Say What?

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday ruled out any American financial aid to a Hamas government in the Palestinian territories and said Washington wants Arab nations and others to cut off money as well.

"The United States is not prepared to fund an organization that advocates the destruction of Israel, that advocates violence and that refuses its obligations," under an international framework for eventual Mideast peace, Rice said.

Unless that government or organization is the Palestinian Authority. In terms of terrorist acts and a desire for Israel's annihilation, what is the difference between Hamas and the PLO? I'd love to hear her rationale, and I expect she'll elucidate around the same time that Madonna enters a nunnery.

Peace in Our Time

Great news, everyone! Hamas has just divulged its new peace initiative for Israel! Whew, I'm glad the "cycle of violence" finally is at an end. Their plans seem reasonable and not at all unfair. Here's the blueprint:

1. Lynch Ariel Sharon's comatose body from the Wailing Wall.

2. Excise the Zionist Entity from all maps and atlases, replacing it with the designation "Palestine" from the Mediterranean to the east of the Jordan River.

3. Continue excoriating the Jews for using Gentile blood in matzos.

4. Continue denying the Holocaust ever took place.

5. Continue homicide bombings of military installations such as discotheques, pizza parlors, public transit buses, movie theaters and private weddings.

6. Utilize Gaza as a terrorist training camp and a launching ground for further assaults on the Zionist Entity.

7. Meet the ultimate goal of driving every Jewish man, woman, and child into the sea. Or kill them all. Preferably the latter.

8. Burn every synagogue in the region, replacing each with "Religion of Peace" mosques.

9. Nominate Osama bin Laden as the new prime minister of Palestine.

10. Change the official name of Jerusalem to Al-Quds.


If only these ten criteria are met, surely we shall see peace in the Middle East, at long last.

Wells Fargone

Saturday night, Fox News aired a story about Wells Fargo knowingly giving home loans to illegal aliens. A paid propagandist for the company appeared on the show. I doubt it was a coincidence that he looked like one of Mexican heritage.

After a long-winded diatribe filled with flowery phrases masking the fact that he had nothing coherent to say, he summed up by announcing that "their money is as green as anyone else's." His opponent--whose name eludes me--said "one could say the same of drug money, yet it's illegal to profit from it." The Wells Fargo mouthpiece then decried his comparison of "undocumented workers" and drug dealers. But it wasn't a comparison of the moral actions of the people involved. It was a response to the ludicrous notion that "their money is as green as anyone else's." His point was that this is irrelevant, since that doesn't address the moral or legal ramifications of accepting illegal alien money.

This is part of the problem with immigration in our country. Those on the pro-illegal immigrant side refuse a factual debate and opt for a verbal song-and-dance routine. Watch the news and read stories on this subject. It happens every time, without exception.

Worse, we have a government which will not enforce laws already on the books. Would Wells Fargo be so giving to illegals if its corporate board feared the real likelihood of penalties for its largesse? I think not. The company openly admits its involvement in this unethical venture precisely because it knows the threat of consequences is less realistic than the likelihood of Bill Clinton wearing a chastity belt. The threat of deportation is minute. The threat of businesses being prosecuted for profiting from and influencing the influx of illegal immigrants is equally small. Wells Fargo gets this, and acts accordingly.

It seems the bigger the business, the worse the corruption, in general. We live in a time when many corporations put such stock in the almighty dollar that they've forgotten patriotism, law, or the future awaiting their children's children.

Chuck Norris is the Reason Why Alexander Wept

From the "What Would Chuck Norris Do" website:

Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.

President Bush DID have a sure fire plan to end the war in Iraq, However Chuck Norris was busy that day.

When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris has already been to Mars; that's why there are no signs of life there.

Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.

When Chuck Norris sends in his taxes, he sends blank forms and includes only a picture of himself, crouched and ready to attack. Chuck Norris has not had to pay taxes ever.

Chuck Norris can touch MC Hammer.

Someone once tried to tell Chuck Norris that roundhouse kicks aren't the best way to kick someone. This has been recorded by historians as the worst mistake anyone has ever made.

Superman owns a pair of Chuck Norris pajamas.

George Washington: Diest or Christian?

