Look for a new postage stamp proudly displaying Montezuma's face, coming soon.
Backers of illegal immigration at a rally near Los Angeles took down an American flag at a U.S. post office, stamped on it and replaced it with a Mexican flag as police looked on, according to witnesses and a video of the event.
Police officers in Maywood, Calif., Saturday eventually came to the pole to remove the flag but had bottles and rocks thrown at them, a radio listener named Sandra reported to the Terry Anderson show, heard on KRLA in Los Angeles.
The radio listener, volunteering for Save our State, said that when she arrived at the rally she was rushed by counter-protesters who called out, "Death to the Minutemen."
"They pushed me around and told me if I was to take one step further, they would beat the s*** out of me," Sandra said. "I looked to the back of me and there were about four police officers leaning on their vehicle just watching, doing nothing!"
As she stepped forward, Sandra said, the counter-protesters stole her sign and ripped it up as another threw water on her.
A police officer eventually escorted her to her group.
The opposition, she said, began to get louder, and then "we watched as they took the American flag off of the flag pole and stepped on it on the ground at the United States post office and mounted a Mexican flag, and up it went."
At this point , she said, "the police did nothing."
"Finally, they went over to take it down, and they had bottles and rocks thrown at them," she said. "They did not attempt to arrest anyone. They were unable to take it down because they cut the wrong line so the flag remained there for the rest of the day."
Sandra said that as police officers watched, another woman was beaten, as well as an elderly man, noting the counter-protesters "tend to pick on the weaker targets."
Hm, cops standing around twiddling their thumbs during the commission of a crime, while eating burritos and donuts. Imagine my surprise. American citizens were assaulted, and the flag of a foreign third-world cesspool was hoisted above a U.S. post office--and no one was arrested? By the way, since broken bottles and rocks hurled in one's direction offer the possibility of injury or even death, why was no action taken? I can tell you, if I was a cop, and someone threw rocks and busted bottles at me, I'd be tempted toward exercising the "Shoot first, and get my Spanish interpreter to ask questions later" option.
This outrageous affront and other behavior like it is getting out of hand. That we're even discussing this indicates the abject failure of our "leaders" in addressing the Wetback Takeover. I'd be more shocked by our government approaching this issue in a meaningful manner than I would if Dubya had appeared at the anti-whitey rally, urinated on the castigated flag in full view of the video cameras, and offered photos of himself kissing Vicente Fox's pockmarked naked backside.
People have died on battlefields, ensuring that those colors didn't touch the ground. That our police force would look on as non-citizen invaders desecrate this flag on American soil is the most despicable kind of mockery.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Hope Floats, But Morons Don't
An evangelist drowns while attempting a recreation of Jesus' walk on water:
Pastor Franck Kabele, 35, told his congregation he could repeat the biblical miracle, and he attempted it from a beach in Gabon's capital of Libreville.
"He told churchgoers he'd had a revelation that if he had enough faith, he could walk on water like Jesus," an eyewitness told the Glasgow Daily Record.
"He took his congregation to the beach saying he would walk across the Komo estuary, which takes 20 minutes by boat. He walked into the water, which soon passed over his head and he never came back."
My first thought was: "Oh, ye of little faith." How do his followers know he isn't stuck up to his knees in muck, valiantly attempting to extricate himself, this very minute?
Seriously, "God will not be mocked" comes to mind. I've learned two things from this story: 1. If faith buoys us, then his must've had a hole in it. 2. I don't think Jesus performs miracles as cheap parlor tricks.
Pastor Franck Kabele, 35, told his congregation he could repeat the biblical miracle, and he attempted it from a beach in Gabon's capital of Libreville.
"He told churchgoers he'd had a revelation that if he had enough faith, he could walk on water like Jesus," an eyewitness told the Glasgow Daily Record.
"He took his congregation to the beach saying he would walk across the Komo estuary, which takes 20 minutes by boat. He walked into the water, which soon passed over his head and he never came back."
My first thought was: "Oh, ye of little faith." How do his followers know he isn't stuck up to his knees in muck, valiantly attempting to extricate himself, this very minute?
Seriously, "God will not be mocked" comes to mind. I've learned two things from this story: 1. If faith buoys us, then his must've had a hole in it. 2. I don't think Jesus performs miracles as cheap parlor tricks.
So Long, Partner
Glenn Ford has died. One of the last living actors who presented himself as a real man instead of an effeminate little fop has left us. At least he lived a long and accomplished life.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Jihad for Peace
Here's an interesting article on Jihad as a concept integral to Islam, both historically and currently. Good reading.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Only Human After All
The decline of the Maya civilization began some 1,100 year ago when millions of Indians working on the contruction of tall pyramidal temples and palaces learned that their kings weren't gods, Spanish anthropologist Andres Ciudad told EFE.
Translation: Their entire civilization was based on a lie. When the falsehood was exposed, it collapsed like a house of cards.
Big surprise.
Translation: Their entire civilization was based on a lie. When the falsehood was exposed, it collapsed like a house of cards.
Big surprise.
Poor Ol' Pluto
Planetary demotion. That's a term I never thought I'd hear. Pluto has lost its status as a planet, after seventy-six years, and now finds itself within a new classification: dwarf planets. The question I keep asking is: "How can one come to this decision, when no clearly defined criteria for planethood exist?"
But the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted the ruling, calling it "embarrassing".
The vote took place at the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) 10-day General Assembly in Prague. The IAU has been the official naming body for astronomy since 1919.
Professor Gingerich, who had to return home to the US and therefore could not vote himself, said he would like to see electronic ballots introduced in future.
Alan Stern agreed: "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a room in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that room - you can't even claim consensus.
"If everyone had to travel to Washington DC every time we wanted to vote for President, we would have very different results because no one would vote. In today's world that is idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for this decision."
So the majority of those with the credentials to vote on the issue weren't even present. Makes perfect sense to me.
Ever notice how scientists needlessly complicate things? Why not, for example, use Pluto as the demarcation line between planet and non-planet status? Anything equal to or greater than Pluto in size is a planet, and anything smaller is a midget planetoid, or some such thing. That's the first criterion. The second, that the celestial body in question has its own unique orbit around the sun. Nope, that's far too simple. Having an arbitrary, shifting definition that changes depending upon who is doing the talking is much more logical.
Get a load of this brilliant expose of the scientific method in making these determinations:
But other astronomers were happy to see Pluto cast from the official roster of planets. Professor Iwan Williams, the IAU's president of planetary systems science, commented: "Pluto has lots and lots of friends; we're not so keen to have Pluto and all his friends in the club because it gets crowded.
