Defying Conventions

A Bible symposium at Florida's Southern College yields some disgusting results:

James L. Crenshaw, professor of Old Testament at Duke Divinity School, questioned Scripture's authority to govern matters of sexuality – the Old Testament text, he argued, was written over 12 centuries under a variety of shifting circumstances. It is the reader, he argued, that determines the text's meaning.

One of the more bizarre situations in this world is when an apostate gravitates toward becoming a professor of Old Testament. What draws such people toward this profession? Perhaps it offers a doorway into religious validation of their degenerate views? If the reader determines the text's meaning, then the text, in effect, has no meaning. This is what happens when we mix moral relativism with Christianity. These folks put the "moron" in oxymoronic.

Crenshaw cited divorce, easily obtained in early Hebrew society but discouraged in later prophetic and rabbinic writings, to illustrate what he described as the Bible's shifting standards. Likewise, in the Song of Songs, "the lovers defy convention in the way lovers have always done."

First off, divorce was nowhere near as rampant or as trivial in its details in early Hebrew society as it is, today. And even if it was every bit as common, what in the world does that have to do with the Bible's "shifting standards?" This is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Given the lack of a cohesive approach to sexuality in the Bible, Crenshaw argued "those who practice alternative sexual lifestyles" should not be condemned.

Think of how carefree must be one's life, when morals, common sense, or the acceptance of a text's plain meaning is absent. Here are the Bible's "shifting standards," regarding homosexuality:

And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.--I Kings 14:24

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as womankind: it is abomination.--Leviticus 18:22

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.--Leviticus 20:13

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.--Romans 1: 26 & 27

There is more, and none of it is vacillating, contradictory, or waffling in its standards. "Alternative" lifestyles categorically are condemned, in scripture. Reaching any other conclusion requires the complete abrogation of biblical authority. We don't have to like it; we just have to accept it as fact. Nor does this mean that there is no salvation from these lifestyles, or that God is unforgiving of those who repent.

"We must reject at the outset any notion of the supreme authority of scripture. ...

Then in what should we place supreme authority? The shifting opinions of Man? No thanks.

"Is God more interested in our sex lives than in our integrity, our good deeds and our chaste thoughts?"

Gibberish lovingly wrapped in non sequitur. One is an outgrowth of the other. If our sexual lives are fraught with perversion and moral corrosion, does this not affect our integrity? Are we more or less likely to be filled with good deeds and chaste thoughts, if our sexual lives are corrupt? The man acts as if there is no link between the two. There is.

Defying conventions isn't always evil. But when the Word of our Lord and Savior unequivocally condemns certain acts, we should perk up and pay attention. He does not make these demands without cause. Attempted warping of His words does not change the nature of sin.

"Help Us Help You"

Sick of Allah not getting his due?

Tired of the Zionist entity's parasitic leeching of the Holy Land's resources?

Disappointed about hit-or-miss jihad forays?

Does the use of Gentile blood in Jewish matzo have you feeling blue?

Want to exorcise the "Great Satan?"

Well. . . .

Paradise Operators are standing by. . .

Happy Helloween!

I hope everyone enjoys the pagan festivities.

To Kill, or Not to Kill

I've always been a diehard pro-capital punishment kind of guy--at least, until recently. It seems as I grow older, I become more torn between what I know is morally acceptable, and what actually works in the real world. Let me explain:

I consider the death penalty a biblical institution and wholly just when applied in the correct manner. Not for the sake of vengeance or deterrence do I hold this view, but rather because it was ordained by God. If man is made in the image of God, murder is one of the ugliest sins imaginable. True justice cannot be served, unless the murderer's life is forfeit. Society must send this message to evil-doers, loud and clear. Any deterrent effect is just an added bonus.

So in short, I have no moral qualms about the death penalty as an institution. Nor will I lose sleep when a child molester or killer is executed.

But then I turn and see the utter decomposition of our judicial (none dare call it "justice" with a straight face) system. Time and time again, I read about the horrors of pervasive, systemic corruption in our courts, both in small matters, and those of great import. I drew the conclusion quite some time ago that the system as it functions, currently, is just a money-making racket and a complete sham.

So the questions arise: Do we place the power of life and death in dirty hands? Do we continue investing such control in people who have proven disinterested in--or downright hostile to--the notion of justice? Is making an impartial and factual determination of guilt or innocence within the scope of our courts' abilities, as they stand? If not, how do we resolve this painful dilemma?

I consider failure in executing a murderer a breach of justice; but an even greater injustice, in my opinion, is putting to death a person who is blameless.

The only solution I see, for the nonce, is limiting capital punishment's use to cases in which the perpetrator's guilt is not in question. For example, he is caught in the act by the authorities, or several parties can attest to having witnessed his barbarities, or the criminal demonstrably confesses his crime without compulsion. Another option is a complete overhaul and slash-and-burn policy within our judicial system, with built-in accountability. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening, any time soon.

I realize these scenarios aren't foolproof, and as I said, I'm torn. My opinion isn't set in stone, on this matter.

I welcome your comments.

Sick of Skewel

My mother sent this to me in an email. Supposedly, these are actual parental explanations for their childrens' absence from skewel.



NO PARENTS LEFT BEHIND
(Spellings have been left intact.)

1-- MY SON IS UNDER A DOCTOR'S CARE AND SHOULD NOT TAKE PE TODAY. PLEASE EXECUTE HIM.

2-- PLEASE EXKUCE LISA FOR BEING ABSENT SHE WAS SICK AND I HAD HER SHOT.

3-- DEAR SCHOOL: PLEASE ECSC's JOHN BEING ABSENT ON JAN. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 AND ALSO 33.

4-- PLEASE EXCUSE GLORIA FROM JIM TODAY. SHE IS ADMINISTRATING.

5-- PLEASE EXCUSE ROLAND FROM P.E. FOR A FEW DAYS. YESTERDAY HE
FELL OUT OF A TREE AND MISPLACED HIS HIP.

6-- JOHN HAS BEEN ABSENT BECAUSE HE HAD TWO TEETH TAKEN OUT OF HIS FACE.

7-- CARLOS WAS ABSENT YESTERDAY BECAUSE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL. HE WAS HURT IN THE GROWING PART.

8-- MEGAN COULD NOT COME TO SCHOOL TODAY BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN
BOTHERED BY VERY CLOSE VEINS.

9-- CHRIS WILL NOT BE IN SCHOOL CUS HE HAS AN ACRE IN HIS SIDE.

10-- PLEASE EXCUSE RAY FRIDAY FROM SCHOOL. HE HAS VERY
LOOSE VOWELS.

11-- PLEASE EXCUSE PEDRO FROM BEING ABSENT YESTERDAY. HE HAD
(DIAHRE, DYREA, DIREATHE), THE SH**S. NOTE: [WORDS IN ( *)'s WERE CROSSED OUT].

12-- PLEASE EXCUSE TOMMY FOR BEING ABSENT YESTERDAY. HE HAD DIARRHEA, AND HIS BOOTS LEAK.

13-- IRVING WAS ABSENT YESTERDAY BECAUSE HE MISSED HIS BUST.

14-- PLEASE EXCUSE JIMMY FOR BEING. IT WAS HIS FATHER'S FAULT.

15 -- I KEPT BILLIE HOME BECAUSE SHE HAD TO GO CHRISTMAS SHOPPING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT SIZE SHE WEAR.

16-- PLEASE EXCUSE JENNIFER FOR MISSING SCHOOL YESTERDAY. WE FORGOT TO GET THE SUNDAY PAPER OFF THE PORCH, AND WHEN WE FOUND IT MONDAY. WE THOUGHT IT WAS SUNDAY.

17-- SALLY WON'T BE IN SCHOOL A WEEK FROM FRIDAY. WE HAVE TO ATTEND HER FUNERAL.

18-- MY DAUGHTER WAS ABSENT YESTERDAY BECAUSE SHE WAS TIRED. SHE SPENT A WEEKEND WITH THE MARINES.

19-- PLEASE EXCUSE JASON FOR BEING ABSENT YESTERDAY. HE HAD A COLD AND COULD NOT BREED WELL.

20-- PLEASE EXCUSE MARY FOR BEING ABSENT YESTERDAY. SHE WAS IN BED WITH GRAMPS.

21-- GLORIA WAS ABSENT YESTERDAY AS SHE WAS HAVING A GANGOVER.

22-- PLEASE EXCUSE BRENDA. SHE HAS BEEN SICK AND UNDER THE DOCTOR.

23-- MARYANN WAS ABSENT DECEMBER 11-16, BECAUSE SHE HAD A FEVER, SORE THROAT, HEADACHE AND UPSET STOMACH. HER SISTER WAS ALSO SICK, FEVER AN SORE THROAT, HER BROTHER HAD A LOW GRADE FEVER AND ACHED ALL OVER. I WASN'T THE BEST EITHER, SORE THROAT AND FEVER. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING GOING AROUND, HER FATHER EVEN GOT HOT LAST NIGHT.

