"The Lost Tomb of Christ," which the Discovery Channel will run on March 4, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries _ small caskets used to store bones _ discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family, according to a press release issued by the Discovery Channel.
Other bloggers have made astute and timely comments on the issue of James Cameron's new documentary, but I think it's too important a topic for me not to chime in. We live in an era in which mocking or belittling Christ is fashionable, with virtually no consequences. It is unfortunate for those who scorn Him that an eternity of consequence awaits beyond this ephemeral world.
Sensationalism lies at the heart of this claim, without a doubt. The very subject matter will lure the gullible and the curious and the skeptical.
The claim that Jesus' bones rest in an ossuary defies scripture, in at least two important ways: 1. The New Testament reveals that my Lord came back to life and ascended into Heaven, after brief appearances to His followers. 2. The Gospels say His body was wrapped in linen and interred in a cave like tomb, with a stone rolled in place for a door. Given these scriptural declarations, what is the basis for believing Jesus' final resting place has been discovered in the aforementioned location?
One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son.
How sad that this is what passes for evidence, these days. This proves nothing, unless one can demonstrate adequately that no one but Christ went by the name "Jesus" in the region.
Consider this yet another pathetic attempt at "deconstructing" Christianity in a 2,000-year-long list. The funny thing is that what these people see as a wrecking ball, the rest of us call dust in the wind.
Nor has it escaped me that we're discussing a man who directed a film called True Lies. How fitting.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Civilizational Cesspool
Hitler reaches out from beyond the grave:
German authorities who sent 15 uniformed police officers to take custody of a 15-year-old girl who committed the crime of being homeschooled now have suggested a solution that, in their minds, would "resolve" the situation: the parents should give up custody of their other five children.
Practical Homeschool Magazine noted one of the first acts by Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools, and school-related issues.
In 1937, the dictator said, "The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."
German authorities who sent 15 uniformed police officers to take custody of a 15-year-old girl who committed the crime of being homeschooled now have suggested a solution that, in their minds, would "resolve" the situation: the parents should give up custody of their other five children.
Practical Homeschool Magazine noted one of the first acts by Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools, and school-related issues.
In 1937, the dictator said, "The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."
What a great solution--for der schtaat, that is. The German government obviously has a warped understanding of liberty's definition.
****
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the "gay" agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be "engaged and productive citizens."
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…"
This is some of the sickest filth I've ever read; just sullying my eyes with this "judge's" ruling makes me long to claw them out. In no sense of the word can such an institution be called a "school;" it's a brainwashing center. Let's call it by its rightful name. His last comment is lifted straight out of Karl Marx and the Communist playbook, thus the red highlighting. It's literally in diametric opposition to everything the United States of America upholds as worthwhile and wholesome.
We have two choices: remove totalitarian swine such as this from positions of power, or say goodbye to any semblance of the America we know. There's no third option.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Inimitable Chesterton
"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."
"Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere."
"By a curious confusion, many modern critics have passed from the proposition that a masterpiece may be unpopular to the other proposition that unless it is unpopular it cannot be a masterpiece."
"Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."
"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists."
"Man seems to be capable of great virtues but not of small virtues; capable of defying his torturer but not of keeping his temper."
"The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people."
"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."
"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it."
"The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums."
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Hoodwinking the Masses
"We've gotta fight 'em over there, so we ain't gotta fight 'em over here."
How many times have you heard President Bush, one of his administrative puppets, or some grinning pundit make this statement? I'm betting dozens of times. We're assured that Mr. Bush has national--particularly domestic--security at the top of his priority list.
This is nothing but rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Here's why:
On 9-11-01, we witnessed the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history. Nineteen terrorists perpetrated this atrocity. Fifteen hailed from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt. Guess how many came from Iraq?
Zero.
People have made this point before, but follow it to its logical conclusion: if none of these devils came from Iraq, then basing the number of troops in Iraq on 9-11-01 that we have there, today, would have changed nothing; nor would it have slowed them down.
Furthermore, every resource I've delved into suggests that a portion of our enemies in Iraq are Iranians who have snuck into the country, while U.S. troops are stationed there. High-powered Iranian weapons are in use against our troops, weapons capable of penetrating vehicular armor.
Positioning soldiers in Iraq cannot stop terrorists originating from Saudi Arabia or other countries throughout the Middle East, nor has it hindered Iranian terrorists from entering Iraq's borders.
So having computed this information, how in the world can anyone say with a straight face that fighting murderous scum in Iraq keeps them out of the U.S.?
