View allAll Photos Tagged Progressive
Be sure to check out the full Onyx HBT album here
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many countries have armies of all different shapes and sizes. Some have only small defensive armies, while others have larger more readily available armies. The difference between major nations and minor nations is that the major nations continuously develop and field new vehicles and equipment, while minor nations simple buy older and even obsolete vehicles from major nations. The percentage of each countries military budget inevitably goes towards some form of research for new vehicles, not all of which make it past the drawing board. There are many reasons for this, such as, too expensive, too complex to build, mechanically unreliable, too heavy or too light, or there is simply no real demand for such a vehicle, plus many more. However, the worst reason that a tank never makes it beyond the drawing board, no matter it's potential, is political interference.
There is an established hierarchy in the Tarakian military, made up of long serving loyalists, decorated military personnel, and people with family connections. Although this cohort have served the nation well, they are often criticized of being stubborn, inflexible, unopen to change, and stuffy. For some time, there has been a growing dissatisfaction with the way the upper echelon of Tarakian military is comprised. A new, younger, more progressive generation have been growing support in favour of change, not aggressive change, but a reform on how major decisions in the military are made. A push for a wider group collective, rather than a cabal of cigar smokers deciding among themselves in their reclusive corridors of power.
The Established, and the Progressives. The Established, eager to maintain the status quo and of the mindset that you don't fix what isn't broken. The Progressives, understanding that if you follow a set military doctrine for long enough, eventually someone will study it and find a way around it. Knowing the Established would never freely relinquish an inch of power, the Progressives knew they had to formulate a plan to take it. Even though the Progressives don't have the power to sway final decisions, they do hold considerable power when it comes to initiating research and testing, with the final say on production being left to higher powers. Their plan was to put forward a vehicle that on paper, would be easy for the Established to dismiss, and then use it to prevent the Progressives from putting forward such projects in the future. The Progressives were betting on the Established being complacent and arrogant about the situation, and not fully appreciating the situation. Research and testing can be initiated by the Progressives, so there was nothing the Established could do to prevent this.
During testing, it quickly became apparent that the Established had underestimated the Progressives, and their project. The new tank, named Onyx, not only passed all tests, but surpassed them by a margin the Established would be unable to dismiss. Scrambling for a way to save face, and to prevent the Onyx from making it to production, a tank they see as too aggressive for a purely defensive army, the Established reluctantly concede just enough power to the Progressives on the condition that the Onyx doesn't make it beyond testing. However, knowing they have the upper hand, and could push the Onyx into production, the Progressives accept the deal, with the condition that a set number of production batches will be run, and small regiments of Onyx tanks will be given to front line battalions. The Established, knowing they have no choice but to agree, and concede certain future decision making powers.
Though the tank is rather large, space inside is quite limited. Due to the unusual design of the vehicle, it has a rather shallow hull, which therefore limits overall internal space. At least one third of the vehicles internal space is taken up by the engine and gearbox, with the remaining space being taken up by the crew, gun, and ammunition. The unique shape of the tank comes from it's unusual design, where a SafeShell system is encased in heavily angled, bolt on composite armour. The nose section of the tank is made entirely from composite armour, and is impenetrable to all known anti tank projectiles.
The onyx is intended to be used as a heavy breakthrough tank that will spearhead armoured assaults. Taking advantage of a combination of impenetrable frontal hull armour, immense engine power, the stability from the double track pod system, and a fully stabilised 130mm auto loaded gun. The idea is to overwhelm the enemy with firepower and speed. Even though the tank weighs in at 72tons, it has the mobility and speed of a medium tank. This incredible performance comes from the 2200hp engine and the double track pod system, which gives excellent off road acceleration and maneuvering. Due to having four sets of tracks, the tank has unmatched weight distribution, which allows it operate in terrain that any other tank of this weight would get bogged down. This gives the Onyx unique tactical options that any other tank of it's weight simply wouldn't have.
