Florida Hurricane Advice

My wife sent me this in an email:


We're about to enter the peak of the hurricane season. Any day now, you're going to turn on the TV and see a weather person pointing to some radar blob out in the Gulf of Mexico and making two basic meteorological hints:

(1) There is no need to panic.

(2) We could all be killed.

Yes, hurricane season is an exciting time to be in Florida. If you're new to the area, you're probably wondering what you need to do to prepare for the possibility that we'll get hit by "the big one." Based on our experiences, we recommend that you follow this simple three-step hurricane preparedness plan:

STEP 1. Buy enough food and bottled water to last your family for at least three days.
STEP 2. Put these supplies into your car.
STEP 3. Drive to Illinois and remain there until Halloween.

Unfortunately, statistics show that most people will not follow this sensible plan. Most people will foolishly stay in Florida.

We'll start with one of the most important hurricane preparedness items:

HOMEOWNERS' INSURANCE:

If you own a home, you must have hurricane insurance. Fortunately, this insurance is cheap and easy to get, as long as your home meets two basic requirements:

(1) It is reasonably well-built, and

(2) It is located in Illinois.

Unfortunately, if your home is located in Florida, or any other area that might actually be hit by a hurricane, most insurance companies would prefer not to sell you hurricane insurance, because then they might be required to pay you money, and that is certainly not why they got into the insurance business in the first place. So you'll have to scrounge around for an insurance company, which will charge you an annual premium roughly equal to the replacement value of your house. At any moment, this company can drop you like used dental floss.

EVACUATION ROUTE:

If you live in a low-lying area, you should have an evacuation route planned out. To determine whether you live in a low-lying area, look at your driver's license; if it says "Florida," you live in a low-lying area.

HURRICANE SUPPLIES:

If you don't evacuate, you will need a mess of supplies. Do not buy them now. Florida tradition requires that you wait until the last possible minute, then go to the supermarket and get into vicious fights with strangers over who gets the last can of Spam.

In addition to food and water, you will need the following supplies: 23 flashlights; at least $167 worth of batteries that turn out, when the power goes off, to be the wrong size for the flashlights. Bleach. (No, I don't know what the bleach is for. Nobody knows what the bleach is for, but it's traditional, so get some!) A 55-gallon drum of underarm deodorant. A big knife that you can strap to your leg. (This will be useless in a hurricane, but it looks cool.) A large quantity of raw chicken, to placate the alligators. (Ask anybody who went through a hurricane; after the hurricane, there WILL be irate alligators.) $35,000 in cash or diamonds so that, after the hurricane passes, you can buy a generator from a man with no discernible teeth.

Of course these are just basic precautions. As the hurricane draws near, it is vitally important that you keep abreast of the situation by turning on your television and watching TV reporters in rain slickers stand right next to the ocean and tell you over and over how vitally important it is for everybody to stay away from the ocean.

Good luck, and remember: its great living in paradise.

Time Out

I received a renewal plea from Time magazine, today (I had a subscription several years ago). They offered me a senior citizen discount, which is odd, since I'm neither a senior citizen, nor have I ever intimated such to the publication's customer service personnel.

Here's the "deal" they offered: 56 issues (1 year)--with a newsstand cover price of $201.00--for $19.

$19. Can you believe that?

The letter goes on, assuring me that, if I pay now, I'll receive an additional six months of issues-- a grand-total of 84 issues--for free. Plus a bonus ultrasonic laser level, a new book titled I, Gorebot, a gold statuette of Hillary Clinton, and a Marxist decoder ring for reading between the lines. Ok, I made up the last two.

Doesn't this reek of desperation? It implies that Time isn't doing so hot. They're practically giving it away. Alas, other than spare TP, I have no use for this left-wing rag.

Maybe Time has run its course.

Infanticide: AKA: "A Woman's Right"

Abortionists investigated for possible baby murder

That is the headline title on WorldNetDaily. I kid you not. Talkin' 'bout stating the obvious. This is akin to other revelatory pieces, such as: Breaking News: German Nazis Investigated for Genocide Attempts; or This Just In: Yoda Dubbed Vertically Challenged; Senator Clinton Imp of Satan; Fat Albert Rather Obese; Post-Katrina Nawleuhns Troubled by Elevated Water Tables; or Shocking Secret Revealed: Michael Jackson Rejected by Barnum and Bailey Circus Freak Program! "He was just too much an aberration of nature," said the Bearded Lady.

I'd laugh myself silly, if the subject matter weren't so depressing. Of course abortionists murder babies; it's their stock-in-trade. They excel at it, thrive on it, and stacking 'em up like cordwood is what rolls in the big bucks for these detached "family planners." What distinguishes this story from the usual abortion-mill killings is that we're talking about a post-birth murder, not a pre-birth evacuation of formless "tissue." That's really the only difference: in the womb, or out.

The dead body of a baby who probably was born alive and then killed is just "business as usual" for the nation's abortion industry, a spokesperson for the Florida Right to Life effort told WorldNetDaily.

The discovery came after someone, perhaps a clinic worker, according to police, called 911 anonymously to report that a baby had been born alive, and was killed.

Authorities report their investigation includes the potential for homicide charges, as well as evidence tampering. The baby reportedly was 12 inches long and weighed up to three pounds, an age and weight at which premature infants can survive outside the womb.

I think this aptly demonstrates the absurdity of the ghouls who argue that terminating a child up to the day of birth is anything other than murder.

The whole situation gives new meaning to the expression: "I brought you into this world, and I'll take you out." In the interests of clarity and honesty, I vote that each abortion charnel house proudly display this on a sign above its door.

Method to the Madness

It seems Andrea Yates has escaped judgment and justice, at least for the nonce. After this case first came to light, I gave quite a bit of thought to the concept of insanity. Without expertise in this area, I've reached a few conclusions, to the best of my ability.

Insanity generally is defined as an impairment in discerning the difference between right and wrong. My personal opinion is that such a condition is rare: I believe the vast majority of people are sane. I also think such a state entails physiological damage or deformity of the brain. Short of miraculous intervention or new-fangled surgical techniques, I don't see how a medicinal cure is possible.

If one sees no difference between right and wrong, wouldn't one's potential for acts society considers great good equal that of horrific evil? I think the answer is "yes," yet we never see insanity associated with benign or positive actions, only catastrophically disturbing ones. It's interesting that every behavior considered insane today once was categorized as evil. Speaking of good and evil--both are great motivators in an individual's behavior. So I find it doubtful that someone who cannot recognize or delineate between them would summon much motivation or determination toward a specific goal, beyond the satisfaction of basic necessities, such as food, water, clothing, and shelter.

In Yates' case, she has proven herself beyond doubt a danger to society; after all, if you'll kill your own children, no one is safe from you. Perpetual detainment and observation is the only proper course of action in dealing with her. Anything less is a crime against the populace, and a gross abrogation of the government's duty to protect its citizens. So even if she's nutty as a fruitcake, locking her up and throwing away the key is the minimum obligation.

I see no reason to accept that Yates is insane, however. The facts of the case do not point toward this diagnosis. I know it's awful, and it pains me just thinking about it, but leading one's children individually into a bathroom and drowning them in the tub is methodical and requires presence of mind and purposefulness. As does pursuing one of the fleeing children and dragging him back to his fate, after a struggle. Consider, too, that she waited until her husband was off the premises, before sweeping into action; and let's not forget that she called the police and turned herself in, after finishing her grisly tasks. None of these are exhibitions of insanity.

Incomprehensible actions do not equal insanity, else the world always has peopled itself with numerous maniacs--from the Fall, until today. I don't understand the deeds of Nazis or the various communist "revolutions" throughout the 20th Century. I don't understand how or why they consumed lives like fires gobble up kindling; yet they did just that. Should I conclude that their party members and adherents all were insane?

The good news in all this sorrow is that justice will stand, if not in this life, then certainly in the next one. The likelihood is that those five precious children never reached the age of accountability--which means that, as I type these words, they are in the arms of our Savior, basking in His all-encompassing, eternal love, a love they never received from their earthly mother.

Anything for Good PR

Why is Condoleewza Rice giving this Holocaust-denying, terrorist-loving lowlife the time of day?

Fatah is a terrorist organization. The "Palestinian" Authority is a terrorist group. Calling Abbas a terrrorist-sympathizer is a generous appellation.

Treating those who gleefully murder innocent men, women, and children like statesmen is part of the West's problem in dealing with the Middle East. To wit, burying one's head in the sand as a nuclear bomb falls from above. Clintwit revelled in this sort of moral equivocation, and the Bush Administration is following suit, yet again, by sending Cowabungaleeza Rice as an envoy to Abbas. Diplomacy with this ilk is worse than useless. It gives stature to those who deserve nothing more than a shallow grave in the local landfill. How does one engage in productive peace negotiations with people whose entire lives revolve around the eradication of Israel?

This waste of time scores no points for us in Europe, earns further disgust at our gullibility from the Islamic world, accomplishes zilch on Israel's behalf, and has less chance of success than coaxing Christina Stripmebarea into a nunnery--so why go through the motions? It's like playing charades with people who caress their AK-47s, watching you pantomime imbecilic gestures as they wait for your grand finale so they can blow your head off.

If Only He Believed

Here's an interesting quote I thought I'd share from Thomas Huxley, one of history's preeminent proponents of evolution.