"By the end of the decade, we would have had 100 planets, and I think people would have said 'my goodness, what a mess they made back in 2006'."
Someone should tell this guy that Pluto is a planet and not a spacefaring Disney character. It "gets crowded"? Really? Is he speaking on a galactic scale, or universally? What in the worlds is wrong with having one hundred or more planets in our solar system? I suppose this purely emotional bilge exhibits an incapacitating case of claustrophobia.
It's kinda fun seeing the typical hubris of the scientific community in full swing. What's even more amusing is that so many grovel at its feet in abject worship, hanging on every pronouncement as if it were straight from the lips of God.
But the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted the ruling, calling it "embarrassing".
The vote took place at the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) 10-day General Assembly in Prague. The IAU has been the official naming body for astronomy since 1919.
Professor Gingerich, who had to return home to the US and therefore could not vote himself, said he would like to see electronic ballots introduced in future.
Alan Stern agreed: "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a room in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that room - you can't even claim consensus.
"If everyone had to travel to Washington DC every time we wanted to vote for President, we would have very different results because no one would vote. In today's world that is idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for this decision."
So the majority of those with the credentials to vote on the issue weren't even present. Makes perfect sense to me.
Ever notice how scientists needlessly complicate things? Why not, for example, use Pluto as the demarcation line between planet and non-planet status? Anything equal to or greater than Pluto in size is a planet, and anything smaller is a midget planetoid, or some such thing. That's the first criterion. The second, that the celestial body in question has its own unique orbit around the sun. Nope, that's far too simple. Having an arbitrary, shifting definition that changes depending upon who is doing the talking is much more logical.
Get a load of this brilliant expose of the scientific method in making these determinations:
But other astronomers were happy to see Pluto cast from the official roster of planets. Professor Iwan Williams, the IAU's president of planetary systems science, commented: "Pluto has lots and lots of friends; we're not so keen to have Pluto and all his friends in the club because it gets crowded.
"By the end of the decade, we would have had 100 planets, and I think people would have said 'my goodness, what a mess they made back in 2006'."
Someone should tell this guy that Pluto is a planet and not a spacefaring Disney character. It "gets crowded"? Really? Is he speaking on a galactic scale, or universally? What in the worlds is wrong with having one hundred or more planets in our solar system? I suppose this purely emotional bilge exhibits an incapacitating case of claustrophobia.
It's kinda fun seeing the typical hubris of the scientific community in full swing. What's even more amusing is that so many grovel at its feet in abject worship, hanging on every pronouncement as if it were straight from the lips of God.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Everybody Stop the Music
Whatever happened to popular music? I realize it never had the gravity of classical instrumental music, but it did hold quite an appeal, once upon a time.
Take the heavily synthesized, up-beat stuff most folks call "pop" music: in the '70s and '80s, it consisted of great tunes, interesting lyrics, and produced memorable if not earth-shattering songs. Now we have the likes of Stripley Spears, Bedunce Knowles, Jessica Simpleton, and Christina Stripmebarea--all well-paid pole dancers who made careers on alluring physical characteristics and less talent than I have residing in my pinky toe. Have you ever perused their lyrics? The introspection of a fruit fly has more intellectual weight. In most circles, if you writhe and cavort seminude, you're known as a stripper, or something less complimentary. But once you get a recording contract--voila! You're a superstar!
Remember rock and roll?: Great guitar riffs, real melodies (even the harder variant), thought-provoking words, and groups who took the form seriously, striving toward the production of something lasting. Rush and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers come to mind. Now we see bands that sink even lower in quality and morality than the lowest of the bad old days. Much of it is indistinguishable from white noise. Recently I was flipping tv channels, and stopped on one of the music stations for a few moments. The video was the latest offering from Cannibal Corpse. Catchy moniker, huh? Now imagine if Satan kicked together some demonic choir buddies and performed on a railroad track during a train wreck. That's how it sounded. Just a tip for would-be rock stars: if your band sounds like wails of the damned, makes cats and dogs yowl in pain, or peels paint off the walls, you may be creating a new torture device for Kim Jong-il, but you're not crafting music. Gone are the days of groups called Rainbow, Styx, Bad Company, Lynyrd Skynyrd, etc. Now we gawk in appreciation of quartets named Rancid, Puddle of Mud, Garbage, Sputum, Offal, Saliva, Mucus, Seeping Pustule--the bodily fluids and grotesque images go on and on.
I long for the days when country singers weren't merely clones of two or three of the most current icons. Take Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash; Kenny Rogers' earlier songs; Dollie Parton and Patsy Cline. Now that was a talented lineup. Each has a distinct voice and wrote songs that achieved a folk music status in the minds of many. Now we're burdened with three hundred guys who sound identical, who do not and cannot write their own songs; which in many ways is commendable, since most of these jokes set to music wouldn't try a ten-year-old for complexity. It's as if a group of industry executives sat down and said: "Let's write saccharine tripe--pure junkfood for the brain--and make sure we keep it under three-and-a-half minutes. Wouldn't wanna strain the attention spans of all those beer guzzlin' morons whom we euphemistically call fans." And so it goes. Forget something that stirs the soul or lives on in memory for twenty years. Nope. Just cobble a few one-syllable words together and let them wing to the radio waves. Sure, it'll make a bajillion dollars, but no one will remember the sell-out singer or the song in six months. And maybe that's a good thing, after all.
Don't even get me started on rap. . .
Take the heavily synthesized, up-beat stuff most folks call "pop" music: in the '70s and '80s, it consisted of great tunes, interesting lyrics, and produced memorable if not earth-shattering songs. Now we have the likes of Stripley Spears, Bedunce Knowles, Jessica Simpleton, and Christina Stripmebarea--all well-paid pole dancers who made careers on alluring physical characteristics and less talent than I have residing in my pinky toe. Have you ever perused their lyrics? The introspection of a fruit fly has more intellectual weight. In most circles, if you writhe and cavort seminude, you're known as a stripper, or something less complimentary. But once you get a recording contract--voila! You're a superstar!