It gets worse. Our borders stand wide open for all who possess a notion of sashaying in. Yes, the administration provides well-paid propagandists to assure us that illegal immigration is under control, and decreasing. But we know that these people lie and play games of dizzying verbal gymnastics, or provide unsatisfactory and incomplete information.
Additionally, current estimates of Muslims in America range from 1.1 to 8 million, depending upon the source, with thousands more immigrating to the U.S., each year.
Considering his station, I find it impossible that President Bush is unaware of this situation. He tells us that fighting them in the sandbox keeps them out of our vegetable garden, which is unmitigated hogwash. He shows us his concern for national security by allowing the importation of thousands of our enemies, while throwing wide the gates that hold them at bay.
Imagine that a dog owner has a pet with a bad flea infestation. He tells his wife: "Honey, I've gotta do something about these fleas. We have to fight them in the yard, so we don't have to deal with them in the house." After saying this, he opens the front and back doors and leaves them standing wide, while ushering the dog into the house (sans flea-collar), where it plops down on the living room couch. Then, with a spring in his step, its owner bravely sallies forth to battle the fleas on the lawn.
This behavior offers two possible conclusions:
1. The man's skull contains a black hole that not even thought can escape.
2. He's lying through his teeth about his interest in ridding his house of fleas.
In either scenario, he's not someone you'd call on when dealing with a pest problem.
How many times have you heard President Bush, one of his administrative puppets, or some grinning pundit make this statement? I'm betting dozens of times. We're assured that Mr. Bush has national--particularly domestic--security at the top of his priority list.
This is nothing but rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Here's why:
On 9-11-01, we witnessed the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history. Nineteen terrorists perpetrated this atrocity. Fifteen hailed from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt. Guess how many came from Iraq?
Zero.
People have made this point before, but follow it to its logical conclusion: if none of these devils came from Iraq, then basing the number of troops in Iraq on 9-11-01 that we have there, today, would have changed nothing; nor would it have slowed them down.
Furthermore, every resource I've delved into suggests that a portion of our enemies in Iraq are Iranians who have snuck into the country, while U.S. troops are stationed there. High-powered Iranian weapons are in use against our troops, weapons capable of penetrating vehicular armor.
Positioning soldiers in Iraq cannot stop terrorists originating from Saudi Arabia or other countries throughout the Middle East, nor has it hindered Iranian terrorists from entering Iraq's borders.
So having computed this information, how in the world can anyone say with a straight face that fighting murderous scum in Iraq keeps them out of the U.S.?
It gets worse. Our borders stand wide open for all who possess a notion of sashaying in. Yes, the administration provides well-paid propagandists to assure us that illegal immigration is under control, and decreasing. But we know that these people lie and play games of dizzying verbal gymnastics, or provide unsatisfactory and incomplete information.
Additionally, current estimates of Muslims in America range from 1.1 to 8 million, depending upon the source, with thousands more immigrating to the U.S., each year.
Considering his station, I find it impossible that President Bush is unaware of this situation. He tells us that fighting them in the sandbox keeps them out of our vegetable garden, which is unmitigated hogwash. He shows us his concern for national security by allowing the importation of thousands of our enemies, while throwing wide the gates that hold them at bay.
Imagine that a dog owner has a pet with a bad flea infestation. He tells his wife: "Honey, I've gotta do something about these fleas. We have to fight them in the yard, so we don't have to deal with them in the house." After saying this, he opens the front and back doors and leaves them standing wide, while ushering the dog into the house (sans flea-collar), where it plops down on the living room couch. Then, with a spring in his step, its owner bravely sallies forth to battle the fleas on the lawn.
This behavior offers two possible conclusions:
1. The man's skull contains a black hole that not even thought can escape.
2. He's lying through his teeth about his interest in ridding his house of fleas.
In either scenario, he's not someone you'd call on when dealing with a pest problem.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Seer of the Blogosphere
Yesterday, I looked into my crystal ball and made this prediction at Vox's:
I'm sure O'Reilly will regale us all about the sordid details of Britney's new depilated trollop look, tomorrow evening. I wait w/ bated breath. Wes Homepage 02.19.07 - 1:16 am #
This evening, O'Reilly devoted segments to this crucial topic on his tv and radio shows. It seems that Britney shaving her head means she's "unhinged." I won't jump to conclusions; perhaps it was all part of a good delousing. Seeing that her fame is 98% good looks and 2% talent (1% for writhing ability, and 1% for having functional vocal cords), going Kojak appears an odd carreer choice. I don't remember Playboy or Victoria's Secret catalogues producing chrome-dome editions; but what do I know?--I only pay attention to the articles.