George Washington served as a chaplain for the Defense Force of the Commonwealth of Virginia, in which he was a colonel. He took this task upon himself because he had no luck finding anyone else for the job. His diary attests to his regular church attendance. He prayed often, though usually alone and away from the prying eyes of others. He served as a church elder. He was raised in a devout Episcopalian home.

I'll let him speak for himself.

Excerpts from his diary:

O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt. . .

I humbly beseech thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of thy dear Son, my only Saviour, Jesus Christ, who came not to call the righteous, but sinners unto repentance. Thou gavest thy Son to die for me.

The idea that he was a deist or irreligious is simply a fabrication of the revisionist, secular elements in our culture. It is made-up out of whole cloth.

Wedded Bliss

Michael Schiavo and Jodi Centonze were married Saturday in a private church ceremony, said John Centonze, the brother of the bride.

Sweetheart, all I can says is you better watch your back. You've picked a real winner.

Booze Is the Mind-Killer

Someone posted this in the comments over at Voxy's. For some reason, it made me laugh:

It is by wine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of grapes that thoughts acquire speed, the shirts acquire stain, the stains become a warning. It is by wine alone I set my mind in motion. --Ted Kennedy 01.17.06 - 3:07 pm

Muhammed on the Thames

The BBC (Bolshevik Broadcast Corporation) came up with a list of 100 things we didn't know about last year, and don't care about this year--or any other year. But I did find one of them interesting:

2. Mohammed is now one of the 20 most popular names for boys born in England and Wales.

Isn't that nifty? I wonder how long the Brits have left, before the Sultan of England is enthroned and makes them pray toward Mecca, while his vizier smites the stiff upper lips with his trusty scimitar of those who remain in their infidelities?

I suppose we'll find out.

Fans in the East

Who knew I had fans all the way over there in that Muslim paradise of Malaysia?

After lauding myself and others with a few choice four-letter words, Kei made some interesting comments about religion:

Being a christian and believing in god is one thing. Being a christian, thinking it's the best religion, thinking it's the only RIGHT religion, looking down on other's who aren't christians is another thing. The f***ing purpose of a religion is to f***ing have something to believe in so it'd guide you and blablabla. It is not to look down on people that believe in other stuff.

Perhaps you can answer this question, my dear Kei, if you don't mind: If all religions are the same, and of equal value, then why choose one over the others? Additionally, keeping within the assertion that they're all the same, how do you explain huge contradictions within their teaching traditions? For example, the Holy Bible teaches that Jesus was the Messiah, God in the flesh. Muslims do not believe this. Are both Christians and Muslims correct?

And with this other christian extremist, i was talking to her about her boyfriend. And she suddenly said "Jeremy isn't a christian". I replied "Oh, and?".. She replied with a "I'm trying to make him a christian."... Their relationship ended after she kept pestering him to convert into a christian from a buddhist.

More food for thought: The definition of a Christian is one who has accepted Jesus Christ as his/her personal savior, who believes that He was and is God, and is the only Way and the Truth and the Life. Without Him, we all are bound for Hell. If you believe this is true, and someone whom you love rejects this truth, wouldn't this cause you anguish? Wouldn't you want to share this truth, and see them embrace it? If not, why not?

And i know that hell a lot of people look down on me because I'm a christian and yet i do not go to church, do not read the bible, i swear and sh** like that. Yeah whatever, even though i swear and don't read the bible, i f***ing know where i stand okay. I believe in my ownself. I'm not insecure enough to pray to god to make my friend's become christians. And a whole lot of other things...

To all those christian extremists out there.. GO F*** YOURSELF WITH A CARROT.

Kei, what you've written, here, pains me. Not the insults, but the apparent fact that you have no understanding of Christianity. All of us sin, so I'm certainly not judging you; but you don't seem troubled by your own admitted sins. If you don't read the Bible, how can you possibly understand Jesus or His plans for you? And you "believe in your own self"? That's a bizarre statement coming from a self-proclaimed Christian. Believing in yourself isn't going to get you very far, since you're a fallible human being, just like everyone else (myself included). Nor will it get you into Heaven. We should rely on our Father and His Son, Jesus. Hope lies with Them. As for prayer, Jesus taught that we should pray. This has nothing to do with insecurity; it's called showing your faith in Him. I humbly suggest you go back and read the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) with an open heart and mind, praying to God as you do to help you understand His truth.

Secularists: "We Were Not Intelligently Designed."

