For those who slavishly hang on every pronouncement from George Bush, who support his attempt at fashioning those Americans in turbans known as Iraqis even further into our likeness, I have for you some food for thought:
1. Does the president have a constitutional mandate to "make the world safe for democracy?" If so, someone point it out to me, as I cannot find it in that hallowed document. Are we in any way obligated toward aiding Iraq in the institution of a republican government? If you answer "Yes!" to these questions, then why should we stop with Iraq? Why not liberate the bullied peoples of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, China, Middle-Earth, and a veritable host of other dictatorially run countries and lands? If we embrace this nation-building concept, it seems that we also embrace U.S. involvement in a war somewhere on the globe into perpetuity; or at least until everyone is brought around to our way of thinking. Make no mistake: Bush's primary argument for staying in Iraq for quite some time has focused on building a representative government in that unhappy place. Fighting the "War on Fright" is a side issue in the pursuit of this grand cause.
2. What is the likelihood of long-term success in Iraq? This cobbled-together nation exists in a region with no history of freedom. Its people grow up in a culture with no history of freedom. They follow a religion that is the very antithesis of freedom. In fact, the more devotion one gives to Islamic teaching, the greater an enemy of freedom one becomes. This is a stark contrast between Islam and Christianity, which our leaders shrug off and relegate to scorn.
Our current administration needs an understanding that Iraqis are not products of Western civilization. They do not share a history or tradition with us in building upon the edifice of liberty, brick by brick, over the course of time. Nor do they share the Christian background conducive to such freedom. It is their different background--particularly the influence of Islam--which leads me to the conclusion that a lasting support of representative government in Iraq is remote. The Iraqis, themselves, already have made the first move in proving me correct, by insisting upon an Islamic basis for their constitution. That does not bode well for freedom of any significance in a future Iraq. American weakness isn't the issue; having unrealistic goals at the outset is.
3. "Every man, woman and child wants to be free." I'm sure you've heard this before, or some variation thereof. Rush Limbaugh frequently says that liberty is the natural yearning of the human heart. Our illustrious president has made comments to this effect, as well.
It may amaze you that I agree wholeheartedly with such sentiments. But they're missing one crucial element, one tiny proviso: the definition of freedom.
Without getting too complex, the average American defines liberty as living his life as he sees fit, unless his actions infringe upon the God-given rights of his neighbors. Others born into Western civilization probably have similar outlooks, and that's well and good.
The problem is that those outside this tradition don't extend the same definition to freedom. For example, a devout Muslim defines freedom as the institution of sharia--Islamic domination of the political, the economic, and the social (particularly the religious) realms. This entails proselytizing the religion to others, and forcing their capitulation to it if the former has no success. So the Islamic conception of liberty is absorption into the Muslim worldview, or submission to Muslim control. Sounds peachy for us infidels, right?
Devout Buddhists define freedom as the achievement of nirvana and the extinction of consciousness. In other words, oblivion. How does that fit in with the old capitalist "can-do" spirit?
Hindus consider a permanent, non-transcendable caste system an integral facet of freedom.
All men have in common the longing for freedom. No one wakes up and greets the day with: "Man, I sure hope someone enslaves me, this morning. I need a good whipping." No one goes through life depressed because he can't get anyone to imprison and torture him to death. But outside such shocking specifics, general understandings of liberty vary widely.
So the next time someone hands you the line that "All men want to be free," ask them if they think that all men share the same definition of freedom.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Saturday, October 21, 2006
A Special Request for Prayer
My father began having dizzy spells and extreme sensitivity to light, this afternoon. It grew worse, and a trip to the emergency room became necessary. The staff did an x-ray and determined that he was bleeding in his brain. Even with morphine, he had a terrible headache, accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and the left corner of his mouth turning downward.
He was rushed into the operating theater, in hopes of draining the excess blood, removing the clot and stopping the bleeding, and relieving the pressure in his head.
The surgery went smoothly, with no further complications along the way. The surgeon--who acted put-out that he was forced to interact with us mere mortals--said they successfully stopped the bleeding and removed the clot; but only time will tell if he'll recover completely, recover with some motor skills damage, or not recover at all.
This struck myself and my family like the proverbial ton of bricks, catching us flatfooted. There were no warning signs to speak of; he seemed healthy and robust.
I thank the good Lord that I had the chance to talk to him and tell him that I love him and was there for him just minutes before the operation. Regardless the ultimate outcome, that time was precious to me.
I humbly ask that each of my blog friends remember him in their prayers over the next week or two. This is the most critical time for him, and I can't emphasize just how serious his condition is. Let me thank you up front for your kindness and concern. I believe Jesus hears our prayers, and that He answers them, so this effort on your part means more to me than words can say. The one upside to this situation is that my dad is saved by the blood of the Lamb. So for him, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. Praise God for that!