Remember rock and roll?: Great guitar riffs, real melodies (even the harder variant), thought-provoking words, and groups who took the form seriously, striving toward the production of something lasting. Rush and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers come to mind. Now we see bands that sink even lower in quality and morality than the lowest of the bad old days. Much of it is indistinguishable from white noise. Recently I was flipping tv channels, and stopped on one of the music stations for a few moments. The video was the latest offering from Cannibal Corpse. Catchy moniker, huh? Now imagine if Satan kicked together some demonic choir buddies and performed on a railroad track during a train wreck. That's how it sounded. Just a tip for would-be rock stars: if your band sounds like wails of the damned, makes cats and dogs yowl in pain, or peels paint off the walls, you may be creating a new torture device for Kim Jong-il, but you're not crafting music. Gone are the days of groups called Rainbow, Styx, Bad Company, Lynyrd Skynyrd, etc. Now we gawk in appreciation of quartets named Rancid, Puddle of Mud, Garbage, Sputum, Offal, Saliva, Mucus, Seeping Pustule--the bodily fluids and grotesque images go on and on.
I long for the days when country singers weren't merely clones of two or three of the most current icons. Take Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash; Kenny Rogers' earlier songs; Dollie Parton and Patsy Cline. Now that was a talented lineup. Each has a distinct voice and wrote songs that achieved a folk music status in the minds of many. Now we're burdened with three hundred guys who sound identical, who do not and cannot write their own songs; which in many ways is commendable, since most of these jokes set to music wouldn't try a ten-year-old for complexity. It's as if a group of industry executives sat down and said: "Let's write saccharine tripe--pure junkfood for the brain--and make sure we keep it under three-and-a-half minutes. Wouldn't wanna strain the attention spans of all those beer guzzlin' morons whom we euphemistically call fans." And so it goes. Forget something that stirs the soul or lives on in memory for twenty years. Nope. Just cobble a few one-syllable words together and let them wing to the radio waves. Sure, it'll make a bajillion dollars, but no one will remember the sell-out singer or the song in six months. And maybe that's a good thing, after all.
Don't even get me started on rap. . .
Monday, August 21, 2006
Traveling in Style
ABOARD THAI AIRWAYS TO LOS ANGELES — John Mark Karr, the suspect in the death of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey, sipped champagne and ate fried king prawns in business class Sunday after being put aboard a flight to Los Angeles to face charges in the United States.
Dinner on board, served on a starched white tablecloth with silverware, was one many passengers would envy. Karr started with a pate, then had a green salad with walnut dressing. The main course was fried king prawn with steamed rice and broccoli. Karr drank a beer, crushing the can with his hands when it was empty, then moved on to a glass of French chardonnay with his main course.
Seems pretty appropriate treatment for a confessed child murderer, eh? I hope he condescended to give all those giggling stewardesses his autograph. Maybe when he gets home the airline will roll out a red carpet as he descends the staircase from the airplane cabin, and play "Hail the Conquering Hero" as he steps lively onto the Tarmac and strolls across the concourse.
I don't know if the guy's guilty, or just a nutcase. Either way, he's getting far better than he deserves.
Dinner on board, served on a starched white tablecloth with silverware, was one many passengers would envy. Karr started with a pate, then had a green salad with walnut dressing. The main course was fried king prawn with steamed rice and broccoli. Karr drank a beer, crushing the can with his hands when it was empty, then moved on to a glass of French chardonnay with his main course.
Seems pretty appropriate treatment for a confessed child murderer, eh? I hope he condescended to give all those giggling stewardesses his autograph. Maybe when he gets home the airline will roll out a red carpet as he descends the staircase from the airplane cabin, and play "Hail the Conquering Hero" as he steps lively onto the Tarmac and strolls across the concourse.
I don't know if the guy's guilty, or just a nutcase. Either way, he's getting far better than he deserves.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Sola Scriptura
I've heard it said that sola scriptura implies accepting only what the scripture says about God and godly things, while rejecting everything else; but I don't think that's what the term means--certainly not to me. Sola scriptura is the declaration that scripture--God's inspired word--is the ultimate, infallible authority on spiritual matters. All else should defer to the Bible. It is not a suggestion that extraneous material is contemptible or unworthy of consideration.
For example, if someone writes an insightful biblical commentary, or a book discussing the Gospel's effects on one's life, or an apologetic treatment--each of these are valid forms of illumination or elaboration upon the scriptures, as it were.
The key to determining the value of extra-biblical content is the degree to which it complements the Bible, rather than attempts supplanting it.
Take the oft-discussed and debated concept of Tradition. Is Tradition valuable and acceptable? Sure, as long as it supplements scripture and doesn't contradict it. This is where the Catholic Church gets into trouble. Rather than a harmonious support of God's word, Tradition becomes a distinct entity all its own, of equal gravity to scripture in many scenarios, and of even more relevance in others. Human sayings and traditions and opinions should never seek one-upping Christ and His teachings for humanity. When they conflict with His revelation to us, we should fall back upon scripture as our bulwark, setting it above the others and understanding it as the authoritative voice of God, speaking to us for our betterment. God's thoughts are higher than ours, and He knows His creation best. Learned men like Augustine of Hippo or Thomas Aquinas cannot hold a candle to His awesome majesty, nor should we treat their words with more reverence than His.
For example, if someone writes an insightful biblical commentary, or a book discussing the Gospel's effects on one's life, or an apologetic treatment--each of these are valid forms of illumination or elaboration upon the scriptures, as it were.
The key to determining the value of extra-biblical content is the degree to which it complements the Bible, rather than attempts supplanting it.
Take the oft-discussed and debated concept of Tradition. Is Tradition valuable and acceptable? Sure, as long as it supplements scripture and doesn't contradict it. This is where the Catholic Church gets into trouble. Rather than a harmonious support of God's word, Tradition becomes a distinct entity all its own, of equal gravity to scripture in many scenarios, and of even more relevance in others. Human sayings and traditions and opinions should never seek one-upping Christ and His teachings for humanity. When they conflict with His revelation to us, we should fall back upon scripture as our bulwark, setting it above the others and understanding it as the authoritative voice of God, speaking to us for our betterment. God's thoughts are higher than ours, and He knows His creation best. Learned men like Augustine of Hippo or Thomas Aquinas cannot hold a candle to His awesome majesty, nor should we treat their words with more reverence than His.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Unprincipled Exception
Illinois Senator Barack Obama warns citizens at his 50th Town Hall meeting about gas guzzling. It was among many points made to the standing room only audience at the Metropolis Community Center. Obama spoke on everything from DC politics to global warming. He says part of the blame for the world's higher temperatures rests on gas guzzling vehicles. Obama says consumers can make the difference by switching to higher mileage hybrids. Today the Senator said, "It would save more energy, do more for the environment and create better world security than all the drilling we could do in Alaska."
After the meeting... Obama left in a GMC Envoy after admitting to favoring SUV's himself.
After the meeting... Obama left in a GMC Envoy after admitting to favoring SUV's himself.
Guess how shocked I am.