The U.S. Supreme Court outlaws "creation science" coursework and Jones does the same with ID. He says creationism stems from "Christian fundamentalism" and ID is "a mere relabeling of creationism" and a "religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory" that's forbidden because it contains "beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity."

Most ID proponents aren't fundamentalists and a few are non-Christians or nonreligious. Inside and outside the courtroom, defenders distinguish ID from creationism, saying it doesn't necessarily identify the "intelligence" with God or teach creationists' Bible-based particulars.

University of Wisconsin science historian Ronald L. Numbers, a critic of ID and author of "The Creationists," thinks it's inaccurate to lump ID and creationism together, commenting that this is "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design."

How typical of secular leftists. They may be a lot of things, but unpredictable isn't one of them. I'm not an advocate of Intelligent Design, but I do see it as a baby-step in the right direction. Of course, for the monkey-boy zealots, any thought process that does not erect an altar, burn a little incense, and sacrifice its children to the Darwinian paradigm is heretical in the extreme. Thus the assault on ID. And what better method of thoroughly discrediting it, than by associating its proponents with the lunatic, froth-mouthed, step-on-a-crack-and-break-your-mother's-back superstitionists--the young-earth creationists? Forget an actual debate or a coherent rebuttal. Forget debunking ID on its lack of scientific merit. Just write it off as kookery, and get back to performing ablutions before Darwin.

Do you see the dishonesty and fear wafting off these folks like the noxious emanations of a Woodstock attendee? I think on some level, deep down in their simian souls, they know their position is scientifically and philosophically bankrupt. Otherwise, why the stiflement of all divergent views? Why the dissembling? Why cut the competition off at the knees?

And of course, accepted as a given by Judge Jerkweed and others is the notion that if one is a Christian (perish the thought) one cannot possibly hold to scientific views--particularly if those views entail accepting scripture at face-value, instead of laughing it off as the delusions of camel-buggering nomads who spent a little too much time under the desert sun.

Saddumb and His Terrorist Buddies

Yet another lie goes into a tailspin:

Documents from Saddam Hussein's regime that are slowly being translated show Iraq trained thousands of Islamic terrorists at camps inside the country before the war.

The evidence – affirmed in interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders – contradicts the claims of anti-war critics who charge Iraq became a magnet for Islamic terrorists only after the U.S. invasion.

Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard reports that from 1999 through 2002, "elite Iraqi military units" trained about 8,000 terrorists at three different camps, including Salman Pak, where American forces found an airliner fuselage that possibly was used to practice hijackings.

Hayes, who claims more than a dozen corroborating sources, says many of the trainees were from North African-based terrorist groups with ties to al-Qaida.

The U.S. has collected more than 2 million documents, audio and videotapes and computer hard drives, but only about 50,000 of these of these items have been examined so far by a skelton crew with limited resources.

Along with Salmon Pak, the military units trained terrorists at camps in Samarra and Ramadi who, some intelligence officials believe, are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis.

Three interesting tidbits I gleaned from this article:

1. Saddumb had ties to Al-Killya, however tenuous they may have been.

2. It's a distinct possibility that some of the terrorists trained in Iraq under his watchful gaze attacked Americans.

3. There are 2 million documents and other items--and only about 50,000 have been scrutinized--yet we already have this much evidence? This indicates a massive, damning case against Saddumb, once the documents are analyzed in their entirety.

But don't worry, guys 'n gals. I'm sure the Left will wave its magic bong and come up with ten or twenty new lies and bury this one under their avalanche.

Bust VS. Bust

Television star Pamela Anderson is leading a campaign to have the bust of Kentucky Fried Chicken founder Harland Sanders removed from the Kentucky state capitol.

"The bust of Colonel Sanders stands as a monument to cruelty and has no place in the Kentucky state capitol. . ."

. . .she said, displaying her own bust proudly.

Christian and Islamic Violence

"What's the difference between Christianity and Islam, when it comes to violence? Followers of both religions have committed heinous acts against innocent people."

"It's fundamentalism that we should decry, no matter what religion."

I've been challenged with silly comments and questions just like these a number of times--on Vox's blog, and elsewhere. Rather than making a cogent point, they just demonstrate an ignorance all to common in our society.