The gun is the same 130mm found on Ares MkII main battle tank, but has been heavily modified to work in conjunction with a new auto loading system, and a new stabilizer. A bore extractor and a new muzzle break have been added in combination with the 6-rounds per minute firing rate. With internal space at a premium, the Onyx can only carry a meager 36 rounds, of which only the ammunition stored in the turret are stored in blow out compartments. The Onyx only carries one type of ammunition, which is an APDSFS round with 750mm of penetration. A firing rate of six rounds per minute can be achieved thanks to the completely automatic loading system. Two 20mm auto-cannons are located on either side of the main gun, which are intended for enemy infantry, since the tank carries no high explosive rounds. A roof mounted .50 machine gun can be controlled from the commanders control panel.
Due to the rather flat design of the hull, no existing engine would be suitable without a protrusion either on the bottom, or top of the tank, so a new engine had to be designed. A micro fusion reaction was initially considered, but after some number crunching, the price per unit became unjustifiable. Although reluctant to design an entirely new engine, approval was granted for testing, and a prototype multi fuel engine capable of producing 2200hp was produced. Unfortunately, due to the torque produced by such a powerful engine, a new gearbox had to be designed to cope with the stress, and to accommodate the track pod system.
Space inside the tank is limited to such a degree that there isn't even room for fuel tanks, however this turned out to be a blessing for the design. Eight individual fuel tanks are housed in the superstructure of the track pods, four per side. Having the fuel tanks exposes them to potential damage in combat, and even though they're only protected by 50mm of armour in either side, each tank has it's own fuel cut off system. Additionally, the fuel tanks as a whole are safeguarded by a sophisticated fire prevention system, which rapidly fills the damaged tank with an inert expanding foam that instantly douses any flames in the event of a breech to any tank and a subsequent fire.
Due to the unusual design of the hull, limited internal space, and the front nose section being comprised entirely of composite armour, the drivers position is in the turret basket, meaning that he rotates when the turret does. This placement was unavoidable, and caused several of the test drivers to experience motion sickness due to the changeable orientation. The Onyx has a crew of four, including a commander, gunner, driver, and a loader.
GP15-1 #1304 & 1305, still in UP colors, have the southbound road train on the ex-MN&S main near Eureka Center, MN on August 9, 2024. (misc 60911e)
Progressive Field bleachers in Cleveland, Ohio where the Chicago Cubs played against Cleveland Indians to win the 2016 Baseball World Series.
Don't know much about baseball but took this shot last summer when we stopped by the area briefly. I like the repeating patterns.
A deflated basketball sits near one of Fort Wayne's notorious apartment complexes. Across the street and nearly a century ago, the area was the birthplace and thriving center of the automotive gas pump world.
These are from the still going strong little convenience store (7-11) garden. I had about 10 like the ones on the right and probably 10 delicious raspberries. I probably should have taken them home and washed them, but they were so good I just couldn't wait!
Policies come in many sizes, with name your own price.
Flo needed some materials. These are work in progress. 1x1 and 2x2 tiles with one decal covering 5 sides. Quick and dirty iphone shot.
Progressive Realty, 1244 Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania. A full service commercial,residential and property management real estate company.
... en concert au Grillen Colmar le 26/01/2024
VIDEO :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gthzlc_sqJM
Genesis, Emerson Lake & Palmer, Yes, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Rush, et bien d'autres encore dans cet hommage aux légendes du rock progressif ! On se laisse emporter par les chefs-d'œuvre du rock progressif interprétés par des musiciens phénoménaux. PROG LEGENDS rend hommage à la musique et aux performances spectaculaires des groupes de rock progressif les plus emblématiques, mettant en valeur leur théâtralité et leur brio. Enfin, un spectacle immersif qui allie nostalgie et émerveillement, entièrement dédié à l'âge d'or du Prog Rock des années 70 et 80 !