You might want to skip the public schools, if you truly want your chillun to get a real education. On the other hand, if you want them to grow up to be semi-literate drones, clearly the public schools are accomplishing this with flying colors.

PSA

I WANT YOU!!!!!. . .

. . .for the new Iraqi woodchipper team.

Benefits include: hearing the melodic screams of the dying, experience in the art of torture, general wallowing in human misery and gore, and a robust medical/dental plan.

Contact your local recruiting office for more details.

Of Paradoxes and Polecats

Bane wrote an interesting and thought-provoking meme, over at his blog, and challenged his readers to answer the proffered questions. What is a meme, you may ask? I have no idea, I may answer. But he wrote one, and I'm responding to it.

If you could have one person on the planet killed, right now, with no consequence to yourself, who would you choose, and why?

Osama bin Laden, because it would be justice served, and few alive deserve it more.

If you could have wild, wanton sex with the person of your choice, them your willing slave, for an entire weekend, at the place of your choosing, who would it be, why, and where?

Wayul, whut kinda question is that? I reckon I'll answer: My wife, because I love her and am committed to her, and probably in some mountain retreat, beside a nice, roaring fire, with Osama's head mounted just above the mantle. How's that for romantic?

In the entire known history of mankind, if you could go back and put a bullet into their head, with no consequence to yourself, or your lineage, who would it be? Why? If no one, why?

This one's a toss-up, for me: Either Charles Darwin--for popularizing the theory of evolution; Muhammed, for being a murderous, mangy sand-flea; or the guy who invented the DVD player. You wouldn't believe what it's cost me to make the transition from VHS tapes to discs.

If there was one mammalian species you had to choose, right now, to become extinct, which would it be?

Another toss-up: Either the leftist moonbat, or the polecat (that's Southron for skunk).

Assuming God exists, and he handed you a button that, if pushed, would destroy Him, Jesus, the Kingdom of Heaven, and the entire Heavenly Host, would you push it, and why? Or why not?

And extinguish the only light in this dark universe? Are you kidding?

Assuming the universe still exists after that last question, if God handed you a button that, if pushed, would erase humanity from existence, would you push it, and why? Or why not?

If I really had this option, I might give it a few moments of sincere pondering. Aren't y'all delighted that I'm not God? I wouldn't do it because--for all their faults and evils--there are many good people who spread love and hope throughout the world. And for some reason, God chooses not to do just that. Who am I to question His wisdom? Now, if you limited this to certain sections of the population, I might consider it further. Again, aren't y'all thrilled that I'm not the Creator?

Assuming humanity still exists, after that last question, if God handed you a button that would erase one race from existence, would you push it, who would you choose, and why?

Get behind me, Satan! You sorely tempt me. The Arab race has vexed the last 1,400 years of history, so I'd likely go with them, if I pushed the button. But I don't see the world through racial lenses, and even the Arabs deserve the chance to seek Christ's redemption. No human being should have such arbitrary power.

Aside from all the other questions, and apart (and I wish you would consider each one of them separately) if you could go back in your own timeline, anywhere, and change any one event, knowing that your present would utterly disappear, altered forever......would you? And, if yes, which one.

Nope. There's too much about my present life that I love, too many people who have entered it, only to brighten the drab curtains and splash rainbow colors on the walls. No change in my past is worth the loss of even one of these cherished ones.

"Coming Out" for Your Children

A Maryland high school is observing "National Coming Out Week" with events organized by the campus Gay/Straight Alliance, prompting protests from parents.

The observance, which began Monday, encourages homosexuals to admit their sexual preference to others and encourages heterosexuals to show support.

If the other 1, 999, 567, 763 reasons to keep your kids out of the public indoctrination centers didn't convince you, well, here's reason # 1, 999, 567, 764.

Bye-Bye Birdy

The U.N. calls for bold moves in restraining lethal bird flu:

EVERY country, including Britain, should appoint a Cabinet-level minister within the next two months to co-ordinate their response to avian flu, the United Nations’ most senior bird flu expert said yesterday.

So, just as communist countries need the services of a Minister of Propaganda, and Islamic countries value ministers of Chaos and Destruction and ministers of Self-Immolation, the whole world now suffers from a dearth of Flu ministers.

With a name like "Flu Minister," I almost expect a person who hands out little vials of Bottled Death standing at the head of a long line, proffering his wares to the citizens with a smile and a wink and a pat on the back before sending them off to the thanatoriums.

Dubya's Backup

In the event that Harriet Miers' nomination falls flatter than a drunken wookie, Dubya has chosen a second pick for the position.

He even comes with his own black robe.

Take-Your-Raghead-to-School Day

A public skewel dabbles in Islamic brainwashing:

The Thomas More Law Center says that for three weeks, "impressionable 12-year-old students" were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups; took Islamic names; wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the star and crescent moon; handed materials that instructed them to 'Remember Allah always so that you may prosper'; completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting; and memorized and recited the 'Bismillah' or 'In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,' which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls.

Students also played "jihad games" during the course, which was part of the school's world history and geography program.

If this isn't a brazen attempt at indoctrination, then what the heck is it?

In her 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton determined Excelsior was not indoctrinating students about Islam when it required them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah, but rather was just teaching them about the Muslim religion.

The lawsuit also alleges students were encouraged to use such phrases in their speech as "Allah Akbar," which is Arabic for "God is great," and were required to fast during lunch period to simulate fasting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

Nevertheless, Judge Hamilton ruled the program was devoid of "any devotional or religious intent" and was, therefore, educational, not religious in nature.

Hm, I wonder how much they were taught about the bloody, ruthless aspects of the "Religion of Peace?" I wonder if there was any mention of Muhammed's pedophile tendencies, or his beheading of over 300 Jews in a single day? I imagine they learned all about the Muslim definition of tolerance: "Submit, convert, or die." When a story has two clear sides, and one is presented while the other is ignored, this does not fit the meaning of the word "education." Let's call it what it is: programming.

Not only is the judge a dishonest moron, but the irony of the situation isn't lost on me: let's present a deceitful, rosy portrait of a religion whose practitioners would gleefully kill us all--if given half the chance--and wipe our civilization from the face of the Earth. That includes the skewel's administrators, and the multicultist judge who presided over the case.

"Subversive and Dangerous"

A Bible printing press was confiscated in Cuba:

After calling for reinforcements, a truck arrived with 12 armed, uniformed police who seized the gospels and the printing press. Cuban officials called the materials "subversive and dangerous."

The Ministry of Religion called the confiscated printing press "very dangerous."

A Cuban "Ministry of Religion," run by an atheist? Now I've heard everything. It's kinda like the Clinton administration setting up a "Ministry of Ethics." Please. Pure oxymoronics.

As for the Gospels being dangerous writings, you'd better believe it. Nothing ticks off el jefe like a book insisting that he's full of el crappo.

Elsewhere in Cuba, threats of demolition of house churches have never been so high. Recently, the government outlawed them and plans to hunt them down and close them. Many house churches have had equipment such as pews, homemade benches, musical instruments, Christian literature and anything else confiscated by police.

Remember this the next time some soulless Hollywhacked vice merchant ( like Oliver Stoned, for example) grovels on his face before Castro, and comes back to capitalist hell with his eyes shining with joy at the unbridled bliss found only in the People's Paradise of Kooba.

"Just Trust Me"

I'm constantly reading criticisms of the Miers nomination on the grounds that she is not--and has not been--a constitutional attorney or a judge. Since the Constitution does not require the holding of these positions as qualifications for a Supreme Court justice, I don't find these arguments very compelling. Since judges predictably prove themselves constitutional babes in the woods--or worse, brazen enemies of the document--with regularity, I'm not particularly impressed by such a resume. I'd much prefer a sanitation engineer with a firm grasp of constitutional principles over a judge with 30 years experience legislating from the bench, any day of the week.

To me, a far more important criterion is: Has the candidate provided demonstrations of understanding the Constitution? In this regard, we have nothing but a large question mark for an answer. What information I've gleaned from news articles either has been inconclusive, or contradictory of other stories.

Even more problematic is the sad truth that--try as I might--I can find no reason for her nomination, beyond the fact that she's a personal friend of the president, and that she is of the female persuasion. I don't think I'm clutching at the stars, when I establish a more rigorous set of expectations than "Wayul, I like 'er, an' she's got lotsa estrogen."

At Least He Tried

Red Kennedy tries but fails in a water rescue attempt:

Well, that's not entirely accurate. The real rescuers used him as a flotation device, so he did make a contribution.

Flushed

A better caption for this might be: "Where the heck did my country go?"