Anyway, being a prognosticator of demonstrated ability, I'll gladly read the entrails and answer such heady questions as "What does Fido want for breakfast, next Tuesday?" or "When will Con-ya-leewza Rice don a burkha?" for a modest fee. Financing available.
I'm sure O'Reilly will regale us all about the sordid details of Britney's new depilated trollop look, tomorrow evening. I wait w/ bated breath. Wes Homepage 02.19.07 - 1:16 am #
This evening, O'Reilly devoted segments to this crucial topic on his tv and radio shows. It seems that Britney shaving her head means she's "unhinged." I won't jump to conclusions; perhaps it was all part of a good delousing. Seeing that her fame is 98% good looks and 2% talent (1% for writhing ability, and 1% for having functional vocal cords), going Kojak appears an odd carreer choice. I don't remember Playboy or Victoria's Secret catalogues producing chrome-dome editions; but what do I know?--I only pay attention to the articles.
Anyway, being a prognosticator of demonstrated ability, I'll gladly read the entrails and answer such heady questions as "What does Fido want for breakfast, next Tuesday?" or "When will Con-ya-leewza Rice don a burkha?" for a modest fee. Financing available.
Distinction without Difference
MEXICO CITY - Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Friday that immigration reform would let U.S. law enforcement focus on catching criminals instead of migrants seeking better economic prospects.
You really gotta hand it to Chertoff. When he shovels it, he uses a snowplow. I think it's precious that he made this remark in Mexico City. While parsing words, he forgets that everyone who enters the U.S. illegally is--by definition--a criminal. As for "migrants," what number is acceptable? Ten million? Fifty million? Five hundred? A billion? At what point do we draw the line and say: "We cannot save the entire world from its stupidity, nor do we have any such obligation. We do, however, have a duty to protect ourselves and enforce the laws of this country, for its preservation."
The 6,000 National Guard troops providing logistical support to the Border Patrol since May have dramatically deterred people from crossing the 2,000-mile frontier, he said. Arrests along the border are down, and fewer people have been seen gathering to cross on the Mexican side.
Perhaps the presence of National Guard troops hamstrung by mountains of bureaucratic buffoonery has a positive effect. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. Decreased arrests, on the other hand, prove nothing more than Chertoff's efficacy in spewing propaganda. We're not told if the decrease is due to a lack of border jumpers crossing over, or halfhearted enforcement. Without further elaboration from him on this point, it's nothing more or less than twaddle.
"Every time a Border Patrol officer is transporting a load of future housekeepers and landscapers to someplace to be returned, he's not looking for drug dealers or drug loads," Chertoff said.
Translation from B.S. into the vernacular: "Illegal immigration is 100% beneficial--and never detrimental to U.S. citizens--unless the illegal immigrant-in-question is a drug dealer, rapist, or murderer. We'll concede that's a slight problem."
It's nonsense for another reason, as well. Our government's attempts at hampering Border Patrol efforts belies his words, as the case of Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos illustrates, reported upon copiously by WorldNetDaily. Their situation reveals that the federal government looks upon pursuing illegal-alien drug smugglers with disfavor, nor does it have patience with agents shooting criminals they believe are armed. I urge anyone unfamiliar with this case to drop by WND and become educated on how our "leaders'" interest in securing our borders or apprehending invading criminals falls somewhere below absolute zero.
You really gotta hand it to Chertoff. When he shovels it, he uses a snowplow. I think it's precious that he made this remark in Mexico City. While parsing words, he forgets that everyone who enters the U.S. illegally is--by definition--a criminal. As for "migrants," what number is acceptable? Ten million? Fifty million? Five hundred? A billion? At what point do we draw the line and say: "We cannot save the entire world from its stupidity, nor do we have any such obligation. We do, however, have a duty to protect ourselves and enforce the laws of this country, for its preservation."
The 6,000 National Guard troops providing logistical support to the Border Patrol since May have dramatically deterred people from crossing the 2,000-mile frontier, he said. Arrests along the border are down, and fewer people have been seen gathering to cross on the Mexican side.
Perhaps the presence of National Guard troops hamstrung by mountains of bureaucratic buffoonery has a positive effect. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. Decreased arrests, on the other hand, prove nothing more than Chertoff's efficacy in spewing propaganda. We're not told if the decrease is due to a lack of border jumpers crossing over, or halfhearted enforcement. Without further elaboration from him on this point, it's nothing more or less than twaddle.
"Every time a Border Patrol officer is transporting a load of future housekeepers and landscapers to someplace to be returned, he's not looking for drug dealers or drug loads," Chertoff said.