“If the Gospels truly report that which an incarnation of the God of Truth communicated to the world, then it surely is absurd to attend to any other evidence touching matters about which he made any clear statement, or the truth of which is distinctly implied by his words. If the exact historical truth of the Gospels is an axiom of Christianity, it is as just and right for a Christian to say, Let us ‘close our ears against suggestions’ of scientific critics, as it is for the man of science to refuse to waste his time upon circle-squarers and flat-earth fanatics.”

– Thomas H. Huxley, Science And Hebrew Tradition Essays, p. 230, 1897.

In Defense of Israel

It seems there are two camps overlooking Israel: one supports her right to exist and defend herself, and the other wishes she would shrivel up into a fetal ball and die. I fall in with the former. The latter, I'm afraid, just cannot get a few lucid points through its adamantine skull, regarding the current situation:

1. Israel was attacked, not vice-versa.

2. Israel's enemies--Hezbollah, the "Palestinians", Hamas, etc.--care less about the lives of innocents than we do about the mating habits of slugs scraping along a forgotten river-bottom in Papua New Guinea. This is an important point, so I'll take a few moments and elaborate a bit. These people do not care whom they kill. As evidence I offer the past week as Exhibit A. Therein, Hezbollah launched somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 to 1,000 missiles--perhaps more-- into Israeli territory. These launches were indiscriminate in their targets. Those at the controls were unconcerned if their bombardments annihilated hospitals, nursing homes, ambulances in transit, private residences, preschools, synagogues, or even children at play in their backyard sandboxes. In fact, this execrable group considers the entire Jewish population of Israel its enemy; and as such, makes no distinction whatsoever between military target objectives and the local pizzeria. The more chaos, destruction, and death, the better.

Further, they don't view civilians as flesh-and-blood people--with feelings, lives, hopes, asperations, and families--but as tools for their agenda's implementation. The innocents surrounding them exist as bargaining chips, cannon fodder for striking fear into the hearts of their perceived enemies, or human shields.

Considering all this, I become puzzled and disgusted when gibbering heads make their rounds on the news shows, decrying Israel's "disproportionate" response; I feel my supper back-up as I see footage of mindless crowds chanting slogans of condemnation against Israel; and I shake my head in wonderment at the thought that, somewhere, some moral smurf is rattling out his next column on the horror of Israel's Nazilike methods.

For clarity's sake, let me express that I believe Israel should take strong measures in ensuring that innocent civilians survive this onslaught into Lebanon--to the extent that such an endeavor is feasible. But understand that the Jews are dealing with people who hide in private homes and public buildings, commandeering personal properties as launch platforms, terrorist quarters, and training facilities. So those insisting that Israel not harm civilians demand the impossible. Such a requisite is tantamount to requiring Israel's complete and unconditional surrender to her enemies, since defending herself isn't an option under such a restriction.

I believe that those castigating Israel over civilian casualties are dishonest about their true motivation: a desire for the total dissolution of Israel as a nation. After all, if concern for the innocent is the inspiration for people working up a froth over the issue, where is all the outrage toward Hezbollah, which intentionally victimizes civilians? Why is the criticism relegated to Israel, while terrorists commit wholesale murder with little or no comment from the ranks of the offended?

Intellectually honest people may debate the efficacy of Israel's present tactics. But if your ire over civilian deaths is selective, favoring terrorists and cursing Israel, you've revealed more about yourself than I possibly could hope to in this post.

Middle Eastern Logic

About an hour ago, Fox News reported that Lebanon's government is threatening resistance if Israel mounts a ground assault across its borders. Let's think about the progression of this situation for a moment:

1. Hezbollah kidnaps Israeli soldiers and holds them captive, then attacks Israel's towns and cities with missles with impunity from the safety of Lebanon.

2. The Lebanese government takes no action against Hezbollah's assaults on Israel--either because it is incapable, or unwilling.

3. Israel retaliates against Hezbollah and considers the possibility of injecting infantry into Lebanon.

4. Representatives of the Lebanese government assure the world that an invasion from Israel will face opposition from Lebanon's military.

So here's my question: Why should Israel draw a distinction between this behavior and open support of terrorism? Utilizing the notion "If you're not with us, you're against us," that the Bush Administration set forth post-9/11, it seems the assumption that Lebanon is just one more enemy in a veritable sea of enemies is a reasonable approach. This prompts a second question: Why does the Bush Administration deem support of Lebanon's government necessary, when it seemingly deserves pulverization into rubble?

A Plague of Hitlers

We've all heard or read about comparisons between Hitler and contemporary madmen, such as Hussein, bin Laden, etc. Many scoff at similarities and roll their eyes at such notions. Silly sounding or not, I believe merit lies in this claim.

Hitler was evil and on a power trip, and he loathed the Jews. Exactly how are the "Palestinians" or bin Laden different, in that regard? Or Hezbollah? Put another way, if the "Palestinians" had the power to kill every Jewish man, woman, and child in Israel, would they do so, or hold their heads high, and say "We are above such wanton murder."

I don't think so. They do not because they cannot. Not because they are less evil or disinclined toward subjugating certain peoples. If Hussein had harbored a modern equivalent to Hitler's war machine, the first Gulf War might've dragged on far longer, with much more dire consequences.

Can anyone deny that Saddam Hussein is one of the most evil men who ever lived? Dictators and terrorists such as these are moral first cousins of Hitler and share his absolute and unreasoning revulsion toward the Jews. What they lack is the Nazi leader's hypnotic charisma, his cunning and intelligence, and his country's brute capabilities in waging war.

Thank God, sometimes evil is hindered by its own weaknesses, not by less venom in its delusions of grandeur.

Munich

Steven Schlemielberg has created a film that some have hailed as his masterpiece. I call it his tour-de-farce.

Munich details the early-1970s murder of eleven Israeli Olympic atheletes by "Palestinian" terrorists, better known as Muhammed's Peaceniks. After this atrocity, the Israeli government sends a group of ex-Mossad agents to execute those involved in the plot. Bravo for justice, I say, though you'll be hard put in finding this message in the movie. Instead, Schlemielberg lets us wade around for a couple of hours in a moral morass, in which no clear good guy emerges, and no moral clarity is allowed. He makes no distinction whatsoever between murdering innocent civilians, and targeted assassinations of terrorists. He shows us the constant state of agony and uncertainty of these agents of justice, as if the better part of their time is spent brooding over their actions. Israel's government is portrayed as cold and unsympathetic, essentially hanging its people out to dry. And he goes to great lengths at humanizing the terrorists.

For most of the film, Schlemielberg attempts an evenhanded approach; he builds empathy for--and reveals the warts of--both sides. But in one or two scenes, he ceases his waffling just long enough to side with the "Palestinians." In several key moments, discussions occur in which Israel's right of existence is never defended as eloquently as the "Palestinian Struggle" (trademarked). Nor is a representative of Israel ever allowed the last word in these tit-for-tats.

This could've been a great film, an important testimony to Israel's determination; instead, it's an exercise in moral equivocation. It acts as a flashing neon sign that says: "LOOK! I'M A SELF-HATING JEW!"

Indeed, the most remarkable aspect of this film is that a Jew made it. He lovingly constructed this vacillation out of anti-Zionism, with a liberal dash of relativism thrown in for good measure. It's sad, because the people whose actions he refuses to condemn would blow his brains out at the first opportunity, if given half a chance, and parade his mutilated body through their streets.

Sure, there's good acting and cinematography, and the director's eye shows us a realistic portrait of the time and events. Unfortunately, if you want a strong stance taken against evil, you won't find it here.

The Old Lady and the Sea

In October 1829, the schooner Mermaid, Captain Samuel Nolbrow, master, and 18 men aboard left Sydney, Australia, from Raffles Bay. In Torres Strait, a stretch of water alive with reefs and shallows, between Australia and New Guinea, the ship struck a coral reef and foundered. The crew scrambled to a rock above and there spent three days waiting to be rescued. They were taken aboard the by bark Swiftsure which happened to pass by. Two days later the Swiftsure was ran ashore and wrecked. Eighteen men of the Mermaid and 14 crew members of the Swiftsure swam ashore and were stranded till the schooner Governor Ready with 32 aboard hove into view. The castaways were taken off and its ship was on its way to Papua when disaster struck for the third time. The Governor Ready caught fire and was a total loss within a few hours. Three sets of survivors now numbering 64 took to the longboats and drifted in the open Pacific. A new ship came to their rescue. It was the government cutter Comet which took the shipwrecked men aboard. But not for long. The Comet's end came in a sudden storm and the long suffering company, now enhanced by 21 men of the Comet, was cast adrift again on the immensity of the Pacific. The clung to the latest wreckage for an agonizing 18 hours until they were sighted by the Jupiter bound for West Australia with 38 men of her own. There must have been some dark murmuring aboard the Jupiter about jinxes and jonahs but the 85 men were picked up and rescued. They had hardly settled down when the Jupiter in turn ran on a reef and stove a hole in her keel. There were 123 castaways now with their five separate sets of captains and officers. The huddled miserably upon a slippery rock in the ocean until a sixth and final ship delivered them. This time it was the City of Leeds, a passenger schooner with 100 passengers aboard.

Passengers and crew were goggle-eyed with astonishment at the experiences of the survivors. Dr. Thomas Sparks of the City of Leeds walked awhile among the saved men, listening to the hubbub of their voices. Suddenly he spoke:

"Are there any Yorkshiremen among you?"