50 Million on the Richter Scale

Western governments rushed to step up their pledges for the earthquake relief effort after their initial response to the disaster was condemned as slow-moving and financially inadequate.

The United States, which was under pressure to increase a pledge of $500,000 (£280,000) considered almost derisory by many Pakistanis when it was made over the weekend, announced it intended to give $50m in emergency aid.

Imagine this in the context of the Good Samaritan parable: A man is robbed, beaten, and left for dead by the roadside. After being passed and ignored by several people, a Samaritan man comes along and finds him. The traveler feels compassion for the victim--caring for his wounds, giving him water, and taking him to a place where he'll receive further aid. He even pays for the stranger's treatment and lodging.

As the Samaritan is about to leave the injured man in the hands of those who will nurse him back to health, the fellow struggles up in bed, coughing and barely supporting himself on one bruised and torn elbow, and screeches:

"Where in the heck were you, six hours ago, when I first got my butt kicked? Thanks for nothing!"

I'm sure at this point, the Samaritan wishes he'd left the man in the ditch, and perhaps given him a good swift kick as he lay there, before offering him the dust of his heels as balm for his sorry state.

Nazis in the Heartland

"Whew! I just finished a long day at the rally with the guys, and boy, are my arms tired!"

The Long Kiss Good Night

New face on dollar bill: Geena Davis

When first I saw this headline on World Net Daily, I shuddered and nearly swooned, wondering if the world as we know it truly had come to an end. Sure, she was ok in Beetlejuice, but would she make a good commandette-in-chief?

Then I realized it was just part of a tv show.

Still, after the last thirteen years, it makes me wonder.

Funny Pictures

I hope you get a laugh out of these. I know I did:

Rainbow's End

Upgrade

Taken for a Ride

Bike Trip

Lock 'n Load

The Grave of the Future

Grand opening: Swiss euthanasia clinic in Britain

I can almost hear the radio ads:

Tired of that old curmudgeon uncle?
Sick of Granny's dementia?
Disgusted with the last election's results?
Fed-up with Wallace and Gromit reruns?

Well, come on down, and let Dignitas dispose of your unwanted corpus!

Dignitas--where life is but a dream!

Illegal Update

As I was sifting through WorldNetDaily and munching on my Border-Jumper combo from Taco Bell, I came across several interesting news items:

Arnold Schwarzeneggar vetoes bill providing driver's licenses to illegals.

When asked for a comment, the Governor said: "I tuhminated it with my pen. But don't worry; it'll be bahck."

Sign posted by U-Haul: "Please do not hire illegal laborers. We have had numerous reports of injuries, thefts and damages to personal belongings. It is a federal crime to employ or pick up illegal day laborers, punishable by a $5,000 fine."

Idiot response quote: "The tack they're taking is a particularly troubling one," Wilson said. "They're painting illegal day workers as criminals, making generalizations about a group of people."

Illegals? Criminals? Perish the thought. God bless U-Haul.

Sheriff gets armored car for patrolling the border:

The $18,000, nine-ton, six-wheeled vehicle is needed because of increased attacks against deputies and U.S. Border Patrol agents by drug and migrant smugglers, sheriff's and patrol officials said. The agencies frequently work together.

Law enforcement officers in the border region are increasingly subject to rock throwing, gunfire and being rammed by fleeing vehicles.

That's really unfair. All these "undocumented workers" just want employment, such as picking apples and pockets, and dealing used cars and drugs. We need them, after all! Americans are the stupidest, laziest people on the face of the earth! Just ask anyone from La Raza. They'll set ya straight.

A south Georgia mayor said Friday he will continue flying a Mexican flag at city hall for the six immigrant farmworkers slain in robberies - despite complaints from residents.

When questioned about his methods, he said: "Well, I could only think of one way to honor these decent people: insult my fellow countrymen. Seemed like a good plan at the time, and it still does."

Many of those engaged in the huge cleanup and reconstruction effort here (Nawleuhns)-- nobody has an exact count -- are immigrants, both legal and illegal, from Mexico and Central America.

Meanwhile, as many as 80,000 New Orleanians sit idle in shelters around the country. They are out of work, homeless and destitute.

Mayor Ray Nagin added his voice to the chorus this week, telling local business people: "How do I ensure that New Orleans is not overrun by Mexican workers?"

I ain't sure, Ray. But I guar-own-tee that this inundation is all Bush's fault--jest like global warming.

Blogging Techniques

Gee, Wes, could you possibly be more wild-eyed and spraying spittle all over the monitor? You musta been talking to Nate. Remember, the proper pose when typing something of this sort is to hunch over the keyboard, elbows akimbo, pounding furiously while glancing around furtively.

In what I can only describe as superior remote viewing capabilities, Bill has characterized my blogging posture to a tee. I would only add that I wear a bib to minimize drool spillage, and I have a slight tic in my right eye. Often, I'll titter in a high voice like a witch at a black mass, for no discernible reason. Well, that's not quite true. It always elicits a look of quiet unease from the Man in Black crouching in the corner.

Now if y'all will excuse me, I have some furious pounding to catch up on.

Martial Law

JenE posed an interesting question, recently: Is Martial Law constitutional, and is it legal? This is my attempt at answering her question more fully.

First off, let's define a few terms for those who aren't familiar with the subject matter.

From Dictionary.com--

Martial Law: Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.

Habeas Corpus: 1. One of a variety of writs that may be issued to bring a party before a court or judge, having as its function the release of the party from unlawful restraint. 2. The right of a citizen to obtain such a writ.

Posse Comitatus Act: (my own elaboration) An 1878 document stating that--without an official act of Congress--the military is prohibited from performing in a law-enforcement capacity, within the United States.

Here's my take: Since Martial Law entails the military ruling civilians, I don't see how it's in harmony with our founding document. The Constitution calls for self-government--in other words, government by the people. Clearly, a militaristic rule is outside the scope of what our Founders intended--especially considering that many--if not most--of the Founders were against having a standing army.

The Constitution allows the temporary halting of Habeas Corpus writs, but only during times of rebellion or invasion (Article I, Section 9). (Thanks to Salt for reminding me of this). Just to reiterate, this is a suspension of Habeas Corpus, not a termination. When it speaks of "invasion," I assume it means something along the lines of events that transpired in the War of 1812, for example, when the British literally invaded Washington, D.C. The "rebellion" aspect is trickier. I don't consider the confederacy's actions as a rebellion, in the strictest sense. The South desired a complete separation from the North into its own nation, not just the creation of chaos within the United States. Perhaps The Federalist Papers better define and elucidate our Founders' thoughts on the concept of rebellion.

I think it's clear that suspending Habeas Corpus and instituting Martial Law are not synonymous. The Constitution makes provision for the first, and none for the latter. I think it's worth mentioning, too, that the Constitution only allows the federal government powers specifically enumerated in the document, while all other powers belong to the states. But we all know how well that section is followed, don't we? If an argument is to be made in its favor, it must come at state--not federal--levels.

In addition, Martial Law violates the Posse Comitatus Act, mentioned above.

As for legalities: that deemed legal certainly does not equate to that which is constitutional. Is it possible that a judge might rule in favor of Martial Law, or that Congress might vote it into existence?

These days, you'd better believe it.

For the Birds

I'm sure you've all heard about the potential avian flu pandemic in the making. In an article I first read over at Vox's, the President expressed his wish to use the military in quarantining the virus:

He said the military, and perhaps the National Guard, might be needed to take such a role if the feared H5N1 bird flu virus changes enough to cause widespread human infection.

"If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country? And how do you, then, enforce a quarantine?" Bush asked at a news conference.

Bird flu has killed more than 60 people in four Asian nations since late 2003 and has been found in birds in Russia and Europe.

Experts fear that the H5N1 bird flu virus, which appears to be highly fatal when it infects people, will develop the ability to pass easily from person to person and would cause a pandemic that would kill millions.

I'm all for cautionary measures, but isn't this borderline hysteria? Sixty people in four nations in two years? Like I said in the comments over at Vox's, more people probably died in boating accidents in those places in the same timeframe. I realize that a pandemic or a regional epidemic can occur, but I haven't seen actual evidence that it will, in this case. All I've heard or read is so-called "experts" spouting off in the newspapers and on tv. I'm willing to bet that these are the same know-it-alls who claimed SARS would be a world-shattering disease, running rampant through the countryside and hopping from one continent to another like fire in a street of crowded tenements. It never even came close to the picture of devastation they painted.

As for the President's request, it bothers me that he's grasping at this kind of power. The Posse Comitatus Act bans the use of active duty military in a law enforcement capacity. I think this is a usurpation of state powers, another nick in the shield of federalism--particularly if the National Guard is involved in such operations.

