a wall, it may be time to come to terms with the racism in the Democrat Party showing that Hispanics mean nothing more than basically a means to more power and control over the people.

July 12, 2016

Hillary Clinton, Socialism and Marxism in the US Democratic Party

There seems to be a lot of denial about Marxism and socialism in the United States today, especially with regard to people supporting the Democrat Party. If you've ever had to clarify this: "I did not call you or Obama a socialist or a Marxist." - then maybe you can relate to a common problem that comes up in this discussion. Unless someone self-identifies with a political stance, I would hesitate to label a person. Nevertheless, one can point out how tenets of socialism and Marxism have become widely promoted by the US Democrat Party. And deep ideological common ground helps to explain why Bernie Sanders first insinuated that Hillary was corrupt, supporting status-quo political corruption throughout her career, and then endorsed her for presidency.
To be clear, I believe that both the Republican Party and Democratic Party have become corrupted by crony capitalism and extensive corporate lobbying and that Congress has been failing to uphold reasonable checks and balances in the system on behalf of the populace, with many career politicians on both sides apparently interested mainly in extending a lucrative career and not taking any risks. In discussing the main topic, it's helpful to separate what is inclusive of socialism and Marxism versus what is exclusive.
The state-owned means of production is inclusive in the definition of socialism and so is the heavy regulation of business. The word "community" is really a euphemism for "government" in a basic definition of socialism: "a political and economic theory of social organization advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

June 09, 2016

Why Atheism and Polytheism are Illogical

This may be discouraging for atheists, but in accordance with the latest definitions of "atheism" by the most respected sources, atheism is illogical. It's important to use the most accurate and reputable definitions. While you probably shouldn't use a Black and Decker drill as a tool to perform medical surgery, you also probably shouldn't use Webster's dictionary for philosophical definitions, if you have philosophical sources available.

Definitions of "atheism":

"Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

"The theory or belief that God does not exist." (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)

Why Atheism is Illogical

Summary Argument

1) With respect to agnosticism, if atheism means, "the negation of theism" and the “denial of God's existence,” and history shows that there is no convincing evidence to demonstrate that theism and God have been negated and denied, then choosing atheism is illogical.

2) History shows that atheists have not logically demonstrated probability that theism and God have been negated and denied.
3) Therefore, with respect to agnosticism, choosing atheism is illogical.

Expanded points

1. The burden is on those who wish to affirm a belief or position to offer reason and evidence in support of such. 
2. According to Stanford, "Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." And Oxford defines atheism as, "The theory or belief that God does not exist." - with both definitions implying a positive claim is being assumed, as opposed to agnosticism, in which a lack of belief is emphasized.

3. Philosophical definitions of "atheism" in context are more appropriate than a generic description as, "a lack of belief in God" - which also could apply to agnosticism. 
4. In terms of logic, the atheist truth claim, “God does not exist,” is not an analytic truth claim and is not strictly provable. Likewise, the truth claim of atheism is not a synthetic one because it cannot be strictly demonstrated. For these reasons, atheism cannot be strictly proved.

June 06, 2016

Honoring Those That Sacrificed on D-Day - For a Just Cause and a Just War

I am deeply thankful for those that sacrificed so that I can enjoy freedom and a relatively just society. In WWII, the "enemy" attacked preemptively, without provocation, and the enemy tortured prisoners. But, increasingly, the U.S. seems to be doing those very things that we had once fought against. Just war theory has apparently become ignored in favor of profits and political hegemony. The neocons of our day apparently do not have a very firm grasp of objective moral values. This is a problem that pervades society on many levels today.

June 03, 2016

How Atheist TV Personality, Kirsten Powers was Converted

Photo Courtesy @KirsetnPowers
IMHO: Don't Discount Apologetic Discourse

Atheist TV Pundit, Kirsten Powers became a Christian in part because she realized that Christianity is more logical. She has a page in Wikipedia describing her achievements. For those that completely discount intellectual apologetics in favor of “more spiritual" theism,  you might want to consider that atheist Kirsten became a Christian apparently because she was first, “...surprised by the intellectual and intriguing sermons given by the pastor, Timothy Keller.” and, “She ended up making up her mind that Christianity was the most rational way to look at the world...” with the understanding, of course, that no one comes believe and follow Christ without the inner work of the Holy Spirit.