Thanks for the Memories
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora thanked Hezbollah for its "sacrifices" in its war against Israel.
"We are in a strong position and I thank the Sayyed for his efforts," Mr Siniora said when asked about a statement by Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah calling on the Government to take advantage of Hezbollah's steadfastness against Israeli military might.
"I also thank all those who sacrifice their lives for the independence and sovereignty of Lebanon," he said.
Really, what more do you need to know about this guy?
"We are in a strong position and I thank the Sayyed for his efforts," Mr Siniora said when asked about a statement by Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah calling on the Government to take advantage of Hezbollah's steadfastness against Israeli military might.
"I also thank all those who sacrifice their lives for the independence and sovereignty of Lebanon," he said.
Really, what more do you need to know about this guy?
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Men in the Moon
Yesterday, a discussion began at Vox's on the missing Apollo program tapes. Some folks believe the moon landings are historical events. Others believe the whole setup was a sham. I'm one of the former, I'm afraid. I don't trust the government, as most of you probably have guessed, but after having looked at both sides of the issue, the only logical conclusion for me is accepting the lunar missions at face-value. The following is not meant as a comprehensive examination, just a few comments on the subject. I posted this at Vox's in the comments section:
For those who believe the moon landing is a hoax, I offer these morsels of food for thought:
1. The Apollo program consisted of six successful manned lunar landings, not just one. Each had its share of photos and video; so if these touchdowns were fakes, the wool was pulled over the public's eyes six times, over a period of three years.
2. Conspiracies appeal to the imagination, with all their attendant luridness. Add an imaginative brain to a healthy distrust of government, and sometimes conspiracy theories arise. I'm not saying that conspiracies don't happen, or that these theories shouldn't be taken into account. I'm suggesting that we take them with a grain of salt, and consider the appeal of sensationalism to the human mind.
3. Why read anything mysterious or exotic into NASA losing this lunar landing footage? It is the opinion of most who frequent this blog that the government is inept & botches almost everything it comes in contact with; is it really such a stretch that this archival footage would become misplaced?
For those who believe the moon landing is a hoax, I offer these morsels of food for thought:
1. The Apollo program consisted of six successful manned lunar landings, not just one. Each had its share of photos and video; so if these touchdowns were fakes, the wool was pulled over the public's eyes six times, over a period of three years.
2. Conspiracies appeal to the imagination, with all their attendant luridness. Add an imaginative brain to a healthy distrust of government, and sometimes conspiracy theories arise. I'm not saying that conspiracies don't happen, or that these theories shouldn't be taken into account. I'm suggesting that we take them with a grain of salt, and consider the appeal of sensationalism to the human mind.
3. Why read anything mysterious or exotic into NASA losing this lunar landing footage? It is the opinion of most who frequent this blog that the government is inept & botches almost everything it comes in contact with; is it really such a stretch that this archival footage would become misplaced?
A Motto for the New Millennium
In these troubled times, I believe the Islamic world needs a new slogan, one that slices through the nauseating layers of PC and represents the current and historic state of world affairs and Islamic aspirations for the globe. Thus, I humbly offer this:
"Muslims: making the world safe for Islam, one dead infidel at a time."
"Muslims: making the world safe for Islam, one dead infidel at a time."
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Racists in the Woodpile
This is an addendum to the last post.
I've heard a few geniuses proclaim on tv and other brain-congealing media that profiling for terrorists is racist. Really? Wow, that's deep. So which race is it that we can't stand? Arabs? Whites? Blacks? Every race represented within Islam? Haha! That must be it! We Islamophobes hate everybody. This is the one cogent explanation for our actions, since the most populous Islamic country on Earth is Indonesia, which is not an Arab country. Nor is Iran, the Philippines, Turkey, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chechnya, Afghanistan, India, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Sudan--heck, I could go on and on. Only about 20% of the world's Muslims are Arabs, folks.
Also, since a sizeable minority of Arabs in several countries are Christians, does that mean if I feel fondness toward my Arab brothers and sisters in Christ, I'm only half a racist? Please, someone clarify this for me, as it troubles me to no end. Many of you harbor an unreasoning hatred toward Christianity. Utilizing your logic, I conclude that you must be racists. After all, the definition of racist is: "One who follows a specific religion," right?
So I suppose what I'm saying is that if you believe terrorist profiling is racist, you either know nothing about the distinctions between racial and religious characteristics, or you need watering more than three times a day.
I've heard a few geniuses proclaim on tv and other brain-congealing media that profiling for terrorists is racist. Really? Wow, that's deep. So which race is it that we can't stand? Arabs? Whites? Blacks? Every race represented within Islam? Haha! That must be it! We Islamophobes hate everybody. This is the one cogent explanation for our actions, since the most populous Islamic country on Earth is Indonesia, which is not an Arab country. Nor is Iran, the Philippines, Turkey, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chechnya, Afghanistan, India, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Sudan--heck, I could go on and on. Only about 20% of the world's Muslims are Arabs, folks.
Also, since a sizeable minority of Arabs in several countries are Christians, does that mean if I feel fondness toward my Arab brothers and sisters in Christ, I'm only half a racist? Please, someone clarify this for me, as it troubles me to no end. Many of you harbor an unreasoning hatred toward Christianity. Utilizing your logic, I conclude that you must be racists. After all, the definition of racist is: "One who follows a specific religion," right?
So I suppose what I'm saying is that if you believe terrorist profiling is racist, you either know nothing about the distinctions between racial and religious characteristics, or you need watering more than three times a day.
Death by PC
In light of the recent hindrance of terrorists attempting to blow up Great Satan airlines, I thought I'd offer a few words:
As I've said before, 100% of the people who want to kill us are Muslims. Not 50%; not 25%. 100%. The overwhelming majority of these people come from Muslim or Middle Eastern countries. These two points are facts, not opinions, and they represent minimal observancy. If our--cough--leaders can't come to terms with these simple truths, then defeating the enemy becomes not just unlikely, but impossible. Vast military might, advanced technology, and soldiers with elite training cannot overcome common, garden-variety stupidity.
Airports now have cracked down, once again, spread-eagling little old ladies against cold, cinder-block walls, while dutiful screeners take plungers to their nether regions. Guess what, idiots? Grannies with walkers, old men with bad tickers, and WASPs aren't the problem. How many people must die horrible, preventable deaths before you get this clue through your bunker-thick skulls?
Since airports deem searches of passengers necessary, inconveniences become inevitable. So the question becomes: Will you search people who fit the terrorist profile--at least superficially--or will you continue molesting Eagle Scouts, those who braved Iwo Jima and won the Medal of Honor, red-headed, blue-eyed women, and Catholic priests with collar on full display?