Translation from B.S. into the vernacular: "Illegal immigration is 100% beneficial--and never detrimental to U.S. citizens--unless the illegal immigrant-in-question is a drug dealer, rapist, or murderer. We'll concede that's a slight problem."
It's nonsense for another reason, as well. Our government's attempts at hampering Border Patrol efforts belies his words, as the case of Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos illustrates, reported upon copiously by WorldNetDaily. Their situation reveals that the federal government looks upon pursuing illegal-alien drug smugglers with disfavor, nor does it have patience with agents shooting criminals they believe are armed. I urge anyone unfamiliar with this case to drop by WND and become educated on how our "leaders'" interest in securing our borders or apprehending invading criminals falls somewhere below absolute zero.
Friday, February 16, 2007
High on Power
A legal dispute is raging over a controversial "crack tax" that requires drug dealers in Tennessee to pay duties on illegal substances such as heroin.
The law requires anyone involved in the sale, manufacture or illegal distribution of controlled drugs and illicit alcohol to pay special taxes at a rate of, for example, $3.50 (£1.80) per gram of marijuana or $50 per gram of cocaine. They are then given tax stamps to fix to their stash as proof of payment.
The process of buying tax stamps comes with anonymity guaranteed. None of the information provided to Tennessee's Department of Revenue during the transaction may be passed to police or used in a criminal prosecution.
But anyone found in possession of unstamped substances can be fined up to 10 times the amount the tax would have cost him, which is where the bulk of the law's income is generated.
"We have to provide people with a means to comply with the law, which is why the stamps are available. But, like any other tax, if you have not paid you will be penalised," said Emily Richard, spokesman for the Tennessee Department of Revenue.
Objections focus on the fact that the state does not need to prove guilt, or secure a criminal conviction, before making the owner of the drugs pay up.
"It's like trying to force somebody to buy a permit before they drive drunk," said Gregory P. Isaacs, a lawyer in Knoxsville.
"People are being deprived of their constitutional right to due process. The state can seize your home, your bank account, your property, before you have had a chance to prove your innocence."
The tax was struck down as unconstitutional by a district judge last year, on the basis that it violated a defendant's right to due process. But the state has appealed and currently continues to collect the tax.
Isn't this the pinnacle of logic and constitutional scholarship? If you buy it, you're breaking the law. If you possess it, you're breaking the law. If you sell it, you're breaking the law. But please, if you're going to break the law, pay your taxes on the illegal products in question. Otherwise, you're. . .
. . .breaking the law.
This made a big splash in Tennessee recently. Here's an excerpt from a local newspaper:
A Blount County couple has filed suit in Chancery Court asking that the Tennessee Unauthorized Substance Tax Act be declared unconstitutional.
According to the suit, the couple's son, Brian, was in a vehicle stopped and searched May 24, 2006, by agents of the 5th Judicial District Drug Task Force. The officers found 100 pounds of marijuana in the vehicle and then searched a shed "on Mr. Harmon's grandmother's property" where they found eight more pounds of marijuana.
The suit said officers then obtained a search warrant for Tim and Tina Harmon's property and notified the Department of Revenue of the 108 pounds of marijuana seized.
An "Unauthorized Substance Officer" arrived at the scene to observe the search that resulted in the discovery of approximately 170 pounds of marijuana in a trailer located on the property line between Tim and Tina Harmon's property and Tim Harmon's father's property.
When the marijuana was found in the trailer, the Unauthorized Substance Officer presented Tina Harmon and her father-in-law with a notice of assessment and demand for payment of $283,387.19 in taxes, penalties and interest.
According to the suit, when Tina Harmon failed to pay the tax immediately upon receipt of the notice, the Unauthorized Substance Officer seized property belonging to the Harmons including two semi-tractors, a semi-trailer, a motorcycle, a camping trailer, two four-wheelers, a car, two mini motorcycle scooters, a pickup truck, two television sets, a coffee table and two end tables.
The Harmons were notified the items were scheduled for sale at public auction on June 27, one month and two days after the items were seized. The couple requested an informal conference with the commissioner of revenue, the recourse provided in the law. The request temporarily stopped the sale of the property.
An information telephone conference was scheduled on Nov. 13, and Tina Harmon spoke with an administrative hearing officer that day.
On Dec. 1, the Harmons received a letter indicating the assessment was upheld, and the property would be sold at auction Jan. 19.
On Dec. 11, federal charges of "conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana" were filed against Tim Harmon, Tina Harmon and Brian Harmon. No hearing has been scheduled on the criminal charges.
In conjunction with the lawsuit filed Jan. 17, attorneys for the Harmons requested and received a temporary restraining order preventing the sale of their property pending further court action.
