Islamerica on the Rise

The United States has agreed to grant citizenship to 7,000 Ahiska Muslims who will be settled in Pennsylvania, reported a Russian newspaper on Friday, July 23.

The first 11-strong batch of the Ahiska Muslims, living in the Russian province of Krasnodar, left for Geneva on Thursday, July 22, before flying to Philadelphia, reported Novie Izvestia.

"The immigrants will be provided with housing and furniture, they will be helped to learn the English language and to complete formalities needed for residence in the US, which is especially important, and have been promised life-long welfare allowances for pensioners and the disabled."

I think we need a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the U.S. Before anyone denounces me as a hatist of one form or another, consider that 100% of jihadis are Islamic. 100% of the 9-11 terrorists were Muslims. The overwhelming majority of terrorism in the world today is Islamic in nature. Factor in as well that Muslims are some of the most untrustworthy people on planet Earth; their religion condones deceit as a tool against the destruction or subjugation of "infidels." If this doesn't convince you, then please attend to all the wonderful benefits of Muslim immigration into Europe. Emulating Europe is a Bad Idea. I thought the War for Independence was a recognition of this.

I don't know about y'all, but I'm not interested in living in Islamerica.

Christian Persecution, U.S.A.

I was challenged recently at Vox's on my assertion that Christians weather persecution in the good ol' U.S. of A, in these troubled times. I'm off my rocker, according to a couple of the commenters. Persecution, or discrimination, or the War on Christmas--all of these are simple fantasies free-floating through my head.

I disagree.

First, let's define what it means to persecute:

Dictionary.com: persecute--1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs. 2. To annoy persistently; bother.

Ok. So, when Muslims and Jews are allowed the freedom of placing religious symbols on public property during the holidays--but Christians are prohibited--that's not persecution.

When someone is fired from his job because he is a Christian, that's not persecution.

When crosses are torn off war memorials and gravestones in fear of offending a lone Stalinite in a town full of Christians, that's not persecution.

When Christians are portrayed routinely as evil, stupid, insane, or a combination of all three in movies, books, tv, and music, that's not persecution.

When politicians, cultural figures, celebrities, tv commentators, and civil "rights" groups slander, libel, and distort the beliefs and teachings of Christians--with little or no challenge--there's no persecution involved.

When those same people assume the most base, vile motives of Christians in every fathomable scenario, nope, it ain't persecution.

When your child cannot speak openly of his belief in Jesus at school, but can learn the proper technique of putting on a condom at the ripe old age of ten, that's not persecution.

When the "scientific" community characterizes everything you believe as unscientific mumbo-jumbo akin to that of some frothing, benighted savage--uh-uh, it just isn't persecution.

Is this the same form of persecution as marching off to the firing squad, being fed feet-first into an oven, serving as a torch during the galdiatorial games, or as a chew-toy for lions? Clearly not. But the difference is not in the nature of these actions, but in the degree.

Remember, the persecutions of Christians in the first three centuries Anno Domini and the Holocaust both began in this manner; with baby steps, as it were. First came the lies, mischaracterizations, and distortions. Then came the discrimination and political, cultural, and legal obstacles. These metamorphosed into the pogroms and murders on a mass scale with which we're so familiar.

I think the situation needs viewing through a historical lens. The final outcome is obvious to me, taken to its logical conclusion and allowed its realization.

The examples I gave off the top of my head were not fabrications. It's an objective fact that these and many more exist in local and national news, with additional stories supplementing them at regular intervals.

Given all the above, I ask this simple question of those who shrug off the concept of Christian persecution in America:

If it's not persecution, what is it?

Hatin' on Whitey

The most likely victim of a hate crime in the U.S. is a poor, young, white, single urban dweller, according to an analysis of Justice Department statistics collected from between July 2000 and December 2003.

While race is, by far, the No. 1 factor cited as the reason for hate crimes, blacks are slightly less likely to be victims and far more likely to be perpetrators, the statistics show.