Genesis, Emerson Lake & Palmer, Yes, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Rush, and many more in this tribute to the legends of progressive rock! We get carried away by the masterpieces of progressive rock performed by phenomenal musicians. PROG LEGENDS pays tribute to the music and spectacular performances of the most iconic progressive rock bands, showcasing their theatricality and brilliance. Finally, an immersive show that combines nostalgia and wonder, entirely dedicated to the golden age of Prog Rock of the 70s and 80s!
© Philippe Haumesser. TOUS DROITS RESERVES - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ©.
Merci beaucoup pour vos visites , commentaires et favoris♥
Thank you very much for your visits, comments and favorites
www.flickriver.com/photos/philippe_haumesser/popular-inte...
A bench made from railroad cars wheels and axle by Progressive Rail, Inc. and setting at their little restored depot in Rosemount MN
HBM
SOOC
119/365v4
While skyping with a friend it got progressively darker as the sun set here and the tiny image of me showed how only my face was illuminated by the screen light and I like how it looked so I rendered it for you with my camera :)
Is it a modern art object or scaffolding for a construction site?
I couldn't decide which one.
However, when illuminated by sunlight, they had a mysterious charm.
Near the Red Brick Warehouse in Yokohama.
Progressive Conservatives, former Prime Minister of Canada, Joe Clark and current Senator Elaine McCoy (Alberta).
Ottawa, Parliament Hill, Centre Block, March 7, 2010.
Photo by M. Rehemtulla for QUOI Media Group.
IF, THEN, AND THE ATHEIST DILEMMA.
All scientific theories are based on ‘if’ and ‘then’. The proposition being; IF such a thing is so, THEN we can expect certain effects to be evident.
For example: there are only two competing alternatives for the origin/first cause of everything.
A natural, first cause, OR a supernatural, first cause.
Atheists believe in a natural, first cause.
Theists believe in a supernatural, first cause.
IF the first cause is natural, THEN progressive evolution of the universe (cosmos) and life are deemed to be expected, even essential.
Conversely, IF the first cause is supernatural, THEN an evolutionary scenario of the cosmos and/or life is not required, not probable, but not impossible.
In other words, while evolution, and an enormous, time frame are perceived as absolutely essential for atheist naturalism, theism could (perhaps reluctantly) accept evolution and/or a long, time frame as possible in a creation scenario.
Crucially, if the evidence doesn’t stack up for cosmic evolution, biological evolution, and a long evolutionary time frame, atheist naturalism is perceived to fail.
For atheism, evolution is an Achilles heel. Atheists have an ideological commitment to a natural origin of everything from nothing - which, if it were possible, would essentially require both cosmic and biological evolution and a vast timescale.
Consequently, atheist scientists can never be genuinely objective in assessing evidence. Only theist scientists can be truly objective.
However, the primary Achilles heel for atheist naturalism is its starting proposition.
Because the ‘IF’ proposal of a natural, first cause, is fatally flawed, the subsequent ‘THEN’ is a non sequitur.
The atheist ‘IF’ (a natural, first cause) is logically impossible according to the laws of nature, because all natural entities are contingent, temporal and temporary.
In other words:
All natural entities depend on an adequate cause.
All natural entities have a beginning.
And all natural entities are subject to entropy.
Whereas a first cause MUST be non-contingent, infinite and eternal.
But, just suppose we ignore this insurmountable obstacle and, for the sake of argument, assume that the ‘THEN’ which follows from the atheist ‘IF’ proposition of a natural, first cause is worth considering.
We realise that both cosmic and biological evolution are still not possible as NATURAL occurrences.
The law of cause and effect tells us that whatever caused the universe (whether it evolved or not) could not be inferior, in any way, to the sum total of the universe.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So, we know that cosmic evolution from nothing could not happen naturally.
That traps atheists in an impossible, catch 22 situation, by supporting cosmic evolution, they are supporting something which could not happen naturally, according to natural laws.