Hold your children close and kiss them. Tell your family and friends that you love them. Don't wait until another time. Treat each day as if it were your last, for no one knows what tomorrow brings.
Update
As of Sunday night, he's doing as well as a person in his condition can do. His blood pressure is stabilized, and the doctors gradually are decreasing his intake of blood pressure medication. No complications, so far.
One of the nurses told me that one-third of people with this problem die before they reach the hospital. Another third make it to the hospital, but die shortly thereafter--either before or during surgery. The remaining third survives with either major, minor, or zero side effects. So he's already beaten the odds, folks. He has well over a hundred people praying for him, and our Father is listening.
Thank you for the prayers and well wishes. I ask that you continue. It's not a waste of time. I thank God that He listens to His children, and has mercy on them.
Bless you all.
He was rushed into the operating theater, in hopes of draining the excess blood, removing the clot and stopping the bleeding, and relieving the pressure in his head.
The surgery went smoothly, with no further complications along the way. The surgeon--who acted put-out that he was forced to interact with us mere mortals--said they successfully stopped the bleeding and removed the clot; but only time will tell if he'll recover completely, recover with some motor skills damage, or not recover at all.
This struck myself and my family like the proverbial ton of bricks, catching us flatfooted. There were no warning signs to speak of; he seemed healthy and robust.
I thank the good Lord that I had the chance to talk to him and tell him that I love him and was there for him just minutes before the operation. Regardless the ultimate outcome, that time was precious to me.
I humbly ask that each of my blog friends remember him in their prayers over the next week or two. This is the most critical time for him, and I can't emphasize just how serious his condition is. Let me thank you up front for your kindness and concern. I believe Jesus hears our prayers, and that He answers them, so this effort on your part means more to me than words can say. The one upside to this situation is that my dad is saved by the blood of the Lamb. So for him, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. Praise God for that!
Hold your children close and kiss them. Tell your family and friends that you love them. Don't wait until another time. Treat each day as if it were your last, for no one knows what tomorrow brings.
Update
As of Sunday night, he's doing as well as a person in his condition can do. His blood pressure is stabilized, and the doctors gradually are decreasing his intake of blood pressure medication. No complications, so far.
One of the nurses told me that one-third of people with this problem die before they reach the hospital. Another third make it to the hospital, but die shortly thereafter--either before or during surgery. The remaining third survives with either major, minor, or zero side effects. So he's already beaten the odds, folks. He has well over a hundred people praying for him, and our Father is listening.
Thank you for the prayers and well wishes. I ask that you continue. It's not a waste of time. I thank God that He listens to His children, and has mercy on them.
Bless you all.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
And Now, A Few Words from Our Sponsor
Are you suffering from erectile disfunction? Is your sex life down in the dumps? Is your marriage on the rocks?
Then choose ErectAll. Yes, ErectAll. ErectAll opens the blood vessels so the blood can flow, and you can go go go! Why choose ErectAll? Because it puts a spring in your step and a little pizzazz back into your bedroom!
Please consult your doctor before using ErectAll. ErectAll should be taken during foreplay. Be sure you have at least thirty-six hours to devote to arousal before taking ErectAll. You should not drive, jog, think, give a speech, or change in the men's locker room while using ErectAll. Do not use Viagra while taking this medicine. Most performance medicines carry some risk of dependency.
Side effects may include unpleasant taste, itchy scalp, drowsiness, nervousness, headache, toothache, dizziness, irritation, depression, suicidal tendencies, hysteria, delusions of grandeur, obesity, night terrors, dehydration, teeth grinding, nausea, projectile vomiting, explosive diarrhea, loss of appetite, cannibalism, adult onset Altzheimer's, joint pain, brittle bones, misfiring synapses, grand mal seizures, fatigue, smallpox-like rashes, hair loss, anemia, asthma, future gestational mutation, neuropathy, ulcers, ingrown toenails, internal hemmorhaging, insomnia, hallucinations, altered perception of time and distance, time travel, astral projection, psychosis, disorientation, transmigration of the soul, molecular discontinuity, euphoria, constricted pupils, third-eye blindness, gall stones, automatic writing, speaking in tongues, paranoia, hyperactivity, panic, devolution, short and long-term memory loss, impaired judgment, slowed reflexes, slurred speech, deviated septum, gangrene, flatulence, narcissism, coma, political correctness, cardiac arrest, spontaneous combustion, liberalism, and impotence.
Scientists found the first symptom remote in laboratory mice.
ErectAll. Now git-r-done!