There was no answer and the doctor continued: "I require a Yorkshireman about 35 years of age. I need him to prolong the life of a very sick old lady. She is unconscious and calls for her son whom she has not seen in ten years. Unless we can find someone to impersonate the lad, we may soon have to bury her at sea."

One of the rescued deck hands, a survivor of the Mermaid, spoke up: "There are Yorkshiremen and Yorkshiremen.What part of Yorkshire does the old lady come from?"

"She is from Whitby."

"Then I think I can be of service. I am from Whitby, myself."

"How old are you, son?"

"I am 34, sir."

"You'll do perfectly. Come with me now."

"What is the name I am to take, sir?"

"Peter Richardson. Repeat the name a few times so that you will not forget it."

"No need of that," was the hushed reply. "I am Peter Richardson."

Peter Richardson saw his mother and her joy was so great that she recovered and lived 18 years longer. It was as if the hand of Providence had arranged five shipwrecks in succession--without the loss of a single human life--in the most treacherous waters in the world--so that a seafaring son could meet his dying mother.

This story--unbelievable as it sounds--can be verified in the archives of the Maritime Office of the Australian Commonwealth in Canberra.


--from Ripley's Believe It Or Not!: 4th Series (1954)

Viva la Invasion!

I always enjoy my trips to Wal-Mart. Not only are they loads of fun--what with the long waits in line as I stare at the numerous vacant cash registers and being jostled by the dull-minded crowds--but they're educational, as well.

For example, as I walked the aisles, tonight, I learned that we have a new, specially set-aside DVD section in the Spanish language. Ditto for CDs. These sure are godsends, here in Hillbilly Holler, where we all speak fluent Spanish. We also have ball caps with the word "MEXICO" printed boldly across the fronts, topped by a Mexican flag. I remember asking for one of those for Cinco de Mayo, last year, but nobody remembered. Now I can purchase my very own. Also, they sport a new Hispanic section in the grocery. I love it! I've wondered for years what Brach's tequila-worm candy and Chihuahua kabobs taste like, and now I have the opportunity to find out. One precious memory I'll cherish forever harkens back to the renovation job Wal-Mart finished a couple of months ago. I found an aisle newly stocked with Catholic candles--you know the ones, with saints and the virgin Mary painted on them--with a little sign taped above that said "CANDLES--MEXICAN EMPHASIS." That's subtlety for you. But the best part is the roving knots of Mexicans wandering about the store, brazenly speaking Spanish. I saw ten or twelve, just tonight, and not one spoke English. It has become impossible to make a foray to Wal-Mart without running across several. That this is worthy of mention becomes apparent, given that such a thing was unheard of, five short years ago. I'm often tempted to screech "INS!" at the top of my voice, and watch them flee the premises like rats deserting a sinking ship.

I suppose my discombobulation is a sign that I'm geting old. I'm just not down with the Mexican colonial project currently underway in my home state, aided and abetted by our treasonous government, in tandem with good old American businesses like Wal-Mart, who would sell soul, body, and country for a buck.

Ahnold Is Sooo Fabulous!

I just realized I had this post waiting. I'd forgotten about it, so it's a little late:


Governor Termineggar will speak at homosexual fundraiser:

Can you imagine his speech?:


"It's ok if you'uh gurly-men. It's nobody's business. Who cares if you flounce and watch teah-jehkeh movies? Who ceahs if you hang out at bath-houses and cetch AIDS? It's nod impouhtant. We'uh all Americans. We'uh all Cah-lee-fouhnians. Dat's all dat matters.

You must crosh youh critics, see them driven befouh you, and hear de lamendations of deah wimmin.

And don't worry. Aftah I'm reelected, I'll be bahk."

The New World

I saw this film tonight, starring Colin Farrel, Christopher Plummer, and Christian Bale.

First, let me just mention the high points of the movie: The acting was good, especially on the part of the girl who played Pocahontas. The cinematography was amazing and lovingly done, and the musical score was perfect. Also the look was authentic--from the tools people used, to their dwellings and costumes, right down to their weapons. On this latter point, the director went all-out.

Now for the negative aspects, and given the subject matter, you know they await in battalions. With the exceptions of John Smith, John Rolfe, Captain Newport (the head of the colony), and a kindly peasant lady who helps Pocahontas acclimate herself to life at the fort, every other white person in the movie is portrayed as deranged, evil, treacherous, deceitful, jealous, greedy, or a combination of all these traits. In terms of personal behavior, they are even more barbaric than the Indians whom they contact.

As for the painted noble savages, it does the director some credit that he doesn't characterize them as pacifists; he assures us that they're capable of great violence--but only if backed into a corner. Otherwise, they are loving and peaceful. Not one indigenous person in the movie is revealed to us as possessing any capacity for evil. Not one.

Another interesting observation I made as I watched the film was the lack of perspective offered regarding whitey's appearance in the New World. A few mumbled platitudes from Newport are all we receive, in terms of illumination upon that subject.

It is obvious to me that the director's sympathies lie with the Indians. For all his talent in bringing this story to life, it was clear that he sees the white man's encroachment on American soil through the lenses of a typical "progressive" revisionist, who is a product of our modern era, where truth is turned on its head, and evenhandedness is a dirty word.

An Observation

For all of you free-lovin', tree-huggin', eco-nut global warming activists, I just thought I'd mention that we're experiencing the mildest summer this part of East Tennessee has seen in the last decade. Just a few evenings ago, I sat outside and watched the local fireworks in total comfort, with a nice cool breeze blowing. Typically this time of year, even the nights are muggy and hot. So if we're experiencing the Baking of the Earth, it must've skipped this little part of heaven.

Put that in your bong and smoke it.

Under the Weather

Sorry for the delays in posting, folks. I've had some sort of bug, perhaps a tetch of the flu, for the last thirty-six hours, or so. I feel a little better, right now, but only time will tell if I'm over the worst of it. I sure hope so.

Gawn Campin'

I'm going on a little camping trip on Monday. Not to worry, though; I'll be back Wednesday.

I considered asking Instapundit to guest-blog for me, while I'm away; but I realized such a request would be akin to Jim Carrey's predicament in Bruce Almighty, so I relented from that idea.

Anyway, I'll see y'all real soon. Catch a few rays, fluster a few liberals, and stay safe, until then.

God bless.

Learnin' 'Em Good!

Actual answers given by students on a test at a Catholic elementary school:


ADAM AND EVE WERE CREATED FROM AN APPLE TREE. NOAH'S WIFE WAS JOAN OF ARK. NOAH BUILT AND ARK AND THE ANIMALS CAME ON IN PEARS.

LOTS WIFE WAS A PILLAR OF SALT DURING THE DAY, BUT A BALL OF FIRE DURING THE NIGHT.

THE JEWS WERE A PROUD PEOPLE AND THROUGHOUT HISTORY THEY HAD TROUBLE WITH UNSYMPATHETIC GENITALS

SAMPSON WAS A STRONGMAN WHO LET HIMSELF BE LED ASTRAY BY A JEZEBEL LIKE DELILAH.

SAMSON SLAYED THE PHILISTINES WITH THE AXE OF THE APOSTLES.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENTS WAS WHEN EVE TOLD ADAM TO EAT THE APPLE.

THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT IS THOU SHALT NOT ADMIT ADULTERY.

MOSES DIED BEFORE HE EVER REACHED CANADA. THEN JOSHUA LED THE HEBREWS IN THE BATTLE OF GERITOL.

THE GREATEST MIRICLE IN THE BIBLE IS WHEN JOSHUA TOLD HIS SON TO STAND STILL AND HE OBEYED HIM.

WHEN MARY HEARD SHE WAS THE MOTHER OF JESUS, SHE SANG THE MAGNA CARTA.

JESUS WAS BORN BECAUSE MARY HAD AN IMMACULATE CONTRAPTION.

IT WAS A MIRICLE WHEN JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD AND MANAGED TO GET THE TOMBSTONE OFF THE ENTRANCE.

THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOWED THE LORD WERE CALLED THE 12 DECIBELS.

THE EPISTELS WERE THE WIVES OF THE APOSTLES.

ONE OF THE OPPOSSUMS WAS ST. MATTHEW WHO WAS ALSO A TAXIMAN.

ST. PAUL CAVORTED TO CHRISTIANITY, HE PREACHED HOLY ACRIMONY WHICH IS ANOTHER NAME FOR MARRAIGE.

CHRISTIANS HAVE ONLY ONE SPOUSE. THIS IS CALLED MONOTONY.

You're A Redneck If. . .

Someone sent me this in an email:


1. You take your dog for a walk and you both use the same tree.

2. You can entertain yourself for more than 15 minutes with a fly swatter.

3. Your boat has not left the driveway in 15 years.

4. You burn your yard rather than mow it.

5. You think the "nutcracker" is something you do off the high dive.

6. The salvation army declines your furniture.

7. You have the local taxidermist on speed dial.

8. You come back from the dump with more than you took.

9. Your wife can climb a tree faster than your cat.

10. Your grandmother has "ammo" on her Christmas list.

11. You keep flea and tick soap in the shower.

12. You've been involved in a custody fight over a hunting dog.

13. You have a rag for a gas cap.

14. Your house doesn't have curtains, but your truck does.

15. You consider your license plate personalized because your father made it.

16. A tornado hits your neighborhood and does a $100,000 worth of improvements.

17. You missed your 5th grade graduation because you were on jury duty.

18. You think fast food is hitting a deer at 65.

"Free Speech"

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have agreed to represent a high school senior whose microphone was unplugged by school officials after she began to speak about her Christian beliefs during her valedictory address. When Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb began reading a speech that contained Bible verses and references to God and her faith in Jesus Christ during her commencement speech on June 15, 2006, officials with the Clark County School District unplugged the microphone. Institute attorneys plan to file a First Amendment lawsuit against the school district for having violated Brittany's constitutional right to free speech and equal protection under the law.