It seems absurdity is as boundless as the universe itself, in modern America. Remember the Airplane! movies? There's a hilarious scene in one of those, in which an old maid walks through a metal detector at an airport. The machines beep, so the screeners halt everything and begin giving her grief. As they occupy themselves with this peril with knitting needles, a couple of fully-armed terrorists stroll through the detectors with RPGs and automatic weapons, making their way to the plane.
It was a funny scene in 1980. Who knew it would become prophetic, twenty-six years later?
As I've said before, 100% of the people who want to kill us are Muslims. Not 50%; not 25%. 100%. The overwhelming majority of these people come from Muslim or Middle Eastern countries. These two points are facts, not opinions, and they represent minimal observancy. If our--cough--leaders can't come to terms with these simple truths, then defeating the enemy becomes not just unlikely, but impossible. Vast military might, advanced technology, and soldiers with elite training cannot overcome common, garden-variety stupidity.
Airports now have cracked down, once again, spread-eagling little old ladies against cold, cinder-block walls, while dutiful screeners take plungers to their nether regions. Guess what, idiots? Grannies with walkers, old men with bad tickers, and WASPs aren't the problem. How many people must die horrible, preventable deaths before you get this clue through your bunker-thick skulls?
Since airports deem searches of passengers necessary, inconveniences become inevitable. So the question becomes: Will you search people who fit the terrorist profile--at least superficially--or will you continue molesting Eagle Scouts, those who braved Iwo Jima and won the Medal of Honor, red-headed, blue-eyed women, and Catholic priests with collar on full display?
It seems absurdity is as boundless as the universe itself, in modern America. Remember the Airplane! movies? There's a hilarious scene in one of those, in which an old maid walks through a metal detector at an airport. The machines beep, so the screeners halt everything and begin giving her grief. As they occupy themselves with this peril with knitting needles, a couple of fully-armed terrorists stroll through the detectors with RPGs and automatic weapons, making their way to the plane.
It was a funny scene in 1980. Who knew it would become prophetic, twenty-six years later?
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
Neutering the Underdog
I found myself listening to Rush Limbaugh, yesterday, as is my wont when I'm in a particular mood, and something he said prompted these comments. He told a caller that liberals always champion the underdog, that it's pretty much a knee-jerk reaction. He said this regarding the current brouhaha between Israel and Hezbollah.
Superficially, it appears he's correct. Case-in-point, the love affair leftists have with those self-detonating saints known erroneously as Palestinians. But digging a bit deeper, I believe he's dead wrong.
Let's suppose that a situation arises in the U.S. in which the federal government begins making life difficult for Christians, restricting their freedom of speech and religion. Will left-wingers show up in droves, electric cars stuffed to the max, waving all-natural hemp banners and protest signs? Will they go to bat for these Christians--the clear underdogs in such a scenario?
Absolutely not. You know it, and I know it. We know because they already don't. When was the last time you heard a liberal defend freedom of speech or religion emanating from someone who didn't share his views? In my case, I've never experienced it. In fact, quite the opposite.
You see, liberals--synonymous with left-wingers, these days--love freedom of speech, for liberals. They gush over freedom of religion, or perhaps from religion, for liberals. Constitutional protections and guarantees are sublime, for liberals. Others can take a long stroll off a short pier.
And so with underdogs. Liberals champion them, so long as they share their worldview, or war against that which they despise. Currently, this means Hezbollah. Do average liberals admire or share the primitive belief system of Hezbollah? Maybe, maybe not. But they do tend toward a loathing of Israel, so we have a classic case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Make no mistake: if you're an underdog who wants liberal attention, you'd better brush up on your left-wing talking points; or at the very least, find a cause liberals support, and give it your heart and soul.
The other reason I believe Rush is wrong is because I think it's debatable who the true underdog is, in the Middle East. After all, it's not a case of Israel vs. Hezbollah; it's a matter of Israel vs. the "Palestinians," Iran, Syria, and their proxy, Hezbollah. Not to mention other Islamic states that lend their moral support to Israel's annihilation, while exercising discretion about their enthusiasm in public.
Superficially, it appears he's correct. Case-in-point, the love affair leftists have with those self-detonating saints known erroneously as Palestinians. But digging a bit deeper, I believe he's dead wrong.
Let's suppose that a situation arises in the U.S. in which the federal government begins making life difficult for Christians, restricting their freedom of speech and religion. Will left-wingers show up in droves, electric cars stuffed to the max, waving all-natural hemp banners and protest signs? Will they go to bat for these Christians--the clear underdogs in such a scenario?
Absolutely not. You know it, and I know it. We know because they already don't. When was the last time you heard a liberal defend freedom of speech or religion emanating from someone who didn't share his views? In my case, I've never experienced it. In fact, quite the opposite.
You see, liberals--synonymous with left-wingers, these days--love freedom of speech, for liberals. They gush over freedom of religion, or perhaps from religion, for liberals. Constitutional protections and guarantees are sublime, for liberals. Others can take a long stroll off a short pier.
And so with underdogs. Liberals champion them, so long as they share their worldview, or war against that which they despise. Currently, this means Hezbollah. Do average liberals admire or share the primitive belief system of Hezbollah? Maybe, maybe not. But they do tend toward a loathing of Israel, so we have a classic case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Make no mistake: if you're an underdog who wants liberal attention, you'd better brush up on your left-wing talking points; or at the very least, find a cause liberals support, and give it your heart and soul.
The other reason I believe Rush is wrong is because I think it's debatable who the true underdog is, in the Middle East. After all, it's not a case of Israel vs. Hezbollah; it's a matter of Israel vs. the "Palestinians," Iran, Syria, and their proxy, Hezbollah. Not to mention other Islamic states that lend their moral support to Israel's annihilation, while exercising discretion about their enthusiasm in public.
Monday, August 7, 2006
Mel in a Handbasket
For those who think Mel Gibson is a Jew-hating, jack-boot polishing, oven-feeding, swastika-waving Hitlerite, I have a couple of questions:
1. Sure, drinking lowers one's inhibitions, thereby prompting words and actions truly meant, though kept under reign in polite society; but doesn't anger also goad people in saying things they do not mean? I'll repeat the open question I asked over at Vox's: Have you ever said things--perhaps even terrible, inexcusable words--while angry? Things you didn't really believe? Now add alcohol to the mix, and you have a heightened effect in an already-lousy situation. Though I've heard people condemn Gibson over and over for allowing his supposed deep-seated beliefs a venting through alcohol, I've not heard the above alternative explanation mentioned, yet.
