A fellow blogger has posited an interesting hypothesis about whether or not miracles of God violate the laws of physics. Though I find his view thought-provoking, I don't agree with all of it, thus this elaboration on the topic.
Let me say up front that I see no reason why God cannot choose to work within the framework of laws fashioned for the Creation's functioning. I just don't believe that He has any reason to do so with exclusivity, since these laws don't apply to Him, but to mortal beings.
As an example of possibly staying within the realm of physics, let's take the multiplication of loaves and fishes from the Gospel. The site held all of the needed elements for this miracle. Manipulating present matter into the desired form was the next step. This offers no explanation of how God did it, or whether man will ever acquire the same ability through scientific and technological advancement. Still, I admit the possibility that Jesus confined Himself to natural laws in the act.
Resurrection, I think, is another basket of fish, so to speak. Bringing someone back from the dead requires much more than making a corpse get up and boogie; it demands the return of a spirit being existing in a different state to its earthly abode, namely, the body. Humans are not biological machines. We are not the sum of our parts. We are unique creatures who exist forever after our initial birth--first on this mortal coil, then in the fires of Hell or the gold-paved streets of Heaven with God; the latter of which is dependant on our acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ's free gift of salvation, accomplished in His redemptive act of dying horribly on the cross for our sins and returning to life everlasting. Resurrection, as I see it, is not a purely physical process; by definition, it involves reaching beyond this world and into the next one.
If miracles have natural explanations, then given enough time and development, man can duplicate them. Doing so calls into question God's power and perfection: is He the sovereign, omnipotent Creator of the universe and all its constituent parts, or just a being on a higher plane of scientific complexity? Remember that the act of Creation detailed in Genesis was a supernatural occurence. Through His divine will, God created ex nihilo--out of nothing--everything in existence. So, too, are the very laws that govern this Creation tangible cogs in a supernatural machine, with God's presence and life-giving power sustaining them. The birth of a child is an event that transcends natural laws. Instilling a spirit within a piece of clay is more than a rearrangement of atoms.
I believe that miracles are the singular province of God. His orderliness isn't defined by adherence to laws written for the governance of others. It's revealed in his consistency and goodness.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
The Fuzz Army
Have you ever noticed how it often takes several police officers to conduct a routine traffic stop? More than once, I've passed motorists standing on the side of the road, calmly talking to a whole gaggle of officers. Just today, I passed a motorcycle cop and two cruisers dealing with one guy. I understand the sense in having backup, but how much is required, if the motorist isn't reacting in an unruly, dangerous fashion? Why not just call in the SWAT team while you're at it, and treat it like a drug bust at Tony Montana's house?
That'll teach him for doing fifty in a forty-five.
That'll teach him for doing fifty in a forty-five.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Dogma of the Dim
Have you been following the ongoing debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Christian Douglas Wilson? The topical question: "Is Christianity good for the world?" It requires little imagination in determining Hitchens' take on this issue. What's interesting is that Hitchens spins a web of pure smarminess, cutesy retorts, and responses without answers, while Wilson keeps marching him to the wood shed. Here are just a few illustrations of Hitchens' debating style-without-substance:
You also appear to find no distinction between the intelligible injunction to "love thy neighbor" and the impossible order to love another "as thyself." We are not so made as to love others as ourselves
Hitchens unknowingly admits a deficit in atheist "morality," here. He cannot conceive of loving someone else as he loves himself. Why would Jesus exhort us to love others as ourselves, if such an act were impossible? Is giving one's life for one's friends not an example of loving others as ourselves? Is Hitchens suggesting that this never happens?
The Golden Rule is to be found in the Analects of Confucius and in the motto of the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, who long predate the Christian era and who sanely state that one should not do to others anything that would be repulsive if done to oneself. (Even this strikes me as either contradictory or tautologous, since surely we agree that sociopaths and psychopaths actually deserve to be treated in ways that would be objectionable to a morally normal person.)
Apparently Mr. Hitchens can't distinguish between generalities and specifics. The Golden Rule is a general approach to life, not an umbrella under which every imaginable, specific scenario huddles. Scripture deals quite lucidly with capital punishment and crime.
We are simply reluctant to say that, if religious faith falls—as we believe it must and to some extent already has—then the undergirding of decency falls also. And we do not fail to notice that a corollary is in play: The manner in which religion makes people behave worse than they might otherwise have done.
Of course, Hitchens offers no enlightenment on how an atheist determines what "behaving worse" means in his blanket condemnation of all religions, despite frequent requests for this information from Wilson. "Behaving worse," according to whom? Moreover, his point is poppycock. He assumes that human sinfulness and Christian teaching are the same. Sin that deviates from Christian teaching doesn't reflect Christianity; it reflects human fallibility. And what a surprise that he allows no credit to those who help their fellow man, and make the world a better place, as a result of believing what they believe. No, he accuses those people of selfishness. In his perverse little world, atheists act on pure altruism, while the religious act out of fear of being skewered on rotisseries for eternity, by horned devils sporting tridents and forked tongues. This is not an illumination of Christianity; it's a straw man caricature of it.