This past spring, graduating senior Brittany McComb was chosen to give the valedictory speech at Foothill High School in Henderson, Nevada. After composing her remarks, she submitted them to school administrators according to standard district policy. School administrators, upon the advice of their district legal counsel, proceeded to censor her speech, deleting all three Bible references, several references to "the Lord" and the only mention of the word "Christ." However, according to the official religious free speech policy of the Clark County School Board, "Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression...that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content."

On Thursday, June 15, 2006, Brittany, who graduated with a 4.7 GPA, prepared to deliver her commencement address to her fellow students, families and staff. Believing that the district's censorship of her speech amounted to a violation of her right to free speech, she proceeded to share her personal beliefs about the role that her Christian beliefs played in her success. When school officials found her to be straying from the approved text, they unplugged her microphone, fearing that her remarks could be construed as a school endorsement of her Christian views, despite the "appropriate, neutral disclaimers" provision of the religious speech policy. Brittany claims that she was not preaching or proselytizing but merely stating her thoughts and beliefs upon graduation, as she was invited to do.


This sounds like something out of Soviet Russia or red China, the only difference being that she wasn't marched off to the gulag archipelago, prison, or shoved against a nice brick wall for an appointment with the firing squad. We've not come quite that far, yet; but hey, give us a little time. Rome wasn't built in a day. Nor was the proletariat "freed" in a day. Have patience, folks. We're coming along nicely.

Poor Brittany. Did she not understand that the proper speech requisite should've included extolling the virtues of Big Brother and der schtaat? Had she waxed eloquent about the matriarchy behind the world's success, the loathsome--nay, demonic--origins of Christianity, or the sublimity of her Sexual Fulfillment 101 class, we wouldn't be having this little conversation right now.

Let's walk through this, shall we? Ms. McComb is the school valedictorian. Through hard work and perseverance, she earned the right to speak to her fellow classmates. What is the purpose behind this? It gives insight into what motivated her in her quest for excellence, and it offers inspiration to the other students. There is no other logical explanation for a valedictorian or salutatorian's speech-making.

Naturally, the school took the totalitarian view: "Sure, say whatever you like, as long as it passes muster with our censors, doesn't offend our perceptions, and darlin', make sure the religious references are so amorphous, they're indistinguishable from atheism. Got it? OK, write your little heart out."

Some might accuse Ms. McComb of violating the rules. Some might suggest she was underhanded, and went against the school's authority knowing full-well what she was doing. And some would be wrong.

Her thesis was that she excelled with God's help. She doesn't believe in Muhammed or Zeus or Gaia, but the God of the Bible. Removing these references renders her speech more meaningless than the babbling of Howard Dean with a cleft palate. If one is not allowed free reign in describing one's motivations, what is the point in standing before the graduating class and giving a speech? Why even construct the rickety facade in the first place? Without truth, it becomes a sham of empty phrases.

That the school was concerned about association with a particular creed or religion holds no water, since the speech embodied Ms. McComb's personal observations and beliefs; she was/is not a representative of the school, such as a board member.

Had she stood and spoken in soft wonder about Allah jihadding her through the tough times, Buddha's prodigious belly bouncing her right along, or Kabbala's mysticism imparting knowledge unto her, I doubt we'd've ever heard of Ms. McComb.

Our Socialist Constitution

A law that requires Medicaid beneficiaries to prove their citizenship before obtaining health benefits is unconstitutional and should not be allowed to take effect July 1, according to a class-action lawsuit filed Wednesday.

Congress passed legislation earlier this year designed to ensure that only citizens or qualified legal immigrants gain access to Medicaid, which is the state-federal health insurance program for the poor. More than 50 million people get health care through the program.

Sometimes I marvel at the privilege of living in the Age of Absurdity. First came the Enlightenment, proceeded by the Benightment. Do these people sit around with coffee and donuts all day, in brainstorming sessions, sweating up new ideas that challenge such quaint notions as up is up, and down is down?

As most of you know, it's debatable whether or not anyone should receive Medicaid health care, since it requires robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak. But how could any reading of the Constitution lead one to the bizarre conclusion that not extending this courtesy to those of illegal status is a violation of our founding document? These people have no legal footing in our country; they are not citizens.

When determining the constitutionality of a course of action, perhaps the courts should consult the U.S. Constitution, not that of socialist France.

How Embarrassing

Now that Rush Limbaugh's been caught with Viagra without a prescription, does that mean he'll be performing tomorrow's show with half his libido tied behind his back, just to make it fair?

Take the Power Back

I believe we Evil White Devils should load up our demon spawn and go back to Europe. After all, we are monstrous usurpers who have stolen an entire continent from the Mexicans. Remember when Columbus landed on San Salvador and traded whacks on a pinata with the Mexican peasants? How 'bout when Louis Jolliet and Jacques Marquette plied the waters of the Mississippi with their Mexican interpreter, in the 1600s? Without him, they never would've communicated productively with the Indian tribes of the region--all of whom were Mexicans in warbonnets and spoke Spanish. And I believe I recall the Jesuits setting up a mission to the Mexicans of Quebec. True, they spoke French, but they were as Mexican as Tijuana. Of course, let's not forget that the Russians parted with Alaska due to a plethora of taco stands; they wanted a greater variety in food; and the Mexicans, Santa Anna bless 'em, gave them death by burrito indigestion. Tennessee has a long history of being populated with Mexicans--going all the way back to the Revolution, in which my granddaddy eight times removed fought in the Fifth Chalupa Brigade against those Lobsterback Blanco Devils. Even Jorge Washington, the father of our country, was a bona fide Mexican.

So change your dastardly ways, gringos. Pack 'em up and ship 'em out. Do the right thing, for a change, and stop swiping continents from the peaceful, enlightened peoples of the Western hemisphere. Quit bein' the personification of evil.

And stay away from Antarctica, too; Mexico's already claimed it.

Viva la Raza!

Please Stay Tuned

I was watching "Who's Line Is It, Anyway?" on ABC Family channel earlier tonight with my wife. After the end credits, another show came on, but not before the screen went blank, and an ominous message appeared:

"The following broadcast does not represent the views of ABC Family."

Hmm, I thought. What might this be? A show with one of Muhammed's peaceniks doing a step-by-step on turning one's family into walking pipe bombs? Programming on the trials and tribulations of Chippendales strippers? A new reality show shot on location in the Sierra Nevadas, titled "The Donner Party Two"?

Nope. Even worse. A more dire affront:

"The 700 Club."

I kid you not. Am I the only one who finds this strange? Some of this channel's upcoming programming includes The Waterbong and Big Daddy with Adam Sandler, "Gilmore Girls," which basically is one long, yammering feminist gripe session, and a titillating new bit of eye candy called "Falcon Beach," which just as easily could go by the moniker "Who's Boffing Who?" But I'm sure these pose no concerns, as I've never noticed a singling out of this nature for any other show on the station. I'm not a big fan of ABC Family, but I've watched it enough for this incongruity to leap out at me.

So let's sum up: Playing an infantile imbecile in a movie targeting the lowest common denominator of society and having it clapping in its drool is awesome. Check. A movie on how not to raise a child, in which we are educated on the Zen art of public urination, is a delight for the kiddies. Check. PC twaddle straight out of Betty Friedan's book The Subhuman Male doesn't bother us, nosiree. Gotcha. And a place where the sun is hot, the people are wet, and the only squares are the ones not rolling in the sheets with a different buff bod every Saturday night at 9:00 PM EST--8:00 CST--is where all the cool cats are hanging. No problemo.

But give us a show with a Christian take on reality, one with inspirational stories of miracles and people overcoming Herculean obstacles in bettering themselves physically and/or spiritually, in which the dreaded words "Jesus" and "Christ" are uttered outside the sacred confines of profanity, and Houston, We Have A Problem.

You see, those Christians--you know, the ones who founded this great nation and saw to it that freedom wasn't just a pretty concept in a tome of fairy tales--those people are out of their gourds.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Apostasy

Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual.

"I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.

"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."

I know this news is a few days old, now. Still, it's deserving of further comment.

In this woman's deranged and twisted mind, homosexuality is a "gift," a mechanism for giving "joy" and "blessing the world." She must advocate free love, since the vast majority of homosexuals give rabbits a run for their money in terms of promiscuity. We should believe this lifestyle fraught with the peril of disease and early death is a marvelous thing on the basis of her proclamation alone, I suppose.

I love the audacity of her naked assertion that people are born this way. No evidence needed, her word is law, move along. It goes without saying that this belief is controversial and debatable; but why let facts get in the way of this new agenda for the Episcopal Church?

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with 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

Good thing God was just kidding, isn’t it? This policy is a logical outcome of ignoring scripture, or assuming that it means something other than what it says.

The "Impossible" Dream

It is neither wise, nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border.--President George "Pancho" Bush, May 15, 2006.

I bet that makes all the drug runners, welfare heroes, and La Raza revolutionaries breathe deep sighs of relief, as they work dilligently toward the complete social ruination of the U.S.A.

