I Got Your "Healing" Right Here

Disgraced former prosecutor Mike Nifong acknowledged Thursday there is "no credible evidence" that three Duke lacrosse players committed any of the crimes he accused them of more than a year ago, offering for the first time a complete and unqualified apology.

Wow, Sherlock, you're a day late and a dollar short on that brilliant deduction. I wonder why you couldn't see this while you were ramming the case home like a stiletto in the back?

"We all need to heal," Nifong said. "It is my hope we can start this process today."

Any time you hear someone utter nonsense like this in public, just go ahead and assume he has an invisible tattoo across his forehead that says: LIBERAL TWIT. Yes, I'm sure you have a long and arduous healing process ahead of you, Dingdong, after doing your level best to assassinate the characters of those three innocent lacrosse players. I'm sure it expended a great deal of energy. What an idiot.

Two-steppin' Toward Disaster

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney lashed out at his top Democratic rivals Wednesday, saying their liberal views are out of step with the nation.

Given the GOP's "damn the citizenry, full-speed ahead" tactic regarding amnesty for illegal migrants--despite overwhelming American contempt for the idea--as well as prosecuting a war that becomes more unpopular by the day--I don't think Romney is in a position to lecture the Demonrats about being in or out of step with the nation. I can think of no better reason to skip voting for him than this absurd observation.

When you're dancing like a drunk on stilts, don't expect to be taken seriously by anyone in your criticism of how others cut a rug.

Harry Potter and the Murky Moral Worldview

I saw the new Harry Potter movie over the weekend. I thought it was the weakest entry in the series, but that's not the point of this post. I want to address the mindset of these movies. Each depicts adults as either evil, superfluous, kindly but ineffectual, or obtuse to the point of mental retardation. Have you noticed this trend? Those who harbor the keenest understanding are children, for the most part. They are more observant, empathetic, and sensitive to the realities around them. They are more reliable in a fix than anyone else.

Another problem with the storyline is its rebelliousness, and its manipulation of the audience into embracing persistent disobedience as reasonable. Adult rules all to often are portrayed as stifling, moronic, or counterintuitive. Since this is the case, Harry and his friends consistently violate them at every available opportunity; rules are made to be broken. Often, they have no choice but to smash the barriers set before them. This theme runs throughout the movies, starting with the first one.

The cinematic preoccupation with enlightened children in a world of stupid grownups is one that began in the 1980s, I believe, with movies like E.T. It thrives today in the Harry Potter series.

I find the films mildly diverting, with their fantastic special effects and interesting creatures. But I've never understood the popularity of the movies or books. I've read literally dozens of novels and short stories that offer a much grander and more coherent basis for moviemaking, and viewpoints with moral clarity, not mixed or detrimental messages.

Line of Demarkation

Recently, a commenter insinuated that there's no moral difference between abortion and capital punishment. I thought I'd take the opportunity to address this bizarre notion at more length.

As I've said elsewhere, the distinction between the two is the same as the difference between my going next door and shooting my neighbor in the head as he watches tv, versus shooting the man who just broke into my house and attempted to rape my wife and kill us both. In other words, the incongruity between them is stark. They are separated by the line drawn between innocence and guilt. With the unborn child, we're talking about someone who is innocent--whose innocence isn't even in question. There's no moral equivalency, here. Capital punishment occurs after a suspect has been accused of a crime and tried in front of a jury of his peers with representation. He has been found guilty and sentenced. He has exhausted the appeals process. So unless you believe that all human life is of equal value--from Mao-tse-Tung to Mother Theresa--with no exceptions whatsoever, following the logic shouldn't prove difficult. If you understand the distinction between innocence and guilt, the difference between abortion and capital punishment becomes apparent. If you don't comprehend the difference, I cannot imagine what a bewildering series of conundrums life must present for you.

Besides moral confusion explaining this mindset, the other possibility is intellectual dishonesty: the person making the argument knows, subconsciously at least, that his conflation of these two is nonsensical; but he remains adamant, due to his devotion to the pro-abortion agenda--an agenda which often questions the consistency of those who support the death penalty, but decry baby killing. Of course, as I have illustrated, no inconsistency exists. It also strikes me as a form of macabre humor that someone who believes women should have the legal right to butcher their unborn children would take members of the pro-life movement to task on morality--whether consistent, or otherwise.

Headline Headaches

From Word Net Daily: "Feinstein to Bush: Free Border Agents"

Bush to Feinstein: "Nah, I reserve amnesty only for illegal Messicans."