May 30, 2016

Barna Poll: Americans Concerned as New Moral Code Takes Over

A majority of Americans, of all ages and all demographics, express concern regarding the moral condition of the United States, from adults in general (80%) to younger Millennials (74%).
"What's right for you" is the hot new morality of self-fulfilment
“As nominally Christian moral norms are discarded what, if anything, is taking their place? Barna's research reveals the degree to which Americans pledge allegiance to the “morality of self-fulfillment,” a new moral code that, as David Kinnaman, President of Barna argues, has all but replaced Christianity as the culture’s moral norm.” The highest good, according to our society, is 'finding yourself' and then living by 'what’s right for you,'" 

May 19, 2016

Debate: "Secular Humanism Offers an Objective Basis of Morality"

(Most recent: Rick's  rebuttal posted on 05-29-16)

A secular atheist, Britlandt Abney, has offered to defend the position "Secular Humanism Offers an Objective Basis of Morality" and I wish to oppose it. This secular view has been defended by Sam Harris, but neither his argument nor any argument I have seen appears to be logically supportable.

We agreed not to rush the debate, but to begin after a few days or up to a week. I've requested the open introduction and main argument to be sent to me by email by Britlandt, The following are debate term definitions he's offered:

May 17, 2016

Atheist Debate Administrator Believes Personal Insults Are Necessary

Haunted Shore, who claims to be an administrator at the atheist-run facebook debate group “Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic”, has the opinion that it is necessary for the administrators at that group to insult people. This is especially odd considering that a rule of the group explicitly states, “No personal attacks.” Here's the quote: 
"It was not an unnecessary insult. He was simply saying that if Mark removes someone, its probably because they have done something wrong."
Then Haunted Shore goes on to offer that insulting people is supposedly OK because people don't actually turn into the insults that they are called:

“If you call someone a bad person, that does not make you a bad person. Calling someone an asshole does not make you an asshole. This shouldn't be hard to understand.” (
May 9, 2016 at 1:01 AM)

May 03, 2016

Drive-By Shooting at FB Group: Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic

At the facebook group  "Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic" I was banned from debating today in what could best be described as a drive-by shooting that lasted from 2.02PM to my being blocked at 3.01PM (see webclips below). In that period of time not one actual "strike" against me from the rule list was specifically applied to me by any administrator, while the group rules call for at least three strikes in order to be banned. There are a couple of token Christian moderators at the blog that basically don't seem to challenge atheism or the abusive behavior of the other moderators. In any event, abusive atheist group moderators are helping to confirm the truth of the gospel in a number of ways. Ron Morales, who was also banned for no valid reason, explained a pointed animosity against Christians that seriously engage there:

"I can confirm that I for one have been repeatedly insulted because of my Christian beliefs (at times by admins) with no repercussions for the atheists insulting me, even though personal attacks are an explicit violation of the rules."
Overlapping Webclips of the FB Debate Group: Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic

1. In the following thread I attempted to discuss a question offered by a group member: "How could someone know that God had imparted this knowledge to them? How could one know that it wasn't just an intelligent demon?" - I offered that the fulfillment of prophecy in scripture is an example of verifiable divinely imparted knowledge and offer a linked reference to my point. When challenged by an administrator known for his abuse, I clarified that I would defend this position, but I also pointed out that I did not wish to debate personally with a moderator at that group due to the apparent probability that I would be blocked from the group for offending a moderator.


2. Though I had simply offered valid concerns and did not mention any names or offer any personal attack, administrator Simon Birch erroneously claimed that I had made an "ad hominem attack" that was "intellectually dishonest."

April 26, 2016

Reason Why Scandinavia is #1 in Press Freedom and Corruption Control

Finland recently won first place in the 2016 World Press Freedom Index prepared by Reporters Without Borders. The top four countries are Scandinavian. And Denmark was ranked first in a separate 2015 ranking regarding the mitigation of corruption, with Finland listed as second on that list.

Scandinavian countries rely on mechanisms for constant governmental accountability

Marie ChĂȘne, the Senior Research Coordinator at Transparency International, described what she believed was the underlying main means of achieving the high ethical performance of government and increased public trust In Scandinavia, stating that there is typically a, “strong transparency and accountability mechanism in place allowing citizens to monitor their politicians and hold them accountable for their actions and decisions.”

This Scandinavian strategy is diametrically opposed to the default position that the United States has come to adopt (Now sadly ranked 41 in press freedom). Denmark's “Anti-Corruption-Portal” highlights subtle as well as more overt violations: "prohibits active and passive bribery, abuse of public office, embezzlement, fraud, breach of trust", and their whistlblower protection and anonymity laws allow for more practical government accountability, however, whistleblowers and journalists in the U.S. are usually under attack and more likely to be the only ones going to jail, and harshly punished at that. And unethical conflicts of interest abound in U.S. corporate-political lobbying, the "passive bribery" forbidden in Scandinavia.