Bush supporters suggest that deporting 12 million illegal aliens is impossible, or at least somewhat more implausible than stumbling over the Holy Grail in a local landfill, right next to Hillary's most recent book. Some equate the two finds, but I digress.

In a moment of unusual rhetorical grandiloquence, the president assured us that "There are those here in Washington who say, 'Why don't we just find the folks and send them home.' That ain't gonna work." (June 8, 2006)

Vox Day--euphemistically known as "Herr Vox" in the blog world, these days--has made recent lucid comments demonstrating the silliness of these assertions, as most of you know.

Removing incentives for aliens to remain--such as free medical care, lower tuition costs, food stamps, or employment--probably makes more sense than mass deportations, at least in the short term; I'm all for these attempts, and have been writing to that effect for quite some time.

But the idea that deporting 12 million invaders is "impossible," or more unrealistic than The DaVinci Code defies common sense. A country capable of landing men on the Moon and bringing them back home safely not once but several times can find a humane way. Americans defeated Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire in WWII, and held the imperialistic Soviet Union at bay for over forty years. Is removing 12 million undesirables beyond us? Curiously, rebuilding a barbarian haven like Iraq from the rubble up is considered doable, as is the securing of its borders and the insertion of an alien form of governance into its body politic, while removing massive numbers of illegal aliens from our soil is beyond the ken of mortal men. This notion strikes me as absurd.

I think the truth of the matter is that the supposed futility of mass deportation is a smokescreen. The reality we face is that our--ahem--"leaders" have zero interest in even attempting the task. I'm not naive; I understand the difficulty in facilitating such a goal. Imagine, if you will, Sir Edmund Hillary standing at the base of Everest, gazing up at its lofty peak, and pronouncing in oratorical rhapsody: "'Tis better not to try at all, than to fail in the attempt. Forget conquering the mountain; I cannot conquer myself;" after which he trudges away, face downcast, weeping on Tenzing Norgay's shoulder like a spurned prom queen. Even this analogy does injustice to the idea-in-question, for removing our problem source would not pose so monumental a task as scaling the highest mountain on Earth. As others have pointed out, initiating a deportation program, in conjunction with the removal of incentives for illegal immigration, would bring about self-deportation. As good parents understand, people respond to those who mean business far differently than to those they know fall prey to manipulation and vacillation. A strong stand on the issue teaches by example that we're not kidding around.

Am I concerned about fatalities along the way? Not really. Air conditioned buses pale in comparison to arduous treks across the Mojave, with little more than gila monsters and the hellish glare of the sun for company. The concern is a valid one, and as I suggested, we should treat these people with care and preserve their human rights. However, I'm convinced the point is raised more as an excuse for inaction than a legitimate worry for the health of Mexican border-jumping-beans. At least among those who deem giving them water jugs and maps en route an appropriate response.

How many hundreds have died cooped up in shipping containers, in the backs of sealed moving vans, braving the Rio Grande's currents, or gasping from dehydration on a desert trail? These folks are accustomed to far worse than deportation brainstorm measures instituted by a multiculturally-sensitive federal government, I assure you.

Happy Father's Day, Belated

I hope all you dads out there ( you know who you are) had a great day. I'm sorry I haven't been around much in the last week. It's really annoying when life intervenes and rudely interrupts blogging, isn't it?

May God bless each one of you fathers. Raise your children in His light. It's one of the most important accomplishments you ever can make.

Fairly Unbalanced

A discussion about protests by an anti-homosexual church at the funerals of fallen American soldiers turned into an astounding shoutfest on national television this weekend, with Fox News host Julie Banderas calling a fire-and-brimstone Christian preacher "the devil" and apparently condemning her to hell.

"You are the devil!" Banderas exclaimed to Shirley Phelps-Roper. "If you believe in the Bible, miss, you're going to hell!"

Phelps-Roper, who believes America's sinful behavior has resulted in God's cursings rather than blessings, was appearing on "The Big Story" last night to talk about why members of her Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., protest at funerals for slain U.S. troops with slogans such as "Thank God for 9-11," "Thank God for IEDs (improvised explosive devices)," and "God Hates Fags."

Banderas engaged in a heated, rapid-fire, name-calling exchange with Phelps-Roper, which included:

Banderas: "The Bible says 'the fear of the Lord is hatred of evil,' [from the Book of] Proverbs. 'Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.' Perverted speech like yours: 'God hates fags.' You are preaching absolute B.-., and you know the final letter."

Phelps-Roper: "If you don't tell them that this nation is full of idolatry, full of adulteries ...

Banderas: "Full of insane people like yourself, ma'am."

Phelps-Roper: "You're proud. You're proud of your sins. You can't do enough sinning. You think 'gay' pride, bimbo. You have sinned away your day of grace."

Banderas: "OK, you are an abomination."

Phelps-Roper: "America is doomed. America is doomed. ... Before your eyes, missy, you're gonna see the destruction of America."

Banderas: "If America is doomed, then why don't you get out? Why are you in this country? Why are you an American? Are you an American?"

Phelps-Roper: "I am exactly where my God put me to tell you plainly, that you are going to hell, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Banderas: "Why don't you take your church to another country, then, ma'am? Thank you so much. You should not be proud to be an American, and thank you. Good-bye."


Now don't get me wrong; I like a good cat fight between two psychotic women as much as the next feller. But this is over the top, sensationalistic nonsense, even by tv standards.

First, let's take the Church of Fag-Haters, or whatever they dub themselves: apparently, idiots exert their own form of powerful gravitational waves and attract each other like project tenants to welfare checks. How else do you explain these folks? Besides their dishonorable and repulsive "demonstrations" at military funerals, their outlook is warped, and they aren't making friends by using these offensive methods. Sure, I may buy that the U.S.A. is experiencing judgement from God, right now, or even deserves such a reckoning in the future; a cogent case might be made for that. But why in the world would one celebrate such a tragedy with such glee as that manifest in their picketing signs? Remember Jeremiah's behavior before, during, and after the Children of Israels' deportation into exile? I don't remember him dancing a jig in the streets and clicking his heels like he'd just found a Golden Ticket from Willy Wonka's chocolate factory in his candy wrapper. Quite to the contrary; one of the books he authored is called Lamentations, and I assure you, it's aptly titled. The demise of America--for its citizens and the world at large--will be one of the most woeful events in human history.

So there's no question in my mind that this "church" is a congregation of counter-productive kooks (say that ten times real fast).

Now on to Fox News: Is this channel anti-Christian, or just shilling for ratings? Given that all of the top news shows are found on its airwaves, the latter defies belief. First we have Julie Banderas screeching that a belief in the Bible=a free, all-expenses-paid one-way trip to Hell; but we have the greater story, itself, for questioning. Why is Fox airing an item about these fringe lunatics? The antics of this group are old news. Without proper context, they give all Christians a bad name. This is exactly what the Left lives and breathes for, though these people are no more representative of true Christian teaching or sentiment than Timothy McVeigh is of those who dislike intrusive big government.

Either Ms. Banderas is off her meds, and is in desperate need of her next dose, or she's a flagrant secularist of the most extreme sort. It's not often that someone publicly claims a sincere acceptance of scripture receives an "'Atta boy!" from Satan.

Or in this case: "You go, girl!"

Gun Grabber Ethics

From John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime, regarding attacks on his thesis and research:


One of the more interesting experiences occurred when I asked Susan Glick, of the Violence Policy Center, to participate (in commenting on his work). Glick, whom I called during June 1996, was one of the last people that I approached. She was unwilling to comment on my talk at Cato because she didn't want to "help give any publicity to the paper." Glick said that her appearance might help bring media attention to the paper that it otherwise wouldn't have gotten. When I pointed out that C-SPAN was likely to cover the event, she said she didn't care because "we can get good media whenever we want." When I asked her if I could at least send her a copy of the paper because I would appreciate any comments that she might have, she said, "Forget it, there is no way that I am going to look at it. Don't send it."

However, when the publicity broke on the story with an article in U.S.A. Today on August 2, she was among the many people who left telephone messages immediately asking for a copy of the paper. In her case, the media were calling, and she "need[ed] [my] paper to be able to criticize it." Because of all the commotion that day, I was unable to get back to her right away. ABC National Television News was doing a story on my study for that day, and when at around 3:00 P.M. the ABC reporter doing the story, Barry Serafin, called saying that certain objections had been raised about my paper, he mentioned that one of those who had criticized it was Ms. Glick. After talking to Mr. Serafin, I gave Glick a call to ask her if she still wanted a copy of my paper. She said that she wanted it sent to her right away and wondered if I could fax it to her. I then noted that her request seemed strange because I had just gotten off the telephone with Mr. Serafin at ABC News, who had told me that she had been very critical of the study, saying that it was "flawed." I asked how she could have said that there were flaws in the paper without even having looked at it yet. At that point Ms. Glick hung up the telephone.

I think this is an important revelation about the mindset of those within the gun control movement. It shows the singleminded determination in seeing their goals implemented, that the agenda is paramount, even at the expense of facts that diminish their case for governmental regulations. It also illustrates how conscious dishonesty isn't morally problematic for those on the road to achieving victory in this arena. My contention is that this goes far beyond wrongheadedness. It represents a desire for power over the lives of others, not an innocent interest in seeing crime rates plummet.

Many believe that most people basically are decent folks who, even if ignorant of the facts, can be shepherded out of the hills of illogic and into the pastures of reason with sound, calm arguments. What they discount is the sad reality that some people not only do not know the truth, but don't want to know the truth. In fact, they despise and actively wage war against it.