Then choose ErectAll. Yes, ErectAll. ErectAll opens the blood vessels so the blood can flow, and you can go go go! Why choose ErectAll? Because it puts a spring in your step and a little pizzazz back into your bedroom!
Please consult your doctor before using ErectAll. ErectAll should be taken during foreplay. Be sure you have at least thirty-six hours to devote to arousal before taking ErectAll. You should not drive, jog, think, give a speech, or change in the men's locker room while using ErectAll. Do not use Viagra while taking this medicine. Most performance medicines carry some risk of dependency.
Side effects may include unpleasant taste, itchy scalp, drowsiness, nervousness, headache, toothache, dizziness, irritation, depression, suicidal tendencies, hysteria, delusions of grandeur, obesity, night terrors, dehydration, teeth grinding, nausea, projectile vomiting, explosive diarrhea, loss of appetite, cannibalism, adult onset Altzheimer's, joint pain, brittle bones, misfiring synapses, grand mal seizures, fatigue, smallpox-like rashes, hair loss, anemia, asthma, future gestational mutation, neuropathy, ulcers, ingrown toenails, internal hemmorhaging, insomnia, hallucinations, altered perception of time and distance, time travel, astral projection, psychosis, disorientation, transmigration of the soul, molecular discontinuity, euphoria, constricted pupils, third-eye blindness, gall stones, automatic writing, speaking in tongues, paranoia, hyperactivity, panic, devolution, short and long-term memory loss, impaired judgment, slowed reflexes, slurred speech, deviated septum, gangrene, flatulence, narcissism, coma, political correctness, cardiac arrest, spontaneous combustion, liberalism, and impotence.
Scientists found the first symptom remote in laboratory mice.
ErectAll. Now git-r-done!
Saturday, October 14, 2006
"No Human Being Is Illegal"
Don't you love hearing this little phrase? Doesn't it pluck at your heartstrings and strum a sad refrain?
That's exactly what it's supposed to do. The illegal immigration lobby wants a gut emotional reaction from you, not studied intellectual consideration. The reason for this is simple: The instant that you give its words and views serious thought, their absurdity and destructive nature dawns on you. And they don't relish that idea. If you emote, on the other hand, then they have you right where they want you--in their pocket.
I raise the issue because it exemplifies the deceit utilized by those who would love nothing better than throwing wide the golden doors, erasing our borders, and inviting all and sundry into our nation, regardless their non-assimilation, or creeds anathema to everything the U.S. represents. Imagine Ellis Island swamped and sinking beneath the waves. You get the idea.
This phony statement reveals the mindset of these people, and its sinister implications:
1. It implies that American immigration laws are irrelevant and immoral. This poses a bizarre problem for open borders advocates, since every nation on Earth has its own unique immigration policies, most of which are far more stringent than those of the U.S. A nation cannot remain sovereign without controlling its borders.
2. It implies that those who want illegal immigration nipped in the bud are bigots or just unsympathetic, mean-spirited people. It suggests that the term "illegal alien" is a philosophical attack on a person's human worth, rather than an address of one's legal status.
Let me elaborate on this last. Only three possible statuses exist--citizen, legal alien, and illegal alien. Everything else falls into a subcategory under one of these three headings. Since an alien is a foreign non-citizen, then an illegal alien is a foreign non-citizen who came into the country outside legal channels--i.e., he snuck in. So when someone uses the term "illegal alien," it's a reference to the legality of his presence in this country, not a suggestion that his very existence is a violation of national law.
The use of this phrase is dishonest, an evasion of relevant points made by the opposition, emotion-invoking propaganda, and open derision of our morally justified laws. It's a lie, and it should face challenge every time some idiot raises it high on a sign.
That's exactly what it's supposed to do. The illegal immigration lobby wants a gut emotional reaction from you, not studied intellectual consideration. The reason for this is simple: The instant that you give its words and views serious thought, their absurdity and destructive nature dawns on you. And they don't relish that idea. If you emote, on the other hand, then they have you right where they want you--in their pocket.
I raise the issue because it exemplifies the deceit utilized by those who would love nothing better than throwing wide the golden doors, erasing our borders, and inviting all and sundry into our nation, regardless their non-assimilation, or creeds anathema to everything the U.S. represents. Imagine Ellis Island swamped and sinking beneath the waves. You get the idea.
This phony statement reveals the mindset of these people, and its sinister implications:
1. It implies that American immigration laws are irrelevant and immoral. This poses a bizarre problem for open borders advocates, since every nation on Earth has its own unique immigration policies, most of which are far more stringent than those of the U.S. A nation cannot remain sovereign without controlling its borders.
2. It implies that those who want illegal immigration nipped in the bud are bigots or just unsympathetic, mean-spirited people. It suggests that the term "illegal alien" is a philosophical attack on a person's human worth, rather than an address of one's legal status.