***
This story lays out a strong defense in favor of those who decry the "War on Drugs." In fact, it's the best case against it I've seen. I realize these people aren't angels, and it's likely that they knew the drugs were on the premises, having intent to sell them. But that's not the point. This is a violation of basic constitutional rights, in one of the most absurd and counterintuitive manners imaginable.
That the officials involved don't hang their heads in shame and remorse for this travesty of justice concerns us all. A government with the power of constitutional circumvention is one on the road to openly declaring that document null and void, altogether.
The law requires anyone involved in the sale, manufacture or illegal distribution of controlled drugs and illicit alcohol to pay special taxes at a rate of, for example, $3.50 (£1.80) per gram of marijuana or $50 per gram of cocaine. They are then given tax stamps to fix to their stash as proof of payment.
The process of buying tax stamps comes with anonymity guaranteed. None of the information provided to Tennessee's Department of Revenue during the transaction may be passed to police or used in a criminal prosecution.
But anyone found in possession of unstamped substances can be fined up to 10 times the amount the tax would have cost him, which is where the bulk of the law's income is generated.
"We have to provide people with a means to comply with the law, which is why the stamps are available. But, like any other tax, if you have not paid you will be penalised," said Emily Richard, spokesman for the Tennessee Department of Revenue.
Objections focus on the fact that the state does not need to prove guilt, or secure a criminal conviction, before making the owner of the drugs pay up.
"It's like trying to force somebody to buy a permit before they drive drunk," said Gregory P. Isaacs, a lawyer in Knoxsville.
"People are being deprived of their constitutional right to due process. The state can seize your home, your bank account, your property, before you have had a chance to prove your innocence."
The tax was struck down as unconstitutional by a district judge last year, on the basis that it violated a defendant's right to due process. But the state has appealed and currently continues to collect the tax.
Isn't this the pinnacle of logic and constitutional scholarship? If you buy it, you're breaking the law. If you possess it, you're breaking the law. If you sell it, you're breaking the law. But please, if you're going to break the law, pay your taxes on the illegal products in question. Otherwise, you're. . .
. . .breaking the law.
This made a big splash in Tennessee recently. Here's an excerpt from a local newspaper:
A Blount County couple has filed suit in Chancery Court asking that the Tennessee Unauthorized Substance Tax Act be declared unconstitutional.
According to the suit, the couple's son, Brian, was in a vehicle stopped and searched May 24, 2006, by agents of the 5th Judicial District Drug Task Force. The officers found 100 pounds of marijuana in the vehicle and then searched a shed "on Mr. Harmon's grandmother's property" where they found eight more pounds of marijuana.
The suit said officers then obtained a search warrant for Tim and Tina Harmon's property and notified the Department of Revenue of the 108 pounds of marijuana seized.
An "Unauthorized Substance Officer" arrived at the scene to observe the search that resulted in the discovery of approximately 170 pounds of marijuana in a trailer located on the property line between Tim and Tina Harmon's property and Tim Harmon's father's property.
When the marijuana was found in the trailer, the Unauthorized Substance Officer presented Tina Harmon and her father-in-law with a notice of assessment and demand for payment of $283,387.19 in taxes, penalties and interest.
According to the suit, when Tina Harmon failed to pay the tax immediately upon receipt of the notice, the Unauthorized Substance Officer seized property belonging to the Harmons including two semi-tractors, a semi-trailer, a motorcycle, a camping trailer, two four-wheelers, a car, two mini motorcycle scooters, a pickup truck, two television sets, a coffee table and two end tables.
The Harmons were notified the items were scheduled for sale at public auction on June 27, one month and two days after the items were seized. The couple requested an informal conference with the commissioner of revenue, the recourse provided in the law. The request temporarily stopped the sale of the property.
An information telephone conference was scheduled on Nov. 13, and Tina Harmon spoke with an administrative hearing officer that day.
On Dec. 1, the Harmons received a letter indicating the assessment was upheld, and the property would be sold at auction Jan. 19.
On Dec. 11, federal charges of "conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana" were filed against Tim Harmon, Tina Harmon and Brian Harmon. No hearing has been scheduled on the criminal charges.
In conjunction with the lawsuit filed Jan. 17, attorneys for the Harmons requested and received a temporary restraining order preventing the sale of their property pending further court action.
***
This story lays out a strong defense in favor of those who decry the "War on Drugs." In fact, it's the best case against it I've seen. I realize these people aren't angels, and it's likely that they knew the drugs were on the premises, having intent to sell them. But that's not the point. This is a violation of basic constitutional rights, in one of the most absurd and counterintuitive manners imaginable.