Hitchens also reveals his paltry understanding of Christianity and its Jewish roots, when making comments like this:
after hundreds of thousands of years of human life and suffering, God chose a moment a few thousand years ago to finally mount an intervention.
And this:
There is no need for revelation to enforce morality, and the idea that good conduct needs a heavenly reward, or that bad conduct merits a hellish punishment, is a degradation of our right and duty to choose for ourselves.
These remarks indicate just how arrogant a critique of Christianity's value is outside a basic knowledge of its teachings. Naturally, such demonstrated ignorance never slows down the enemies of God in their assaults on His people and His Word.
You also appear to find no distinction between the intelligible injunction to "love thy neighbor" and the impossible order to love another "as thyself." We are not so made as to love others as ourselves
Hitchens unknowingly admits a deficit in atheist "morality," here. He cannot conceive of loving someone else as he loves himself. Why would Jesus exhort us to love others as ourselves, if such an act were impossible? Is giving one's life for one's friends not an example of loving others as ourselves? Is Hitchens suggesting that this never happens?
The Golden Rule is to be found in the Analects of Confucius and in the motto of the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, who long predate the Christian era and who sanely state that one should not do to others anything that would be repulsive if done to oneself. (Even this strikes me as either contradictory or tautologous, since surely we agree that sociopaths and psychopaths actually deserve to be treated in ways that would be objectionable to a morally normal person.)
Apparently Mr. Hitchens can't distinguish between generalities and specifics. The Golden Rule is a general approach to life, not an umbrella under which every imaginable, specific scenario huddles. Scripture deals quite lucidly with capital punishment and crime.
We are simply reluctant to say that, if religious faith falls—as we believe it must and to some extent already has—then the undergirding of decency falls also. And we do not fail to notice that a corollary is in play: The manner in which religion makes people behave worse than they might otherwise have done.
Of course, Hitchens offers no enlightenment on how an atheist determines what "behaving worse" means in his blanket condemnation of all religions, despite frequent requests for this information from Wilson. "Behaving worse," according to whom? Moreover, his point is poppycock. He assumes that human sinfulness and Christian teaching are the same. Sin that deviates from Christian teaching doesn't reflect Christianity; it reflects human fallibility. And what a surprise that he allows no credit to those who help their fellow man, and make the world a better place, as a result of believing what they believe. No, he accuses those people of selfishness. In his perverse little world, atheists act on pure altruism, while the religious act out of fear of being skewered on rotisseries for eternity, by horned devils sporting tridents and forked tongues. This is not an illumination of Christianity; it's a straw man caricature of it.
Hitchens also reveals his paltry understanding of Christianity and its Jewish roots, when making comments like this:
after hundreds of thousands of years of human life and suffering, God chose a moment a few thousand years ago to finally mount an intervention.
And this:
There is no need for revelation to enforce morality, and the idea that good conduct needs a heavenly reward, or that bad conduct merits a hellish punishment, is a degradation of our right and duty to choose for ourselves.
These remarks indicate just how arrogant a critique of Christianity's value is outside a basic knowledge of its teachings. Naturally, such demonstrated ignorance never slows down the enemies of God in their assaults on His people and His Word.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Cajones the Size of Bell Clappers
Look at the state of U.S. immigration policy, in all its farcical splendor: we have a tax amnesty for illegal "workers" on the schedule. I'm sure our illustrious presidente would correct me and assure everyone that it's not an amnesty, but a universal reprieve. That just ain't the same thing, folks. Wink wink. Nudge nudge. Say no more. We have a failed state to the south that Bush claims as our dearest kin, even as it founders under drug-cartel torpedoes and sends its extended family trolling in our waters for a handout. We have illegal familial values advocates murdering, driving without licenses, driving while intoxicated, robbing, raping, and generally indulging in mayhem. And all the while folks like Nat Cherkoff beam upon the little brown children of their desires and tell us that, doggone it, if they could just make it across the border without drowning or getting shot by those maniacal Minutemen, they'd screech the national anthem and wave Old Glory, just like Uncle Pedro did at Yorktown. Sure, they may not render its refrains in English, but who cares?; a few more years and that obsolete language will go the way of Sanskrit, anyway.While we're on the topic, I nominate that we change the anthem from "The Star-Spangled Banner," to Lo que será, será, sung by Doris Day.
Would anyone be surprised at the discovery that el jefe Bush has the words "Proud Citizen of Aztlan" tatooed on his globalist glutes? A president who consciously refuses to enforce sound laws designed for the protection of American citizens is, at best, in dereliction of his constitutionally delegated obligations. The Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government and security from invasion. Such claims remain meaningless outside a closed border and a rational immigration policy geared toward protecting American citizens and sovereignty, not facilitating migratory ingress and "free trade."