Let me elaborate on this last. Only three possible statuses exist--citizen, legal alien, and illegal alien. Everything else falls into a subcategory under one of these three headings. Since an alien is a foreign non-citizen, then an illegal alien is a foreign non-citizen who came into the country outside legal channels--i.e., he snuck in. So when someone uses the term "illegal alien," it's a reference to the legality of his presence in this country, not a suggestion that his very existence is a violation of national law.
The use of this phrase is dishonest, an evasion of relevant points made by the opposition, emotion-invoking propaganda, and open derision of our morally justified laws. It's a lie, and it should face challenge every time some idiot raises it high on a sign.
God Bless Them, Every One
President Bush says that part of the solution to illegal immigration "must" include a way for those already in the United States but without legal authorization to be given that status.
"We will conduct this debate on immigration in a way that is respectful to our heritage," he said at a recent White House event honoring Hispanic Heritage Month. "We are a nation of law, and we will enforce our law.
What a crock. I hope everyone realizes what an absolute charlatan is sitting in the Ovoid Office. I'd laugh myself to tears, if this weren't a matter of national and cultural extinction. Why "must" invaders be given legal status? Please elaborate, senor presidente. I'll listen. Why not just say: "We are a nation of law, and we will enforce that law when it does not conflict with elitist, multicultural agendas." It's exponentially more honest.
"But at the same time, we must remember that in order to secure our borders, in order to make sure we fulfill our heritage, immigration reform must be comprehensive in nature. We must understand that you can't kick 12 million people out of your country; that we must figure out a way to say to those that if you're lawful and if you've contributed to the United States of America, there is a way for you to eventually earn citizenship."
What does immigration reform have to do with securing our borders? They're two separate issues. It's just gobbledegook. He mentions our heritage in one breath, and in the next, insists that we cannot expel 12 million illegal aliens. As Nell Carter said, "Gimme a break." He doesn't even feel obligated to explain why kicking these people out is an unworkable idea. He proclaims, and we "must" accept, right? As for his "if you're lawful" remark, doesn't he mean "if you become lawful?" Becoming lawful, of course, means getting a pass for making raspberries at our laws.
Santa Anna Bush: "People ought to be given a chance to get at the back of the citizenship line and have a chance."
Metaphorical sophistry. This is like pleading the case for twelve-year-olds queuing up at the local strip club. They shouldn't even be in line; and those who typically are meet the criteria of entry--i.e., are "legal."
"And so I assure my friends here that I will – we will enforce the border as people expect us to do. But as we do so, we'll do so in a humane way, in a way that honors that great tradition of the United States of America, one nation under God," Bush said.
Translation for "humane": We'll ignore your infractions and contempt for the rule of law. If you can make it across the Rio Grande, towel yourself off, cuz you're a shoo-in, Manuel.
I like what one guy said on his blog, as quoted in the article: "Dear Mr. President," he wrote. "You need to give a blanket pardon to all criminals that break our laws. Or, enforce our laws. You shouldn't pick and choose which laws are OK to violate."
More from Open-Borders Bush: "They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration. We will find a rational middle ground between automatic citizenship for illegal immigrants and mass deportations of people who've been living here for many years with jobs, families, and deep roots in our country," he said then.
Don't kid yourself that he opposes amnesty. What he opposes is an open admission of his support for it. He likes dressing it up in more respectable clothes and engaging in the semantic equivalent of Twister. If amnesty is unfair to those who came here lawfully, why is allowing the continued presence of those who came unlawfully not unfair? I love his contention that illegals with a long history in our country deserve treatment equal to that of citizens--and make no mistake, that's what he's saying. Otherwise, his words have no meaning.
"We will conduct this debate on immigration in a way that is respectful to our heritage," he said at a recent White House event honoring Hispanic Heritage Month. "We are a nation of law, and we will enforce our law.
What a crock. I hope everyone realizes what an absolute charlatan is sitting in the Ovoid Office. I'd laugh myself to tears, if this weren't a matter of national and cultural extinction. Why "must" invaders be given legal status? Please elaborate, senor presidente. I'll listen. Why not just say: "We are a nation of law, and we will enforce that law when it does not conflict with elitist, multicultural agendas." It's exponentially more honest.
"But at the same time, we must remember that in order to secure our borders, in order to make sure we fulfill our heritage, immigration reform must be comprehensive in nature. We must understand that you can't kick 12 million people out of your country; that we must figure out a way to say to those that if you're lawful and if you've contributed to the United States of America, there is a way for you to eventually earn citizenship."