***

From Breitbart.com: "Report Says al-Qaida Seeks to Attack U.S."

Wow, that's like saying, "Clouds are billowy and white, except when they are storm clouds, in which case they are dark and thundery."

***

Elizabeth Edwards: "Hillary behaves like a man."

Big deal; so does her husband. They're both faking it.

***

U.S. Eyes Direct Talks with Iran

Sure, I can see it now:

U.S.: "Howdy, Iranians."

Iran: "Die, Great Satan!"

U.S.: "Hey, we're makin' progress! They called us 'Great!'"

***

Senate Democrats refused to flinch Tuesday as the chamber moved toward a rare, all-night session of debate on legislation to bring troops home this fall.

They called for sleeping cots to be rolled into a room off the Senate floor and told members to prepare for repeated votes throughout the evening.

C'mon, we know the real reason behind the slumber party: so Ted Kennedy could sleep off the popskull, and some others could get to know their interns better.

Biased Neutrality

"I am a proud Christian. My beliefs are strong and dearly held. However, I believe religion is a private matter, so you can rest assured that my beliefs won't enter into my decision-making process, as I address issues important to the American people."

Have you ever heard a politician running for public office utter these words, or a variation thereof? I know I have, more than once. Such statements reveal all you need to know about the person declaring them: he's a liar, has weak, malleable beliefs, or will say anything to coax a vote out of you; maybe a combination of the three.

My question is: if your beliefs are sincere and powerful, how can you possibly avoid their informing every word, thought, or deed formulated in your mind? The answer is that you can't. Furthermore, if your views are legitimate, who would you want to bar them from your assessment of a situation? That's irrational. There is no such thing as total neutrality, folks. Nature abhors a vacuum, and all that. If you remove one worldview, another will take its place. Especially when dealing with "issues" important to your fellow countrymen, such as immigration, abortion, the sanctity of marriage, taxes, etc. These are not matters of simple practicality, but have moral dimensions, as well. If this frightens you, I suggest staying at home in the playpen with the other kiddies and refraining from venturing out into the big bad world of adults. Your "beliefs" may make a nice selling point for those who sleepwalk through life; otherwise, they're insipid to the point of uselessness.

Politicians and commentators love framing matters as religious vs. neutral; but that's a false dichotomy. As I said, there is no neutral, only warring worldviews. For example, is it neutral when schools exclude discussion of Intelligent Design or Creationism, while simultaneously promoting a secularistic evolutionary view of origins? Of course not. Secularism is as much a worldview as Creationism. When you remove God, the sole possible replacement for Him--godlessness--usurps His throne. This is as relevant to politics as it is to education.

If a man leaves his religious convictions at the door, what yardstick or criterion does he utilize in making decisions or choosing sides? Feelings, nothing but feeeelings? Don't be fooled into believing that irreligiosity means a nonpartisan approach; it just means running with an opposing standard.

The Devil Made Me Do It

A man serving a 20-year sentence for murder has been rebuffed so far in his effort to sue God for breach of contract by failing to protect him from evil and turning him over to Satan who encouraged him to kill.

Pavel Mircea, 40, filed his lawsuit in the western Romanian town of Timisoara, charging God with failure to fulfill an agreement Micera alleged was made at his baptism.

"He was supposed to protect me from all evils and instead he gave me to Satan who encouraged me to kill," he charged.

A man serving a 20-year sentence for murder has been rebuffed so far in his effort to sue God for breach of contract by failing to protect him from evil and turning him over to Satan who encouraged him to kill.

Pavel Mircea, 40, filed his lawsuit in the western Romanian town of Timisoara, charging God with failure to fulfill an agreement Micera alleged was made at his baptism.

"He was supposed to protect me from all evils and instead he gave me to Satan who encouraged me to kill," he charged.

Thus far, Micera is not getting an answer to his prayer to the court for relief, either.

The Timisoara public prosecutor rejected the case, saying God is not a person in the eyes of the law and does not have a legal address where he could be served with court papers.


Too bad Daniel Webster or Clarence Darrow isn't around to represent him. It bears repeating: truly we live in the Age of Asininity.

Palestine Pacifism

I sometimes wonder what tv and school is like in the "Palestinian" territories, within the Zionist entity's borders. Maybe a possible tv commerical goes like this:


I'm a martyr
She's a martyr.
He's a martyr.
We's a martyr.
Wouldn't ya like to be a martyr, too?