Nor does this catastrophe fall under the "consent of the governed" rubric. The majority of Americans stand firm in opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens. But our overlords look to their master--the Allmighty Dollar--and stand blind to everything outside its glow.
Would anyone be surprised at the discovery that el jefe Bush has the words "Proud Citizen of Aztlan" tatooed on his globalist glutes? A president who consciously refuses to enforce sound laws designed for the protection of American citizens is, at best, in dereliction of his constitutionally delegated obligations. The Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government and security from invasion. Such claims remain meaningless outside a closed border and a rational immigration policy geared toward protecting American citizens and sovereignty, not facilitating migratory ingress and "free trade."
Nor does this catastrophe fall under the "consent of the governed" rubric. The majority of Americans stand firm in opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens. But our overlords look to their master--the Allmighty Dollar--and stand blind to everything outside its glow.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Post-GOP Debate Comments
I'm sure everyone sat rapt before the boob tube, enthralled by the GOP debate in South Carolina. I know you skipped Survivor: The Martian Canal Challenge and 25 and American Idol Worshipper, and all the other shows that make one's IQ plummet faster than Paris Hilton's skirt in a camera store.
Well, not really. I don't know anyone who watched the debate, except for me. I made the sacrifice for you all. I hope everyone remembers my uncommon valor, over the next few months.
Seeing ten people take the stage was interesting. I enjoyed the short question-and-answer sessions, in which each participant was given enough time to answer, but none to bloviate. I thought the moderators did a great job of asking tough, to-the-point questions, with the exception of one uttered by Chris Wallace, in which he asked how it made one candidate feel that no blacks, women, Hispanics, or transgendered sea-monkeys were in the running. I'm sorry, Chris, but that's a stupid inquiry. First of all, who cares? And second, no individual has control over who chooses to run, or not. It's meaningless, unless you're gauging one's level of PC sensibilities.
As for the guys in the camera's eye, I thought Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore failed in their efforts at gaining supporters. Thompson was stiff and bland in most of his responses, while Gilmore came across as needlessly combative.
John McCain and Mitt Romney comported themselves competently in their answers, though Romney seemed a bit wishy-washy. Neither made a big impression on me.
Giuliani exposed himself for the liberal that he is--big surprise! A couple of times, he looked like a real idiot in his evasion of direct questions. He redeemed himself somewhat in calling Ron Paul on the carpet, later on, which I'll address in a minute.
In my opinion, the most impressive figures in the debate were those most ignored by the media: Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee. All four acquitted themselves well, with quick wits and clarity in stating their positions. Huckabee had the best humorous line of the debate, in which he accused the government of spending like John Edwards in a beauty shop. Each of these men seemed sincere and serious in their convictions. The low point of Brownback's comments was when he endorsed Bush's "Non-amnesty Amnesty" policy.
Ron Paul played the role of the monkeywrench in the works. His loner views separated him from the rest of the flock, which aided his high numbers in the post-debate Fox News poll; he came in first, then dropped to second, where he stayed as of the last time I checked the count. I liked his willingness to shake people out of their complacency and stir up the punchbowl. Alas, the man's a lousy public speaker. He offered an "um" or an "ah" every other word. He did not state his case intelligently or clearly. Worse, he suggested that Al-Qaida hit us on 9/11 as a result of our stationing troops on Muslim soil. I believe this signaled the death-knell for his campaign, whether anyone realizes this or not.
The idea that America created our adversary is absurd. Yes, we have the ability of exacerbating extant problems, but the reality is as Tancredo put it in the debate: to paraphrase, these people follow a religion that dictates our deaths; it demands our destruction. Muslims hate us for no other reason than that we are not Muslims; it's that simple. If we give them no reason to hate us, they'll make one up. This conclusion is inescapable upon learning the true history of Islam. Nor is 9/11 our first tangle with these folks. Remember the Barbary Pirates and the conflict surrounding them? Guess what? They weren't Transcendental Meditationists. They were Muslims, and their religious beliefs played a direct role in their behavior, which included the enslavement of people of all creeds and colors. America is not faultless; yet Al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups are not the Frankensteinian spawn of the U.S., regardless what they claim in their public lies.
So in short, Paul not only projected an unpopular sentiment, but an incorrect one. For that, he's done. However, I do admire his willingness to think for himself and make the whole affair more interesting. Variety is the spice of life, after all.
I like a forum where disparate views are aired from more than two or three people; so this was an interesting debate, over all, and worth seeing.
Well, not really. I don't know anyone who watched the debate, except for me. I made the sacrifice for you all. I hope everyone remembers my uncommon valor, over the next few months.
Seeing ten people take the stage was interesting. I enjoyed the short question-and-answer sessions, in which each participant was given enough time to answer, but none to bloviate. I thought the moderators did a great job of asking tough, to-the-point questions, with the exception of one uttered by Chris Wallace, in which he asked how it made one candidate feel that no blacks, women, Hispanics, or transgendered sea-monkeys were in the running. I'm sorry, Chris, but that's a stupid inquiry. First of all, who cares? And second, no individual has control over who chooses to run, or not. It's meaningless, unless you're gauging one's level of PC sensibilities.