While nine in 10,000 whites and nine in 10,000 Hispanics are victimized by hate crimes, only seven in 10,000 blacks are targets, according to the report.

The report says 38 percent of all those reporting hate crimes said the attacker was black, and in 90 percent of those cases, the victim believed the offender's motive was racial. In incidents involving white attackers, only 30 percent attribute the hate crime to race, while 20 percent attributed it to ethnicity.

The report by the Justice Department is the one most often cited by hate-crime experts as depicting the true national story. It shows the number of incidents is more than 15 times higher than FBI statistics alone reflect.

Ain't this a kick in the teeth for the politically correct thought-control movement? Now let me just get it out of the way up front that I think "Hate" crimes legislation is moronic. If I kill you for your Nikes, is it really significant that I hated your guts, as well? Not from where I'm standing in my $30 tennis shoes. "Since LeRoy hated Bubba when he shot him with his Nine, let's tack an additional year on his five-year sentence." After all, killing me softly isn't so bad.

And how does one determine if hate is involved? By asking the perpetrator? "Sho-nuff, officer, I hated Bubba sumthin' fierce." By having a rap session with the victim on the slab? Apparently, some First-Degree murders are worse than others. The vehemence with which you pull the trigger or swing the ballbat says it all.

I find these statistics questionable. How can it be that whitey falls victim to "hate" crimes most? I was under the impression that the White Devil has venom coursing through his bloodstream, exploding in his synapses, and simmering in his very marrow. I thought he plops out of the womb kickin' and a-cussin' at the simple prospect of living. I thought hate comes as natural to caucasians as spontaneous combustion does to Muslims. Weren't we taught that the dreaded White Man raped Mother Earth, enslaved the perpetually virtuous Africans, mowed down the peace-worshiping Aztecs, and engaged in the genocide of the American Indians? Oops, I meant Noble Savages, or, er, Native Americans. (I need to brush up on my PC terms).

Waitaminute. I think I have the answer: The Natives and the Africans and the Aztecs are paying Whitey back, with interest. That's what this is about. Now I understand.

Black History Month

In the interests of equality, I move that we institute White History Month, to complement Black History Month. How 'bout it, folks?

See how ridiculous the flip-side sounds? Most people would sign me off at this point as an inveterate racist. Oh, well. We can't have folks pointing out the inherent absurdities in such institutions, can we?

There is no such thing as "black history," any more than "white history." There's just history. The whole notion of setting aside a special historical celebration on the basis of one's melanin content in the skin is idiotic. It's interesting that self-proclaimed civil rights heroes glorify such "progress," when it exists in direct contravention of all that the early advocates of those rights upheld.

I see a parallel in this with the homosexual rights movement. "We demand equal treatment!" bellows the "gay" activist, "Which is why we also demand special rights that go beyond those of the average Joe." And so it is with modern race relations. "We demand equality!" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton screech, "Which is why we also insist upon special recognition not bestowed upon others." What a crock. This isn't about equality; it never has been. It's about favoritism, victim status--which is worn like a badge of honor--and thought control.

Harriet Tubman aided runaway slaves on the Underground Railroad. George Washington Carver invented numerous useful household items from peanuts. Frederick Douglass spoke out publicly against slavery, traveling the country and giving speeches.

Did the goodness and accomplishments of these fine people stem from their blackness? I don't believe so, anymore than I think that George Washington was an upstanding man because he was white. The aforementioned people--black and white--thought great thoughts and did great deeds. That's what makes them special--not their skin pigmentation.

It's funny how so many habits crop up in the name of tolerance and egalitarian ideals which result in more divisiveness. Black History Month, as only one of many examples, is an affront to people of all colors of the rainbow. It's an insult to black people, because it implies their greatness lies within being black, not within their individual characters. It's an affront to white, red, purple and green people because it implies their history and their accomplishments are second-rate, unworthy of special recognition.

Cheney Went A-Huntin'

Cheney went a-huntin', he did ride, uh-huh.
Cheney went a-huntin' , he did ride, uh-huh.
Cheney went a-huntin', he did ride,
Shot ol' Whittington through his hide, uh-huh. Uh-huh, uh-huh.

