Illusions and Reality

The Meddling Begins

Carrie - PI — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:11:00 GMT

Now that we have nationalized health care, the meddling begins:

From today's Rush Limbaugh show:

Quote:

U.S. regulators are planning a push to gradually cut the amount of salt Americans consume, saying less sodium would reduce deaths from hypertension and heart disease, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The effort would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods, the newspaper reported. The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not set salt limits.

The government plans to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to ratchet down sodium consumption, the newspaper said, citing U.S. Food and Drug Administration sources.

U.S. researchers said in a recent study that working with the food industry to cut salt intake by nearly 10 percent could prevent hundreds of thousands of heart attacks and strokes over several decades and save the U.S. government $32 billion in healthcare costs.

We can't let this happen. Following is the letter I sent to the FDA. They say they're not actually regulating salt ... yet. But I don't want it to happen at all.

Carrie

============================================================

My name is Carrie, and I'm a concerned citizen from Michigan. I am writing to ask your agency not to issue any federal mandates on the amount of salt in processed foods or restaurant meals. I believe such regulation is both unnecessary and would be a major burden to food producers. I think about the implications of this and my head starts to swim.

Salt is not dangerous in any way. It is a mineral that is required by our bodies. If we get too much of it, our body systems eliminate it as waste. Plus, it tastes good to a lot of people, so what's wrong with that? I happen to like bacon, pepperoni, ham, breakfast sausage, processed cheese, canned spaghetti sauce, tomato paste, potato chips, salty nuts, boxed macaroni and cheese, taco seasoning, barbecue sauce, and popcorn. I love garlic salt on toast and I use popcorn salt on popcorn as well as sea salt with my meals. Regular iodized table salt is good, too.

What follows is a true story. I have added extra salt to most of my foods since I was a child. My mother and father were always taking the salt shaker away from me. Then, when I was a patient at Mayo Clinic, it was discovered that my body does not assimilate salt as readily as normal people. My doctor said, "Just eat as much as you want. Your body will tell you when you've had enough and eliminate the excess." He also told me that salt in no way causes high blood pressure. It only aggravates the condition in those who already have it. I eat much more salt than the U.S. RDA, but I have no trace of either hypertension or heart disease.

Requiring lower levels of sodium in most foods would be harmful to my health, even if you don't prohibit salt shakers on the table. Besides which, you can't just add table salt to a meal and get the flavor you want. Any chef knows that. I tried adding salt to a pepperoni pizza one time, and it was plain awful. I could barely eat the thing. Now I just get a double helping of pepperoni when I can. Different ingredients create different flavors, and may add sodium on top of it. But that's part of the art -- may I say, process -- of creating a food item. People who create recipes know what tastes good, and if other people like their product, they buy it. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

What gives your agency the right to tell me how much salt in any food product is too much? What gives your agency the right to dictate to every food producer and restaurant in the country how much sodium they can serve their patrons? I would argue you do not have that right. You are neither my mother nor my doctor. It's totally OK to have regulations about what the sodium content must be to be advertised as "low salt" or "sodium free." Those already exist. Have all the classifications you want!

Here's the thing: if I want to eat a Personal Pan Pepperoni Lovers pizza from Pizza Hut, which contains 1,760 mg of sodium, I should retain my liberty to do that. I don't want the FDA telling Pizza Hut how much sodium their food may contain. Two years ago Frito Lay brought out low salt versions of its snack foods like Ruffles Potato Chips. I don't want the FDA to tell them they have to further reduce the salt content of their regular chips, though. You have no right to do that. Urge (but don't require) food producers to offer low salt options, sure. Educate consumers about low salt diets, sure. But stay out of our way at the restaurant and the factory! Let them make the products they want to make. They're hurting no one.

I recognize that I may make zero impact with this e-mail against the gallons of ink that are being spilled by well-meaning advocates on the other side. Nevertheless, I had to offer my point of view. I reiterate: Many people in the world may need less salt. There will always be options for them. Some of us need a larger amount of salt. People like me deserve options, too. Restaurants and food producers never advertise "extra salt," you know. But they do advertise much "low sodium" stuff. Let the people who need less salt buy the low sodium stuff, and leave me alone with the regular stuff, okay?

Full disclosure, yes. Inflexible restrictions, no way! Let consumer freedom rule the day!