It doesn’t get any better with biological evolution, in fact it gets worse. The Law of Biogenesis (which has never been falsified) rules out the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. Atheists choose to ignore this firmly established law and have, perversely, invented their own law (abiogenesis), which says the exact opposite. However, their cynical disregard for laws of nature, ironically, fails to solve their problem.
Crucially ...
An origin of life, arising of its own volition from sterile matter, conditions permitting (abiogenesis), would require an inherent predisposition/potential of matter to automatically develop life.
The atheist dilemma here is; where does such an inherent predisposition to automatically produce life come from? In a purposeless universe, which arose from nothing, how could matter have acquired such a potential or property?
A predisposed potential for spontaneous generation of life would require a purposeful creation (some sort of blueprint/plan for life intrinsic to matter). So, by advocating abiogenesis, atheists are unintentionally supporting a purposeful creation.
Following on from that, we also realise that abiogenesis requires an initial input of constructive, genetic information. Information Theory tells us; there is no NATURAL means by which such information can arise of its own accord in matter.
Then there is the problem of the law of entropy (which derives from the Second Law of Thermodynamics). How can abiogenesis defy that law? The only way that order can increase is by an input of guided energy. Raw energy has the opposite effect. What could possibly direct or guide the energy to counter the natural effects of entropy?
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'
Suppose we are stupid enough to ignore all this and we carry on speculating further by proposing a progressive, microbes-to-human evolution (Darwinism).
Starting with the limited, genetic information in the first cell (which originated how, and from where? nobody knows). The only method of increasing that original information is through a long, incremental series of beneficial mutations (genetic, copying MISTAKES). Natural selection cannot produce new information, it simply selects from existing information.
Proposing mistakes as a mechanism for improvement is not sensible. In fact, it is completely bonkers. Billions of such beneficial mutations would be required to transform microbes into humans and every other living thing.
Once again, it would need help from a purposeful creator.
So, we can conclude that the atheist ‘IF’, of a natural, first cause, is not only a non-starter, but also every ‘THEN’, which would essentially arise from that proposal, ironically supports the theist ‘IF’.
Consequently ...
If you don't believe in cosmic evolution you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in cosmic evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
And...
If you don’t believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution, you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
Conclusion:
The inevitable and amazing conclusion is that everyone (intentionally or unintentionally) supports the existence of a creator, whatever scenario they propose for the origin of the universe.
No one can devise an origin scenario for the universe that doesn’t require a Creator. That is a fact, whether you like it or not!
The Bible correctly declares:
Only the fool in his heart says there is no God.
Theists have no ideological need to be dogmatic. Unlike atheists, they can assess all the available scientific evidence objectively. Because a long timescale, and even an evolutionary scenario, in no way disproves a creator. In fact, as I have already explained, a creator would still be essential to enable: cosmic evolution, the origin of life, and microbes-to-human evolution. Whereas, both a long timescale and biological evolution are deemed essential to (but are no evidence for) the beliefs of atheist naturalism.
Atheist scientists are hamstrung by their own preconceptions.
It is impossible for atheists to be objective regarding any evidence. They are forced by their own ideological commitment to make dogmatic assumptions. It is unthinkable that atheists would even consider any interpretation of the evidence, other than that which they perceive (albeit erroneously) to support naturalism. They force science into a straitjacket of their own making.
All scientific hypotheses/theories about past events, that no one witnessed, rely on assumptions. None can be claimed as FACT.
The biggest assumption of all, and one that is logically and scientifically unsustainable, is the idea of a natural, first cause. If this is your starting assumption, then everything that follows is flawed.
The new atheist nonsense, is simply the old, pagan nonsense of naturalism in a new guise.
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
The poison in our midst - progressive politics.
Progressive Jazz
Al Klink Quintet
The Bob Alexander Quintet
Grand Award Records/USA (1956)
Illustration by David Stone Martin
"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Mao Tse-tung (1893 – 1976). Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977.)
Some of the famous atheists in the atheist Hall of Shame.
Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Kim Jong IL, Mao, Kim Jong Un, Pol Pot, Kruschev, Brezhnev, Honecker, Ceaușescu
Atheism proved itself, in the 20th century, to be the most horrendous, barbaric, murderous and criminal ideology the world has ever experienced. Countless millions suffered and died at the hands of this hideous ideology, they must never be forgotten.
The promised atheist/socialist utopia ... the idea of an atheist Heaven on Earth resulted in a diabolical Hell on Earth.
Who, but a complete idiot would want to resurrect such a monstrous, no-hope philosophy?
Present day, so-called 'new' (improved?) atheists (and communists) try to disassociate themselves from the disastrous record of the world's, first ever, official, atheist states, established in the great, atheist experiment of the 20th century.
But all the examples we have of official, atheist rule are horrendous. And, the tyranny still continues, wherever atheism is the dominant, ruling ideology, as in North Korea.
The ‘new’ atheists try to blame the 20th century’s persecution and brutality completely on communism. They claim it had nothing to do with atheism.
But, although communism is a disastrous economic system, there is no intrinsic reason why it should be brutal, or why it should hate religion, or why it should destroy churches and persecute and murder millions of Christians and people of other faiths.
That is the hallmark of atheist ideology, not of an economic system.
Communism is fatally flawed as an economic system. And, as it thrives on envy, class hatred and division, it is a an anathema to Christianity, and any other religion which preaches love for everyone. Consequently, it is the ideal bedfellow for atheism, but that is different from requiring an intrinsic hatred of God and religion as a matter of state, endorsed policy. That is essentially an atheist ideal.
If communists weren't atheists, why would they outlaw and attack all religion? Karl Marx, the founder of communism, hated religion, because he was also an atheist. He understood that communist, dialectic materialism, class war etc. is incompatible with most religions, so, it could be argued, that to be a bona fide communist, he also had be an atheist.
Lenin was a self-declared atheist who, together with his Soviet Bloc, atheist successors, tried to eliminate religion with brutal repression and wholesale murder.
Thus, history tells us that the atheist experiment has been tried and, from beginning to end, was a brutal and diabolical failure. The new atheists may say: “it's nothing to do with us gov.”
But who wants to risk such devastation again, by giving the atheist ideology another chance? Only a complete idiot would want to take that gamble.
However, it was only to be expected and it could easily have been predicted beforehand, that the inevitable result of atheism's lack of an absolute ethical or moral yardstick would be to wreak havoc on the world - and that is exactly what it did. .
Atheism hasn't changed at all in that respect, because it can't.
Atheism and secular humanism categorically reject the concept of intrinsic right and wrong. Therefore, the ephemeral values, moral relativism and situational ethics of atheism are the ideal recipe for abuse.
We can see from the belligerent, intolerant, rabble rousing rhetoric and anti-religious ranting of today's militant, new atheist zealots, that the leopard hasn't really changed its spots. Let no one doubt it - atheism has an horrendous and hideously, barbaric record... we must never let it happen again.
Moreover, it is a singularly perverse ideology that motivates its adherents to waste so much time of the only life they believe they have, trying to convince everyone else that they are doomed to eternal oblivion. The ultimate reward for atheists is to never know if they got it right, only if they got it wrong.
There is certainly no moral or rational defence for the atheist cult, past or present.
But what do atheists themselves say about their ethical and moral values?
They claim that they DO have an ethical and moral yardstick, and cite the Humanist Manifesto as representing the ethics and moral code of atheism.
So is it really true?
The Humanist Manifesto looks good at first glance, but like most proposals atheists have come up with, when examined closely, it is full of holes.
Problems, problems ....
1. You don’t have to sign up to the Humanist Manifesto to be an atheist.
2. Even if you do sign up to it, there is no incentive to follow it. No reward for following it, and no penalty for not following it. You are not going to be barred from being an atheist because you reject or break the rules of the Humanist Manifesto. It is not enforced in any way.