Two other points: This appears to be an attempt on President Bush's part to make up for perceived federal failures in the aftermaths of Hurricanes Kakillya and Rita. This further blemishes his request, because these "failures" are no such things. The federal government involved itself in those cleanup efforts far more than is constitutionally mandated or acceptable. Also, why on earth would anyone believe the feds can handle quarantining procedures better than local governments? Upon what facts is this opinion based? The federal government works like King Midas in reverse--everything it touches turns to crap. Are we to believe that the current scenario is an exception to this otherwise well-proven rule?

The Bible: A Wonderful Work of Fiction

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of subordinating scriptural truth to cherished tradition. When the words of men matter more than the Word of God, such a conclusion comes as no surprise.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

The linked article is a slanted, dishonest screed. It's instructional, though, about how much of the world views Christian history and teaching. Galileo was not branded a heretic for shunning a belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible. It's a complete crock. Galileo was a devout follower of Christ who never wavered in his beliefs. He was castigated because he challenged the absolute authority of the Catholic Church. That, and he was a pretty combative guy, to boot.

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

It's hilarious how the definition of "tolerance" has been degraded. It used to entail the allowance of diverging viewpoints. Now, apparently, it means the embracing of all views as equally valid. All views, that is, except that which insists on biblical inerrancy.

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

I would think the similarity of Genesis to the creation accounts of other cultures bolsters its historical credibility, not vice versa. I've never understood the concept of picking and choosing which passages to believe, and which to reject. How does one make that distinction?

Here are a couple of passage-examples now considered untrue by these "scholars and theologians:"

Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments

Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount

Luke i
The Virgin Birth

John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection

If these aren't true, why not be forthright and just state your actual position: the Bible is bunk, from cover to cover!


UPDATE!


It seems I made a boo-boo, folks. Perhaps I should work on my reading comprehension. A word of advice: don't blog angry. I usually try to be careful about getting my facts straight.

Turns out, all the scripture examples I gave at the end of the post--except for the first one--fell under the TRUE column, not the UNTRUE one. So, the situation isn't quite as bad as it might be. But I stand by the rest of this post, and I think my points are valid.

Rejecting scripture in favor of Man's pontifications is a dangerous, foolish thing. The description of Galileo's run-in with the Catholic Church still is just as wrong.

Much appreciation goes to TOTAL 1087 for catching my error.

Being Inoffensive

British officials are worried that the English flag might offend some Muslims:

Prison officials in Britain are concerned that tie pins worn by officers featuring the St. George's Cross – the symbol on England's flag – could offend Muslims who might associate it with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries.

The red cross is an insensitive reminder of the Crusades, said Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding.

Doyle thinks England needs to find a new flag and patron saint "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."

"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.

What an idiot. Who cares what they think? Are we supposed to coddle them in their ignorance? I have no sympathy for someone who is too lazy and/or stupid to study up on Islam's clash with Western civilization. A lot of Muslims and Arabs also believe that Islam should dominate the entire planet. Does that mean we should bare our throats and let them grind their heels in our necks, while we cower in the dirt?

Everything offends somebody, somewhere. At what point do we finally break down and say: "You're offended? Guess what? That's too bad. You have no right to be offended. Your people were waging unprovoked war against ours for over 460 years, before our people finally counterattacked. If that offends you, you know what you can do with your bruised sensibilities. I'm so fed up with this pc drivel about Islam and Muslims. This is the most bloodthirsty, demonic, violent religion on the face of the earth. Its adherents are owed an apology by nobody.

Poverty and Crime

Earlier this evening, I spent about five minutes watching The O'Reilly Factor. I never noticed before, but the show has emetic properties. Is it just me, or does O'Reilly move further left, incrementally, every week or so? Tonight, he made a point of hammering home the ridiculous notion that poverty causes crime, with all the subtlety of a bull on skates in a china shop. This absurd conclusion needs cauterizing immediately, before what passes as intellectual discourse in this country hemmorhages to death.

His "thought process" went something like this: Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, given their numbers. Most blacks are poor. Ergo, poverty cultivates crime like hippies breed lice. This is a familiar, shoddy mentality utilized by self-styled black "leaders" in their explanations of the high rate of black incarcerations. Disproportionate numbers of blacks languish in prison or jail, therefore, honkeys hate homeys. Besides the explicit assumption in this viewpoint that white=racist (a racist proposition, in and of itself), it is assumed that the mere presence of large numbers of blacks in prison is proof of whitey's racist tendencies. No further evidence required; pass the bong, please.

The facts--always unwelcome intruders in the politically correct realm--remain. During the Great Depression--a time of staggering poverty shared by all subcultures, skin colors, and political stripes--petty crime rates stayed low, relatively speaking. People chose gainful employment of almost any type over pillage and rapine, even at abysmal wages. Presently, most people who fall under the "poor" heading in the United States are not criminals. If poverty breeds crime, shouldn't the opposite be true? Here's another twist of the knife: If poverty elicits criminal behavior, shouldn't wealth instill virtue--or at the very least, legal adherence? Logical consistency demands that the answer is "Yes." But that's not the reality of the situation. Look at the number of movie stars, pro sports figures, musicians, corporate executives, and other celebrities who never balk at the odd illegal foray. It's far from a rare occurence. Examples include Wynonna Rider, Robert Downey, Jr., Mike "I'm Hungry" Tyson, O.J. Simpson, and an accompanying host of scoundrels.

So if poverty doesn't breed crime, you ask, then what does?

I'm glad you popped that question. I think crime stems from viewpoints, mentalities, cultural problems, worldviews--call them what you will. It also emanates from humankind's fallen nature. Sticking with our example above, take black folks. What do you think is more likely--that poverty causes crime, or that the absence of a father--usually the disciplinarian and restraining force within the family--is a common fact of life in the black community? The problem is less extreme but no less real among whites. I think this one factor alone is a horrific strike against a person. Add to this the flames of racial tension, stoked by the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the liberal elite, and you've got yourself a conflagration of misery.

These are cultural problems, not outcomes of one's skin color.

When I said "worldviews, viewpoints, mentalities," etc., I meant our beliefs. Is God real, or just a cardboard cut-out figure in the sky? Does he have expectations for us? Are whites evil racists, or not? Was Jesus' example one we should follow, or shun? Is supporting oneself a government obligation, or an individual responsibility? How one answers these and other questions goes a long way in determining one's future criminal-mindedness.

As for a sinful nature, it is one of the few things we all have in common. This is why crime will never be eradicated fully. If the blight of poverty were scoured from the earth, tomorrow, and every human being plopped down in the lap of luxury, crime still would rear its ugly visage. The reason for this is as heartbreaking as it is simple: When choosing between right and wrong is an option, there always will be those who choose wrong. So even the best circumstances cannot ensure goodness, though they do help.

The notion that poverty opens the door to a criminal life requires a rejection of the biblical characterization of poverty and human nature, in my view. I think I'll stick with scripture over the pontifications of fallible men--particularly when the views-in-question are so easily disproven.

Swearin' About the Swearin'-in

It's official. John Roberts was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Rushing in and providing confusion where only clarity once reigned, President Bush said: "All Americans can be confident that the 17th chief justice of the United States will be prudent in exercising judicial power, firm in defending judicial independence and above all a faithful guardian of the Constitution."

A "faithful guardian of the Constitution?" Please. How can he play that role, when he's already made it clear that he'll be a faithful guardian of Roe v. Wade?

Asked how his Catholic beliefs would influence decisions, he replied, "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role."

Whew! That's a relief. I was worried that we had a gen-u-ine theocrat on our hands. Now I can simmer down and bask in the rays of enlightened secularism.

Positively Presidential

**I wrote this post yesterday, before I learned about Bush's new SCOTUS nominee, so it's a little dated. Now I have to go and learn about her, so I can find out how much of this is prophetic, and how much is pure bilge. Enjoy!


With John Roberts' position as Chief Justice secured, when asked how he'd go about the process of selecting his new nominee for the Supreme Court, President George Bush waxed eloquent:

"Wal, I believe the only way to be correct--politically speaking--is to be politically correct. Ahm a firm believer in pc values. Jest look at my reaction to the Terri Schiavo case. That's really all ya need to know. And diversity plays a large part in political correctness. As we all know, this is a catch-word for every kind of superficial distinction imaginable. I think it's important, though, to understand that diversity does not--under any circumstances--mean variety in modes of thought, ideas, or perspectives. Many good folks get downright discomblobupated on this point.

"Now, having said all that, I think our next Supreme Court Justice should be a woman. But not jest any woman. Unh-uh. She needs to be a compassionate conservative, like me. Heh heh. She needs to feel the pain of tsunami victims and Hurricane Kakillya looters all across Nawleuhns. It's best if she's a black woman. Who spent at least five years on welfare. Whose son was killed in a driveby shooting. Who received at least one abortion. Who has at least two silver teeth that are visible when she smiles. Now that's diverse. Furthermore, I strongly believe she should have a little Messycin ancestralness. Preferably of illegal immigrant--Oops! Sorry, I meant undocumented--status. See there? Ya almost caught me being politically incorrect. I apologize. I reckon I've been watching too much Fox News, lately. They're awful nice to the House of Saud, ya know.