April 11, 2016

Gallup Poll Shows Christians Desire Political and Ethical Teaching

As we approach the 2016 US presidential elections, there is a lot of mudslinging and ethical illiteracy on display by all the political candidates. Political positions on torture, fetal harvesting, unprovoked war, the loss of basic rights and corporate lobbyist corruption are as astounding as they are disappointing. This ethical illiteracy is representative of the entire country, including many Christians and leaders in the Church. In any event, it's understandable why Christians would welcome some teaching and dialogue on critical ethical and political subjects these days. But based on a recent Gallup poll, they aren't getting enough of this from their churches and pastors. Six political subjects are highlighted in the “God's People Want to Know” poll summary, archived at Wall Builders. Reasons why pastors resist political subjects are described later in this post:

A majority of the survey respondents said it is “extremely important” for their pastor to preach or teach the congregation about the following issues:
Issues of Interest to Conservative Voters
 Abortion 71%
 Religious persecution 61%
 Sexual identity 56%
 Israel 54%
 Poverty 54%
 Cultural restoration 53%  

March 18, 2016

Watch Hillary Clinton Admit on LIVE TV She Voted to Invade Iraq for the Money

Republished in full by Templestream from The Daily Sheeple

In the process of explaining her vote in favor of the war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton made a startling admission — she sided with then-President George W. Bush because he promised billions of dollars to help New York after 9/11.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Clinton described the situation the day after the attack as if she, alone, could be the savior of New York City. Matthews queried the presidential candidate, who now admits the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a mistake, why Sen. Bernie Sanders foresaw the folly of that war when she could not.

After a fly-over, seeing the “devastation” at ground zero, Clinton stated $20 billion had been immediately slated by the Bush administration to rebuild the Pentagon and fund Homeland Security, but “not a penny for New York.”

Clinton attended a small meeting at the White House, where she intimated she faced Republican opposition in garnering financial help to rebuild NYC.

“I’m sitting there in the Oval Office, and Bush says to me, ‘What do you need?’ And I said, ‘I need $20 billion to rebuild, you know, New York.’ He said, ‘You got it.’ And he was good to his word,” Clinton explained to Matthews. “So, my experience with [Bush] on something of great import to this country was positive — because, literally that same day, I get back to the Capitol, and the Republicans are trying to take that money away. We kept calling the White House. Bush kept saying, ‘I gave them my word, I’m going to stick with it.’ So, you know, I had a different set of experiences [than Sanders].”


January 24, 2016

Daily Updated Polls for 2016 US Presidential Election (Republican and Democrat)

Daily Updated Poll Charts

Republican Primary Popularity Poll Chart for Today
(click here).

Democratic Primary Popularity Poll Chart for Today (click here)

Combination Polls Updated (click here).

Seeing popularity polls can help to determine if you are voting for a candidate that has a real chance, or if you are possibly wasting a vote for ideological reasons.
Check out the Candidate Issues and Positions:
Cruz, Rubio and Rand Paul desire to defund federalized Planned Parenthood abortions on demand and fetal harvesting, with some candidates offering state and community solutions to this issue. Trump has flip-flopped on this issue in the past, but is presently pro-life. Hillary supports Planned Parenthood unequivocally (with their PAC donations), while Sanders is supportive of PP with light criticism. Trump and Sanders apparently are the only viable candidates not controlled by Wall Street and Goldman Sachs (Rand Paul is a bit of a long shot candidate). Trump, Rubio and Jeb support waterboarding interrogation-punishment, which I believe is unethical and criminal according to the Geneva Convention. Paul, Hillary and Sanders presently oppose waterboarding. Cruz has flip-flopped, first opposing torture but then claiming that the U.S. has never tortured (that the 2014 report on US treatment of prisoners from Iraq included no torture is absurd.). 
Cruz, Rubio and Paul are strong in defending the right to freedom of conscience, while Hillary, Sanders, and even Trump, see gay marriage as trumping this right. Paul proposed a vote to audit the Federal Reserve. Rubio voted "yes" to audit the Fed. Trump is for the audit, Cruz gave lip service, but did not show up to vote. Sanders voted "yes" to audit the Fed. Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Paul oppose Common Core Ed. Hillary, Sanders and Jeb support it. Sanders voted against Common Core reform and one of his top PAC donors, The NEA Union, presently promotes Common Core at their website without reservation (see webclips below).