That the officials involved don't hang their heads in shame and remorse for this travesty of justice concerns us all. A government with the power of constitutional circumvention is one on the road to openly declaring that document null and void, altogether.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A Random Act of Peace
The 18-year-old gunman who killed five people in a crowded Utah shopping mall was a Bosnian Muslim refugee who was prepared to kill many more, say investigators.
And I'm sure it had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or Islam, right? Nah.
A friend said Talovic was from the war-torn country of Bosnia and that the trauma he experienced while growing up may have led to him snapping for some reason.
Yes, because we all know that adherents of the Religion of Peaceniks never, ever kill out of obedience to Muhammed's teachings or their god's commands.
Every time a story like this pops up, we're told it isn't terrorism; it's just a fluke; a momentary lapse of reason, just like the jihad that began in the 600s A.D., and--like the Energizer Bunny--keeps going and going and going. . .
And I'm sure it had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or Islam, right? Nah.
A friend said Talovic was from the war-torn country of Bosnia and that the trauma he experienced while growing up may have led to him snapping for some reason.
Yes, because we all know that adherents of the Religion of Peaceniks never, ever kill out of obedience to Muhammed's teachings or their god's commands.
Every time a story like this pops up, we're told it isn't terrorism; it's just a fluke; a momentary lapse of reason, just like the jihad that began in the 600s A.D., and--like the Energizer Bunny--keeps going and going and going. . .
Friday, February 9, 2007
Suffer the Intellectual Children
A recent exchange at Vox's dealt with suffrage, and what limitations or lack thereof should be put upon it. I posed a simple question there, and now here:
If someone knows little or nothing about civics, economics, how the political process should work, our Founders' intentions for this country, American history, or the Constitution, how is allowing such an individual voting "rights" beneficial to him, or the populace?
Some might argue about the legitimacy of voting, period. Let's save that discussion for another time. Assume that voting isn't simply a scam for keeping the peasants diverted from what goes on behind the magic curtain, for our present purposes.
I've never seen a satisfactory answer to the above question. I contend that it's not only of no benefit, but is a detriment to our nation. If you have no idea what an amendment is, you should stay as far away from the voting precincts as possible. The same is true if you draw a blank on naming the first five presidents, think the Declaration of Independence is a feminist manifesto, believe socialism is having lots of friends, and capitalism is utilizing upper-case letters in a sentence.
I suspect our criteria for voting should entail more than having reached one's eighteenth birthday with a detectable pulse. I propose something old and new. Bring back the institution of landowners-only voting. And not just any landowners, but those who earned their acreage by the sweat of their labors. In addition, let's have a universal test in voter qualification: a demonstration that one has a fundamental understanding of the aforementioned items. The growing problem of illiteracy won't pose a concern--not with oral examinations.
One might demur with: "Sure, but voting results affect everyone, not just those who meet the qualifications for voting."
But this already is the case; felons and children can't vote. Furthermore, if voting is so important that literally everyone over a certain age should have the power to indulge in it, then isn't becoming a well-informed voter equally important? If not, why not?
I think Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments on The Tonight Show serve a useful purpose in highlighting the rampancy of gross cluelessness. I remember seeing an instance in which he randomly selected people passing on a street-corner, and showed them a framed photograph of Algore. This was while Gore was the sitting vice president. The question was "Who is this man?" People guessed he was a relative of Jay's, or a movie star, or a low-ranking politician. Nobody knew who he was. Some might consider this a blessing, given "Gaia" Gore's penchant for lunacy, I realize. However, this point does not detract from the reality that these folks were uninformed adults and voters. This is one of numerous examples available from such segments. Massive obliviousness isn't just a real phenomenon, but a common one.
Taking for granted that voting is worthwhile, then the importance of knowing heads from tails cannot be overstated. We require driver's licenses for tooling around town in a car. We require medical certificates for nurses and doctors. We insist upon licensing construction contractors. You cannot carry a concealed weapon without a little slip of paper that shows you've attended a course and ponied up an exhorbitant fee. Yet many have no problem with millions of people pushing that button or pulling that lever or punching that chad, who cannot discern the difference between competition and collectivism.
In North Korea, ignorance is understandable, given that the entire country is a peninsular prison; but in the United States, ignorance is a choice. A consequence of this choice should necessitate a loss in voting "rights."
If someone knows little or nothing about civics, economics, how the political process should work, our Founders' intentions for this country, American history, or the Constitution, how is allowing such an individual voting "rights" beneficial to him, or the populace?
Some might argue about the legitimacy of voting, period. Let's save that discussion for another time. Assume that voting isn't simply a scam for keeping the peasants diverted from what goes on behind the magic curtain, for our present purposes.