As for the guys in the camera's eye, I thought Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore failed in their efforts at gaining supporters. Thompson was stiff and bland in most of his responses, while Gilmore came across as needlessly combative.
John McCain and Mitt Romney comported themselves competently in their answers, though Romney seemed a bit wishy-washy. Neither made a big impression on me.
Giuliani exposed himself for the liberal that he is--big surprise! A couple of times, he looked like a real idiot in his evasion of direct questions. He redeemed himself somewhat in calling Ron Paul on the carpet, later on, which I'll address in a minute.
In my opinion, the most impressive figures in the debate were those most ignored by the media: Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee. All four acquitted themselves well, with quick wits and clarity in stating their positions. Huckabee had the best humorous line of the debate, in which he accused the government of spending like John Edwards in a beauty shop. Each of these men seemed sincere and serious in their convictions. The low point of Brownback's comments was when he endorsed Bush's "Non-amnesty Amnesty" policy.
Ron Paul played the role of the monkeywrench in the works. His loner views separated him from the rest of the flock, which aided his high numbers in the post-debate Fox News poll; he came in first, then dropped to second, where he stayed as of the last time I checked the count. I liked his willingness to shake people out of their complacency and stir up the punchbowl. Alas, the man's a lousy public speaker. He offered an "um" or an "ah" every other word. He did not state his case intelligently or clearly. Worse, he suggested that Al-Qaida hit us on 9/11 as a result of our stationing troops on Muslim soil. I believe this signaled the death-knell for his campaign, whether anyone realizes this or not.
The idea that America created our adversary is absurd. Yes, we have the ability of exacerbating extant problems, but the reality is as Tancredo put it in the debate: to paraphrase, these people follow a religion that dictates our deaths; it demands our destruction. Muslims hate us for no other reason than that we are not Muslims; it's that simple. If we give them no reason to hate us, they'll make one up. This conclusion is inescapable upon learning the true history of Islam. Nor is 9/11 our first tangle with these folks. Remember the Barbary Pirates and the conflict surrounding them? Guess what? They weren't Transcendental Meditationists. They were Muslims, and their religious beliefs played a direct role in their behavior, which included the enslavement of people of all creeds and colors. America is not faultless; yet Al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups are not the Frankensteinian spawn of the U.S., regardless what they claim in their public lies.
So in short, Paul not only projected an unpopular sentiment, but an incorrect one. For that, he's done. However, I do admire his willingness to think for himself and make the whole affair more interesting. Variety is the spice of life, after all.
I like a forum where disparate views are aired from more than two or three people; so this was an interesting debate, over all, and worth seeing.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Tumblin' Tumbleweeds, or "Die, Kid!"
Spurring America's vaunted halls of learning to new lows:
A 12-year-old girl who says she was traumatized when her teacher showed the film "Brokeback Mountain" featuring love scenes with homosexual cowboys is suing the Chicago Board of Education for $500,000.
"What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," is what the substitute teacher told eighth-grade students at Ashburn Community Elementary School after showing the R-rated movie, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court.
Sounds like Ms. Buford hails from Vegas. With a motto like this, I wonder how long we'll have to wait before she's playing "doctor" with the students. Keep in mind that these kids were in elementary school. Calling this putrid is an understatement.
***
In another enlightenment setting, we have this:
A teacher and an assistant principal at a Tennessee school have been suspended for about two weeks because they staged a gunman's attack on their sixth-grade students for a "prank" or a "learning experience," depending upon the explanation.
The newspaper report said the faculty members staged the phony gun attack – repeatedly telling the children it was not a drill – while the kids cried and took shelter under tables.
"A teacher wearing a hooded sweatshirt pulled on a locked door, pretending to be a suspicious subject in the area," the report said. "The students were told to lie on the floor or crawl underneath tables and keep quiet."
The newspaper quoted 11-year-old Shay Naylor, who told of the children crying as the lights went out, and some were holding hands and shaking.
The school, while it initially described the circumstances as a prank, later in the same document called it a "learning experience."
"The children were in that room in the dark, begging for their lives, because they thought there was someone with a gun after them," Brandy Cole, whose son was part of the class, told the newspaper.
Alisha Graves' son was on the trip, and she said it was not good. "Those kids were crying, and they were terrified."
Barbara Corbetta said the details matched in all of the stories the children told their parents – kids on the floor crying and begging for their lives.
"My hope is that we can learn from this, and in the end, it will have a positive result of growth for all of us," Stephens (the school principal) told the newspaper.