Cheney went to bag himself a quail, uh-huh.
Cheney went to bag himself a quail, uh-huh.
Cheney went to bag himself a quail,
Almost caught a few nights in jail, uh-huh. Uh-huh, uh-huh.

Cheney narrowly escaped arrest, uh-huh.
Cheney narrowly escaped arrest, uh-huh.
Cheney narrowly escaped arrest;
Next time Whit should wear a vest, uh-huh. Uh-huh, uh-huh.

Religion of Peace-niks Quotations

Thirsty peace message to the Jews:

"My message to the loathed Jews is that there is no god but Allah, we will chase you everywhere! We are a nation that drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood better than the blood of Jews. We will not leave you alone until we have quenched our thirst with your blood, and our children's thirst with your blood. We will not leave until you leave the Muslim countries."

More pacifistic gushing:

"In the name of Allah, we will destroy you, blow you up, take revenge against you, [and] purify the land of you, pigs that have defiled our country... This operation is revenge against the sons of monkeys and pigs."

Liberation defined:

"I dedicate this wedding to all of those who have chosen Allah as their goal, the Quran as their constitution and the prophet [Muhammad] as their role model. Jihad is the only way to liberate Palestine – all of Palestine – from the impurity of the Jews."

Cartoonish Nonsense

All this Muhammed likeness idiocy has given me an idea for my own cartoon. I would render it for your edification, if my drawing abilities surpassed that of a Kindergartener with Tourette's; but they do not, alas.

Imagine President Bush standing at a podium, shoulders squared, one hand supporting himself and the other bunched in a firm fist raised to gain the audience's attention. A balloon above his head says: "Islam is a religion of peace, I say!"

Surrounding him is a massive throng of attendees to his speech in the auditorium, each wearing a long, flowing robe and a turban wrapped carefully about the noggin. Every other man sports a bombvest, and all hands are raised aloft, clasping AK-47s by the handles, fingers in the trigger -guards and ready for a peace demonstration.

I may have to commission my eight-year-old nephew for the task of creating it.

Get Well Soon

Al's having surgery, today. He's a stand-up guy, and a good friend. Everyone send up a prayer for him.

Nutty As A Fruitcake

Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, a potential presidential candidate, said Monday he meant no offense to homosexuals when he used the word ``fruits'' in a recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

In a lengthy profile titled ``God's Senator,'' the magazine quotes the Kansas Republican as criticizing countries like Sweden that have legalized gay marriage.

``You'll know them by their fruits,'' Brownback said, quoting a biblical passage from Matthew 7:19.

Rolling Stone writer Jeff Sharlet said in the story, appearing in the magazine's current issue, that Brownback appeared to be calling gay Swedes fruits.

After gay and lesbian advocacy groups denounced the comments last week, Brownback issued a statement Monday saying his quote ``was in no way referring to sexual orientation.''

``While this biblical passage was pertinent to our overall conversation about faith and deeds, it apparently led the writer to believe I was making a joke,'' said Brownback, a frequent critic of gay marriage who is pushing a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

``I was not and would never do so with such a personal and sensitive issue,'' Brownback said.


Apparently, there is a direct correllation between intellectual vacuity and homosexual advocacy. This phony controversy demonstrates cluelessness about scripture and basic comprehension of someone's argument. If Sherlock Holmes is a paragon of logic and reason, then the homosexual movement is peopled with an army of Clouseau's witless offspring.

Planet X

Scientists say they have confirmed that a so-called 10th planet discovered last year is bigger than Pluto

They've identified it is a rocky, frigid world, a dead body in the void, icy to the very core.

I can only assume it's Hillary's home planet.

Global Warming at Work

A record-breaking storm buried sections of the Northeast under more than 2 feet of snow on Sunday, marooning thousands of air travelers and making even a walk to the corner store treacherous.

The National Weather Service said 26.9 inches of snow had fallen in Central Park, the most for a single storm since record-keeping started in 1869. The old record was 26.4 inches in December 1947.