Actually, the one similarity between Islam and Christianity is that both are monotheistic. Beyond this, comparisons unravel faster than a ball of yarn in the deft paws of a kitten.

For the sake of brevity, I'll stick with two major differences between these belief systems.

First, Christianity has no doctrine of jihad or its equivalent; no exhortation to the masses to kill in the name of Jesus; no insistence upon subjugating, destroying, or forcibly converting the heathen. So people who call themselves Christians--yet engage in such behavior--are operating outside the bounds of Christian doctrine. Even more to the point, they actively are violating the teachings of Christ.

Not so with Islam. Conquest through the sword is historically and doctrinally a pivotal part of Islamic law. Muhammed (A.D. 570-632) spoke in favor of it, and believe me, he practiced what he preached. He ordered assassinations; he led armies into battle; he and his followers went on caravan raids --and all to the end of propagating Islam.

Second, examples such as certain episodes in the Crusades, the Salem witch-trials, the worst aspects of the Spanish Inquisition, Christian defenses of trans-Atlantic slavery, etc.--none of these represents Christian thought or behavior historically or currently. They are not indicative of Christian doctrine; in fact, they exemplify what happens when scripture is ignored completely, or severed from its greater context. An honest student of history and Christian belief cannot point to these events and say: "See, look where Christianity leads its followers--down a dark and evil path."

But what of Islam? Is jihad representative of Islamic teaching?

Absolutely. Muhammed himself insisted upon it. His successors carried it out religiously--no pun intended--such that in a relatively short span of time, all of the Arabian peninsula, Egypt, the Persian Empire, many of the Byzantine Empire's holdings, and huge portions of Spain and North Africa fell into Muslim hands through conquest after conquest. Other forays into Europe followed. After a long war of attrition, the Byzantine Empire fell to Turkish Muslims. The Spaniards won back their lost territory in a bloody, seven hundred-year struggle against the Muslims known as the Reconquista, which ended the year Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

The jihad continues today; it really never has ended, flaring up bright and deadly as Muslims grow in strength, and simmering when they fall into weakness. From just shortly after Muhammed received his first "vision," until today, Muslims have been murdering in the name of Allah, somewhere on the globe. This is neither unrepresentative of Islam, nor extreme--unless you consider Islam itself extreme.

So, "What's the difference between Christianity and Islam, when it comes to violence?" Simple. People who take the Bible seriously--especially the teachings of Jesus--become less inclined to kill others. But people who take the Koran and the utterances of Muhammed seriously become more inclined toward murder.

Global Confusion

Apparently, a side-effect of global warming is record low temperatures in India:

INDIA'S capital New Delhi recorded its lowest temperature for 70 years yesterday as unusually cold weather continued to cause havoc across Asia.

When I was a stripling, the prevailing theory amongst environmental nail-biters was that a new ice age was about to freeze up the works. But we've made a 360-degree turnaround from a winter-wonderland, thanks to modern innovations in junk science.

I'm not convinced global warming is occuring. Theories disseminated by chicken littles, leftists and dirt kissers never impress me. But even if hard, irrefutable evidence for this phenomenon is brought forward, assigning blame to the U.S. for this trouble is a Grand Canyon-sized leap in logic. I mention this last because America is the devil du jour, as the French would say.

Environut: (Rolling Eyes and frothing at the mouth) "We're all gonna die!"

Normal American: "How can you be sure?"

Environut: "Because we say so!"

Normal American: "Assuming global warming is a legitimate concern, how do we know the sun's radiation output isn't the culprit?"

Environut: "Heretic! How dare you blame Mother Gaia's Giver-of-Life-and-Warmth?! The Sun's radiance surrounds us and binds us all together!"

Normal American: "I think you've seen the Star Wars films a few too many times."

Environut: "America is the source of all Mother Gaia's ills! The U.S. created global warming as a mechanism for enslaving the rest of humanity, just as the AIDS virus was manufactured in a laboratory to the detriment of those of African descent! Death to America!" (Begins drooling and contorts in a fit of apoplexy)

Normal American: "Guard, you can open the door, now. I know these walls are padded, but I believe he's injuring himself, just the same."

"Yo, Whitey, Can You Point Us to the Border?"