Or a school cheer:


We gonna drive ya right on out!
We gonna drive ya right on out!
We gonna punch ya, smack ya, gut ya, cut ya!
Drive ya to (clap clap) the sea!


Or a mother's lullabye:


Hush, little jihadi, don't say a word.
Allah's gonna buy you a new goat herd.
And if that new goat herd gets et,
Allah's gonna buy you a minaret.
And if you make polite request,
Allah's gonna buy you a new bomb-vest.
And if that bomb-vest serves you well,
There might be one less infidel.
And while his soul's consumed in Hell,
Allah's gonna give you a demoiselle;
Seventy in all, to be precise,
Long on looks and short on lice.
You'll have an everlasting bash,
And your good deed will bring us cash.
So off to sleep; don't you deplore.
If you get killed, I'll make ten more.

More than a Fairy Tale

Following are some quotes mentioning Jesus gleaned from extra-biblical sources:

Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today.--Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter Three, Part Three, early 2nd century A.D.

From the same book: ...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned...--Book 20, Chapter Nine, Part One

***

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.--Tacitus, Annals: Book XV, A.D. 109

***

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.--Seutonius (A.D. 69-140), Lives of the Caesars, sec. 25.

***

The link at the top of the page lists other references to early Christianity, as well.

Return of the Living Post

It seems the "Fundamental Truth" post from June 13 still has legs. Rather than move the whole thing to the top of the page, I'll just provide this handy little link, instead.

Mini-Vacation

I'll be out of town until Monday. I hope everyone has a great weekend.

Y'all take care until I return.

Refried Brain

I think Bush should ask for a tv spot and provide a little clarity to all the nativists and hate-mongers, out there:

"Folks, let me clear something up. The reason why we have so much contusion about amnesty is because your pewny, non-globalist minds have misunderestimated that the word means whatever I say it means. Sure, this is subject to change, depending on my mood, sobrietaryness, whether or not I just finished listening to Los Lobos, or the day of the week, but what is being el presidente of these Estados Unidos all about if not telling everyone else to shove it, including those who authored our dictionaries? Just as I have bestowed amnesty on all the subequatorial sub-literati, so, too, will I diversificate your bigotary prejudicialness, with a rendemption of Richie Valens singing his most famousest song:

Para bailar la bamba
Para bailar la bamba
Se necesita una poca de gracia
Una poca de gracia pa'mí y pa' ti
Ay Arriba y arriba
Ay arriba y arriba por ti seré
Por ti seré
Por ti seré
Yo no soy marinero,
Yo no soy marinero
Soy capitan
Soy capitan
Soy capitan
Bamba, BambaBamba,
Bamba, BambaBamba

A Muddled Heart

In a recent film, A Mighty Heart, Angelina Jolie takes time off from preening for the media and plays the role of Mariane Pearl, the wife of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl. In his review of the movie, Roger Ebert can't help bestowing his incisive political views upon the hoi polloi:

We reflect that the majority of Muslims do not approve of the behavior of Islamic terrorists, just as the majority of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq.

Ah, ok, I get it, you sneaky devil. Average American = average Muslim; Islamic terrorists = Americans who support the Iraq war effort. That's an astute observation, Rog. Did you glean this from that perennial sage, Michael Moore? Perhaps from his new autobiographical film, Sicko? I think you should quit your trivial day job as a reviewer and put your talents to better use writing hard "news" pieces for The New York Times. As for what the "majority of Muslims believe," we have a fairly good handle on that: most support Jihad, either materially or philosophically, or express zero moral qualms about it. Where is the nigh unanimous public outrage, in the Islamic world? Where's the vocal criticism? Where's the inherent conflict between Islamic fundamentalist behavior, and Muslim teaching and Islamic texts? Maybe all of the above reside in Neverland, because they darned sure aren't facets of our reality. This is an integral point, for we know "moderates" have a platform at their pleasure, given all the strenuous efforts at convincing the citizenry that Muslim men are day traders in turbans, even as their women are soccer moms in burkhas. Yet we hear only a few lone voices, buried under avalanches of fatwas, or whispering apologetically in the relative safety of the West. Poll after poll reveals massive support for Jihad in Middle Eastern nations. After the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in its history, we watched, horrified, as Muslims danced jigs of joy in the streets, handing out candy like indulgent neighbors on Halloween.