I've never seen a satisfactory answer to the above question. I contend that it's not only of no benefit, but is a detriment to our nation. If you have no idea what an amendment is, you should stay as far away from the voting precincts as possible. The same is true if you draw a blank on naming the first five presidents, think the Declaration of Independence is a feminist manifesto, believe socialism is having lots of friends, and capitalism is utilizing upper-case letters in a sentence.
I suspect our criteria for voting should entail more than having reached one's eighteenth birthday with a detectable pulse. I propose something old and new. Bring back the institution of landowners-only voting. And not just any landowners, but those who earned their acreage by the sweat of their labors. In addition, let's have a universal test in voter qualification: a demonstration that one has a fundamental understanding of the aforementioned items. The growing problem of illiteracy won't pose a concern--not with oral examinations.
One might demur with: "Sure, but voting results affect everyone, not just those who meet the qualifications for voting."
But this already is the case; felons and children can't vote. Furthermore, if voting is so important that literally everyone over a certain age should have the power to indulge in it, then isn't becoming a well-informed voter equally important? If not, why not?
I think Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments on The Tonight Show serve a useful purpose in highlighting the rampancy of gross cluelessness. I remember seeing an instance in which he randomly selected people passing on a street-corner, and showed them a framed photograph of Algore. This was while Gore was the sitting vice president. The question was "Who is this man?" People guessed he was a relative of Jay's, or a movie star, or a low-ranking politician. Nobody knew who he was. Some might consider this a blessing, given "Gaia" Gore's penchant for lunacy, I realize. However, this point does not detract from the reality that these folks were uninformed adults and voters. This is one of numerous examples available from such segments. Massive obliviousness isn't just a real phenomenon, but a common one.
Taking for granted that voting is worthwhile, then the importance of knowing heads from tails cannot be overstated. We require driver's licenses for tooling around town in a car. We require medical certificates for nurses and doctors. We insist upon licensing construction contractors. You cannot carry a concealed weapon without a little slip of paper that shows you've attended a course and ponied up an exhorbitant fee. Yet many have no problem with millions of people pushing that button or pulling that lever or punching that chad, who cannot discern the difference between competition and collectivism.
In North Korea, ignorance is understandable, given that the entire country is a peninsular prison; but in the United States, ignorance is a choice. A consequence of this choice should necessitate a loss in voting "rights."
Ouch
New Delhi: Three nomads of Banchola village in Rajasthan are suspected to have been killed by a meteorite. Four others are reported to have been injured in the incident which occurred around 0930 hrs on Thursday.
Eye witnesses said that the victims — who used to sell utensils in exchange of old clothes— were sitting in a field when an unknown flying object hit them. A crater was formed due to a blast-like situation.
If the meteorite theory is accurate, then Chicken Little had a point. If not, Bill Clinton still must have control of U.S. military missiles.
Eye witnesses said that the victims — who used to sell utensils in exchange of old clothes— were sitting in a field when an unknown flying object hit them. A crater was formed due to a blast-like situation.
If the meteorite theory is accurate, then Chicken Little had a point. If not, Bill Clinton still must have control of U.S. military missiles.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Longing for Lies
I've often heard the atheist argument that humans are hard-wired for belief in a nonexistent deity as a survival mechanism. Sam "The Brain" Harris was on C-Span the other night, and he implied as much in a conversation with Reza Aslan (no relation to Narnia's storied King).
I find this proposition downright silly; it illustrates the grasping at straws that occurs whenever someone denies God. After all, if nature has the capacity for such a bizarre, abstract idea, why not call nature God? Because it nullifies the original assertion that there is no God, and we can't let logic or common sense stand obstacles on the road to enlightened atheism.
But it gets worse. Simple observation of the world around us leads to a conclusion diametrically opposite the first. Would anyone argue that dogs and cats, elephants and ants, or pigs and cockroaches believe in God, or understand who or what He is? I doubt it. Yet they not only survive, but thrive, and have done so for millennia. The animal kingdom has made it to this point in history without the necessity of a make-believe Creator, so why is such a concept required for the survival of humans--the most advanced organism on Earth?
In terms of logic, which strikes you as more plausible: that humans come prepackaged with a need for God because God is real, or that insentient nature instills this false belief as a mechanism for human benefit?
I think the answer is obvious to anyone free of the preconceived belief that God is a phony, and the nonexistent Devil take the evidence.
One final observation: It's funny how "logical" atheists indulge in wanton speculation, while mocking and belittling Christians for doing the same. At least the Christian can point to scripture and basic observation as a support for his outlook. The atheist cannot.