Tagged

It seems Arielle has tagged me for a response to a meme--which hurt, by the way--so I guess I'll give it Ye Olde Collyge Trye:

Five favorite fiction authors:

1. Hillary Clinton
2. Robert E. Howard
3. J.R.R. Tolkien
4. Louis L'Amour
5. Robert A. Heinlein

Five Favorite Non-Fiction Authors:

1. Paul Johnson
2. C.S. Lewis
3. Thomas Sowell
4. Will Durant
5. Paul Fregosi

Five Favorite Children's Authors:

1. C.S. Lewis
2. Lloyd Alexander
3. Scott O'Dell
4. Robert Louis Stevenson
5. Theodore Taylor

Favorite Book Read in 2005:

Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization, by Alvin J. Schmidt

Books You're Looking Most Forward to Reading in 2006:

1. The Holy Bible
2. Sinister Barrier, by Eric Frank Russell

Five Books on Faith That You Would Recommend:

1. The Holy Bible (obviously)
2. Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis
3. The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel
4. Who Moved the Stone?, by Frank Morison
5. More Than a Carpenter, by Josh McDowell

Five Books That Made You Laugh Out-Loud:

1. Slander, by Ann Coulter
2. You Can't Put No Boogie-Woogie on the King of Rock-and-Roll, by Lewis Grizzard
3. Dave Barry Slept Here, by Dave Barry
4. The Screwtape Letters, by C.S. Lewis
5. You Don't Say: Sometimes Liberals Show Their True Colors, by Fred Gielow

A Fictional Character You Would Like to Emulate:

Aragorn, from The Lord of the Rings (I've always wanted to kill me a few orcs)

Have You Ever Had a Crush on a Fictional Character? If Yes, Which One?:

Yes. Seven-of-Nine on Star Trek Voyager (Those who have seen the show need no explanation)

The Best Biography You've Ever Read:

The Four Gospels

A Book You Love with a Short Review:

The Silmarilion, by J.R.R. Tolkien. This is perhaps the most complex book of fiction I've ever read--and the most rewarding. It covers the first great Ages of Middle-Earth, before the Third Age and The Lord of the Rings. Beginning with the world's creation, Tolkien takes us on an epic adventure spanning thousands of years, using some of the most evocative language imaginable. Here, many of the questions left unanswered in his more famous books--or persons and places merely mentioned in passing-- are covered in intimate detail. For example: Where did the elves and dwarves come from? How did Sauron become an evil, corrupt power-monger? Who were some of the great human and elvish heroes of Middle-Earth's past, and how did they live and die? This book fills in many of the gaps, illustrates Tolkien's Christian worldview more fully, and presents itself as a history book written by a master storyteller. In my opinion, it is his best book, though many would argue with this assertion. It is both a challenge and a treat for the imagination, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Modern Parenting

Parents of three young boys in Britain have been sentenced to nine months in jail for keeping their children in what has been described as "sheer hell" conditions reminiscent of a Charles Dickens novel.

The boys, all under 5, were found by a health worker malnourished and wearing ill-fitting filthy clothes, unable to talk properly and using shouts and screams to communicate.

Jonathan Bush and Nicola Hillier, both 24, of Norwich, told authorities there was no deliberate attempt to harm their children, but they were unable to cope due to financial pressures.

* One of the children was so hungry, he tried to eat a piece of frozen meat from the freezer, while his brother was seen picking a cracker out of an ashtray full of cigarette butts;

* The boys were found wearing diapers so soiled, they were hanging around their knees;

* They played in a garden filled with dog feces, and suffered cuts from broken glass inside the house;

* On one occasion, two of the children were left naked in a playroom with no heat;

* One boy had chipped his collarbone after being left on a sofa, and there was also an unguarded open fire in the living room, with one child suffering burns to his arm.

"Unable to cope due to financial pressures?" What a crock. I nominate these "people" for the Grand Cop-Out Award for 2006. I suppose financial woes explains the filth, the days-old diapers, having broken glass underfoot indoors, and the unattended children huddling around an open fire. Yep, a few extra bucks in the piggy bank would've eliminated those problems.

Despite the ubiquitous filth, Bush's security-officer uniform was found hanging freshly washed and ironed.

What a surprise. I also loved how Judge Slaponthewrist pontificated in the article about the horrible neglect, then deemed a sentence of nine months an appropriate one.

If there was any real justice, these paragons of parenting would be tied to posts in the town square, and beaten with a cat-o'-nine-tails.