What does immigration reform have to do with securing our borders? They're two separate issues. It's just gobbledegook. He mentions our heritage in one breath, and in the next, insists that we cannot expel 12 million illegal aliens. As Nell Carter said, "Gimme a break." He doesn't even feel obligated to explain why kicking these people out is an unworkable idea. He proclaims, and we "must" accept, right? As for his "if you're lawful" remark, doesn't he mean "if you become lawful?" Becoming lawful, of course, means getting a pass for making raspberries at our laws.
Santa Anna Bush: "People ought to be given a chance to get at the back of the citizenship line and have a chance."
Metaphorical sophistry. This is like pleading the case for twelve-year-olds queuing up at the local strip club. They shouldn't even be in line; and those who typically are meet the criteria of entry--i.e., are "legal."
"And so I assure my friends here that I will – we will enforce the border as people expect us to do. But as we do so, we'll do so in a humane way, in a way that honors that great tradition of the United States of America, one nation under God," Bush said.
Translation for "humane": We'll ignore your infractions and contempt for the rule of law. If you can make it across the Rio Grande, towel yourself off, cuz you're a shoo-in, Manuel.
I like what one guy said on his blog, as quoted in the article: "Dear Mr. President," he wrote. "You need to give a blanket pardon to all criminals that break our laws. Or, enforce our laws. You shouldn't pick and choose which laws are OK to violate."
More from Open-Borders Bush: "They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration. We will find a rational middle ground between automatic citizenship for illegal immigrants and mass deportations of people who've been living here for many years with jobs, families, and deep roots in our country," he said then.
Don't kid yourself that he opposes amnesty. What he opposes is an open admission of his support for it. He likes dressing it up in more respectable clothes and engaging in the semantic equivalent of Twister. If amnesty is unfair to those who came here lawfully, why is allowing the continued presence of those who came unlawfully not unfair? I love his contention that illegals with a long history in our country deserve treatment equal to that of citizens--and make no mistake, that's what he's saying. Otherwise, his words have no meaning.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Progressive Glossary IV
Nancy Pelosi: Shield-maiden for progress.
People of Color: Abused minorities.
Caucasian: Colorless, drab individuals harboring pro-slavery views. Born racists. See Pigmentally-Challenged for more details.
Global Warming: The most dire threat to the continued existence of humynity--far surpassing that of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or democide.
Native-Americans: Pacifist earth worshippers and keepers of the environment. Harbor a close-knit kinship with the fields, streams, trees, skies, animals, and the universe. Wakened Caucasians to far horizons of thought, through the use of peyote. Instructed the pigmentally-challenged in the deadly consequences of Earth-rape. Taught the Pilgrims how to pray to the Great Spirit.
Aztecs: A peaceful Mexican tribe decimated by pigmentally-challenged imperialists in the 1500s.
Conquistador: Purveyor of genocide.
Christopher Columbus: Genocidal madman. Discovered America after the Chinese, Japanese, Vikings, Mongols, Antarctic penguins, and pygmies.
Rudyard Kipling: Imperialist racist.
The White Man's Burden: Inherent racism and wanton stupidity.
Che Guevara: Heroic Cuban revolutionary progressive. Murdered by McCarthyites in South America.
Karl Marx: The inventor of progress.
Lenin: The prime mover of progress.
Josef Stalin: A jolly old elf--not unlike Santa Claus--who oversaw progress at its height.
Mao: Chinese follower of Stalin's progressive policies. Solved overpopulation problem in China.
People of Color: Abused minorities.
Caucasian: Colorless, drab individuals harboring pro-slavery views. Born racists. See Pigmentally-Challenged for more details.
Global Warming: The most dire threat to the continued existence of humynity--far surpassing that of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or democide.
Native-Americans: Pacifist earth worshippers and keepers of the environment. Harbor a close-knit kinship with the fields, streams, trees, skies, animals, and the universe. Wakened Caucasians to far horizons of thought, through the use of peyote. Instructed the pigmentally-challenged in the deadly consequences of Earth-rape. Taught the Pilgrims how to pray to the Great Spirit.
Aztecs: A peaceful Mexican tribe decimated by pigmentally-challenged imperialists in the 1500s.
Conquistador: Purveyor of genocide.
Christopher Columbus: Genocidal madman. Discovered America after the Chinese, Japanese, Vikings, Mongols, Antarctic penguins, and pygmies.
Rudyard Kipling: Imperialist racist.
The White Man's Burden: Inherent racism and wanton stupidity.
Che Guevara: Heroic Cuban revolutionary progressive. Murdered by McCarthyites in South America.
Karl Marx: The inventor of progress.
Lenin: The prime mover of progress.
Josef Stalin: A jolly old elf--not unlike Santa Claus--who oversaw progress at its height.
Mao: Chinese follower of Stalin's progressive policies. Solved overpopulation problem in China.