We Love You, Ann

Hear all the shouts of outrage? The suspended breaths of horror? The gasps and thuds as bodies swoon to the floor? That's just the Left and a few limp-wristed moderates overreacting to Ann Coulter's new book, Godless. It's ultimate destination for bestseller-dom--in an ever-growing line of bestsellers--has weenies everywhere working themselves into a tizzy.

As I said over at Voxy's blog, this is much ado about nothing. A question for the frothers: have you read any of Ann's books? No? How 'bout her columns? Nope? What a surprise. Guess what: the current kerfuffle is nothing new for Ann. She's been raking liberals all over their lawns for years now, with biting wit, scathing satire, and dagger-pointed sarcasm. Where have you idiots been hiding, under a statue of Lenin? What an amazing coincidence that your most strident criticism manifests itself just as she's touring the country and promoting her book--you know, the one that reveals the fanaticism behind your atheistic religion and the dogma that makes the most benighted Mohammadan seem open-minded. That's the one, and I suppose it causes all manner of discomfort in your narrow minds, without surcease, as you go about your days, caught up in the attempted propagandizing of the American people to your cause.

Part of the ruckus is that Ann challenges the notion that certain members of the Left are sacrosanct, unassailable and immune to challenge. Implied is the idea that when they spew the rhetorical equivalent of sewage, we should bow to it as if it were the wisdom of Solomon; and when they break wind, it is the exotic exhalation of a rare flower that caresses our nostrils.

I have some bad news for you: that you lost spouses or other relatives in terrorist attacks, though awful, in no wise makes you sound commentators on political and social policies. Nor does fracturing my pinky toe gift me with rare insights into orthopedic medicine.

I don't always agree with Ann; her loyalty to the Republican Party puzzles me. And yes, she sometimes makes statements that seem over the top, at first listen or glance. But I see her as one who is far more dedicated to the truth than she is to niceties; and in an era of touchy-feely political correctness run amok, where the truth is tiptoed around but rarely ushered out into the light, her blunt directness is a beautiful thing.

A final point worth mentioning is that--unlike drive-by character assassins on the Left, such as Moore, and not-so Franken--Ann supports her sometimes outrageous words with many, many tiny foot-noted inconveniences: those pesky little entities called FACTS.

Whenever O'Reilly et. al. get their blood-pressures back down to a more manageable level, they'd do well to remember that.

Taking Out the Trash

Next to oil, terrorism is the most significant export of Islamic countries, so I don't see this news as earth-shattering or a major blow to the popularity of murdering the innocent in the Middle East; but isn't it pleasant when a fellow cashes in his chips and gets exactly what he earned?

In this case, it's a pine box and a worm's-eye view.

Utopian Decalogue

1. Thou shalt have no gods before Almighty Big Brother.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it be in the likeness of our hallowed precursors, Charles Darwin and Karl Marx, our beloved Saint Hillary of Little-Rock-on-the-Hudson, or the first black president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

3. Thou shalt not speak the name of Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon--in vain, or otherwise.

4. Remember Earth Day, to keep it holy.

5. Honor thy father and thy father, or thy mother and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which thy benefactors in seats of power giveth thee.

6. Thou shalt not kill, unless thy victim be in utero.

7. Thou shalt not commit monogamy.

8. Thou shalt not steal outside the aegis of elected office.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor without prior compensation.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor his wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's; for there is no need in equality; from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

For the State giveth, and the State taketh away; blessed be the name of the State.

Problem? What Problem?

Mayors from more than 200 U.S. cities urged President Bush and Congress on Monday to pass comprehensive immigration reform, including a guest worker program, but they could not agree on a proposal to build a 300-mile fence along the border.

Critics said the fence would harm relations between the U.S. and Mexico.

Yes, because our relations with Mexico are so cozy, at present. Reminds me of prostitution, with American businesses in the role of selling themselves.

Virginia Beach, Va., Mayor Meyera Oberndorf said the fence would be "un-American."

"We've always had open borders between Mexico and Canada, and we think that's just where it ought to stay," Oberndorf said at the group's meeting in Las Vegas.

The stupidity of this makes me laugh. "Un-American?" As opposed to what?; the deliberate dilution of our cultural mores by people who don't share or even understand our values, who have no interest in assimilation? Does that constitute "American?" The mayor would have displayed much more honesty if he'd simply declared: "I have no opinion on this matter, due to my cluelessness. In short, I'm an idiot."

I think what astounds me most about this issue is the contrast between the common sense exhibited by average Americans every day, on talk radio and in print, and the lack thereof manifest by those elected to represent us. When common folk grasp the crux of the matter better than our mayors, governors, Congress, and president, expect solutions from anywhere except our government.

Fortune Cookie Finance

Believing that thirty years of large and ceaseless bills is a great idea, I and my wife recently were discussing taking out a loan for the purposes of building a house. We were batting this idea back and forth over chow-chow soup at the local hillbilly Chinese restaurant. At the end of our meal, I cracked my fortune cookie and read the wisdom from within:

You shouldn't overspend at the moment. Frugality is important.

Of course, I subscribe to Longfellow's assertion:

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;

So I pshaw! in Confucius' general direction. Bring on the debt!

Snowjob

Saying Mexico is "not the enemy," presidential press secretary Tony Snow today rejected the characterization of the constant flow of illegal aliens over the U.S. border as an "invasion."

At today's White House press briefing, WND asked the spokesman: "Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution says, 'The United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them from foreign invasion.' My question is, does the president believe this foreign invasion means only armed invasion, or doesn't this also mean the invasion of millions of illegal immigrants?"

Responded Snow: "I think what you are doing is you're attaching a martial connotation to something that does not have martial consequences. …

"What the president has said – if you were talking about an invasion, he's made it clear that Mexico is not the enemy."

Hm, seems Bush's new Minister of Propaganda--uh, I mean "Press Secretary"--is coming along beautifully in his new job. A little smoke and mirrors, a little sleight-of-hand, and voila!: a response without an answer.

Dictionary.com defines invasion in this fashion:
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
3. An intrusion or encroachment.

All of these fit the bill, in my opinion. Current accepted estimates suggest that we have 12 million illegal aliens within our borders; thes are conservative estimates. Some sources go as high as 30 million. Even 12 million is the population of a small country, and many of these invaders want to retake the southwestern U.S. and steal land that never belonged to Mexico. Others find contentment in swamping the medical and welfare systems. Still others make armed forays across our borders into U.S. territory.

So Mr. Snow, stop shoveling this steaming load, put down the shovel, and answer the question: If it's not an invasion, then what, pray tell, is it?

The Analects of Cyberspace

I lifted these from the internet:


Man who run in front of car get tired.

Man with one chopstick go hungry.

Man who eat many prunes get good run for money.

War does not determine who is right, war determine who is left.

Wife who put husband in doghouse soon find him in cat house.

Man who drive like hell, bound to get there.

Man who live in glass house should change clothes in basement.

Trading Sense for Sensationalism

On Monday, I caught a few minutes of Neal Boortz' radio show. It astounds me how some people are clear-minded and logical in one area, while intellectually vacuous lightweights in others. Let me elaborate.

Boortz brought up Da Vinci's painting, The Last Supper (15th Century), and insisted the figure sitting just on Jesus' left is Mary Magdalene, not one of the disciples. Let's consider his assertion. Historically, art historians have identified this person as John. Tradition suggests that John was the youngest of Jesus' disciples, and artists of Da Vinci's time portrayed youthful men with effeminate features. Leonardo indulged in this fad in other paintings, as well. I find this practice rather odd, but I don't judge or explain 15th Century behavior in such matters through a 21st Century prism.

Of course, since the painting manifests Jesus and twelve others, Mary Magdalene's presence at the table would preclude that of one disciple. Which one? Perhaps Judas, since he stormed out early? Maybe, but this is playing "What-If?" without facts or history supporting the question.

Zero in on Boortz' naked assertion--not only is the figure female, but he knows her identity!: Mary Magdalene. Given that Dan Brown utilizes this fanciful idea in his heretical treatise, The Da Vinci Code, doesn't Boortz' claim imply that--on some level--he has bought into the heresy? I think the answer is yes. After all, the Gospels associate many more women with Jesus than Mary Magdalene: his own mother, Mary and Martha, Lazarus' sisters, Elizabeth, Salome, Joanna, various unnamed women at the cross, His tomb, or who followed Him throughout His ministry. It seems the assumption that this is Mary Magdalene exhibits ardor for sensationalism, relish for the tawdry aspects of this relationship, since the two supposedly had a fling. Or at least, according to such scholarly luminaries as Dan Brown.

As I understand it, much of Brown's novel is based on The Templar Revelation, published in 1997. Remember the old saying: revisionists of a feather flock together. Apparently, Boortz is flapping their way.

Amnesty National

Remember all the bilge about a "Temporary Guest-Worker Program" Bush and others have been spewing? Well, not to worry. The new Senate legislation ensures their transmogrification into Permanent Job Takers. Following are a jumble of thoughts on the subject:

1. I think it's asinine that we're even discussing "guest-workers," since the welfare system is overloaded, hospitals are foundering, the border has more holes in it than Darwinism, and the geographical areas with the highest concentrations of illegal aliens have proportionate crime spikes.