I'm really sure these distraught parents appreciate your sentimental pap, Miss Insipid Bureaucratic Crap Regurgitator. I can't think of a more despicable, worthless comment, in light of the event-in-question. It's obvious that the staff are lying about their intentions, given that the lowlife element running the place can't even get its story straight. I suppose the "learning experience" was how to soil oneself properly in a hostage situation. I can tell you with certainty that if something like this happened to one of my children, I'd be lacing up my clodhoppers and seeking out these "teachers," so as to educate them in the meaning of pain by stomping mudholes in their stinking fundaments.
These are the kind of people we have "in charge," folks. The inmates truly are running the asylums. It's not a joke.
I have some sincere questions for those with kids in public schools: Can you do no better than this? Do your offspring deserve something superior to such filth? How many stories of this type must you read, before the truth hits home? Put another way, if your cumulative knowledge doesn't constitute enough convincing evidence that the system is broken, how much do you require? Where is the tipping point? Scripture tells us that a child's education is his parents' duty. Do you think that God looks upon the indoctrination and degradation of your children with fondness?
A 12-year-old girl who says she was traumatized when her teacher showed the film "Brokeback Mountain" featuring love scenes with homosexual cowboys is suing the Chicago Board of Education for $500,000.
"What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," is what the substitute teacher told eighth-grade students at Ashburn Community Elementary School after showing the R-rated movie, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court.
Sounds like Ms. Buford hails from Vegas. With a motto like this, I wonder how long we'll have to wait before she's playing "doctor" with the students. Keep in mind that these kids were in elementary school. Calling this putrid is an understatement.
***
In another enlightenment setting, we have this:
A teacher and an assistant principal at a Tennessee school have been suspended for about two weeks because they staged a gunman's attack on their sixth-grade students for a "prank" or a "learning experience," depending upon the explanation.
The newspaper report said the faculty members staged the phony gun attack – repeatedly telling the children it was not a drill – while the kids cried and took shelter under tables.
"A teacher wearing a hooded sweatshirt pulled on a locked door, pretending to be a suspicious subject in the area," the report said. "The students were told to lie on the floor or crawl underneath tables and keep quiet."
The newspaper quoted 11-year-old Shay Naylor, who told of the children crying as the lights went out, and some were holding hands and shaking.
The school, while it initially described the circumstances as a prank, later in the same document called it a "learning experience."
"The children were in that room in the dark, begging for their lives, because they thought there was someone with a gun after them," Brandy Cole, whose son was part of the class, told the newspaper.
Alisha Graves' son was on the trip, and she said it was not good. "Those kids were crying, and they were terrified."
Barbara Corbetta said the details matched in all of the stories the children told their parents – kids on the floor crying and begging for their lives.
"My hope is that we can learn from this, and in the end, it will have a positive result of growth for all of us," Stephens (the school principal) told the newspaper.
I'm really sure these distraught parents appreciate your sentimental pap, Miss Insipid Bureaucratic Crap Regurgitator. I can't think of a more despicable, worthless comment, in light of the event-in-question. It's obvious that the staff are lying about their intentions, given that the lowlife element running the place can't even get its story straight. I suppose the "learning experience" was how to soil oneself properly in a hostage situation. I can tell you with certainty that if something like this happened to one of my children, I'd be lacing up my clodhoppers and seeking out these "teachers," so as to educate them in the meaning of pain by stomping mudholes in their stinking fundaments.
These are the kind of people we have "in charge," folks. The inmates truly are running the asylums. It's not a joke.
I have some sincere questions for those with kids in public schools: Can you do no better than this? Do your offspring deserve something superior to such filth? How many stories of this type must you read, before the truth hits home? Put another way, if your cumulative knowledge doesn't constitute enough convincing evidence that the system is broken, how much do you require? Where is the tipping point? Scripture tells us that a child's education is his parents' duty. Do you think that God looks upon the indoctrination and degradation of your children with fondness?
Friday, May 11, 2007
Moderate Murderers
I'm sure you've heard about the foiled terrorist attempt on Fort Dix, New Joisey. The six suspects were Muslims, one and all. All were spawned in some unholy cesspool outside the United States. Three were--you guessed it--illegal aliens, euphemistically known in some quarters as undocumented workers. Of course, the "work" of these men included murdering total strangers for the benefit of Islam. According to this article, they "worshipped at moderate mosques." We know this is true, because moderate mosques produce wild-eyed fanatical killers who get off on seeing people, places, and things go Boom! Adding insult to injury, the six had criminal records longer than a list of Muhammed's adolescent concubines--low-level drug possession charges and driving-on-revoked driver's licenses. The logical conclusion one must reach is that illegal aliens are extended favoritism, since Americans find themselves behind bars for these repeat offenses. Last night, Billy O'Retard reported fifty-four offenses, amongst the six. Golly, these must be the model citizens Jefe Bush mentions, while gushing about the glory that is multiculturalism, and the grandeur that is invasion.
This is one of those "See, I told ya so!" moments, as I have predicted the infiltration of U.S. territory by Allah's Assassins via Mexico on this very blog. Take this, for example, from nearly two years ago:
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Muslim terrorists already are inside our borders, plotting their next attack. In fact, I think it's likely in the extreme that another major terrorist assault on our people will occur within the next two or three years, if not sooner. I believe it will take large-scale murder and destruction--again--to get our "leaders" finally to confront the border situation. And call me cynical, but I won't be shocked if they still don't address it properly.