2. Why would an anti-Jew make a movie in which every character of any moral fortitude is a Jew? I'm speaking of The Passion of the Christ, in which all of the positively portrayed characters are Jewish, including (and especially) Jesus. Also, a bigot could've had a field-day with this subject matter, crucifying the Jews on film for Jesus' murder, yet that's not what happened. I've seen the movie, and there's not a trace of Jew-bashing in it. In fact, one could make a case that the Jews were treated with kid gloves.
3. Why is hating Jews anathema if you're a Hollywood actor, but acceptable and downright delightful, if you're a Muslim, Koffi Annan, the U.N. in general, pick-your-decadent-European-ruler, or an American leftist?
4. Where is the compassion for Gibson's chronic problem? We're told over and over that alcoholism is a disease: Alcoholics Anonymous and virtually every other treatment group assures us of this, as does the media, Hollywood, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the WHO, the American College of Physicians, the American Medical Association, and the Society for Besotted Inebriates. So why all the outrage? This feller needs help, and can in no wise be held responsible for his actions while under the influence of the Devil's Ichor. I don't care if he was doing 120 in a school zone, with twice the legal limit blood alchohol levels, with infants in the front seat without safety restraints. It doesn't matter, because he has a disease."Once an addict, always an addict;" I believe the profound philosopher Timothy Leary observed this fundamental truth. So not only is he in a diseased state, but it's terminal, as well. The poor man needs our sympathy, not our contempt.
1. Sure, drinking lowers one's inhibitions, thereby prompting words and actions truly meant, though kept under reign in polite society; but doesn't anger also goad people in saying things they do not mean? I'll repeat the open question I asked over at Vox's: Have you ever said things--perhaps even terrible, inexcusable words--while angry? Things you didn't really believe? Now add alcohol to the mix, and you have a heightened effect in an already-lousy situation. Though I've heard people condemn Gibson over and over for allowing his supposed deep-seated beliefs a venting through alcohol, I've not heard the above alternative explanation mentioned, yet.
2. Why would an anti-Jew make a movie in which every character of any moral fortitude is a Jew? I'm speaking of The Passion of the Christ, in which all of the positively portrayed characters are Jewish, including (and especially) Jesus. Also, a bigot could've had a field-day with this subject matter, crucifying the Jews on film for Jesus' murder, yet that's not what happened. I've seen the movie, and there's not a trace of Jew-bashing in it. In fact, one could make a case that the Jews were treated with kid gloves.
3. Why is hating Jews anathema if you're a Hollywood actor, but acceptable and downright delightful, if you're a Muslim, Koffi Annan, the U.N. in general, pick-your-decadent-European-ruler, or an American leftist?
4. Where is the compassion for Gibson's chronic problem? We're told over and over that alcoholism is a disease: Alcoholics Anonymous and virtually every other treatment group assures us of this, as does the media, Hollywood, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the WHO, the American College of Physicians, the American Medical Association, and the Society for Besotted Inebriates. So why all the outrage? This feller needs help, and can in no wise be held responsible for his actions while under the influence of the Devil's Ichor. I don't care if he was doing 120 in a school zone, with twice the legal limit blood alchohol levels, with infants in the front seat without safety restraints. It doesn't matter, because he has a disease."Once an addict, always an addict;" I believe the profound philosopher Timothy Leary observed this fundamental truth. So not only is he in a diseased state, but it's terminal, as well. The poor man needs our sympathy, not our contempt.
Friday, August 4, 2006
Inflated Numbers
The Red Cross published that 28 corpses were evacuated from Qana, 19 of which were children. The report clashes with the Lebanese report that 57 people were killed.
If this incident turns out a fake--as the evidence increasingly suggests--I wonder how many major media outlets will plaster corrections on their front pages, in lurid large print, with accompanying photos? I wonder how many tv stations will point out Hezbollah's evil treachery?
I'm guessing few or none.
If this incident turns out a fake--as the evidence increasingly suggests--I wonder how many major media outlets will plaster corrections on their front pages, in lurid large print, with accompanying photos? I wonder how many tv stations will point out Hezbollah's evil treachery?
I'm guessing few or none.
Masters of Deception
From Robert Spencer at FrontPageMag.com:
. . .it is increasingly clear that the Qana “massacre” was a stage-managed Hizballah production, designed precisely to enflame international sentiment against Israel and compel the Israelis to accept a ceasefire that would enable the jihad terrorist group to gain some time to recover from the Israeli attacks. Some of the principal evidence for this:
1. The Israeli bombardment took place about midnight, but the house where the civilians were gathered reportedly did not collapse until 8AM. Said Brigadier General Amir Eshel of the Israeli Air Force, “It is difficult for me to believe that they waited eight hours to evacuate it.” Indeed, it strains credulity that not only did these Lebanese civilians remain in a house that had been bombed for eight hours, but peacefully went to sleep in it after the bombing – since the victims were all apparently sleeping, despite continuing Israeli air bombardment in the area, when the building collapsed. Eshel suggested that “it could be that inside the building, things that could eventually cause an explosion were being housed, things that we could not blow up in the attack, and maybe remained there” – in other words, Hizballah bombs and/or weapons.
2. Photos of the rescue operation, which were transmitted all over the world and appeared on the front page of the New York Times and other major newspapers, are extremely suspicious. The blog EU Referendum has done important work scrutinizing the photos, finding numerous anomalies. Most notably, the dating of the various photos suggests that the same bodies were paraded before reporters on different occasions, each time as if they had just been pulled from the rubble. In a rebuttal to this charge, AP’s David Bauder rather lamely asserts: “web sites can use such stamps to show when pictures are posted, not taken.” Responds Richard North of EU Referendum: “Note, however, the use of the word ‘can’. He does not say that the ‘date stamps’ are wrong.” EU Referendum has also uncovered strange anomalies in the photos themselves: some workers are wearing different gear in different photos, yet clearly carrying the same corpse. Richard North comments about one of these workers: “It stretches belief to breaking point to argue that, on his way to the ambulance, he took off his helmet, his fluorescent waistcoat and his flack jacket just in order to pose for the cameras putting the body in the wagon – especially as we have the body being placed on the ‘guerney’ – which means the scenes are totally inconsistent.”
3. The very existence of these pictures raises more questions. As Israel Insider puts it: “While Hezbollah and its apologists have been claiming that civilians could not freely flee the scene due to Israeli destruction of bridges and roads, the journalists and rescue teams from nearby Tyre had no problem getting there.”