Belly-Up

Peter Benchley has died.

No, he was not devoured by a Great White shark.

But he did devote himself to shark conservation, strangely enough, after becoming famous for writing a novel about a shark terrorizing the sea lanes.

He is survived by three children: Mako, Hammerhead, and Cookiecutter.

Seal of Disapproval

I'm glad the party of Klinton wasn't in control, during the War for Independence.

Facts and Opinions

It seems to me evolutionists have a difficult time distinguishing facts from opinions. Facts are facts; opinions are facts--heck, everything an evolutionist says is a fact, or so it's insinuated. But the fact is, this is nonsense. First, a little clarification is in order:

A fact is something demonstrably true. For example, if I say, "The force of gravity exists," that's a fact. It's defined as such because I can take you up on top of my house and reveal its existence to you. In fact, I can demonstrate it as many times as necessary--in other words, until you tire of getting pushed off the roof.

But what if I declare, "I believe dinosaurs still exist."? Obviously, that's my opinion. Sure, Tyrannosaurs very well may be stomping wattle huts flat in the Amazon, devouring the natives even as they conspire in the destruction of another pristine rainforest; and Velociraptors may be chasing down lions in the Serengeti, as we speak. But I cannot prove this for certain; it's not something I can determine beyond question. Of course, this doesn't address whether or not I'm correct. It's simply an unknown.

So facts are established truth. Opinions may or may not be true, but we lack conclusive information.

Enter the all-wise, all-seeing evolutionist. He assures us of his knowledge by making the statement, "Certain organisms share similar body structures. To elaborate, the bat's wing, the porpoise's fin, and the human hand all have common characteristics, though they differ in size and shape."

So far, so good. He's dabbling in the realm of the factual, for the moment. X-rays or drawings of these structures do show similarities.

Then, raising his nose a wee bit higher in the air, the evolutionist steps out of the factual dimension and into that of speculation. "Therefore," he concludes, "since these organisms all identify with each other through certain characteristics, they must have descended from a common ancestor." This is a logical end only for those who accept atheistic Darwinian evolution as fact, or who suppose that God uses evolution as His primary means of creating species. For others, this pronouncement is anything but obvious.

So we have a factual statement used as a stepping stone to a speculative utterance.

Personally, I have nothing against speculation. Possibilities make life more intriguing. Such ruminating often opens doors and leads to the discovery of hard facts.

Though speculation plays an important role in learning, it is not science. Science deals in empirical methods. In certainties. In tangibilities. This poses a great problem for evolutionists, whose worldview constitutes a collision of opinions and facts that do not support each other. The fossil record, growing ever larger by the year, does not bear out the notion that organisms having similar structures descended from a common ancestor. The transitional forms don't exist, and what the fossils do show are fully formed organisms from their first appearance in the record. So this belief is a contradiction of the known facts.

Worse, the evolutionist makes no distinction between his first and second allegation. In his mind, both are factual. Any conclusion that does not fit into the evolutionary paradigm is less than worthless.

This is commonplace in the "scientific" community today. Opinion is paraded as fact, and dissent outside prevailing "wisdom's" parameters is suppressed or ignored as nonexistent.

Assuring people that your unproven assertions are facts--while tolerating no challenge from those who disagree--is not science. It's a hoax perpetrated toward the goal of brainwashing those who don't recognize fraud when they see it.

John Brown, Killer

Arielle wrote a post about the Not-So-Civil War, a few days back, prompting a supplemental and tangential post from me. (Thanks, Arielle).

Remember John Brown? Sure you do. He was the great abolitionist leader your "history" textbook gushed over in high skewel. The man who dutifully went to the gallows and died a martyr for the sake of justice and black emancipation. Remember him? What a hero.

Well, here's the other side of the story--the true side--the side your textbook omitted:

John Brown believed his was a divinely inspired mission to rid the U.S. of slavery. He scoffed at peaceful resolution attempts, believing only violence would bring about the end of the practice.