And from the comments section of the same post:
Islamic terrorists historically have been trained to exploit loopholes. Is not the porous nature of our borders a glaring loophole? On September 11, 2001, the hijackers expoited the weaknesses in our immigration system. Shouldn't we assume that others like them will do the same, regarding illegal entry? As numerous Mexicans have proven, coming into this country outside appropriate channels is far from difficult.
Now we have a documented, specific case of terrorists entering our borders illegally and plotting nefarious acts. I'm grateful that it didn't come to fruition, though it's no thanks to our government for their plan's failure.
Will our borders be sealed? Will this close call make a difference to our elected officials? Will it change anything?
Sure. In a pig's eye.
This is one of those "See, I told ya so!" moments, as I have predicted the infiltration of U.S. territory by Allah's Assassins via Mexico on this very blog. Take this, for example, from nearly two years ago:
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Muslim terrorists already are inside our borders, plotting their next attack. In fact, I think it's likely in the extreme that another major terrorist assault on our people will occur within the next two or three years, if not sooner. I believe it will take large-scale murder and destruction--again--to get our "leaders" finally to confront the border situation. And call me cynical, but I won't be shocked if they still don't address it properly.
And from the comments section of the same post:
Islamic terrorists historically have been trained to exploit loopholes. Is not the porous nature of our borders a glaring loophole? On September 11, 2001, the hijackers expoited the weaknesses in our immigration system. Shouldn't we assume that others like them will do the same, regarding illegal entry? As numerous Mexicans have proven, coming into this country outside appropriate channels is far from difficult.
Now we have a documented, specific case of terrorists entering our borders illegally and plotting nefarious acts. I'm grateful that it didn't come to fruition, though it's no thanks to our government for their plan's failure.
Will our borders be sealed? Will this close call make a difference to our elected officials? Will it change anything?
Sure. In a pig's eye.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
The Myth of Media Bias
Let's see, the linked article from ABC News (Association of Bolshevik Cretins) sports a photo of evangelicals worked up in a fervor, so they look kooky. Check. Then we have this: Many in the Evangelical movement are embracing more liberal issues like global warming and adoption, a shift away from core GOP values, observers say. OK, so adoption is a liberal issue, the antithesis of a GOP value. Gotcha. Nah, there's no bias here.
I attempted wading further into this four page gush-fest about how cool evangelicals are, so long as they reject moral convictions and the Republican Party. After the second page, my computer began flashing huge red letters on the screen, which said:
B.S. Overload! B.S. Overload!
So I frantically left the site and went back to my own blog as I watched smoke curl up from the pc's monitor.
This is why I neither watch ABC "News," nor view its online content very often. It's like wading barefoot through a sewer.
I attempted wading further into this four page gush-fest about how cool evangelicals are, so long as they reject moral convictions and the Republican Party. After the second page, my computer began flashing huge red letters on the screen, which said:
B.S. Overload! B.S. Overload!
So I frantically left the site and went back to my own blog as I watched smoke curl up from the pc's monitor.
This is why I neither watch ABC "News," nor view its online content very often. It's like wading barefoot through a sewer.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Strange but True
David Kennison, born in 1736, was the longest-surviving participant in the Boston Tea Party. He served in both the American Revolution and the War of 1812. He served in the latter at the age of seventy-six, and had his hand shot off at Sackett's Harbor. Several years later, his skull was fractured when a tree fell on his head, and several years after that, while training for a militia drill, a premature cannon explosion shattered both his legs. When he recovered from the injury, his legs became covered with sores that never healed, and he was stricken with rheumatism. Some time later, his face was mutilated when he was kicked by a horse. He finally died a quiet death in Illinois in 1851.
At the ripe old age of 115.
--taken from 2201 Fascinating Facts (1983), by David Louis
At the ripe old age of 115.
--taken from 2201 Fascinating Facts (1983), by David Louis
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Stinko de Mayo
"The Fifth of May" is a celebration of Mexico's glorious defeat of the French at the Battle of Puebla, in 1862. This proved a short-lived victory, since the French subsequently invaded Mexico City and occupied it for five years.
This minor battle is commemorated by an equally minor holiday in Mexico. However, it is much more important in the United States of Aztlan (U.S.A.).
I see this as multicultism in action. It is not just an appreciation of Mexican heritage--i.e., corrupt "government," low wages and unemployment, and moral depravity, to name a few cultural gems. No, it's a recognition of Mexican nationals overcoming invaders of their country; as such, it has no significance outside Montezuma's domain. That Americans of all ethnicities recognize it reveals the depth of Mexican influence on this country, as well as the cluelessness of the average celebrant. "Oh, you mean it's an opportunity to get plastered, and have a swell time? Sign me up! Who cares if it has no relevance for me, as an American. I'll split the tequila worm with ya." Keep in mind, too, that a large portion of those who cherish this holiday are illegal aliens--uh, I mean exclusionary employees or propagators of familial standards. I keep confusing the terms.