"Anyhoo, back to diversity. It would be prudent--like my ol' daddy used to say--if she were also a lesbian. Not jest any lesbian, neither. I want a big, old hulking brute, the likes of which would make Bull Connor's thugs piddle in their knickers. And she better have a tattoo, dadgummit. A big ol' tattoo of Karl Marx, etched across her bulging bicep. That'll do the trick. Oh, and she'd best be a practitioner of the Religion of Peace. Even communists love those guys. One more thing: I want a cripple in that office. I want her to have to crutch her way up the steps to work every day, like Tiny Tim in a Darth Vader robe. If she needs a wheelchair, we'll put in a ramp at taxpayer suspense. An eyepatch would also carry a lot of charm. Remember Long John Silver? That's what I'm talking 'bout.

As far as ideology goes, I want her to give great respect to Charmin bathroom tissue. That stuff jest don't chafe like the Constitution. I learned that from experience. And what a court said five years ago is far more important than what the Constitution says. Who cares about the outmoded views of some dead white slaver, anyway? YaknowwhatImean? I want her to be sensitive to euthanasia--that's a continent by the way--and accept the dictates of the UN and international law. I also want her to love Jesus, like I do. Don't worry, there ain't no conflict between Him and Allah. He's a big believer in diversity, too. Christianity's important, y'all. Jest as long as you keep it locked up tighter'n a nun's habit, in a little box in the back of a deep closet, at home. But on the bench, she needs to be a stern advocate of godlessness. I mean I expect the kind of secularism that would make Lenin click his heels and sing the Revolution's anthem out of pure joy.

"One last prerekasnit: Her pronuncilation of the word must be "nook-yuh-luhr." I won't except no stubstistustions. Ain't nobuddy one-upping my elocrouton."

Patriotism Quotes

A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.--George William Curtis

Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.--Sydney J. Harris

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.--Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Decisions, Decisions

Mr. Bush now has the unenviable task of choosing another nominee for the Supreme Joke that is SCOTUS.

Perhaps he'll cave in to pc pressure and choose a mannish, spinster leftist lunatic for the position.

Oh, wait. That role's already been filled. Sorry.

Feminism in Action

Iraq's first female mobile bomb detonates.

See? Women can do anything that men do.

More Good News About Adult Stem-Cells

In an apparent major breakthrough, scientists in Korea report using umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal-cord injury patient.

The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cythotherapy, centered on a woman who had been a paraplegic 19 years due to an accident.

After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells, stunning results were recorded:

"The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation."

The report said motor activity was noticed on day 7, and the woman was able to maintain an upright position on day 13. Fifteen days after surgery, she began to elevate both lower legs about one centimeter.

The study's abstract says not only did the patient regain feeling, but 41 days after stem cell transplantation, testing "also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured cite" and below it.

The scientists conclude the transplantation "could be a good treatment method" for paraplegic patients.

I love reading stories like this. Sometimes we get bogged down in all the societal decay, so it's nice hearing about positive medical advances. Isn't it great when someone's quality-of-life is improved, using methods that don't require the harvesting and destruction of embryos? Not that such an act has ever yielded positive results, in the first place, but it's a pleasant departure from the norm.

Thomas Jefferson on the Judiciary

The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. (1820)

...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. (1821)

The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.

...judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune; but it saves the Republic...

To Follow, or Not to Follow?

We had a conversation a few days ago that touched on the concept of following legal precedent in SCOTUS cases. The case-in-point was Roe v. Wade. I thought I'd supplement that with a few more thoughts.

Adhering to legal precedent is a great idea, if the past court decisions-in-question are constitutionally sound. If not, then the concept simply creates a mechanism for the self-perpetuation of unconstitutionality. This seems so obvious to me, I'm not sure that I understand from whence disagreement comes.

If SCOTUS makes an unconstitutional ruling, it is null and void from its inception. How is the practice of abiding by such rulings honorable?

I've heard a counter-argument that goes something like this: "Well, you can't have courts regularly overturning decisions, simply because they don't like the verdicts." But of course, this in no way addresses the issue. It's not about a difference of opinion. It's not about what makes us feel all warm and snuggly inside, and what doesn't. I submit that disagreeing with someone's opinion is a far cry from finding a decision in violation of our founding document.

If SCOTUS can act with impunity in its decision-making process, only to be followed in lock-step by future court findings, this carves out a troubled path that leads straight into the hell of totalitarianism.

That's not a precedent I want to follow.

Racist Gringos

Apparently, abiding by the laws of this country is racism:

A 3-year-old policy by Greyhound Lines Inc. warning employees that they could be arrested or fired for selling bus tickets to anyone they know or believe is an undocumented immigrant is discriminatory and invites racial profiling, several local and national Latino advocacy groups say.

Here's the quote that busts the pinata:

"The whole policy screams out discrimination," said John Trasviña, senior vice president for law and policy at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. "It puts a lot of pressure on employees to go overboard and exclude undocumented immigrants when there is no legal reason to do so."

Huh? Have you eaten one-too-many tequila worms? The legal reason is that illegal immigration is--according to my dictionary's definition of the term--well, illegal, dummy!

The company transports 22 million passengers a year. It has denied tickets only a few times.

The policy was revised in 2002 after Golden State Transportation was indicted on charges of conspiring with smugglers to illegally transport thousands of undocumented immigrants to destinations throughout the country, including Arizona. The company was fined $3 million in 2004. The company was operated by a subsidiary of Greyhound.

The company says undocumented immigrants are recognizable by certain characteristics: large groups of people traveling together, led by a "guide, and guides holding tickets without giving them to passengers."

I believe many of these pro-Mexican and pro-immigrant organizations are actively engaging in subversion of the law and attempting a sea-change in the culture, an incremental drift toward something other than the American ideal. Think I'm delusional? Then ask yourself these questions: Why aren't such organizations spending their considerable bankrolls and time fighting illegal immigration and lauding and encouraging legal immigration. Why are they making concentrated efforts at working against assimilation, through methods such as bilingual education and constant accusations of racism?

It is this slow transformation in the culture over decades that I fear far more than any terrorist group, like Al Killya. This coupled with an abysmal "education" system mass produces a populace full of those who have no loyalty to the American concept--no idea what it means, and no desire to learn it.

Where do we go from there, I wonder?

This Groan's on Me

How many Marxists does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. The lightbulb contains the seeds of its own revolution.

Today's Axiom

A penny saved is a government oversight.

Differences Among the Elect

A friend from blogdom sent me this article, and though I don't agree with most of it, it is an interesting read and one deserving of commentary. A quick disclaimer: This post is a critique of the article-in-question, and its author's assertions. It is not a criticism of anyone who frequents my blog. So please don't take my comments as a personal attack, since that's not how I intend them.

The Far Left and Far Right are essentially anti-establishment mentalities

I agree, as long as the term "Far Right" is limited to anarchists.

The Far Left, the intelligentsia asserted that the United States deserved these murderous attacks. After all, we are an unrighteous nation: we arrogantly and triumphalistically meddle in other nation's affairs; we employ military might with selfish motives; we rape the environment; we violate human rights by imposing the death penalty; we discriminate against homosexuals, women, and minorities; we exploit workers by keeping wages low; we bring religious views into the public square; we dismantle legal protection for "women's right to choose"; we act unilaterally in world affairs by spurning the opinions of other nations; we disseminate our materialistic decadence by means of large, multinational corporations; and on and on. To hear the Far Left tell it, at 9-11 we got our comeuppance from "freedom fighters" weary of America's exploitation of the rest of the world. Indeed, among the Far Left, there seems to be an insufficiently suppressed glee at America's tragedy.

Remarkably, the response on the Far Right was somewhat similar. Among some Christians, there was zealous, undisciplined talk of 9-11's being "God's judgment on America." For what? Well, let them count the ways: our "idolatry" in insufficiently opposing Islam and Orthodox Judaism; our butchering of unborn children; our relaxation of sexual standards culminating in the legalization of homosexual "marriage" in some quarters; our unjust laws of taxation; our laxity toward pornography, profanity, and violence in Hollywood on network and cable TV; our "free trade" legislation by which we allow cheap imports to subvert jobs of hard-working Americans; our socialistic government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; and so forth. The toppling of the World Trade Center and the incision of the Pentagon were patent acts of God's judgment against a rebellious and apostate nation, according to the denizens of the Far Right.

I don't see the views of the Left and Right as synonymous, as this author does. For one, the Left's agenda entails destroying everything this nation stands for and sowing its foundation with salt. Most of its hysteria is directed toward that end, and there is little or no merit in its condemnations. This cannot be said of most Right-wingers.