4. The Christian Lebanese website LIBANOSCOPIE has charged that Hizballah staged the entire incident in order to stimulate calls for a ceasefire, thereby staving off its destruction by Israel and Lebanese plans to rid themselves of this terrorist plague: “We have it from a credible source that Hizbullah, alarmed by Siniora’s plan, has concocted an incident that would help thwart the negotiations. Knowing full well that Israel will not hesitate to bombard civilian targets, Hizbullah gunmen placed a rocket launcher on the roof in Qana and brought disabled children inside, in a bid to provoke a response by the Israeli Air Force. In this way, they were planning to take advantage of the death of innocents and curtail the negotiation initiative.”
5. According to the German scholar Matthias Küntzel, “the Berlin daily the Tagesspiegel published a letter-to-the-editor from Dr. Mounir Herzallah, a Shiite from the South of Lebanon. Dr. Herzallah reports on how Hezbollah-terrorists came to his town, dug a munitions depot and then built a school and a residence directly over it. He writes: ‘Laughing, a local sheikh explained to me that the Jews lose either way: either because the rockets are fired at them or because, if they attack munitions depot, they are condemned by world public opinion on account of the dead civilians.’ Hezbollah, he says, uses the civilian population ‘as a human shield and then when they are dead as propaganda.’”
Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, declared that “War is deceit.” Specifically, he taught that lying was permissible in battle. While the doctrines of religious deception (taqiyya and kitman) are most often identified with Shi’ite Islam, and ostensibly rejected by Sunnis, because they were sanctioned by the Prophet, they can still be found in traditions that Sunni Muslims consider reliable, and are practiced among Salafis. Jihadists today have spoken of the usefulness of deceptive practices.
Americans and Westerners are not used to dealing with carefully orchestrated and large-scale deception of this kind. It is time that it be recognized as a weapon of warfare, and an extremely potent one at that. Qana has already largely accomplished what it was supposed to. It will now take its place beside the Danish cartoons, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and all the rest as a useful focal point for Muslim outrage and a magnet for jihad recruitment. The dhimmi Leftist Western press is happy, for it can again show America and Israel as guilty in the world’s site. The mujahedin are happy, for jihad and Sharia will advance still more. The only people who couldn’t possibly be happy with this are the Israelis and others on the front lines of the jihad worldwide.
Thursday, August 3, 2006
Florida Hurricane Advice
My wife sent me this in an email:
We're about to enter the peak of the hurricane season. Any day now, you're going to turn on the TV and see a weather person pointing to some radar blob out in the Gulf of Mexico and making two basic meteorological hints:
(1) There is no need to panic.
(2) We could all be killed.
Yes, hurricane season is an exciting time to be in Florida. If you're new to the area, you're probably wondering what you need to do to prepare for the possibility that we'll get hit by "the big one." Based on our experiences, we recommend that you follow this simple three-step hurricane preparedness plan:
STEP 1. Buy enough food and bottled water to last your family for at least three days.
STEP 2. Put these supplies into your car.
STEP 3. Drive to Illinois and remain there until Halloween.
Unfortunately, statistics show that most people will not follow this sensible plan. Most people will foolishly stay in Florida.
We'll start with one of the most important hurricane preparedness items:
HOMEOWNERS' INSURANCE:
If you own a home, you must have hurricane insurance. Fortunately, this insurance is cheap and easy to get, as long as your home meets two basic requirements:
(1) It is reasonably well-built, and
(2) It is located in Illinois.
Unfortunately, if your home is located in Florida, or any other area that might actually be hit by a hurricane, most insurance companies would prefer not to sell you hurricane insurance, because then they might be required to pay you money, and that is certainly not why they got into the insurance business in the first place. So you'll have to scrounge around for an insurance company, which will charge you an annual premium roughly equal to the replacement value of your house. At any moment, this company can drop you like used dental floss.
EVACUATION ROUTE:
If you live in a low-lying area, you should have an evacuation route planned out. To determine whether you live in a low-lying area, look at your driver's license; if it says "Florida," you live in a low-lying area.
HURRICANE SUPPLIES:
If you don't evacuate, you will need a mess of supplies. Do not buy them now. Florida tradition requires that you wait until the last possible minute, then go to the supermarket and get into vicious fights with strangers over who gets the last can of Spam.
In addition to food and water, you will need the following supplies: 23 flashlights; at least $167 worth of batteries that turn out, when the power goes off, to be the wrong size for the flashlights. Bleach. (No, I don't know what the bleach is for. Nobody knows what the bleach is for, but it's traditional, so get some!) A 55-gallon drum of underarm deodorant. A big knife that you can strap to your leg. (This will be useless in a hurricane, but it looks cool.) A large quantity of raw chicken, to placate the alligators. (Ask anybody who went through a hurricane; after the hurricane, there WILL be irate alligators.) $35,000 in cash or diamonds so that, after the hurricane passes, you can buy a generator from a man with no discernible teeth.
Of course these are just basic precautions. As the hurricane draws near, it is vitally important that you keep abreast of the situation by turning on your television and watching TV reporters in rain slickers stand right next to the ocean and tell you over and over how vitally important it is for everybody to stay away from the ocean.
Good luck, and remember: its great living in paradise.
We're about to enter the peak of the hurricane season. Any day now, you're going to turn on the TV and see a weather person pointing to some radar blob out in the Gulf of Mexico and making two basic meteorological hints:
(1) There is no need to panic.
(2) We could all be killed.
Yes, hurricane season is an exciting time to be in Florida. If you're new to the area, you're probably wondering what you need to do to prepare for the possibility that we'll get hit by "the big one." Based on our experiences, we recommend that you follow this simple three-step hurricane preparedness plan:
STEP 1. Buy enough food and bottled water to last your family for at least three days.
STEP 2. Put these supplies into your car.
STEP 3. Drive to Illinois and remain there until Halloween.
Unfortunately, statistics show that most people will not follow this sensible plan. Most people will foolishly stay in Florida.
We'll start with one of the most important hurricane preparedness items:
HOMEOWNERS' INSURANCE:
If you own a home, you must have hurricane insurance. Fortunately, this insurance is cheap and easy to get, as long as your home meets two basic requirements:
(1) It is reasonably well-built, and
(2) It is located in Illinois.
Unfortunately, if your home is located in Florida, or any other area that might actually be hit by a hurricane, most insurance companies would prefer not to sell you hurricane insurance, because then they might be required to pay you money, and that is certainly not why they got into the insurance business in the first place. So you'll have to scrounge around for an insurance company, which will charge you an annual premium roughly equal to the replacement value of your house. At any moment, this company can drop you like used dental floss.