The Choice That Defines Your LIfe

Carrie - PI — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:12:00 GMT

Yesterday, at the T.E.A. Party in Midland, I carried my "CHOICE" sign from the Center for Bio-ethical Reform, dramatically displaying the horror that is legalized abortion. I received several positive comments about the sign (and negative comments about the practice of abortion, and I'm convinced that this is one choice that haunts the women who make the wrong one all their lives.

Then today I read an article about Sarah, who is my age. She had an abortion about 20 years ago, after being involved in sex outside of marriage. Her boyfriend still did not stay with her, and now that he is married with children and Sarah remains single, she feels victimized and wonders if she made the right choice.

"[T]he child we conceived together will always bind us," she said. Notice that it is not a clump of cells to her, or even a problem to be dealt with. It's a child, and at a heart level she knows it.

"I wondered what would have happened if we'd had our child together - would we have married and spent the last 20 years together? Our child would now be turning 19 - the same age we were when I had the abortion. He or she could have been at university themselves. Would we have had a second child?"

My heart breaks for Sarah. She went for sex when commitment was most important. God designed the commitment of marriage to come before physical intimacy, and the children that come from that commitment are the greatest blessing. Nevertheless, even if she had given her child up for adoption, I bet she would not be so sad today.

Are you pregnant out of wedlock? Please don't kill your child. Choose life, and choose adoption. It's the best choice for both your lives.

The freedoms we're losing.

Carrie - PI — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:14:00 GMT

The illusion: We have total religious freedom in America.

The reality: Christianity is censored in so-called public schools, and the Supreme Court has said that's OK.

In October 2004 a mother was invited by her son to an "All About Me" event, and attempted to read aloud from his favorite book, the Bible.

According to the Rutherford Institute, the principal "informed Mrs. Busch that she could not read from the Bible in the classroom because it was against the law and that the reading would violate the 'separation of church and state.'"

And now, according to this story from World Net Daily, the Supreme Court has refused to hear this mother's appeal. If you ever needed proof that you should homeschool your children, look no further.

While this Christian mother was not allowed to read from the Bible, another parent was allowed to read a book about Judaism and teach the class a dreidel game. Why won't the Supreme Court support and defend the Constitution of the United States in this case?

The world may never know.

Eventually the nanny state will go too far.

Carrie - PI — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:04:00 GMT

Hearing about this story on today's Rush Limbaugh Show really got my dander up.

Citing Hazard, New York Says Hold the Salt

I am so glad I don't live in New York, otherwise the mayor would be getting a polite but forceful phone call from me.

Here's a salient quote from the story:

"The plan, for which the city claims support from health agencies inother cities and states, sets a goal of reducing the amount of salt inpackaged and restaurant food by 25 percent over the next five years.

"Public health experts say that would reduce the incidence of high blood pressureand should help prevent some of the strokes and heart attacksassociated with that condition. The plan is voluntary for foodcompanies and involves no legislation. It allows companies to cut saltgradually over five years so the change is not so noticeable toconsumers."

Yeah, some voluntary program that "allows" companies to cut salt gradually over five years.

Dr. Thomas Farley, the city health commissioner, doesn't know what he's talking about when he says reducing salt from those sources would save lives. For those of you who don't know this story, I was advised by physicians at Mayo Clinic to add as much salt as I wanted to my food because I wasn't getting enough out of it in the first place. And my blood pressure is perfectly normal, thank you.

The Mayo specialist put it to me this way, "Salt doesn't cause high blood pressure. It just aggravates hypertension if you already have it." I am living proof that is true, and it really irritates me when nanny state politicians want to micromanage every little thing in our lives.

On Fox News Channel tonight, I even heard Suzanne Somers say that ordinary table salt is dangerous for you. Baloney! She actually said that salt producers take all the nutrients out of salt when they process it. That's only true in the sense that table salt eliminates the trace elements that cause minor variations in color and flavor. It is certainly not true that the human body cannot process regular table salt. Again, I'm living proof!

Here are the facts on salt direct from Mayo Clinic's web site.

Is sea salt better for your health than table salt?

OK, rant over for now. I'm going to go make some popcorn and put a couple teaspoons of fine popcorn salt on it, and then I'm going to eat it! Good night.

Just wanted to note this for easy reference.