As for the Right's elucidation on why 9/11 happened, I think it is the height of arrogance to make many of these connections. No one knows the mind of God in totality, and suggesting that He is behind these atrocities is offering speculation dressed as fact. But I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that there is at least a biblical basis--however tenuous--for these claims. Time and time again, scripture reveals that nations engaged in God's will were protected by His hedge of safety, and nations that laughed Him to scorn suffered the consequences of their mockery. Israel is the best example, but it is by no means the only one. And whereas the Left's assertions that we rape the environment and infringe upon a woman's right to murder her unborn child are baseless and morally putrid, concerns over homosexual marriage and its public acceptance, unrestricted abortion, and confiscatory taxes are legitimate areas of outrage.

The Founders were profound, experienced men (all influenced by the Bible and Christianity). . .They believed in the sin and corruption of the human heart and therefore resisted the consolidation of political power, creating checks and balances. They believed that God made men to be free, and thus held that government's rationale is to secure individual liberty. They believed that the government should be represented by a wide body of the populace, and consequently they established a form of democracy. . .In forming a national legislature, they gave equal weight to both population representation (House of Representatives) and states' representation (Senate). . .They were unflagging advocates of religious liberty.

This is a very accurate description of the Founders' efforts and intentions. But it's my thesis that all of these aspects of America which make her great are in grave danger of being annihilated. It is the efforts of those in government and other power bases to subvert every one of these cherished ideals that leads to criticism from Right-wingers, such as myself. Unfortunately, the piece doesn't address this facet of the situation, which I find strange.

In expressing a patriotic spirit, Christians are at the least acknowledging the basic soundness of our system of government.

True, as long as one is clear on his definition of patriotism. Patriotism is a love of one's country and people, and the ideals for which they stand. But it is not defined as slavish devotion to wrongheadedness, constitutional degradation, administrative expediency, or a political party.

Peter exhorts his readers that they pray for their civil magistrates, who should act in such a way that Christians can live quietly and peaceably (1 Tim. 2:2).

This is the most accurate statement in the article. All of us should pray for our leaders in positions of power--whether we like them or not, whether we agree with them or not. Though I've done so in the past, this is one of my great failings. I haven't spent nearly enough time on my knees, asking God to help our leaders and inspire them to do what is right. It's a valid point, and a good reminder for correcting my mistake.

Christians have been virtually unmolested in their efforts to evangelize unbelievers, build churches, and train their children in the Faith.

This, on the other hand, is patent nonsense. It may be true in relation to Communist China or Soviet Russia, but in terms of contemporary American life, it's willful blindness. Entire volumes have been written demonstrating the falsehood of this claim. Persecution, by David Limbaugh, is only one of numerous books entailing the encroaching tide against Christianity in this country, carried out or aided and abetted by the government. And the problem worsens, as we speak. Citing specifics in this area is a topic for another time.

libertarians can complain that it is not possible for a president to be elected until he has made his religious views plain, so important has religion (notably Christianity) become in the public realm.

Of course, this bears no relation to actual religious devotion or sincerity. Bill Clinton exemplifies this. Yes, he talked about God and attended church. He also was a rabid womanizer and committed adultery repeatedly and unrepentantly. Phony religious zeal has zero importance or relevance, to me. I'm interested in reality, not a facade.

Some of the leading books of the New York Times list are either explicitly Christian (The Purpose-Driven Life) or ardently conservative (Bill O'Reilly, etc.).

This is somewhat embarrassing. If the author can't get his facts straight in so small a matter, why should we accept his larger points and statistics? I might call Bill O'Reilly a lot of things (some of them in a whisper, in polite company), but an "ardent conservative" isn't among them. I wonder if the author watches Bill's show, or has read his books and columns. I have.

If God were willing to spare Sodom over simply a few faithful folks, an adversarial view by Christians toward the United States, with its widespread and burgeoning Christian testimony, is surely counterproductive.

Apples and oranges, I think. God spared these cities because Abraham--a man who was not a citizen of either city--begged him to do so. And how long did they last after Lot and his family left? There's little substance in this assumption.

Our nation suffers from deep spiritual problems, but those problems are just one portion of a rather diverse moral picture. Any responsible Christian evaluation must take into account all of these factors, not just some of them.

I agree, but apparently my acknowledgment of these problems makes me an anti-patriot, unless I recant and speak of them only in the most saccharine terms imaginable.

A family, a church, and a nation may be less than perfect--far less than perfect--and still deserve our respect and loyalty. Patriotism is allegiance to a country, its ideals, and its citizens.

And Christians here have not surrendered their allegiance to Jesus Christ when they maintain patriotism toward the United States.

True. But I want to reiterate my words in a slightly different way. It may be argued convincingly that someone who points out serious, abiding problems in his nation's governing bodies and rejects them is more of a patriot than someone who goes along with the government's smoke and mirrors, uncritically accepting every violation of all that we hold dear as a country and a people. Questioning the patriotism of someone in legitimate, genuine distress over the country's direction is a refuge of the intellectually lazy or obtuse.

The Devil Went Down to Nawleuhns

The Devil went down to Nawleuhns
She was looking for a photo-op.
She had big plans for '08,
And she needed a
Sad backdrop.

When she came upon a looter selling stereos that were hot
She jumped up on a cypress stump and said
"Boy, let me tell you what.

I bet you didn't know it,
But I'm running for president
And all the little people
think I'm Heaven-sent.
I know Tha Man has got you down,
But give the Devil her due,
I'll bet a motorboat against your vote,
'Cause I think I'm better than you."

The punk said "My name's Tyrone,
And it might be a sin,
But I don't care, I needs wellfare,
So, for me its win/win."

Tyrone git yo butt in gear an' sell them stolen goods
'Cause hell's broke loose in Nawleuhns
An' it's overrun with hoods.
An' if you win you'll simplify your crime-spree with a boat,
But if you lose, the Devil gets your vote.

The Devil grinned like a slit-eyed snake
An said "I'll start this show."
Then she reached inside her pantsuit and
Pulled out The Communist Manifesto.
When the boy rolled his eyes,
She spat out an evil hiss,
Then a band of demons joined in,
And it sounded something like this

(eerie music)

Here come the Guardsmen, run boys run.
Devil's in the house of the rising sun.
Chicken's in the squad car picking his nose.
Sean Penn's bailing, down he goes.

The Devil bowed her head
because she knew that she'd been beat
And she laid that nice new motorboat
On the ground at Tyrone's feet.
Tyrone said "Devil just come on back
If ya ever wanna try again.
I done told ya oncet
You mean ol' bat,
Either way for me's win/win."


With apologies to Charlie Daniels and my readers. I just couldn't resist.

The Emotional Atheist

“I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”
– Isaac Asimov, Free Inquiry 2(2):9, 1982.

Asimov was a great short story author and novelist; but apparently not a brilliant philosopher. If I was going to make a deduction of such earth-shattering importance, I believe I'd base it on more than the whims of emotion. Put simply, if there is no God, one has nothing to worry about. But if there is--as I believe--I sure wouldn't want to stand in front of Him, some day, and admit: "Well, disbelieving in Your existence was so emotionally satisfying."

I don't think that'll cut it.

Hitting the Nail on the Head

From Vox's column, today:

They have redefined conservatism to be the actions of one known as a conservative, so the individual is no longer defined by his ideology, the ideology is defined by the individual.

The whole article's worth a look.

Bill, you should read it as a form of penance, if for no other reason.

John Roberts: The Man for the Job?

Here's a quote from an AP article in my local newspaper, from a few days ago:

"The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways," Roberts said at one point. Hours later, he said he agreed with a 38-yr.-old high court ruling in a case involving contraceptives for married couples, a decision often cited as the underpinning for abortion rights.

He said that if confronted w/ an abortion case--as seems likely in the high court's upcoming term--he would give full weight to the precedent of the landmark ruling that established a woman's right to end her pregnancy.

"The legal principle of "stare decisis" requires that, he said--but he also said that the same principle allows past rulings to be overturned.

The final paragraph above essentially contradicts the one just before it. "Stare decisis" is the legal principle of following precedent in court rulings. Yes, it does facilitate overturning bad precedent, but how will this happen under Roberts' watch, when he's made it clear that he will follow precedent? His commentary is pure gobbledygook.

This, coupled with his pro homo--er, I mean, pro bono--work for a homosexual lobbying group in his lawyering days is a red flag, for me.

This nomination process for SCOTUS Chief Justice says even more about George Bush than it does Roberts. The President could've chosen almost anyone for this appointment--a stout constitutional constructionist who plans following the Founders' intentions, for example. But I suppose we'll have to settle for a man who won't rock the boat, and who will not defend the pro-baby position.

That's one reason why I'm no longer a Republican. I became tired of "settling for" things.