Even if a silent moderate majority of Muslims exists--and I contend that this assertion is the worst form of deceit and ignorance--it is irrelevant. Irrelevant because it holds no power, makes no decisions, and retains zero influence over those who do. Good ol' Rog might want to allow this a little consideration, the next time he embarks upon giving monsters a pass, while besmirching his fellow citizens.

Continuing in this morally relativistic vein, Ebert writes:

The Americans who complain about "negative" news are the ideological cousins of those who shoot at CNN crews. The news is the news, good or bad, and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful. More Americans are well-informed about current sports and autoracing statistics, I sometimes think, than anything else.

It seems Rog spends inordinate amounts of time condemning his countrymen as stupid or evil, again, while handling the truly malevolent with kid gloves. Whereas I agree with his final sentence, most people don't like negative news reports because they are one-sided, more often than not. This especially is true regarding the Iraq conflict, of which the MSM has nothing positive to say. The meeting of goals, aid given, or anything remotely beneficial is ignored, while body counts and mahem are treated in excruciating detail. Whether one supports the Iraq effort or not, reports from the MSM offer no context or well-rounded portrayal of the events-in-question. Even if folks dislike negativity in reporting for more mundane reasons, such as the truth being a bitter pill, that's a normal response, and a far cry from ideological kinship to terrorists.

So thanks, Rog, for your heavy-handed approach and moral turpitude. If I wanted clueless political rhetoric, I'd tune in to NPR, or read the text of a Bush speech. The good news is, if I want to read about the symbolic similarities between a War of the Worlds-type conquest and America careening across the Middle East like a blind colossus on stilts, I know who to call.

Twisting the Knife with a Smile

President Bush was so buoyed by the warm reception he was given in Albania that he immediately gave all 3 million Albanians American citizenship, provided they learn Spanish. The offer was withdrawn when Bush found out most Albanians haven't broken any U.S. laws.

And people wonder why I love Ann Coulter.

The Reliability of Broken Watches

Stop the presses! Dig out the smelling salts, and mark this day on your calendars! President Bush actually did something with which I agree:

Bush announced no new federal dollars for stem cell research, which supporters say holds the promise of disease cures, and his order would not allow researchers to do anything they couldn't do under existing restrictions.

His executive order encourages scientists to work with the government to add other kinds of stem cell research to the list of projects eligible for federal funding - so long as it does not create, harm or destroy human embryos.

A tip of the hat, folks, for this may not pass our way, again.

Compassionate Cretinism

From Rasmussen Reports:

Only 20 percent of American voters want to revive the controversial federal immigration bill that has the backing of business groups, Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, President Bush and Democratic Senate leadership.

Fifty-one percent of respondents said they prefer smaller steps than the comprehensive approach taken in the proposal. Another 16 percent want the immigration plan put off until next year.

Rasmussen polling reports also found that 69 percent of voters would favor an approach to the issue focused on enforcement and security approach rather than on legalizing undocumented immigrants.

***

Further proving that political blindness shadows only his open contempt for the average American citizen, Bush continued his phantasmagorical immigration balderdash at a National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast (rice and refried beans on the menu, I'm sure, with a Tancredo pinata, afterwards):

“Isn’t it a fabulous country where a migrant grandfather can come and have a dream and work hard, and there’s his grandson talking about the promise of America in front of the president of the Untied (sic) States and his classmates,” Bush said. “That’s the beauty of America.”

“We must meet our moral obligation to treat newcomers with decency and show compassion to the vulnerable and exploited,” Bush said at the prayer breakfast, “because we’re called to answer both the demands of justice and the call for mercy.”

This is like pouring syrup on a dungheap, then screeching "Dessert!", while handing out spoons to all the kiddies. It might look nice at first glance, but stinks to high heaven on closer inspection. It's interesting that our illustrious president utters these and similar remarks at a time when the immigration problem--particularly the illegal facet--is the most contentious issue in our country. The man's more out of touch with the reality in front of him than Patsy Cline in a mosh pit. Poll after condemning poll lists the same results; Americans are fed up with third worlders breaking into their country, taking their jobs, diluting their culture, and violating their laws (and their women) with impunity. Bush responds with his "Amnesty By Any Other Name" solution, AKA the "No American Left Unshafted" Act. The president's rose-colored speeches lack substance. Notice that he makes no mention of a legal immigrant grandfather, but a "migrant" one. How touching. And the anchor-baby grandson, man, his story brings a tear to my eye. I had no idea that the "beauty of America" meant benevolence toward those who make raspberries at our just laws. When Bush speaks of "moral obligation," he means amnesty; when he talks about "decency and compassion," he means evicting Americans from jobs they just won't do, so southern sub-literates can take their places; and when he glowingly gushes about "justice and mercy," he means an undeserved, cheater's path to citizenship.