Carrie - PI — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:51:00 GMT

Just wanted to link to this article for easy reference:

Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics

A salient quote from the piece:

"The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested repeatedly, and it has failed repeatedly. The economic models that assert that every $1 of deficit spending grows the economy by $1.50 cannot explain why $1.4 trillion in deficit spending did not create a $2.1 trillion explosion of new economic activity."

Illusion: President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress know how to fix the economy.

Reality: They don't. Let's stop sending them to Washington to do the exact opposite of what needs to be done, huh?

How liberty dies with thunderous applause.

Carrie - PI — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:53:00 GMT

Glenn Beck explained on the air today how Barack Obama and liberals like him are setting out to fundamentally change the United States of America:

Build a structure. - For example, Democrats are meeting behind closed doors to remake one seventh of our economy, the health care system.
Make it complex. - The health care bill is splashing around the 2,000 page mark. How many legislators are actually going to read the whole thing before voting on it?
Avoid debate. - Democrats are scrambling to find 60 votes for the bill so Republicans who have legitimate concerns about what they're about to do won't be able to have any debate on what's in it. So much for "bipartisanship."
Move quickly. - That's all we hear from Obama and the Congressional leadership, "This can't wait any longer." Undue haste cannot make for good legislation.

In order to do that, they have four strategies:

Indoctrinate. - Continually tell people that health care is a right, and that health insurance companies are the enemy.
Bribe. - Senator Ben Nelson, are you listening? Political favors are being granted to more than just him, though. Scary.
Silence or shout down the opposition. - Al Franken, are you listening? Speaking as a citizen, I object to your objection.
Destroy. - Liberals don't really care about the Constitution, the democratic process, or honesty. Their policies will destroy this country, so why are so many people in favor of it?

Search me.

Star Parker puts it beautifully in her column: "

America's unique success comes from freedom and limited government. Government's responsibilities are laid out clearly in our Constitution, which we choose to ignore.

"National security is a job of government. Designing health-insurance policies and forcing private citizens to buy them, running car companies, bailing out banks and subsidiziing homeowners who can't pay their mortgages, is not."

And so it begins!

Carrie - PI — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:34:00 GMT

Hooray for me!

I locked in my first show of the year today. I'll be doing my first baby shower in Swartz Creek, MI.

What kind of magic do you do for a baby shower? I'm going to have to do a little thinking on this one, try to come up with a couple of tricks having to do with babies. Maybe some sort of prediction.

If you're interested in adding a little magic to your next special event, consider inviting me to share some impossible things! Visit my web site and learn more about me.

"A Christmas Carol" all year through.

Carrie - PI — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:54:00 GMT

"Well, now, let's see. I know how to treat the poor. My taxes go to pay for the prisons and the poorhouses; the homeless must go there." - Ebenezer Scrooge, The Muppet Christmas Carol.

A recent year-end Barna report revealed that only 4% of self-identified Christians believe that poverty is an issue that is primarily the responsibility of the Church. Yet, an overwhelming majority of self-identified Christians (81%)contend that spiritual maturity is achieved by following the rules inthe Bible.

Here are some:

MATTHEW 25

³⁴ Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, ^binherit the kingdom ^cprepared for you from the foundation of the world: ³⁵ ^dfor I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; ^eI was a stranger and you took Me in; ³⁶ I was ^fnaked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; ^gI was in prison and you came to Me.’

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? ³⁸ When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? ³⁹ Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ ⁴⁰ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, ^hinasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982

Caring for the poor is not primarily the responsibility of government, but of God's people. We are not commanded to lobby the government to increase everyone's taxes to provide for the poor. We are commanded to sacrifice out of what God has blessed us with to take care of those who are less fortunate.

Effective Care for the Needy

Followers of Christ have the potential to be among the world’s most effective agents for social service. They have the example of Christ to follow. They have the motivation of doing compassionate work in His name. They have the structure, community life, and pooled resources of their congregations. And they have the model of the early church, which provided standards for the systematic, ongoing care of widows (1 Tim. 5:3–22).

We can learn a great deal about delivering services to the needy by carefully observing the principles that Paul set forth for Timothy and the believers at Ephesus. For example:

1. The care described here was regular and ongoing for people who were “taken into the number” (1 Tim. 5:9), that is, put on a list of continuing recipients of the church’s support. Presumably, the church was to give short-term support to people who needed help until they could get back on their feet, but not to able-bodied people who refused to work to support themselves (compare 2 Thess. 3:10).