A Brief Aside
I admit, the Foley scandal bores me to tears. I've found very little of value from either side of the tainted aisle on this issue. We throw out morals, discard God like an outgrown fairy tale, and treat standards like bad jokes. Why should it surprise us that many of our politicians are lecherous perverts?
I would like to point out a few tiny things, though. I'm not even sure of their relevance, so take them as you will.
When Bill Clinton treated the Oval Office like his private seraglio, his behavior was a non-issue to the Democrats. Neither adultery nor promiscuity posed problems. Nor did lying to the American people on national television, or lying under oath--the latter a crime that would plop you or me right into a nice cushy jail cell.
I'm not attempting a flashback to the Decade of Licentiousness, here. The point is that Democrats are unconcerned with uncouth, immoral personal behavior--unless you're a Republican. That's when they produce the moral high ground deck of cards, and play every last one. Democrat moral outrage is as convincing as Hitler shedding a tear at a Jew's funeral.
I realize many (most?) Republicans approach Bush in Democrat fashion--with near adoration, and a dismissal of all his sins as trivial. But to the Republicans' credit, they have not treated Foley likewise. I understand he's a much less significant political figure than a president; still, let's give credit where it's due. Without exceptions, every Republican I've heard address this issue roundly condemned Foley's antics, and expressed gladness that he resigned.
Imagine if the roles were reversed, with a Democrat in Foley's place. Consider past Democrat reactions to unsavory revelations within the party. Then consider this scandal the next time someone suggests there is zero difference between Democrats and Republicans. The distinctions may be fine, but they do exist.
I would like to point out a few tiny things, though. I'm not even sure of their relevance, so take them as you will.
When Bill Clinton treated the Oval Office like his private seraglio, his behavior was a non-issue to the Democrats. Neither adultery nor promiscuity posed problems. Nor did lying to the American people on national television, or lying under oath--the latter a crime that would plop you or me right into a nice cushy jail cell.
I'm not attempting a flashback to the Decade of Licentiousness, here. The point is that Democrats are unconcerned with uncouth, immoral personal behavior--unless you're a Republican. That's when they produce the moral high ground deck of cards, and play every last one. Democrat moral outrage is as convincing as Hitler shedding a tear at a Jew's funeral.
I realize many (most?) Republicans approach Bush in Democrat fashion--with near adoration, and a dismissal of all his sins as trivial. But to the Republicans' credit, they have not treated Foley likewise. I understand he's a much less significant political figure than a president; still, let's give credit where it's due. Without exceptions, every Republican I've heard address this issue roundly condemned Foley's antics, and expressed gladness that he resigned.
Imagine if the roles were reversed, with a Democrat in Foley's place. Consider past Democrat reactions to unsavory revelations within the party. Then consider this scandal the next time someone suggests there is zero difference between Democrats and Republicans. The distinctions may be fine, but they do exist.
Friday, October 6, 2006
Thursday, October 5, 2006
"Hey, Guys, It's God Knocking. Someone Lock the Door."
It seems that certain Maryland school administrators hate Christianity so much, even violating written policies in suppressing it is A-ok:
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a civil rights lawsuit in defense of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of a seventh grader who was allegedly ordered by a Maryland middle school employee to stop reading her Bible during free time at school or face disciplinary action. Institute attorneys have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to declare that prohibiting students from reading Bibles or other religious texts during their free time is unconstitutional.
On September 14, 2006, seventh-grader Amber Mangum, who was reading a Bible in the school cafeteria during her lunch period, was allegedly approached by an employee working at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School in Prince George’s County, Md. In keeping with school policy, students are allowed to read books or engage in interpersonal communications during non-instructional time at school, including lunch periods. Furthermore, published administrative procedure of the Prince George’s County Public Schools provides that “[s]tudents may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable, non-disruptive activities.”
. . .the school official informed Amber that reading a Bible was a violation of the school’s policy and warned her that she would be subject to more severe disciplinary action if she were found reading a Bible at school again.
I gleaned two pieces of significant information from this story. One, even reading the Bible during one's free time and without proselytization is off limits. Two, declaring scriptural study against the rules contradicts extant policy.
It's funny how those policies and regulations are impregnable and off the discussion table when parents have complaints about curricula and various programs; but when a given rule conflicts with the prevalent worldview of secular humanism, it exists merely as an obstacle for the hurdling, and is in fact skirted with the greatest of ease.
I have no intent to offend, but it truly is a mystery to me why anyone would subject his child to such an anti-intellectual, anti-God environment. I sympathize somewhat with single mothers who work twelve hour-shifts, with little or no time for homeschooling. But everyone else's logic poses an enigma I haven't solved.