I don't speak Spanish; nor do I speak B.S., but I can translate it, with a little work.

Happy Father's Day!

To all the fathers out there who've stuck with their children through thick and thin, who love them with all their hearts, and who present them with a godly example.

This one's for you.

And to my own father, who's still with us after suffering a debilitating stroke. He grows stronger every day, with the good Lord's help. I have no doubt he'll be his old self again, someday in the near future.

God bless you all.

Interpreting My Own Se'f

This is a small clarification of the last post. If anyone took my words as a personal attack or as hatred toward a select group of believers, they were not intended as such. I'm passionate on the topic of biblical truth and accuracy, and I take it very seriously. I don't consider a literal interpretation of Genesis a salvational necessity, but I do consider it an important subject. The further we move away from acceptance of scripture, the more we open ourselves to worldly or even satanic influence, in my opinion. That bothers me, which hopefully explains my tone a little more. Don't mistake this for backpedaling; I stand by everything I said.

We're all friends, here. Perhaps I should use the term compadres, given the increasing third world attributes of my home country. I may disagree, or shake my head in bewilderment at something you've said. I might even laugh at you, sometimes. But I'll not call you names or run you off or put a voodoo hex on you. I like the discussions that evolve from posts, and I even appreciate the comments that challenge my own. Butter sharpens iron, ya know.

Fundamental Truth

I consider myself a Christian fundamentalist. What this means is that I believe the Holy Bible is more than a book of fairy tales. I believe that it is God's Word for the ages, significant to all men, in all times and places. I reject the notion that He uplifted Man out of the muck and slime from the world's basement, ushering him through a slow, painstaking process of molecule to mold to wriggling worm to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal to human. Embracing such means rejecting scripture, for it's clear that the Word teaches no such thing. Genesis tells us that God created Man in His image, that he was fashioned in this way from the beginning. You either believe that, or not. Don't tell me, however, that the Bible doesn't lead one to this conclusion; it allows no other conclusion, if one is honest with himself in his studies. The lengths some people go to in ridiculing and denying the Genesis creation story sadden and confound me. I especially find mystifying the idea that "Adam and Eve weren't real people. The Earth wasn't created in six days. God used symbolism in these passages in revealing truths to us about Himself." Really? That sounds like something a hippie might've stuttered at Woodstock, after holing up in his VW van with a bong for a few hours. If the Genesis account doesn't mean what it says, pray tell how we determine what it does mean? Should I consult a palantir, or perhaps John Travolta? Maybe Richard Dawkins can sell me a clue. The Bible is reliable because it means what it says. If it's open to individual interpretation, then it means nothing at all. We rightly consider people who utilize this tactic in discussing the Constitution of the United States as ignorant or dishonest; yet many accept the same when addressing the Bible. Genesis tells us that death is a direct result of Man's fall from grace, part of a curse on the creation. How do we harmonize this with the evolutionary insistence that Man is a product of eons of birth, propagation, and death in a vicious cycle of misery, which culminated in monkey boy gaining an intellectual edge over the other beasts of the field? You cannot believe this and accept scripture at face-value. Isn't it logically inconsistent when someone says: "I believe the Bible is God's Holy Word, except for the parts I consider unmitigated crap."? Jesus believed in Adam, Noah, and Jonah. Paul believed in Adam, as well. Jesus' geneology assumes Adam was more than a figment of some kooky desert nomad's imagination. Who are we to question our Creator and Savior? Was Jesus confused, when he spoke of them as flesh-and-blood people?

I think much of today's attitude about scripture may be attributed to the "higher criticism" movement, which began in the "Enlightenment" (there's a misnomer, if I ever saw one). This trend attempted a deconstruction and neutering of scripture, sapping it into irrelevance for some, and removing the threatening and insensitive aspects for others. The goal was--and still is--calling into question the Bible's validity, from both historical and spiritual perspectives. Our world has never recovered from it. Whole churches have sprung up in its shadow. And so now we have so-called Christians making comments such as: "I don't believe a big ol' fishy swallered a feller named Jonah. That's bunk." It's always characterized in the most asinine terms imaginable. My question is whyever not? You don't deny that God crafted the universe, shaped the Earth, and breathed life into Man--and created all of the above out of nothing--but you find His preserving a man's life in a fish's belly for three days beyond ridiculous? I wish you could hear yourselves. You don't even realize how remarkably absurd that sounds.