In 1855, he and his followers carried out a nice little massacre in Pottawatomie Creek, Kansas. Brown and his angels of death zeroed in on five non-slaveholding families whom they believed were on the wrong side of the issue. Approaching each family home, they dragged the man of the house from his bed, forced him outside, and butchered him with swords like a fattened pig for the slaughter in front of his family. Shortly thereafter Brown became a fugitive, finally leaping back onto the scene with his raid in Virginia.

In October 1859, Brown and nineteen others seized the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, with intentions of stirring up and arming a slave rebellion. He failed in this endeavor when the citizens turned on him, the militia arrived, and later, U.S. Army troops under Robert E. Lee marched into the vicinity. In a short-lived battle, ten of his supporters were killed, so Brown surrendered. Thereafter he and six followers were sentenced to death and hanged.

Certainly slavery was a terrible institution; of that there is no debate. But Brown's methods of violence against unarmed people who were not slave owners--in conjunction with his scoffing at peaceful denunciation of slavery--cannot be justified or pardoned. In short, his motivations possibly were good, but evil acts stemmed from them.

There was some evidence that Brown had the support of the Republican Party--the party of Lincoln, at the time--and that a group of Northerners known as "the secret six" had financed his actions. This further eroded the South's trust in the North, which in turn led to the secession of South Carolina in 1860.

In elementary and high school, I was taught nothing about his murderous acts. Textbooks and teachers offered only a benign, one-sided portrayal of him. He has achieved a kind of folk-hero status amongst the clueless and the politically correct--much like Nat Turner, another glorified murderer whose acts have been whitewashed by the public skewel system.

Congratulations!

Thursday morning, February 3, Erik's wife gave birth to a healthy baby boy of 7 pounds and 2 ounces! He's their first, I do believe.

Go on over and give them a slap on the back and many well wishes. All three deserve it.

May God watch over and guide you as parents, giving you long years of joy in bringing up your son. And may He bless your child and shape him into a righteous man after His own heart.

Now where's my cigar?

Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Threat Rising

Incidents of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, or MDR TB, still comprise a small portion of cases in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas near the Mexican border, but officials have noted an increase.

According to the Herald, in 2005, the county health department handled 101 new cases of TB, a 25-percent increase from 2004.

With MDR-TB, a patient's immune system does not respond to basic antibiotics rifampin and isoniazid.

The costs to the state are staggering. While a standard TB patient costs some $2,800 for about six to nine months of treatment, an MDR-TB treatment runs about $250,000 for two years, said Charles Wallace, manager of the state's infectious disease, intervention and control branch.

One family in the Rio Grande Valley with nine members afflicted with MDR-TB recently cost the state $4 million over a three-year period, including drugs and multiple hospitalizations.

This is one of my many concerns regarding rampant illegal immigration. I think exposure to such diseases particularly is problematic for those who live in states that share a border with Mexico.

We must do something about this. For some, it's literally a matter of life and death.

Big Surprise

A federal appeals court declared the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, saying the measure is vague and lacks an exception for cases in which a woman's health is at stake.

The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals became the second federal appeals court in the country to hold the law to be unconstitutional.

President Bush signed the abortion ban in 2003, but it was not enforced because of legal challenges in several states.

Federal judges in New York and Nebraska also have ruled the ban unconstitutional. The Nebraska ruling was upheld in July by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This ruling is as shocking as a movie star's fifth divorce. The abortion movement and truth are as well-acquainted as activist judges and the Constitution. What an openly disengenuous tactic.

How is "a woman's health" defined? The pro-deathers clarify it as anything that might cause reservations about giving birth. From ingrown toenails to mild constipation, from a narcotic-induced depression to vague feelings of mental discomfort--there is nothing under the sun that cannot be worked below this absurd heading.

To my knowledge, the Bush administration has made little effort in combating this atrocity; just sign the bill into law, then down the memory hole. Superficial concern is what's important, here, not results.

The Face of PMS

Roseanna Arquette wants Hill's presence in a new documentary about PMS.





















Ya know, she just may be onto something.