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a civil rights lawsuit in defense of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of a seventh grader who was allegedly ordered by a Maryland middle school employee to stop reading her Bible during free time at school or face disciplinary action. Institute attorneys have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to declare that prohibiting students from reading Bibles or other religious texts during their free time is unconstitutional.
On September 14, 2006, seventh-grader Amber Mangum, who was reading a Bible in the school cafeteria during her lunch period, was allegedly approached by an employee working at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School in Prince George’s County, Md. In keeping with school policy, students are allowed to read books or engage in interpersonal communications during non-instructional time at school, including lunch periods. Furthermore, published administrative procedure of the Prince George’s County Public Schools provides that “[s]tudents may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable, non-disruptive activities.”
. . .the school official informed Amber that reading a Bible was a violation of the school’s policy and warned her that she would be subject to more severe disciplinary action if she were found reading a Bible at school again.
I gleaned two pieces of significant information from this story. One, even reading the Bible during one's free time and without proselytization is off limits. Two, declaring scriptural study against the rules contradicts extant policy.
It's funny how those policies and regulations are impregnable and off the discussion table when parents have complaints about curricula and various programs; but when a given rule conflicts with the prevalent worldview of secular humanism, it exists merely as an obstacle for the hurdling, and is in fact skirted with the greatest of ease.
I have no intent to offend, but it truly is a mystery to me why anyone would subject his child to such an anti-intellectual, anti-God environment. I sympathize somewhat with single mothers who work twelve hour-shifts, with little or no time for homeschooling. But everyone else's logic poses an enigma I haven't solved.
Progressive Glossary III
Politically Correct: A state of being in which one is anti-slavery, non-racist, anti-Christian, pro-woman, anti-male, pro-abortion, pro-Gaia, pro-pigmentally gifted, anti-pigmentally challenged, and utopian. The highest level of enlightenment attainable by humynkind.
Utopia: Equality of opportunity and outcome. Never realized on Earth, though the U.S.S.R. circa-1950, modern North Korea, and John Lennon's household approximate or approximated its splendor. A state of unparallelled bliss.
Theocracy: A form of government in which Christianity is not approached as infantile superstition. The only form of governance possible under a Christian people.
Men: Uncivilized, subhuman, bipedal beasts of prey. Latent or practicing rapists.
Womyn: A pantheon of refined beings embodying goodness and wisdom. Retain all the virtues, abilities, and worth of men, with none of the inherent vices. The pinnacle of evolutionary development.
Sensitivity: Appreciation of left-liberal values.
Darwinism: The mechanism by which humynkind came into existence.
Ann Coulter: Imp-in-chief of the fascistic Right.
Bill O'Reilly: Ultra-conservative propagandist blowhard.
Al Gore: The Chief Steward of Mother Nature. Deprived of the U.S. presidency in a coup d'etat.
Bill Clinton: The most brilliant politician in recorded history. The first African-American president. Constructed an historic trading partnership with China that reverberates today. The world's most advanced empath. Exceptionally well-endowed.
Hillary Clinton: Moderate senator from New York. Devout Yankees fan. A true woman of the people. Not even a plethora of villages embodies so much compassion.
Ted Kennedy: The Last Defender of Camelot. Chivalric beyond humyn ken--whether in his cups, or out.
Al Franken: The standard bearer for truth.
Michael Moore: Culture warrior and defender of justice and the American way.
Utopia: Equality of opportunity and outcome. Never realized on Earth, though the U.S.S.R. circa-1950, modern North Korea, and John Lennon's household approximate or approximated its splendor. A state of unparallelled bliss.
Theocracy: A form of government in which Christianity is not approached as infantile superstition. The only form of governance possible under a Christian people.
Men: Uncivilized, subhuman, bipedal beasts of prey. Latent or practicing rapists.
Womyn: A pantheon of refined beings embodying goodness and wisdom. Retain all the virtues, abilities, and worth of men, with none of the inherent vices. The pinnacle of evolutionary development.
Sensitivity: Appreciation of left-liberal values.
Darwinism: The mechanism by which humynkind came into existence.
Ann Coulter: Imp-in-chief of the fascistic Right.
Bill O'Reilly: Ultra-conservative propagandist blowhard.
Al Gore: The Chief Steward of Mother Nature. Deprived of the U.S. presidency in a coup d'etat.
Bill Clinton: The most brilliant politician in recorded history. The first African-American president. Constructed an historic trading partnership with China that reverberates today. The world's most advanced empath. Exceptionally well-endowed.
Hillary Clinton: Moderate senator from New York. Devout Yankees fan. A true woman of the people. Not even a plethora of villages embodies so much compassion.
Ted Kennedy: The Last Defender of Camelot. Chivalric beyond humyn ken--whether in his cups, or out.