3. It borrows any desirable ethics, it may have, from Judeo-Christian values, there is no atheist, moral code per se.
Atheism is the ideology of naturalism. Genuine, naturalist, ethical values are basically the Darwinian, ‘law of the jungle’. Progressive evolution and improvement through the survival of the fittest/strongest, and the elimination of any who are weaker or unable to adapt - nature red in tooth and claw, In societal terms - the most powerful, wealthiest, most influential, most cunning, dominate and rule for their own benefit. Anything else in the Humanist Manifesto is actually a contradiction of social Darwinism and naturalism. Any socially desirable or compassionate ethics, which may be included in the H.M, are wholly inconsistent with atheist, materialist, naturalist, and evolutionist ideology.
4. By far the biggest flaw in the Humanist Manifesto is the fact that it is entirely ephemeral. It advocates 'situational ethics' and 'moral relativism'. And that major flaw makes it a worthless scrap of paper.
Why?
Because .....
Situational ethics is based on what people want or find desirable, not on any adherence to what is intrinsically right or wrong.
A good, example of humanist style, situational ethics in practice, is the gender selection abortions now being blatantly carried out in abortion clinics in Britain. It primarily discriminates against female babies, who are especially targeted for killing, because most of the parents who want it, prefer to have boys for cultural reasons.
The abortion clinics openly admit to it happening, and claim it is legal.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pro-choice-aborti...
The abortion act of 1967 certainly did not intend that, and the Government admits it was not intended.
So we have a Government that knows it is going on, it also knows it is not what the abortion law intended, yet it is still reluctant to do anything about it.
Why?
Because it is wedded to the secularist concept of situational ethics, i.e. whatever people want, people get. Any concept of intrinsic right and wrong has to take a back seat, to whatever is the spirit of the times. And that is an example happening right now, in a so-called democracy.
The Nazi persecution of the Jews and other races they considered ‘inferior’ became popular through brainwashing of the public, and was eventually supported by a good proportion of the public.
Hitler cleverly used situational ethics to do what he had persuaded people was right and good.
So, all in all, the Humanist Manifesto and its purported ethical values, is a very dangerous document.
It gives carte blanche to any so-called ethical values, as long they become the fashionable or consensus opinion. Whatever people want, people get, or what a government can claim people want, they are justified in giving to them.
And for that reason it would not stop; a Lenin, a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mao, or a Pol Pot, even if they had signed up 100% to abide by the Humanist Manifesto.
In fact, the 20th century, atheist tyrants even called their regimes ... Democratic People's Republics. They claimed they were representing people's wishes, and thus carried out their 'situational ethics' on behalf of the people.
What about the common, atheist tactic of highlighting alleged crimes and wrongdoing committed by Christians?
The point is ....
Christians who do wrong, go against the teachings of Christianity. It is recognised as ‘sin’. If they blatantly and deliberately go against the intrinsic moral values and teaching of Christianity, they forfeit the right to continue to call themselves Christian. And they can even be excommunicated by the Church, if they fail to admit their actions are wrong.
And, without sincere sorrow and repentance, they don't get to go to the Christian Heaven.
End of story!
Atheists who do wrong, go against nothing, unless it is against the law of the land.
You cannot be chucked out of atheism for doing wrong, you cannot even be censored by atheism for doing wrong, it is a complete free for all, you can simply act with impunity according to your own desires and opinion. Atheists don’t recognise sin, right and wrong is not intrinsic or absolute. Atheism has no, unchanging, moral code. Right and wrong is, ultimately, just a matter of opinion
The atheist 'heaven' is right here on earth, and far from being a 'heaven' it is an horrendous nightmare. Anyone with any sense would call it a hell.
And even the law of the land need not stop atheists .....
Whenever, atheists get into a position of power they change the law to suit their situational ethics. Then they can do whatever they want.
That is what Stalin and all the other atheist tyrants did in their people's DEMOCRATIC republics.
And the atheist thirst for blood does not cease when they live in the so-called 'real' democracies, it is simply sanitised by atheist inspired, situational ethics.