2. The care was for “widows who are really widows” (1 Tim. 5:3). The Old Testament described a widow as a woman who had no one to support her and therefore depended on the protection of the community (Ex. 22:22–24; Deut. 14:28–29; 24:17–22; 26:12–13). If a widow had able-bodied children or grandchildren, she needed to depend on them for provision, not the church (1 Tim. 5:4).

3. A widow who was “taken into the number” incurred certain responsibilities in order to maintain her eligibility for the church’s charity. For example, she needed to be frugal lest someone reproach her for living an extravagant lifestyle and the fellowship for supporting it (1 Tim. 5:6–7). Likewise, she needed to meet certain criteria related to her earlier life and character (1 Tim. 5:9–10). The point was not to keep a widow out of the program, but to ensure that she served her fellow believers in every way she could if she was going to receive support.

4. Younger widows were expected to remarry and, as was common for that day, bear children (who presumably would care for their parents in old age). Again, the church needed to avoid offering long-term support to someone who had other options. To do so might contribute to wantonness, idleness, and gossip (1 Tim. 5:11–14).

These instructions to Timothy mirror principles about systematic aid found elsewhere in Scripture. For example, Paul told the Corinthians that financial support should go only to the truly poor. Likewise, the aim of providing care is to give people enough food, clothing, and other aid for survival and health. It is not intended to give anyone a free ride, even less to underwrite an inflated standard of living (2 Cor. 8:13–15; 1 Tim. 6:6–10).

First Timothy 5 specifically addresses the care of widows, but its principles apply to a much broader range of human need. By using this and other biblical texts to develop social programs, believers can effectively render care in a way that honors the name of Christ and provides real help to needy people.

Thomas Nelson Publishers: What Does the Bible Say About-- : The Ultimate A to Z Resource Fully Illustrated. Nashville, Tenn. : Thomas Nelson, 2001 (Nelson's A to Z Series), S. 419

Don't be a modern-day Scrooge and say, "My taxes go to support the unemployment system, the welfare system, food stamps, SCHIP, and everything else, so those who need help can go to Obama for it." Quite the contrary, Christians ought to be the primary resource for those who need benevolent assistance.

Ignorance of history is the most tragic thing.

Carrie - PI — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:43:00 GMT

Most Americans think that knowledge of the history and principles of the American Revolution is important.

So far, so good.

Most Americans think they know a lot about the history and principles of the American Revolution.

That's the illusion.

Only three percent of adults gave themselves a failing grade on the subject before they took an actual quiz on it given by the American Revolution Center.

Nearly 83 percent of them actually failed the the test. They answered only an average of 44 percent correct out of 27 questions.

That's beyond sad. That's pathetic.

I took an abbreviated 10-question quiz, and I scored 90%. One of my right answers was a guess, but only one. Check out the PDF of the quiz by clicking the link above and see how much you thought you knew about history.

Hope the phrase "don't know much" doesn't apply to you.

Welcome back, Muppets!

Carrie - PI — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:38:00 GMT

Puppetry is a form of magic, encouraging people to suspend their disbelief that a sock can have personality.

What a delight it was to see the Muppets guest starring on Extreme Makeover Home Edition last night. In case you missed it, see if it's still here.

As a big Muppet fan, I thoroughly enjoyed this episode, and I think the Muppets took the perfect tone. It's awesome to hear Dave Goelz still performing Gonzo, and the other character performers are really starting to get their classic characters correct. My only quibble is with Bunsen Honeydew, who sounds -- I don't know -- less pedantic and pseudo-scientific than he used to when Jerry Nelson was performing him.

Hey Bunsen, stop calling Beaker "Beakie." He may be unprofessional, but he's still your assistant.

Thanks to Disney and ABC for putting this together, and thanks to the Muppets for continuing the hilarity. You cannot leave the magic!

A new year with new possibilities.

Carrie - PI — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:09:00 GMT

After a long absence, I'm attempting to restart this blog. The goal is to write something new at least five days a week, whether anyone actually reads it or not.

Having performed three shows for senior citizens in my area during December, I have earned enough money to upgrade my sound system to a wireless controller. For a year or more now, I have been employing the Happie Amp and it has been a wonderful addition to my show equipment. I had been putting my music through a Sansa Fuze MP3 player, but after my Christmas shows I found a used iPod on eBay which I have now combined with Jim Kleefeld's Sound Control device.