Al Franken: The standard bearer for truth.
Michael Moore: Culture warrior and defender of justice and the American way.
Monday, October 2, 2006
Gripe Post
Don't you hate it when you go to a restaurant, sit down in a nice little booth with your wife, and discover some moments later that the person sitting behind you can't quit coughing? At first it was a little hack, which escalated into a bark and leveled off in a gurgling gasp. The lady wasn't choking; she just couldn't stop coughing. I was afraid I'd turn around and see a lunger wetback waving at me from the next booth as she turned blue. The question that immediately struck me was: Why in the world is this person out and about, rather than curled up at home under a blanket with some medicine and a nice bowl of soup? Nah, why do that, when the alternative of sharing the wealth of infection with the public is so much more fun? If you don't hear from me in the next couple of days, just assume a scenario not unlike that in the film Outbreak is ravaging the South.
***
"Traffic Calming Ahead"--have you ever seen one of these infuriating signs? I love how our public officials have come up with PC, gentle terms for extreme inconveniences and annoyances. For those unfamiliar with this phrase, Traffic Calming means speed bumps ahead--and not just any ol' speed bumps; these are the Everests of speed bumps; they'd give Edmund Hillary pause. As I ascended the summit of one, I swear I got a nosebleed.
The problem with these is that they're new to the area; a few months ago, there were none. So if someone doesn't see the sign, then it's bye-bye muffler, so long undercarriage, and arrividerci to his tailbone. Just remember: Traffic Calming means a totaled car--unless you're doing 2 1/2 mph.
***
"Traffic Calming Ahead"--have you ever seen one of these infuriating signs? I love how our public officials have come up with PC, gentle terms for extreme inconveniences and annoyances. For those unfamiliar with this phrase, Traffic Calming means speed bumps ahead--and not just any ol' speed bumps; these are the Everests of speed bumps; they'd give Edmund Hillary pause. As I ascended the summit of one, I swear I got a nosebleed.
The problem with these is that they're new to the area; a few months ago, there were none. So if someone doesn't see the sign, then it's bye-bye muffler, so long undercarriage, and arrividerci to his tailbone. Just remember: Traffic Calming means a totaled car--unless you're doing 2 1/2 mph.
Sunday, October 1, 2006
Progressive Glossary II
The Bible: A metaphysical fictional tome. Makes great kindling.
Abraham Lincoln: America's approximation of the Messiah. Preserved the Union from dissolution threatened by ignorant, savage slavers.
The Civil War: American conflict in which pigmentally gifted people were freed from the tyranny of hillbilly Nazis.
Slavery: A barbaric institution, in which pigmentally challenged people stole the liberty of pigmentally gifted people. Began about 1500 hundred; ended in 1865. It's like had never darkened the pages of history before, nor has it since. Sole province of the pigmentally challenged.
Illegal Alien: Extraterrestrial without a passport. Sometimes erroneously associated with Mexicans and others gaining unlawful entry into the U.S. interior.
Mexicans: People who epitomize virtue and hard work. AKA "Family People."
Family Values: Characteristics of Mexicans within U.S. borders. No relation to mafia comradery.
Wetback: A racist epithet.
Honkey: A benign descriptive term.
Arab: Muslim.
Muslims: Arabs. Followers of the Religion of Peace. Purveyors of enlightenment to humanity, via the preservation of classical knowledge liberated from European, Christian and Byzantine oppressors. AKA "Muhammed's Peaceniks."
Jew: Makes great kindling. See lamp shade and mobile target for further details.
Abraham Lincoln: America's approximation of the Messiah. Preserved the Union from dissolution threatened by ignorant, savage slavers.
The Civil War: American conflict in which pigmentally gifted people were freed from the tyranny of hillbilly Nazis.
Slavery: A barbaric institution, in which pigmentally challenged people stole the liberty of pigmentally gifted people. Began about 1500 hundred; ended in 1865. It's like had never darkened the pages of history before, nor has it since. Sole province of the pigmentally challenged.
Illegal Alien: Extraterrestrial without a passport. Sometimes erroneously associated with Mexicans and others gaining unlawful entry into the U.S. interior.
Mexicans: People who epitomize virtue and hard work. AKA "Family People."
Family Values: Characteristics of Mexicans within U.S. borders. No relation to mafia comradery.
Wetback: A racist epithet.
Honkey: A benign descriptive term.
Arab: Muslim.
Muslims: Arabs. Followers of the Religion of Peace. Purveyors of enlightenment to humanity, via the preservation of classical knowledge liberated from European, Christian and Byzantine oppressors. AKA "Muhammed's Peaceniks."
Jew: Makes great kindling. See lamp shade and mobile target for further details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)