The U.N.: What's Not to Love?

Fundamentally Wrong

In a recent interview in GQ magazine, former President Jimmy Carter described Christian fundamentalists thusly:

I define fundamentalism as a group of invariably male leaders who consider themselves superior to other believers. The fundamentalists believe they have a special relationship with God. Therefore their beliefs are inherently correct, being those of God, and anyone who disagrees with them are first of all wrong, and second inferior, and in extreme cases even subhuman. Also, fundamentalists don't relish any challenge to their positions ... It makes a great exhibition of rigidity and superiority and exclusion.

Isn't it nifty how having once served as President of the United States automatically graces one with the right of newly defining words that have been around for ages? "Invariably male leaders?" Who's this guy kidding? I think large numbers of evangelical women believe otherwise.

The hubris he projects onto his political and ideological opponents is one in which he is well-steeped, given the brazen arrogance of his remarks. The notion that fundamentalists assume those who disagree with them are inferior on a personal level, or subhuman, is patently absurd. Further, the point about bristling when challenged is inane, since human beings of any creed or religion generally don't bask in having their intellectual positions challenged. This is in no way exclusively characteristic of fundamentalists.

I consider myself a Christian fundamentalist. What's the real definition? Someone who believes the Bible is the Holy and inerrant Word of God, and who takes its teachings seriously. I've been around people I'd describe as fundamentalists all of my life; and not once have I ever met one who even remotely exemplifies Carter's characterization. I know the former president enjoys writing fiction, but it seems he's failed in distinguishing it from the real world.

No, his is a typical leftist description of fundamentalists--an observation usually touted by people who know less than nothing about those of whom they speak. I've heard the same gibberish regurgitated at Vox's blog, with regularity. Carter--and others of his ilk--paint with a mile-wide brush in describing fundamentalism--as if there's no discernible difference between Bible-believing Christians and ecstatic jihadis all gussied up in their best Allah-go-to-meetin' bombvests. It sickens me, not just because it's a filthy lie and creates hatred and distrust where none should exist; but it's an easily disproven lie.

I'm not sure if Carter is willfully ignorant, or engaging in conscious falsehoods. But those who embrace his revisionism do so at the expense of truth.

Good Rules of Thumb

Military Technological Innovations

Deep Mierda

Hospital emergency rooms in Florida may soon be closing their doors as a result of increased demands by uninsured and under-insured patients – many of them illegal aliens.

As WorldNetDaily previously reported, a study by a prominent medical attorney concludes the porous border with Mexico and the resulting influx of illegal aliens poses a major public health threat to the U.S.

Madeleine Pelner Cosman, author of a report in the spring issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, is particularly concerned with increases in multiple drug-resistant tuberculosis, chagas disease, dengue fever, polio, hepatitis A, B, and C, she told Lou Dobbs on CNN in June.

"Certain diseases that we thought we had vanquished years ago are coming back, and other diseases that we've never seen or rarely seen in America, because they've always been the diseases of poverty and the third world, are coming in now," she said.

As WorldNetDaily reported, even leprosy is suddenly on the radar of health officials.

Cosman recommends closing the border to all illegal traffic, rescinding the citizenship of "anchor babies," those born in the U.S. to parents of illegals, and making the aiding and abetting of illegals a crime.

"We have a terrible, absolutely vicious, law called EMTALA: the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which is really the culprit that requires every emergency room, and every physician of an emergency room, to treat illegal aliens for free," she said.

Cosman said 84 hospitals in California have been forced to close because of the high cost of treating illegal aliens with only 50 percent of all treatments reimbursed by government.

While politicians often mention there are 43 million without health insurance in this country, Cosman's report estimates that at least 25 percent of those are illegal immigrants. The figure could be as high as 50 percent.

"Today, legal immigrants must demonstrate that they are free of communicable diseases and drug addiction to qualify for lawful permanent residency green cards," writes Cosman, a medical lawyer, who formerly taught medical students at the City University of New York. "Illegal aliens simply cross our borders medically unexamined, hiding in their bodies any number of communicable diseases."