For Lord Of the Rings Fans

I received this in an email. It gave me a pretty good chuckle:


Things to Do When Seeing The Lord of the Rings:


Block the entrance to the theater while screaming, "YOU.....SHALL....NOT..... PASS!"

Finish off every one of Elrond's lines with "Mis..ter Ander-sonnn."

Talk like Gollum all through the movie. At the end, bite off someone's finger and fall down the stairs.

Dress up as old ladies and reenact "The Battle of Helms Deep," Monty Python style.

In TTT when the Ents decide to march to war, stand up and shout, "RUN FOREST, RUN!"

Every time someone kills an Orc, yell: "That's what I'm Tolkien about!"

Release a jar of daddy-long-legs into the theater during the Shelob scene.

When Shelob comes on, exclaim, "Man! Charlotte's really let herself go!"

Bless You, Thomas Sowell

Now here's a man who makes sense:

"Immigration has joined the long list of subjects on which it is taboo to talk sense in plain English. At the heart of much confusion about immigration is the notion that we 'need' immigrants—legal or illegal—to do work that Americans won't do. What we 'need' depends on what it costs and what we are willing to pay. If I were a billionaire, I might 'need' my own private jet. But I can remember a time when my family didn't even 'need' electricity. Leaving prices out of the picture is probably the source of more fallacies in economics than any other single misconception. At current wages for low-level jobs and current levels of welfare, there are indeed many jobs that Americans will not take. The fact that immigrants—and especially illegal immigrants—will take those jobs is the very reason the wage levels will not rise enough to attract Americans. This is not rocket science. It is elementary supply and demand. Yet we continue to hear about the 'need' for immigrants to do jobs that Americans will not do—even though these are all jobs that Americans have done for generations before mass illegal immigration became a way of life." —Thomas Sowell

For all those wearing "Aztlan Forever" t-shirts, I'm sorry for the pain this must have caused you. Carry on, muchachos.

Sean Penn: Strike Two

Sean Penn's doing wonders in cultivating his whole self-enraptured-cretin image.

From The Federalist Patriot:

Penn attended a 10,000-man rally, where worshippers chanted "Death to America." To our relief, he notes, "the call is related to American foreign policy and does not intend to target the death of the American people." (Well, then—let's bring the troops home.)

Apparently, Penn was bitten by a mosquito carrying the West Hollywood Virus, in Nawleuhns. Of course, if their problem is with America's foreign policy, why aren't they chanting, "Death to America's foreign policy!"?

I suppose he'd also have us believe that September 11 was just a little chastisement for being naughty, or maybe a love-tap. Please. Isn't it funny how celebrity somehow makes one an expert in matters one previously knew nothing about? I wish Penn and the other demigods of celluloid would shut up.

Or go live in Iran. Yes, that's even better.

Giving Himself a Pass

Mayor Nagin of Nawleuhns sloughs off any responsibility for not adequately transporting people out of the hurricane's crosshairs:

In an interview with Tim Russert, Nagin gave the explanatory equivalent of a shrug, when he said:

"I think I did everything possible known to any mayor in the country as it relates to saving lives."

What a crock.

"Sure, there was lots of buses out there," Nagin said. "But guess what? You can't find drivers that would stay behind with a Category 5 hurricane, you know, pending down on New Orleans. We barely got enough drivers to move people on Sunday, or Saturday and Sunday, to move them to the Superdome. We barely had enough drivers for that. So sure, we had the assets, but the drivers just weren't available."

In a city this size, you couldn't find enough people to drive buses? I seriously doubt that's true. In fact, I doubt you even tried.

The planning was always in getting people to higher ground, getting them to safety, said Nagin.

Mr. Mayor, you didn't even pull that off. Since city disaster plans called for the busing of people before the tragedy struck, why is it that mass busing didn't begin until after the storm's devastation? I'm sure we'll get a coherent, comprehensive answer to that one real soon, won't we, Mayor? About the same time we find out what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.

Russert also quoted previous statements from Nagin about alleged racism delaying response, as Nagin had said, "[t]he more I think about it, definitely race played into this. If it's race, fine, let's call a spade a spade, a diamond a diamond. We can never let this happen again. Even if you hate black people and you are in a leadership position, this did not help anybody."

And what evidence does he offer in support of his absurd conclusion? Absolutely nothing. Racism is inherent in the system, so supplying proof of its existence is unneccesary. Oh, how this must simplify life for those who view the world through racial lenses.

I have some questions for the race-baiters: Is it racism for you to bring hatred for black people into the situation as an explanation for inadequate emergency measures taken? Is it racism for you to suggest that white people--including the president--have no concern for the fates of black people? And all this without the slightest shred of proof to bolster your theory?

The only involvement of race in this equation is the race to be the first to blame Bush for the methods used in handling the storm's aftermath. The entire linked article above is an exercise in political sleight-of-hand and plausible deniability. This guy even gives politicians a bad name; and as we all know, that takes herculean effort.

Everybody Needs a Scapegoat

Michael Brown, director of FEMA (Federal Emergency Mismanagement Agency) resigned, today. I don't agree with his organization turning away people who went to help storm victims in New Orleans. But isn't it obvious that this is just the government's way of deflecting criticism and putting up a facade of "getting things done?" As most of us already know, it's not the federal government's job to be the country's wet-nurse.

September 11

Another anniversary of this horrific atrocity has come. It's hard to believe that four years have passed since that day. Time sure flies. Looking at it one way, it seems like yesterday. And yet so much has happened in the interval, it seems like a long time ago, as well. It's really odd how the passage of days and years plays little tricks on your mind.

I hope those who lost family and friends somehow find peace during these dark hours.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.--Matthew 5:4

"Now Thank We All Our God"

Have you sung this hymn in church before? I must admit I never have.

But the story behind it is compelling.

Martin Rinckart (1586-1649) was a Lutheran minister in Eilenburg, Saxony, during the Thirty Years War. Refugees flooded the town as the Swedish army lay seize to its walls. Plague and famine became familiar bed fellows for the citizens. In the seize, over eight hundred homes were obliterated. People died in droves. In fact, over eight thousand perished. Dozens of funerals were performed, each day, putting a terrific physical and psychological strain on local pastors. As pestilence gnawed away at the population, so, too, did the clergy succumb.

All except Martin Rinckart. In the years 1636 and 1637, he was the only remaining pastor. During this time, he performed as many as fifty funerals a day--over four thousand funerals in total. In 1637, his wife became one of the victims, and he presided over her interment, as well.

The occupying general imposed a confiscatory tax on the remaining townfolk, one which they couldn't possibly muster. Rinckart left the relative safety of the city's walls and pled with the general for leniency. The Swedish commander ignored his plea, so Rinckart spoke to some of his followers who had accompanied him, saying: "Come, my children, we can find no mercy with men, let us take refuge with God." They began singing "When in the Hour of Utmost Need."

When the general witnessed this, his heart softened, and he lowered the tax to one-fifteenth of his original demand.

Soon after, in the midst of unremitting tragedy and grief, Martin Rinckart wrote the lyrics to the song "Now Thank We All Our God." It since has crossed denominational lines, and is sung at Thanksgiving, primarily. It was sung at the opening of the Cathedral of Cologne in 1880, at the cornerstone-laying of the Reichstag in Berlin in 1884, at the end of the Boer War in South Africa in 1902, and at other victory celebrations and national events.


Now thank we all our God, with heart and hands and voices,
Who wondrous things has done, in Whom this world rejoices;
Who from our mothers arms has blessed us on our way
With countless gifts of love, and still is ours today.

O may this bounteous God through all our life be near us,
With ever joyful hearts and blessed peace to cheer us;
And keep us in His grace, and guide us when perplexed;
And free us from all ills, in this world and the next!

All praise and thanks to God the Father now be given;
The Son and Him Who reigns with Them in highest Heaven;
The one eternal God, Whom earth and Heaven adore;
For thus it was, is now, and shall be evermore.

Jihad Against the Machine

The Nation of Islam in Los Angeles is calling on the Crips and Bloods street gangs to stop fighting each other – and to unite in a jihad against the LAPD.

That's the essence of a flyer obtained by KFI News and circulated in South Los Angeles, calling on members of two violent street gangs to start a "holy war" against the police department.

It's about time this subversive fifth-column was shut down and lanced like the pustulant boil that it is. I know the LAPD isn't the epitome of virtue and sterling character, but calls for the random murder of police officers goes way over the line. Chalk this up as more fruit borne by the "Religion of Peace."

A Letter

I found this letter to the editor on WorldNetDaily. I think it perfectly characterizes the situation in Louisiana:

I am a retired New Orleans police captain. I now live in another state,
and I hurt for the citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding parishes.
However, the situation that now exists in New Orleans was predictable. We are
now reaping the benefits of a welfare state.