2. When President Bush and those of like mind say: "We need these people because they fill a void; they do jobs Americans won't do," or similar tripe, this doesn't even dip its toe into addressing the reality of the situation. On one side of the coin, we have certain employers--both big businesses and small--that seek out illegal aliens for hire, while making little or no efforts toward employing citizens. We're not speaking of people who are clueless about legal status; we're talking about conscious efforts to this end.

The flip-side is that, like any well-crafted lie, there is a kernel of truth in Bush's words when he natters on about "jobs Americans won't do." True, citizens are not showing up in droves to vie for jobs that provide high physical stress and low wages; but as usual, the president and his supporters ignore the crux of the matter and opt for circular logic. That these jobs pay so little is due to the rampant process of hiring illegal aliens, which keeps wages in industries such as construction, agriculture and restaurants artificially low. So this very practice causes the problem it theoretically is designed to fix--first it creates the gaping hole in the job market, then uses this rift in justifying the perpetual importation of Rio Grande triathletes. I've never heard Bush acknowledge any of the above in a single speech or policy statement.

3. The president insists his immigration plan is not an amnesty, and this is true, so long as one adheres to the fictional definition of the word existing wholly in his mind and nowhere outside its confines.

Dictionary.com defines amnesty thusly:

A. A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses. B. an act of clemency by an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individuals. C. a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment. D. a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense.

So the word goes beyond forgiveness for wrongdoing; it entails the foregoing of just and deserved punishment, as well. Judging by the president's words, amnesty means full and expedited conferral of citizenship. Anything less is not amnesty. In Southron intellectual circles, this is known as Pure B.S.

The facts speak for themselves. Our current laws on the books call for deportation of those who sneak into our country outside legal channels. Not one syllable of new legislation is needed in bringing this about. When our president and Congress tell these invaders, in essence, that the laws are for suckers and that illegals need not worry about deportation, that is amnesty. Period. Calling a frog a prince doesn't make it anything more or less than a frog. Can I get an amen, Kermit?

PSA

I dislike people who forward too many warnings as much as anyone, but this one is important!

Send this warning to everyone on your e-mail list!

If someone comes to your front door saying they are conducting a survey on deer ticks and asks you to take your clothes off and dance around to shake off the ticks, do not do it!

IT IS A SCAM; they only want to see you naked.

I wish I'd gotten this yesterday. I feel so stupid.

Contact

From Cybersalt Digest:

At her father's wake, a woman told her priest that ever since she was a child she and her father had discussed life after death. They had agreed that whomever went first would contact the other. They had discussed this again just two weeks before his death.

He died in her home and a few days after his death the smoke alarm in her garage went off. She had lived there 28 years and it had never gone off before. She couldn't turn it off so she called the security company that installed it.

The next morning the smoke alarm sounded again and the reason finally dawned on her. She said aloud, "Ok dad, I missed the signal yesterday but I get it now! Thanks for letting me know that you are safe on the other side. Now turn the thing off so I don't have to call the security company again." The alarm fell silent.

She immediately called her priest to tell him the good news. His response: "Dear lady, if every time your father sends you a message he sets off the smoke alarm, just where do you think he's calling from?"

Ooga-Booga

Mount Merapi, one of Indonesia's most active volcanoes, has been wheezing, belching and threatening to blow its top for the last few weeks. Yet, while scientists call for mass evacuation, most of the locals have stayed put, trusting to centuries-old mystical traditions to calm the spirits of the mountain.

"When I listen to Merapi, I don't hear any danger. Merapi will not hurt the residents, but they must look after the mountain and not take everything they want greedily," Maridjan, volcano 'gatekeeper' and medium between the residents and the mountain spirits, told reporters when asked why he was not abandoning the volcano's slopes.

Ah, the benefits of paganism.

Lock-Step Over the Cliff

Mayor C. Ray Nagin was reelected Saturday, overcoming a ceaseless barrage of criticism stemming from the chaos of Hurricane Katrina and the stalled recovery to achieve what many considered an improbable victory.

Despite calls by both candidates for unity across the historic barriers of race, the vote split largely along racial lines. Nagin won by gaining the support of about 80 percent of black voters and about 20 percent of white voters, according to election analyst Greg Rigamer.

What a great idea! Let's see: he exhibited complete and utter incompetence during Hurricane Kakillya--not only dropping the ball, but kicking it and running as fast as he could in the opposite direction; he blamed everyone but the benighted savages of Barsoom for the crisis' mismanagement, and still isn't ruling out their culpability; and with great gallantry and self-sacrifice, accepts zero blame for any of his failures. So it makes perfect sense that the good citizens of Nawleuhns would vote him back into office. After all, how can he continue being a useless, unrepentant beareaucrat, otherwise? This may be one of the most unprincipled, racially-motivated reelections on record.

I think the old saying applies: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

The Da Vinci Commode

Never have I seen a book of so little merit given so much attention. It boggles the mind, really. Dan Brown posits an unoriginal and entirely fictional account of Jesus' personal life, and people just go cross-eyed with joy over it. A bestseller? What a sad commentary on American culture. It's like taking a clod of dirt, wrapping it in a spiffy red ribbon, and saying: "Voila! A chocolate truffle!"

Yes, I'm aware it's only a novel, and all novels are lies, after all; but there are two factors that make this situation problematic. One is that Brown claims his book is based on fact. Actually, it's an exercise in heresy and deceit. The other is that the central thesis of his diatribe is a besmirchment of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and an attack on the Church. So I take issue with Brown and his malarkey.

Regarding the movie: you can't imagine how disappointed I am--yet unsurprised--that Tom Hanks and Ron Howard have involved themselves in this charade, helping usher a literary hoodwinking into the cinema. I've long admired Howard as a director and Hanks as an actor, but I've lost considerable respect for both. Their attachment to this project speaks volumes about their attitudes toward the Messiah and Christianity.

What troubles me most is the significant number of Christians who absorbed this tripe like sponges, hanging on Brown's every syllable, caught up in the mystery concocted by this devious modern mythmaker. The man is a liar--as are all those who spin fanciful false histories of Jesus' life on earth, without so much as a shred of evidence supporting their contentions. I and my family have zero use for this rubbish. We will not be waiting in line for tickets, or sitting breathlessly in the front row at the theater as falsehoods are paraded as truth.

Some are outraged by the movie and book; some love both; some are indifferent. But consider this: what if someone who is close to the kingdom of God sees this movie, and is turned away from His open arms?

What then?

Bush Defends Spying

"We're in the business of defending the American people, and that's exacatically what we're doing. If that means we have to monitor each and every phone call that comes out of your house to Papa John's during a football game, that's what we'll do. If it means slogging through the contents of your septic tank, that's what we'll do. If it means installing a camera in your showerhead, that's what we'll do. If it means reading your 16 year-old daughter's diary the day after prom night, that's what we'll do. If it means interrogating your MD on the number of times he asked you to cough while wearing one of those little paper gowns with air conditioning in the back, that's what we'll do. If it means implanting a transmitter under the skin of your gelatinous rump, that's what we'll do. If it means revoking your constydelusional right to security of your person, home, or property, that's what we'll do. If it means rolling our eyes at the notion of court orders, that's what we'll do. If it means discarding the outmoded concept of probable cause, that's what we'll do. If it means arresting you, stripping you naked, and throwing you into an oubliette--that's a word in Texas--for the rest of your natural life, that's what we'll do. We're you're Big Brother, an' we dern-tootin' mean to protect you. But we'll do it according to the law."

Jihad Tsunami

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad has been overheard promising the "end of history in two or three years."

Great. Gigantic, tooth-rattling waves devastating cities just don't cut it. Now we'll have "martyrs" on surf boards, cresting the tidal waves in bombvests and sporting AK-47s and sunburns.

This is the way the world ends.

This is the way the world ends.

This is the way the world ends.

Not with a bang. . .

. . .but with a Beach Boys tune.

No More Tongue-Wagging

Thith ith one of the weirdetht thtories of thelf-mutilation I've ever theen.

Better Late Than Never

President Bush addressed the American people tonight on the issue of immigration. Here are a few snippets from his speech:

Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers and terrorists.

By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000.

We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors infrared cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings.

One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems analyzing intelligence installing fences and vehicle barriers building patrol roads and providing training.

. . .we will increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions. And we will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants.

We have expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we are making it clear to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws.

I will ask Congress for additional funding and legal authority, so we can end "catch and release" at the southern border once and for all.

. . .we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally.

The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans.

I agree with all of the above. Certainly these are steps in the right direction, and the president deserves credit where it's due. The only question remaining is: will he follow through with implementing these procedures and upgrades?

Sadly, the remainder of his speech is brimming with the same tired rhetoric, erroneous gibberish, and "amnesty-that-shore-ain't-an-amnesty" verbiage we've come to know and love on the immigration situation. For example, he reiterates the "Mexico is our friend" nonsense; he suggests that Mexico is "working cooperatively" with the U.S. in combating this problem, and that of drug trafficking and other crime; and blathers on about the dire need for a guest-worker program, since--goshdarnit--Americans just won't do certain jobs, like construction, restaurant and grocery store work, agricultural and janitorial jobs, etc. ad nauseum.

Still and all, if his administration brings these measures to fruition, it's a definite stride toward common sense, and away from patent stupidity.