But we need these illegals--uh, I mean, undocumented workers--or America will collapse! Gringos cannot & will not tax their puny brains with such work as picking grapes, oranges, strawberries; washing dishes; mowing yards; hammering nails; and plunging toilets. And we know that if we stop doing these strenuous tasks, the gringos will shrivel up and die. So who cares if they get consumption or some other horrible and all-but-eradicated disease? Who cares if they can't get their legs stapled back on in an emergency room, since Julio's gunshot-wound is being treated, first? Heck, who cares if they don't like crime waves and depressed wages?

Gringos should shut up and accept their allotments in life. They have plenty of fresh fruit, clean china, immaculate lawns, well-shingled roofs, and sparkling comodas. And when Dubya kisses our feet on bended knee for our troubles, we smile graciously and say:

"De nada, puto."

Why Inbreeding is Wrong

Barbie's Confused

A third gender choice available to young participants of a poll on the Barbie doll website was changed after initially offering children the options of "I am a Girl," "I am a Boy," and "I don't know" – eliciting charges that Mattel, the company that owns Barbie, is intentionally promoting gender confusing among kids.

Apparently due to the criticism, the third gender option has now been changed to "I don't want to say."

"I don't know?" OK, if you're old enough to go online & vote on whether or not Barbie should have breast augmentation surgery, you're certainly old enough to determine your own sex. If you don't know if you're male or female, you're either a hermaphrodite, brain dead, an extraterrestrial, or yer parents didn't learn you right.

I doubt this was a mistake on Mattel's part. If it was, it was a rather obvious one. It's curious that no change to the poll was made until the complaints began pouring in.

Your Legacy is Showing

Dying for "Honor"

Nazir Ahmed appears calm and unrepentant as he recounts how he slit the throats of his three young daughters and their 25-year old stepsister to salvage his family's "honor" - a crime that shocked Pakistan.

The 40-year old laborer, speaking to The Associated Press in police detention as he was being shifted to prison, confessed to just one regret - that he didn't murder the stepsister's alleged lover too.

Isn't that touching?

Hundreds of girls and women are murdered by male relatives each year in this conservative Islamic nation, and rights groups said Wednesday such "honor killings" will only stop when authorities get serious about punishing perpetrators.

And yet Pakistan "was shocked?" Huh? There's nothing shocking about such behavior in Muslim countries. It's fairly common.

It is the latest of more than 260 such honor killings documented by the rights commission, mostly from media reports, during the first 11 months of 2005.

Bibi recounted how she was woken by a shriek as Ahmed put his hand to the mouth of his stepdaughter Muqadas and cut her throat with a machete. Bibi looked helplessly on from the corner of the room as he then killed the three girls - Bano, 8, Sumaira, 7, and Humaira, 4 - pausing between the slayings to brandish the bloodstained knife at his wife, warning her not to intervene or raise alarm.

"I was shivering with fear. I did not know how to save my daughters," Bibi, sobbing, told AP by phone from the village. "I begged my husband to spare my daughters but he said, 'If you make a noise, I will kill you.'"

"The whole night the bodies of my daughters lay in front of me," she said.

Speaking to AP in the back of police pickup truck late Tuesday as he was shifted to a prison in the city of Multan, Ahmed showed no contrition. Appearing disheveled but composed, he said he killed Muqadas because she had committed adultery, and his daughters because he didn't want them to do the same when they grew up.

He said he bought a butcher's knife and a machete after midday prayers on Friday and hid them in the house where he carried out the killings.

"I thought the younger girls would do what their eldest sister had done, so they should be eliminated," he said, his hands cuffed, his face unshaven. "We are poor people and we have nothing else to protect but our honor."

Despite Ahmed's contention that Muqadas had committed adultery - a claim made by her husband - the rights commission reported that according to local people, Muqadas had fled her husband because he had abused her and forced her to work in a brick-making factory.

"Women are treated as property and those committing crimes against them do not get punished," said the rights commission's director, Kamla Hyat. "The steps taken by our government have made no real difference."

Ahmed, who did not resist arrest, was unrepentant.

"I told the police that I am an honorable father and I slaughtered my dishonored daughter and the three other girls," he said. "I wish that I get a chance to eliminate the boy she ran away with and set his home on fire."

Just another in the long list of examples of Muhammed's Peaceniks acting out their "pacifism."

Calling Islam a "religion of peace" is not only stupid and factually wrong, but it's also evil, in my opinion.

Yes, Rosemary Did Have a Baby

Nate's Christmas Present