For more years than most can remember, we have been told by those
holding office that they will take care of us. We have provided food, clothing
and shelter to the extent that the recipients became entirely dependent on
government resources to live. They have reached the point that no longer do they
have the knowledge to take care of themselves. They will sit there and drown or
go hungry, and curse the fact that the government has not gotten them out of
this mess.

When it is all said and done, there is but one person who is
responsible for me, and that is me. The responsibility falls to me to take care
of my family, not the government. Society, not government, has an obligation to
provide care and sustenance to those who, because of age or physical impairment
cannot take care of themselves, but able-bodied people who stand around and
complain that no one is doing anything for them deserve whatever the fates cast
in their direction. Life is hard, and you either get tougher or you get washed
away – it is as simple as that.

Politicians will never, ever take care of you – they only want one
thing from you, and that is to stay in power as long as they can. In a situation
like Katrina, they will stand in front of the cameras and microphones and
denigrate everyone above them in government to take the eye off of their
pathetic efforts.

This is a situation that they have created, and now the good citizens
of the area will have to step in and clean up the mess that has been created by
the politicians. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen – there are too
many good people who live in that area for it not to happen. I love the people
of New Orleans and the surrounding parishes, but I despise the politicians –
there are a few good ones there, but most of them are not worth the powder it
would take to send them to the moon.

I just hope that when the area is rebuilt, they stay away from the
massive welfare system they had before – absolutely no good comes from welfare.
It depletes available resources, making it ever more difficult for what passes
as government to respond to the true needs of the community: roads, bridges,
levees, and police and fire protection, sanitation and drinking water.


Robert E. Johnson

Blossoms in the Ruins

The largely untold story of Hurricane Katrina's aftermath is that of Americans pulling together--with no prospect of material gain--and helping their fellow citizens. In the coming weeks, I think we'll hear more uplifting anecdotes of despair transformed into hope. The media's fixation on sensationalizing destruction and death aside, charity's face is shining on the Gulf coast.

For example, the Southern Baptist Convention sent over 1,000 volunteers into New Orleans to help give medical aid and hand out food and water, as needed.

From my own state of Tennessee, the sherriff of Knox County sent helicopters to help in search-and-rescue missions, as well as transportation of water to victims of the storm and the nanny-state mentality. My wife's uncle was called up with the rest of his National Guard contingent, and he's now in the thick of things, helping with relief work and the restoration of order. Shelters have opened for evacuees, and the local university hospital has prepared itself for an influx of patients with specific medical problems--such as the need for kidney dialysis--from Louisiana and other states hit by the hurricane. Clayton Homes has 2,000 single-wide trailers ready for delivery into the coastal area, for use as temporary shelters.

All of this doesn't even include aid sent by individuals, or charitable efforts in other states, all around the country. According to a figure I saw on Fox News, a couple of nights ago, donations to the Red Cross already have exceeded their intake of funds after September 11, 2001.

The point of all this is that the people of Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and Louisiana are getting the help they need. Some deserve it; some do not. But they're getting it, all the same. I think when all is said and done, we'll find that the most significant impact on the victims of this horrific disaster came from the charitable sacrifices of ordinary citizens, not the local, state, or federal governments. If the U.S. is to learn a lesson from this situation, it should be that relying on oneself or one's fellow Americans makes far more sense than leaning on the everlasting beauracracy.

Guardian of the Year

From The Federalist Patriot:

Each year the Florida State Guardianship Association chooses a "Distinguished Guardian of the Year" in recognition of commitment and extraordinary care. Patriot readers will no doubt be shocked -- SHOCKED -- to learn that Michael Schiavo has been selected as this year's recipient. While the association admitted its choice was "controversial," they stressed that "he stuck by [Terri's side]. He didn't walk away." True, he was still there when she finally died at his request, but how does that qualify him for the award? "He was an ordinary guardian who carried out his duties in extraordinary ways," former association president Joan Nelson Hook said. On the contrary, according to Florida Statute 744 for incapacitated wards, his "guardianship" was not law-abiding -- he did not complete the required guardianship training, he limited Terri to a single hospice room for more than five years, did not provide appropriate therapy and did not submit to an annual review of his guardianship report and plan. While Judge Greer would not hear any of these charges, we still believe Schiavo is obviously disqualified for this particular award.

That, my friends, is a classic case of adding insult to injury. Turns my stomach.

Textbook Snafu

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh's show earlier today, as I occasionally do. I switched on just in time to hear him reading verbatim from the emergency management plans of the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans. What struck me as I listened was not that the state and city had no specific plans for a disaster of this magnitude; rather, it was the lack of implementation of those plans. As he read, it became quite clear that the local and state governments considered themselves next in the line of responsibility for the citizenry's welfare--just after the individual citizens, themselves. Strategies for the transportation of those unable to help themselves via city buses were in place. I can't remember all of the specifics, but failure came not from lack of preparation. It came from a lack of will to carry out measures already in place. What a shame and tragedy. Many dead people lie in silent testimony to city, county, and state government inefficiency.

Leaky Vessel

Sean Penn's rescue efforts go awry in New Awleuhns:

Penn had planned to rescue children waylaid by Katrina's flood waters, but apparently forgot to plug a hole in the bottom of the vessel, which began taking water within seconds of its launch.

The actor, known for his political activism, was seen wearing what appeared to be a white flak jacket and frantically bailing water out of the sinking vessel with a red plastic cup.

With the boat loaded with members of Penn's entourage, including a personal photographer, one bystander taunted the actor: "How are you going to get any people in that thing?"

Let's all say it together: Photo-op!

The "Grieving Mother's" Family

From The Federalist Patriot:

The family of Casey Sheehan, an American soldier killed in Iraq in April, 2004, has broken their silence and spoken out against Sheehan's much-publicized mother, Cindy Sheehan, who has undertaken a vocal anti-war protest against President Bush outside Mr. Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch.

The family's statement reads: "The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect." The statement was signed "sincerely" by "Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."

How much air-time has this report received? All I've heard is what a great American Cindy Sheehan is, and how she has a right to freedom of distortion, and how she's a grieving mother, blah, blah, blah.

A Maelstrom of Thoughts

On the Gulf coast, I have compassion and sorrow for the plight of the indigent, the mentally incompetent, the physically disabled, and infants--many of whom had no means of escaping the storm's onslaught. May God watch over, heal, and protect you all.

***

I find that I have less sympathy for those too stupid, too arrogant, or too reliant upon government aid to take appropriate actions for protecting themselves and their families.

***

Does expecting and demanding aid from others for your predicament make sense, when you had the ability and the time to arm yourself against the storm, yet did nothing?

***

If newscasters announced that a storm was headed my way--three days in advance--and suggested that the aftermath would be a "nightmare scenario" (as Brian Wilson on Fox News claimed), I would leave the area temporarily. If I had to pitch a tent by the roadside, I would do so. Whatever it takes to protect one's family, one does.

***

Shooting at helicopters and other rescue vehicles probably is not a prudent choice, if one seeks rescue.

***

It is neither the president's constitutional duty--nor his right--to send $10 billion of taxpayer money as a safety-net for those who gave no thought to their own safety, and made no provision for it--whether disaster strikes New Awleuhns, or New Delhi.

***

Seeing the president--along with Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush-- at a press conference made me want to stand up, pull out my lighter, and chant: "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony."

***

Caring about someone's dire situation, and acting in ways that produce positive effects are not synonymous. Good intentions do not equal good results. Remember the recent tsunami?

***

Earth goddess worshipers: The U. S. is not the only country in the world that uses oil. Did we forget about the one billion-plus people who live in China? Ergo, the U.S. is not evil incarnate. I know the truth hurts when swallowed, but you'll get over it. I promise.

***

If you have a dark complexion, and you feel the need to pillage jewelry stores and banks, brandish guns at rescuers and innocent civilians, and rove about in gangs--understand that this is called living the stereotype.

***

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."-- James Madison (speech in the Virginia constitutional convention, 2 December 1829)

Remember this, the next time you see police joining looters or a government official on tv demanding wads of cash for the Gulf.

***

I strongly support Christian charity. Giving to those in need has a long history in this country, and in Western civilization. But charity cannot be forced. Where there is compulsion, there is no charity.

***

I'll pray for the people of Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi. I hope you will, too.

One of the Worst

Here are some interesting and disturbing facts about major hurricanes in American history, which I found on AOL News.


The Strongest:


Florida Keys, 1935, Category 5
Camille, 1969, Category 5
Andrew, 1992, Category 5


The Costliest:


Andrew, 1992, 26.5 billion
Charlie, 2004, 15 billion
Ivan, 2004, 14.2 billion


The Deadliest:


Galveston, Texas, 1900, 8,000-12,000 killed
Lake Okeechobee, Florida, 1928, 2,500-3,000 killed
Florida Keys, 1935, 408 killed


I could be wrong, but from what I've seen on the news and internet, Katrina probably will live in infamy as one of the worst.