I find this proposition downright silly; it illustrates the grasping at straws that occurs whenever someone denies God. After all, if nature has the capacity for such a bizarre, abstract idea, why not call nature God? Because it nullifies the original assertion that there is no God, and we can't let logic or common sense stand obstacles on the road to enlightened atheism.
But it gets worse. Simple observation of the world around us leads to a conclusion diametrically opposite the first. Would anyone argue that dogs and cats, elephants and ants, or pigs and cockroaches believe in God, or understand who or what He is? I doubt it. Yet they not only survive, but thrive, and have done so for millennia. The animal kingdom has made it to this point in history without the necessity of a make-believe Creator, so why is such a concept required for the survival of humans--the most advanced organism on Earth?
In terms of logic, which strikes you as more plausible: that humans come prepackaged with a need for God because God is real, or that insentient nature instills this false belief as a mechanism for human benefit?
I think the answer is obvious to anyone free of the preconceived belief that God is a phony, and the nonexistent Devil take the evidence.
One final observation: It's funny how "logical" atheists indulge in wanton speculation, while mocking and belittling Christians for doing the same. At least the Christian can point to scripture and basic observation as a support for his outlook. The atheist cannot.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Stupid Is As Stupid Does
Here's a revelatory comment in an interview between George Looney and Newsweek:
Newsweek: You spend a great deal of time traveling internationally. Does being an expat give you a different perspective on U.S. foreign policy?
Looney: [Growing up,] I was taught to look at the United States not from the inside out but from the outside in. The signs you see are very disheartening. It is probably the worst time ever for us internationally. When you go to Europe, for the most part, they just hate us. Not individually, but they think we are just like these big bullies—and quite honestly, we have acted like that. That has been the most unusual twist in the last few years, having to defend being an American.
Hm, perhaps this explains your consistent liberal, anti-American stance on almost every subject you're vocal about? Could there be a correlation here?
As for European hate, maybe they don't hate Americans in general. Maybe they just hate you, George. I doubt you achieve much in curtailing their hate. See, defending "being an American" isn't your strong suit.
Newsweek: You spend a great deal of time traveling internationally. Does being an expat give you a different perspective on U.S. foreign policy?
Looney: [Growing up,] I was taught to look at the United States not from the inside out but from the outside in. The signs you see are very disheartening. It is probably the worst time ever for us internationally. When you go to Europe, for the most part, they just hate us. Not individually, but they think we are just like these big bullies—and quite honestly, we have acted like that. That has been the most unusual twist in the last few years, having to defend being an American.
Hm, perhaps this explains your consistent liberal, anti-American stance on almost every subject you're vocal about? Could there be a correlation here?
As for European hate, maybe they don't hate Americans in general. Maybe they just hate you, George. I doubt you achieve much in curtailing their hate. See, defending "being an American" isn't your strong suit.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
A Muslim Prayer
Oh, most Mighty Allah, leader of the faithful and ruler of the righteous, please send our valiant offspring against those who look not upon a beast of burden with fondness. May you shrivel their manhoods, of Lord, and kill them in their tennis courts and malls and Burger Kings and movie theaters and bath houses and strip clubs and roller rinks. May you annihilate all apostates and wreak havoc upon the Zionist entity and its oppressive minions. May you gouge out their eyeballs with a rusty spoon, oh Merciful One. May you run a drill bit through their ears and clear out the influence of Shaitan. May their female infants tumble from the womb in burkhas, and may future generations stand barren in the fields against us. May Dar-al-Islam first conquer planet Earth, then the neighboring infidel planets, and spread out with thy message to the infinite stars. May the evils of alien technology falter in the face of the mujahedin. May our youth find martyrdom in Sirius and Alpha Centauri, Wolf 359 and Andromeda. May the indigenous sea monkeys of Shazbot fall upon their fins and proclaim that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammed is his Prophet. May the sloe-eyed houris forever remain perpetual virgins in thy Garden, oh Master of Chastity. May the Black Stone crush all opposition to thy Will. May the Kaaba become a grave stone for the rebellious, oh Giver of Life. May thy vaunted djinn urinate upon the heads of the subhuman monkeys and pigs called Jews, oh Sender of Rain. Lo, even as our harems overflow with willing wives, oh Shaper of Monogamy, make our cup of vengeance brim against thine enemies. May the Great Shaitan and her putrid puppets writhe on skewers in Gehenna until the heavens and Earth pass away. Make the stench of their burning rise up until the end of Time, oh Fanner of Flames, oh Extender of Forgiveness, oh Preparer of Kebabs. In the name of the everlasting peace brought about by eternal Jihad, Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)