This observance is one of Mexican nationalism, not American cohesion. More directly, one who immigrates to this country with prior loyalties may have abandoned his birthplace physically, but his love for it lives on in his heart, as if he stood knee-deep in its fields. Thus, he is in no wise an American. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "a hyphenated American is not an American at all."
This minor battle is commemorated by an equally minor holiday in Mexico. However, it is much more important in the United States of Aztlan (U.S.A.).
I see this as multicultism in action. It is not just an appreciation of Mexican heritage--i.e., corrupt "government," low wages and unemployment, and moral depravity, to name a few cultural gems. No, it's a recognition of Mexican nationals overcoming invaders of their country; as such, it has no significance outside Montezuma's domain. That Americans of all ethnicities recognize it reveals the depth of Mexican influence on this country, as well as the cluelessness of the average celebrant. "Oh, you mean it's an opportunity to get plastered, and have a swell time? Sign me up! Who cares if it has no relevance for me, as an American. I'll split the tequila worm with ya." Keep in mind, too, that a large portion of those who cherish this holiday are illegal aliens--uh, I mean exclusionary employees or propagators of familial standards. I keep confusing the terms.
This observance is one of Mexican nationalism, not American cohesion. More directly, one who immigrates to this country with prior loyalties may have abandoned his birthplace physically, but his love for it lives on in his heart, as if he stood knee-deep in its fields. Thus, he is in no wise an American. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "a hyphenated American is not an American at all."
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Distortions and Lies
Disingenuousness in full-effect: Kansas City International Airport officials have acknowledged installing foot-washing benches in a restroom at the airport, but deny they're intended for Muslim cab drivers.
"Recently, a small expansion was made to the building," said Kansas City Aviation Department spokesman Joe McBride in a statement to WND. "Included were wash areas used for any wash purpose by any of the users, including filling car wash buckets."
He insisted the wash benches were not "built for the exclusive use of any ethnic group or culture."
What a steaming load. Muslims complained, so the facilities were installed. Do Americans have a cultural need for foot-washing in public places? I don't recall seeing that at the local bowling alleys and malls. And no one accused them of providing these for the exclusive use of one group; there's no question, though, that the accomodations exist as a result of one group's bellyaching. People lie about any-and-everything, don't they? Especially when Islam and its adherents are involved.
***
LOS ANGELES - The city's police chief said Wednesday some officers used inappropriate force when they fired rubber bullets into crowds that included children and wielded batons in an incident that marred an otherwise peaceful day of immigration rallies across the United States.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was traveling in El Salvador during a trade mission, said the incident was "a most unfortunate end to a peaceful day."
Villaraigosa. Now there's an unbiased source. They're referring to the "peaceful" demonstration in which: police tried to disperse demonstrators who had moved off the sidewalk onto the street. Authorities said several people of the few thousand still at the rally threw rocks and bottles at officers, who fired rubber bullets and used batons to push the crowd back onto the sidewalk.
You can make a case that the cops went overboard. But throwing rocks and bottles at police who want you to move out of the street is in no wise "peaceful;" it's assault and attempted battery. If you think I'm being melodramatic, find a baseball-sized rock and ask someone to fling it at your head. You'll get my drift faster than Nolan Ryan putting one over home plate. Even the police--as riddled with corruption as they are, nationwide--have a right to defend themselves.
***
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday that having more guns on college campuses is not the way to prevent campus violence like the massacre at Virginia Tech.
"I don't think that is the answer quite frankly," said Gonzales, who was participating in a governor's task force to study safety and security on Oklahoma college campuses.
Instead, authorities should enforce existing laws concerning the ownership and use of handguns, he said.
"We can't guarantee complete security," Gonzales said. "We need to see what we can do as a government -- on the federal level, on the state level -- to ensure the safety of our students."
Bureaucratic drivel. Maybe he believes that locking every student in his classroom and providing an entry/exit keycard only for the armed killer will be more effective. I'd enjoy having Gonzales edify me on which gun "control" laws would've stopped the V-Tech atrocity. I await his response with bated breath. In addition, how is evening the odds a bad idea? Will it work better, or less well, than having an unarmed student population facing a gunman? What's more, does this guy have any synapses firing in his mushy skull? No one's asking for guaranteed, 100% security. Such a thing is impossible. People want a chance at self-defense, you lying dolt. Imagine my comfort level on hearing that the federal government is "looking into" this issue.
Here's the real diamond in the dung-heap: Federal officials must work closely with states to prevent and respond to threats, Gonzales said. "They know best what the problems are, and they know best what the solutions are," he said.
Heck, when Devillry Clinton becomes president, she can keep this guy, since he espouses the same philosophy of embracing Big Brother as the Alpha and Omega of problem-solving. I'm sure Marx has a big fat grin on his moldering lips, on that one.