This new setup is going to take my show to an entirely new level! The entertainment will be seamless, and the astonishment will be constant. If you're planning a special event -- a birthday party, a company dinner, or such like -- consider adding a touch of magic, and call 989-450-8609 to schedule your special program from Proximity Illusions!

The Seven Faith Tribes - Bob Dutko Clip of the Day

Carrie - PI — Wed, 20 May 2009 23:45:00 GMT

On the Bob Dutko show this afternoon, Bob interviewed Christian researcher George Barna on the trends of religious faith in America.

As it turns out, most people who identify themselves as Christian are really not "Captive Christians," absolutely focused on looking at life and interpreting it through their faith. They understand what their . Most of them are "Casual Christians," whose faith is not the driving force in their life. Barna says, "It's one of a number of influences on what they think and what they do."

This is one of the main reasons our country is almost lost. Francis Schaeffer pinpointed this way back in 1982, when he said that much of the evangelical leadership has not raised a voice against the legalization of abortion and many other things. We're no better today, and in fact we're much worse.

Listen here

This is important. If you claim to be a Christian, are you really following the Lord Jesus and wishing to live your life by His standards? Or are you just keeping Jesus on the shelf and pulling Him down when it suits you? If you take Him with you throughout the day you you put Him in the trunk of the car? Is He in the back seat? Is He in the driving seat? Are you a backseat driver?

More to come ...

Has Islam shaped this nation?

Carrie - PI — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 03:08:00 GMT

When I heard the comments that President Obama made on Monday to the Turkish parliament, I couldn't stop one thought from coming to mind.

The President said, "We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world -- including in my own country."

Yeah, like the skyline of New York.

We will not be assimilated!

Carrie - PI — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:48:00 GMT

There was an excellent monologue given by the radio host I listen to yesterday. I think every Christian ought to hear it, so I am posting it here for ourselves and our posterity. This is Bob Dutko, broadcasting from WMUZ radio in Detroit, MI on March 26, 2009.

Dutko-Remnant

How can a man so smart be so wrong?

Carrie - PI — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:08:00 GMT

I've never been to Yale Law School. I don't even think I could ever have been accepted into such a school if I had tried. But former President Clinton has. Can someone so smart emerge from such a great education being so woefully uninformed about the facts of life?

In a CNN interview, Clinton defended President Obama's decision to lift federal funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, speculating on its continued "divisiveness."

"If it's obvious that we're not taking embryos that can – that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies ... then I think the American people will support this."

As if that wasn't enough, he went on:

"I don't know that I have any reservations, but I was – he has apparently decided to leave to the relevant professional committees the definition of which frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they're not going to be fertilized. I think the American people believe it's a pro-life decision to use an embryo that's frozen that's never going to be fertilized for embryonic stem cell research. …"

Would someone please tell Mr. Clinton -- and Mr. Obama, too -- that a human embryo is already fertilized! The facts of science are that a human embryo is a human being at the earliest stage of development. The creation of embryonic stem cell lines necessitate the destruction of human life, and that's why it's wrong.

In the interview, Clinton suggested he would oppose stem cell experimentation if there were any chance that an embryo – a fertilized egg with DNA of two parents – could become a human being. How can he be so woefully mistaken? It already IS a human being! How can he not know that?

If Clinton and Obama are not ignorant of the facts on this issue, then I could only conclude that they are liars on the worst order. Truth is, they'd rather allow the destruction of human life for the sake of liberals' pet theories than take a moral stand on any issue that could recognize infinite objective value of real unborn human life.

On this same issue, the following article is also of interest: Pulling Heartstrings and Straining Credibility: The Media Promote Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

Science Fiction on the News Page.

Carrie - PI — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:31:00 GMT

In the movie Contact, Ellie Arroway posits the following: “If just one in a million of those stars has planets, and if only one in a million of those has life, and if just one in a million of those has intelligent life, then there would be millions of civilizations out there.”

So now Alan Boss, astronomer with the Carnegie Institution, believes there may be 100 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, or one for every sun-type star in the galaxy. He's written a new book: "The Crowded Universe: The Search for Living Planets."