Presidential Poll

Please vote for your favorite contender for the 2008 presidential race in this scientific poll:

1. Swillary Cretin
2. Beelzebub (redundant, I know)
3. Geraldo Rivera
4. John Skerry
5. Algore
6. Jebby "I Let'em Kill Terri" Bush
7. Arnold Termineggar
8. Rudy Giuliani
9. Vox Day
10. Che Guevara
11. Ted "The Red" Kennedy
12. Barney the Purple Dinosaur
13. Manuel Ortega el Nacho Yo Quiero Juan Valdez Los Locos Diablo

Happy Mother's Day!

Women do not have to sacrifice personhood if they are mothers. They do not have to sacrifice motherhood in order to be persons. Liberation was meant to expand women's opportunities, not to limit them. The self-esteem that has been found in new pursuits can also be found in mothering.--Elaine Heffner

Mothers hold their children's hands for a short while, but their hearts forever.--Unknown

A mother's yearning feels the presence of the cherished child even in the degraded man.--George Eliot

My mother was the most beautiful woman I ever saw. All I am I owe to my mother. I attribute all my success in life to the moral, intellectual and physical education I received from her.--George Washington

A young boy said to his mother, 'How old were you when I was born?' His mother replied, '23.' 'Wow, that's a lot of time we missed spending together.' -- Unknown

A man loves his sweetheart the most, his wife the best, but his mother the longest. -- Irish Proverb

Big Brothah's Got Yo Numbah

The government is secretly collecting records of ordinary Americans' phone calls in an effort to build a database of every call made within the country, it was reported Thursday.

AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers' phone calls to the National Security Agency program shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said USA Today, citing anonymous sources it said had direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The program does not involve listening to or taping the calls. Instead it documents who talks to whom in personal and business calls, whether local or long distance, by tracking which numbers are called, the newspaper said.

The president said last year that he authorized the NSA to listen, without warrants, to international phone calls involving Americans suspected of terrorist links.

One big telecommunications company, Qwest, has refused to turn over records to the program, the newspaper said, because of privacy and legal concerns.

Bush's reply: "Our intelligence activities strictly target al-Qaida and their known affiliates," Bush said. "We are not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans."

Bush said any domestic intelligence-gathering measures he's approved are "lawful," and he says "appropriate" members of Congress have been briefed.

First, let me just say that I have no idea if this story is accurate. If it is true, then I think it's safe suggesting that Bush intentionally has engaged in deceit regarding the extent of the government's snooping in telecommunications. Certainly this is far wider in scope than the monitoring of international callers suspected of terrorist links.

I don't have all the answers, but let me make a polite suggestion: for those who support Bush, please, for the sake of all that is sacred, don't utilize the argument, "Well, if you're innocent of wrongdoing and have nothing to hide, then this shouldn't bother you." This is specious reasoning, in my opinion. I can use the exact same rationale for giving you a full body-cavity search at the local airport, using a jar of Vaseline, a pair of rubber gloves, and a plunger.

Things That Make You Upchuck

Illustrious senator from New York (yeah, right), Swillary Cretin, gushed about George Dubya Bush Tuesday night:

Asked to say one nice thing about President Bush, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton went one better: She named two things.

"He is someone who has a lot of charm and charisma, and I think in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I was very grateful to him for his support for New York," Clinton said Tuesday night during a talk at the National Archives about her life in politics.

Clinton, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, said that despite their "many disagreements about many, many issues," she has always had a good personal relationship with the president.

"He's been very willing to talk. He's been affable. He's been good company," said Clinton, D-N.Y.

Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but when a commie reploid praises our president, it makes me examine him with a warier eye.

Missing Link: Still AWOL

“Imaginations run riot in conjuring up an image of our most ancient ancestor—the creature that gave rise to both apes and humans. This ancestor is not apparent in ape or human anatomy nor in the fossil record.

“…anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied upon for evolutionary lineages. Yet palaeontologists persist in doing just this.”

– J. Lowenstein and A. Zihlman, "The Invisible Ape," New Scientist 120(1641):56, 57, 1988.

Light in Darkness

From the Billy Graham Evangelical Association's monthly newsletter, May, 2006:


Dear Friend,


Once known as the bloodiest and most dangerous prison in America, the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola has been dramatically transformed by the power of God. Just a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to preach the Gospel at this sprawling 18,000-acre prison farm surrounded by the mighty Mississippi River on three sides and rugged hills on the other.

I came to Angola at the invitation of Warden Burl Cain, who has helped lead this moral and spiritual transformation since his arrival over a decade ago. Every inmate who enters Angola is met by both a prison official and an inmate chaplain. They are all strongly encouraged to attend one of the several churches that meet regularly in the prison chapels, and many do. The chapels are located at five of the six camps into which the 5,100 prisoners are divided.

This amazing transformation has taken place among a prison population that includes the most violent criminals in the state. Nearly 90 percent of the prisoners sent to Angola never leave, since the average sentence is 88-90 years.

Under Warden Cain's leadership, chapels have been built with private funds where prisoners worship and attend discipleship and evangelism classes. --Franklin Graham

It's amazing seeing the Lord do His good work in such a place of depravity. It just goes to show that nothing is beyond Him. Nothing.

Aztlan Anthem

Since rewriting the national anthem is all the rage, these days, I thought I'd offer my own counter-reply to the multicultists:


Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
Our throng as we march in the streets and the byways?
When we screech and demand our illusory rights,
And clog the town squares and choke all the highways?
And the mescaline stare in our eyes isn't rare,
And gives proof of our tripe, in a spine-gelling glare.
Oh, say does the Mexican banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
By the wide Rio Grande the next wave reposes.
What is that which the wind, as we fitfully sleep,
Carries from D.C.'s halls, and makes us hold our noses?
When it wafts on the breeze--this political sleeze--
It says: "We'll close the border when Hell's hinges freeze."
There's the Mexican standard! Oh, long may it wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that leader who so vauntingly swore
To abide by the law and our naive Constitution?
He stands at the gate and throws wide the door,
Refining the art of civic prostitution.
And each welfare case has a smile on his face,
With no fear of arrest by the evil paleface.
And the Mexican rag in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the knave!

Oh! Thus be it ever, when invaders come
To our very threshold and give us the finger.
Take the fake S.S. card; step aside, gringo scum.
Embrace each and all like a gallant left-winger.
And conquer they must; our bright dream bites the dust,
As our "leaders" inform us that we should adjust.
And the hate-monger banner of La Raza shall wave
O'er a brave new third world, and the home of the slave!

Deserving of Ridicule

I caught the end of O'Reilly's radio show a few nights ago, in which Andrew Napolitano appeared as a guest discussing illegal immigration, possible solutions, and the current administration's policy. O'Reilly exhibited surprise toward the statements of certain politicians, regarding how those who make it across our borders--legally or otherwise--deserve to become American citizens. He disagreed, but after batting the idea around with Napolitano, it was obvious that the latter shared this sentiment.

I think Napolitano has gotten too big for his britches; he once was a judge, so this qualifies him as a constitutional scholar and an expert on social problems on a national scale. Needless to say, I vehemently disagree. He believes the Constitution applies to everyone equally in this country--citizen, legal resident, or illegal alien--which I'm assuming leads him to his ridiculous attitude on "deserving" citizenship.

Consider Washington and Jefferson, Franklin and Henry, Hamilton and John Adams. Did they strut around waxing eloquent on how they deserved their place in U.S. society? Did each believe he was entitled to American largesse and all that it entailed? Not at all. These men and others humbly attributed their successes and the formation of this country to almighty God. They believed that without Him, all their efforts would have come to naught, however valiant. They recognized and acknowledged the outpouring of blessings upon what was at that time a fledgeling nation; they were certain that the grace of His hand molded this republic out of a gaggle of seemingly insignificant colonies. They saw what God had wrought, and it left them astounded at His influence in their lives. Thankfulness, praise, relief, appreciation--these vied for the foremost places in their minds. Entitlement never entered the picture.

Now consider me. I was born in this country, to parents native born. In turn, their parents were Americans by birth. Both sides of my family have thick, strong roots deeply entrenched in this nation's foundation, going back well over a century, if not two centuries. I even have Cherokee Indian blood flowing in my veins (that's Native-American, for those who believe we find unity in hyphenation). And yet with all this familial history on U.S. soil, I find the idea repugnant that I deserve American citizenship. I thank God for allowing me to live my life in the greatest country on earth. I just as easily could have come kicking from the womb in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or name-your-dystopia. Never has any country allowed and even encouraged so much freedom and opportunity, and I'm delighted that I call the United States of America home. I undertstand that these precious freedoms we all cherish are under assault, even as I type these words. But warts and all, I'd rather live here than anywhere else on this fallen planet.

I sometimes think of those who have given the last full measure for this country; those who have died defending the liberties we take for granted. I admire and honor their sacrifices. Words can't convey the meaning of their actions.

So when I hear about illegal aliens "deserving" citizenship, it leaves a sour pill in the pit of my stomach. It's an affront that deserves stomping at every opportunity.

I think this notion is a product of the entitlement mentality that has grown up in this nation like a rank weed since the days of Roosevelt's Raw Deal. After all, if we're entitled to our fellow citizens' income, unearned and certainly undeserved, it's not too much of a stretch suggesting that those who successfully swim the Rio Grande should have a stamp of approval on their foreheads.

If our Founders felt blessed at God's divine providence in the forging of this nation, if average American citizens thank Him in humble adoration for birthing them in the land of opportunity, then the idea that illegal invaders "deserve" citizenship is not only preposterous, but insulting, as well.