They use their 'humanist' ethics to change the law, accompanied by 'newspeak' and propaganda.
So that what was once considered evil, is not only made legal, it is actually turned around so it is considered a virtue.
The wholesale and brutal slaughter, of the most vulnerable in society ... millions of unborn babies, is callously shrugged off as necessary, for 'free choice'.
Of course murder is always a free choice for the killer, only the dangerous, warped, atheist style, situational ethics could value a killer's free choice to kill, above the victim's right not to be killed, and make murder legal.
The callous slaughter of the unborn, which in most cases, was not even put to the people democratically (it was imposed on them by a handful of secularist politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats), is accompanied by the usual atheist lies and devious propaganda.
Doctors acting illegally over abortions get off scot-free ....
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609950/Scandal-doctors-...
So the secularists simply laugh off democracy, it doesn't stop them, if it gets in the way of their ideology, they just ignore it, like they do with science.
"Democratic societies" how do they impact on situational ethics?
We see, in practice, that democracy is treated with utter contempt .....
Why ask the people? They are apparently not qualified to consider such difficult matters of right and wrong, like whether babies should live or die? You can't give those ignorant peasants, plebs and rednecks a vote on it, ... leave it to the secularist EXPERTS and their wonderful, situational ethics based on 'reason' and 'science'.
We are told by atheist moralists that the unborn baby is not fully human, it is only a blob of jelly, which has, and deserves, NO rights. As usual, they deliberately ignore, or twist, the scientific facts.
And we are also told, anyone who supports the rights of the unborn babies not to be brutally ripped limb from limb is evil and a ‘far right’ fanatic, because they are interfering with free CHOICE.
So the atheist leopard certainly hasn't changed its deceitful, devious, brutal and murderous spots, even in so-called 'real' democratic societies. It simply legalises and sanitises evil and murder and makes it appear good.
Then it can claim atheism is extremely ethical and virtuous, with its own, beautiful, humanist code of morals and conduct .... Yeah Right!
Remind you of anyone?
Always remember ....
Atheist/humanist so-called ethics and morals depend entirely on OPINION, and that is why they are so extremely dangerous.
Atheism has no moral or ethical yardstick, no concept of God-given, human rights ... only OPINION.
But WHOSE opinion?
My opinion?
Your opinion?
Or maybe Richard Dawkins opinion?
Or Sam Harris's opinion?
Or how about Barrack Obama's opinion?
Or why not STALIN'S or POL POT'S opinion?
So don't be fooled by the relentless chorus from the 'new' atheists and humanists, that atheism has its own code of ethics and morals, their code of ethics is based on the OPINION of one or more of the following ... whoever is: the most vociferous, the most charismatic, the most cunning, the most influential, the most powerful, the wealthiest, the most successful propagandist, the most persuasive, the most repressive, or the most brutal.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/14797003191
_________________________________.
Unjust laws/evil laws (such as legalised abortion) are effectively null and void. They should not be accepted by any right-thinking person. In any just society, the legalisation of abortion has to be regarded as a crime against humanity, and those guilty will surely be held to account by a more enlightened society.
“civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience. Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person”. —St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.w
Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.
www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...
EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...
Go listen to my latest Progressive & Melodic Vibing DJ-Set
Do it now!
www.mixcloud.com/DIRTYANGEL/dirtyangel-elle-club-progress...
Never seen this on a train loco before, some kind of plastic tank, maybe DEF? Don't know if train engines use that or not..In Bloomington, Minnesota.
Happy Fourth of July!
The brilliant, wise, creative folks at Progressive Rail chose this classic image from my 2009 visit to the Iowa Traction Railroad in Mason City, IA as the July feature image in their 2016 corporate calendar.
A Happy Fourth to everyone at IATR, Progressive Rail and to all my Flickr friends
SW1500 #74 at Randolph, MN on Oct. 11, 2024 on ex-CGW trackage was originally Kentucky & Indiana Terminal #74. (misc60911m)