EVACUATION ROUTE:
If you live in a low-lying area, you should have an evacuation route planned out. To determine whether you live in a low-lying area, look at your driver's license; if it says "Florida," you live in a low-lying area.
HURRICANE SUPPLIES:
If you don't evacuate, you will need a mess of supplies. Do not buy them now. Florida tradition requires that you wait until the last possible minute, then go to the supermarket and get into vicious fights with strangers over who gets the last can of Spam.
In addition to food and water, you will need the following supplies: 23 flashlights; at least $167 worth of batteries that turn out, when the power goes off, to be the wrong size for the flashlights. Bleach. (No, I don't know what the bleach is for. Nobody knows what the bleach is for, but it's traditional, so get some!) A 55-gallon drum of underarm deodorant. A big knife that you can strap to your leg. (This will be useless in a hurricane, but it looks cool.) A large quantity of raw chicken, to placate the alligators. (Ask anybody who went through a hurricane; after the hurricane, there WILL be irate alligators.) $35,000 in cash or diamonds so that, after the hurricane passes, you can buy a generator from a man with no discernible teeth.
Of course these are just basic precautions. As the hurricane draws near, it is vitally important that you keep abreast of the situation by turning on your television and watching TV reporters in rain slickers stand right next to the ocean and tell you over and over how vitally important it is for everybody to stay away from the ocean.
Good luck, and remember: its great living in paradise.
Time Out
I received a renewal plea from Time magazine, today (I had a subscription several years ago). They offered me a senior citizen discount, which is odd, since I'm neither a senior citizen, nor have I ever intimated such to the publication's customer service personnel.
Here's the "deal" they offered: 56 issues (1 year)--with a newsstand cover price of $201.00--for $19.
$19. Can you believe that?
The letter goes on, assuring me that, if I pay now, I'll receive an additional six months of issues-- a grand-total of 84 issues--for free. Plus a bonus ultrasonic laser level, a new book titled I, Gorebot, a gold statuette of Hillary Clinton, and a Marxist decoder ring for reading between the lines. Ok, I made up the last two.
Doesn't this reek of desperation? It implies that Time isn't doing so hot. They're practically giving it away. Alas, other than spare TP, I have no use for this left-wing rag.
Maybe Time has run its course.
Here's the "deal" they offered: 56 issues (1 year)--with a newsstand cover price of $201.00--for $19.
$19. Can you believe that?
The letter goes on, assuring me that, if I pay now, I'll receive an additional six months of issues-- a grand-total of 84 issues--for free. Plus a bonus ultrasonic laser level, a new book titled I, Gorebot, a gold statuette of Hillary Clinton, and a Marxist decoder ring for reading between the lines. Ok, I made up the last two.
Doesn't this reek of desperation? It implies that Time isn't doing so hot. They're practically giving it away. Alas, other than spare TP, I have no use for this left-wing rag.
Maybe Time has run its course.
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
Infanticide: AKA: "A Woman's Right"
Abortionists investigated for possible baby murder
That is the headline title on WorldNetDaily. I kid you not. Talkin' 'bout stating the obvious. This is akin to other revelatory pieces, such as: Breaking News: German Nazis Investigated for Genocide Attempts; or This Just In: Yoda Dubbed Vertically Challenged; Senator Clinton Imp of Satan; Fat Albert Rather Obese; Post-Katrina Nawleuhns Troubled by Elevated Water Tables; or Shocking Secret Revealed: Michael Jackson Rejected by Barnum and Bailey Circus Freak Program! "He was just too much an aberration of nature," said the Bearded Lady.
I'd laugh myself silly, if the subject matter weren't so depressing. Of course abortionists murder babies; it's their stock-in-trade. They excel at it, thrive on it, and stacking 'em up like cordwood is what rolls in the big bucks for these detached "family planners." What distinguishes this story from the usual abortion-mill killings is that we're talking about a post-birth murder, not a pre-birth evacuation of formless "tissue." That's really the only difference: in the womb, or out.
The dead body of a baby who probably was born alive and then killed is just "business as usual" for the nation's abortion industry, a spokesperson for the Florida Right to Life effort told WorldNetDaily.
The discovery came after someone, perhaps a clinic worker, according to police, called 911 anonymously to report that a baby had been born alive, and was killed.
Authorities report their investigation includes the potential for homicide charges, as well as evidence tampering. The baby reportedly was 12 inches long and weighed up to three pounds, an age and weight at which premature infants can survive outside the womb.
I think this aptly demonstrates the absurdity of the ghouls who argue that terminating a child up to the day of birth is anything other than murder.
The whole situation gives new meaning to the expression: "I brought you into this world, and I'll take you out." In the interests of clarity and honesty, I vote that each abortion charnel house proudly display this on a sign above its door.
That is the headline title on WorldNetDaily. I kid you not. Talkin' 'bout stating the obvious. This is akin to other revelatory pieces, such as: Breaking News: German Nazis Investigated for Genocide Attempts; or This Just In: Yoda Dubbed Vertically Challenged; Senator Clinton Imp of Satan; Fat Albert Rather Obese; Post-Katrina Nawleuhns Troubled by Elevated Water Tables; or Shocking Secret Revealed: Michael Jackson Rejected by Barnum and Bailey Circus Freak Program! "He was just too much an aberration of nature," said the Bearded Lady.
I'd laugh myself silly, if the subject matter weren't so depressing. Of course abortionists murder babies; it's their stock-in-trade. They excel at it, thrive on it, and stacking 'em up like cordwood is what rolls in the big bucks for these detached "family planners." What distinguishes this story from the usual abortion-mill killings is that we're talking about a post-birth murder, not a pre-birth evacuation of formless "tissue." That's really the only difference: in the womb, or out.
The dead body of a baby who probably was born alive and then killed is just "business as usual" for the nation's abortion industry, a spokesperson for the Florida Right to Life effort told WorldNetDaily.
The discovery came after someone, perhaps a clinic worker, according to police, called 911 anonymously to report that a baby had been born alive, and was killed.
Authorities report their investigation includes the potential for homicide charges, as well as evidence tampering. The baby reportedly was 12 inches long and weighed up to three pounds, an age and weight at which premature infants can survive outside the womb.
I think this aptly demonstrates the absurdity of the ghouls who argue that terminating a child up to the day of birth is anything other than murder.
The whole situation gives new meaning to the expression: "I brought you into this world, and I'll take you out." In the interests of clarity and honesty, I vote that each abortion charnel house proudly display this on a sign above its door.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)