Other scientists at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland constructed a computer model to create a synthetic galaxy with billions of stars and planets. They then studied how life evolved under various conditions in this virtual world, using a supercomputer to crunch the results. They published a paper in the International Journal of Astrobiology, concluding that based on what they saw, at least 361 intelligent civilizations have emerged in the Milky Way since its creation, and as many as 38,000 may have formed.

So let me get this straight. These men created a god (small "G") -- the computer -- which subcreated its own new world, using parameters that were essentially man-made, and then ran it through some virtual warp-time in order to analyze the outcome. Computers only know the information that human beings feed into them, and what comes out of an experiment like this is no better than science fiction like Contact or Star Trek.

It's just more of an effort to explain life without the God who is real. I think the surest sign that there is no life on other planets is that none of it has tried to contact us.

On Left Coast - Religious Music Is Poison.

Carrie - PI — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:50:00 GMT

In the latest example of the irrational fear of religion from California, a school counselor has been suspended after taking four teenaged girls on an outing where they happened to hear a Christian music group performing. Read the story here.

What's so poisonous about religious music that school children must be protected from it? I don't have much to say about it other than reminding everyone that we need to stay vigilant about our liberties. What was this counselor supposed to do? Call the beach and make sure there were not going to be any religious people of any kind hanging around ministering to people in public?

Oohh! Christian contamination! Can't have that.

What a great big stupid world we live in.

Science Falsely So-Called

Carrie - PI — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:52:00 GMT

In a recent e-mail advertisement I received, a business advertised the following piece of quack medicine:

[Name withheld] is celebrating Valentine's Day by giving ... a 25% off discount from a VoiceBio Analysis, now through February 20. It involves speaking into a microphone - fully clothed - and having your own voice tell you within minutes not only what's ailing you but what could afflict you later if you don't take the right health precautions?

Are you confused as to why your medical tests come back normal but you KNOW that something is wrong? A Voice Bio Analysis shows you what physical and emotional imbalances are occurring and it won't cost you hundreds or thousands of dollars. It takes 30 minutes and $59 dollars (now $45) to shed light on your situation and suggest ways to improve your health. Let your voice tell you what your body already knows.

Why are people taken in by this stuff? Reflexology, iridology, quantum touch, and now here's another thing to waste your money on. I've got half a mind to schedule an appointment and then, after they tell me everything that is supposedly wrong with me, stand up and say, "You are just 100% wrong!"

But I'm not going to.

These kinds of people never speak in terms of absolute physical health. They're using the same Eastern mystic ideas about "energy," "vibrations," and "balance," none of which are quantifiable in any scientific test.

Don't fall for this stuff. Let real doctors take care of you rather than running to people who will take advantage of your fears and take your money in exchange for nonsense.

A Tale of Two Birthdays

Carrie - PI — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:15:00 GMT

Fascinating that on this day there are folks celebrating the birthdays of two men who were born on the same day, but grew up to have vastly different effects on the world.

Abraham Lincoln grew up to be The Great Emancipator, the man who saved our nation.
Charles Darwin grew up to be the man who drew millions of people away from God by teaching them that all the life on earth created itself over millions of supposed years of time.

The grand theory of evolution is founded on three illusions:

Illusion #1: Variations in living things mean they are all related to each other. This is an unjustifiable leap from what we observe to what we cannot. Because there are dozens of different varieties of dogs in the world does not mean that dogs and bananas are related.

Illusion #2: Billions of dead things buried in rock layers can be placed into an order showing their descent. This is a process called ranking, based on the faulty biased dating methods chosen by virtue of "index fossils" which supposedly signify the geological epochs.

Illusion #3: The evidence of our own eyes. Life is like a complex machine, with structures that argue for a Designer. Complex structures do not arise spontaneously on their own, no matter how much time you give them. Complex machines and structures require design and engineering, which require intelligence. If intelligence had to design and build Mt. Rushmore, is it really logical to believe that Abraham Lincoln was "the result of mindless processes that did not have him in mind?"

I don't think so.

A Shout Out With Gratitude

Carrie - PI — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:39:00 GMT

I just had to give a huge public Thank You to the Christian Family for inviting me to share my magic at their daughter's birthday party yesterday.

The kids were attentive and wonderful, and it looked to me like everyone had a fantastic time!

Remember, you can schedule your own birthday celebration with a touch of magic by visiting Proximity Illusions.