"Recently, a small expansion was made to the building," said Kansas City Aviation Department spokesman Joe McBride in a statement to WND. "Included were wash areas used for any wash purpose by any of the users, including filling car wash buckets."
He insisted the wash benches were not "built for the exclusive use of any ethnic group or culture."
What a steaming load. Muslims complained, so the facilities were installed. Do Americans have a cultural need for foot-washing in public places? I don't recall seeing that at the local bowling alleys and malls. And no one accused them of providing these for the exclusive use of one group; there's no question, though, that the accomodations exist as a result of one group's bellyaching. People lie about any-and-everything, don't they? Especially when Islam and its adherents are involved.
***
LOS ANGELES - The city's police chief said Wednesday some officers used inappropriate force when they fired rubber bullets into crowds that included children and wielded batons in an incident that marred an otherwise peaceful day of immigration rallies across the United States.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was traveling in El Salvador during a trade mission, said the incident was "a most unfortunate end to a peaceful day."
Villaraigosa. Now there's an unbiased source. They're referring to the "peaceful" demonstration in which: police tried to disperse demonstrators who had moved off the sidewalk onto the street. Authorities said several people of the few thousand still at the rally threw rocks and bottles at officers, who fired rubber bullets and used batons to push the crowd back onto the sidewalk.
You can make a case that the cops went overboard. But throwing rocks and bottles at police who want you to move out of the street is in no wise "peaceful;" it's assault and attempted battery. If you think I'm being melodramatic, find a baseball-sized rock and ask someone to fling it at your head. You'll get my drift faster than Nolan Ryan putting one over home plate. Even the police--as riddled with corruption as they are, nationwide--have a right to defend themselves.
***
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday that having more guns on college campuses is not the way to prevent campus violence like the massacre at Virginia Tech.
"I don't think that is the answer quite frankly," said Gonzales, who was participating in a governor's task force to study safety and security on Oklahoma college campuses.
Instead, authorities should enforce existing laws concerning the ownership and use of handguns, he said.
"We can't guarantee complete security," Gonzales said. "We need to see what we can do as a government -- on the federal level, on the state level -- to ensure the safety of our students."
Bureaucratic drivel. Maybe he believes that locking every student in his classroom and providing an entry/exit keycard only for the armed killer will be more effective. I'd enjoy having Gonzales edify me on which gun "control" laws would've stopped the V-Tech atrocity. I await his response with bated breath. In addition, how is evening the odds a bad idea? Will it work better, or less well, than having an unarmed student population facing a gunman? What's more, does this guy have any synapses firing in his mushy skull? No one's asking for guaranteed, 100% security. Such a thing is impossible. People want a chance at self-defense, you lying dolt. Imagine my comfort level on hearing that the federal government is "looking into" this issue.
Here's the real diamond in the dung-heap: Federal officials must work closely with states to prevent and respond to threats, Gonzales said. "They know best what the problems are, and they know best what the solutions are," he said.
Heck, when Devillry Clinton becomes president, she can keep this guy, since he espouses the same philosophy of embracing Big Brother as the Alpha and Omega of problem-solving. I'm sure Marx has a big fat grin on his moldering lips, on that one.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The Downward Spiral
We have a choice coming in Fall '08.
It makes all our little hearts palpitate:
Repugs and Dhimmicrats nigh salivate
To sit on our birthright and defecate.
Hillary's eating babies from the crib;
A Janus-faced snake, she's crafty and glib.
She's quite unashamed; it's sure not a fib:
Yes, Big Brother is her favorite sib.
Barack Obama has a foreign name.
He's a real good Negro, polite and tame.
He's eloquent, too, but that ain't fair game.
Only white-robed racists speak such acclaim.
McCain sits on both sides of every fence.
Rudy wears miniskirts with confidence.
Romney thinks it's manifest common sense:
Polygyny's the boon of Providence.
So choose your poison: nightshade or hemlock.
Join the clueless idiot voting block.
Bleat like the weakest lamb shorn from the flock.
Raise curtain; light the stage; it's Ragnarok!
It makes all our little hearts palpitate:
Repugs and Dhimmicrats nigh salivate
To sit on our birthright and defecate.
Hillary's eating babies from the crib;
A Janus-faced snake, she's crafty and glib.
She's quite unashamed; it's sure not a fib:
Yes, Big Brother is her favorite sib.
Barack Obama has a foreign name.
He's a real good Negro, polite and tame.
He's eloquent, too, but that ain't fair game.
Only white-robed racists speak such acclaim.
McCain sits on both sides of every fence.
Rudy wears miniskirts with confidence.
Romney thinks it's manifest common sense:
Polygyny's the boon of Providence.
So choose your poison: nightshade or hemlock.
Join the clueless idiot voting block.
Bleat like the weakest lamb shorn from the flock.
Raise curtain; light the stage; it's Ragnarok!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)