Scripture is our primary method of understanding God. It is our best insight into His nature. I reject that it's a convoluted mess of symbols, allegories, and nifty little stories that have no basis in reality. A God who would commission such a tome is one I have no interest in meeting. He is a God without substance, lighter than a whim, and just as phony.

I would write more, but being a good little fundamentalist, I'm off to blast someone who doesn't think in lock-step with me straight to kingdom come. Hey, I'm just doing my part in perpetuating the stereotype.

The Islamic Connection

This past weekend, a commenter at Vox's suggested that the commonplace terrorist acts and violence in Israel find little or no motivation in Islam. I asked him some pointed questions, which he responded to without answering. I'll elaborate on those questions, here, as food for thought.

If Islam plays no significant role in this chaos, then why is it that:

1. "Palestinian" Arab Christians--who are like their Muslim brethren of the region in every regard save their religious beliefs--are not targeting and murdering innocent civilians, utilizing suicide bombings as the method of carrying this out?

2. The terrorist organizations responsible, and those individuals and their family members who make up their foot soldiers, characterize everything they do in religious terms.

3. We find similarities between suicide bombings and the long tradition within the Islamic world of dying for one's religion while simultaneously committing acts of violence against infidels.

Until someone can answer these questions in a coherent fashion that doesn't require besmirching Jews for humanity's ills, I'll continue believing as I have for years: that Islam not only plays a part, but an integral one.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Logic's End

Even checking your brain at the door won't help this movie make sense.

I greatly enjoyed the first installment in the series. The sequel didn't hold up to the first; still, it was a good movie. The third is a complete joke. It's as if the screenwriters got together, with one half-wit declaring: "I have an idea! Let's make this film insane! Let's cut out the heroism, goodness, and logical progression and replace it with mind-numbing action and inexplicable behavior from the protagonists! Whaddaya say, fellas?" The others grin and nod until their heads rattle, then set about creating a movie as reasonable as shouting "Full steam ahead!" in an iceberg field.

The story offers us no heroes with whom we can relate, only a gaggle of back-stabbing idiots who all deserve to kick their last beneath a gallow's pole. I would've paid extra for that. Johnny Depp's character is demoted to the role of comic relief, hovering about the periphery and acting the fool for most of the running time. Orlando Bloom's Will Turner has the onscreen presence of a doorstop. And Keira Knightly's Elizabeth has made an incredible transformation: from frilly, feminine lady in the first film, to Amazonian she-panther in the third. With her smouldering expressions and delicate beauty, she's all woman--from the neck up. Otherwise, she's built like an undernourished ten-year-old schoolboy. I'm sorry, but I cannot take seriously a girl-child who weighs, at most, 110 pounds in lead boots thrashing the living daylights out of burly pirates who pick their teeth with dirks all day and call keel-hauling "good sport." Female buccaneers existed in the heyday of piracy, but they were far from common. The rare few who survived long enough to forge a name for themselves weren't stick-thin imps with fencing skills that would send Errol Flynn fleeing into his cups in terror. But in the PC movie realm, women can bodyslam the likes of Andre the Giant, and can out-fight, out-spit, out-chew, and out-cuss the most venomous devil in the bunch. Imagine if Stallone's movie, Over the Top, were remade, today. His nemesis would be a woman.

When the final credits rolled, I saw people quietly filing out, with looks on their faces as if to say: "What the !@#$%^&* did I just see?"

Considering the good acting and fantastic special effects, the movie has some value. I also can understand the desire to see it for the sake of completion, after having viewed the first two films. But don't expect a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy. You won't find it on this sinking ship.

A Myth Debunked

For everyone's edification:

. . .a thorough review of open-source material demonstrates conclusive and widespread cooperation between former members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime and terrorists from the Iraqi al-Qaida network.

Dozens of former Saddam Hussein loyalists captured by U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq were found to be working with al-Qaida or linked to their operations.

While the Bush administration contended there was evidence of a Saddam Hussein/al-Qaida connection before the war, those assertions have come under heavy criticism, especially from Democrats who contend they and others were deceived about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. However, as WND reported last year, pre-war documents posted online by the Pentagon included a letter from a member of Saddam's intelligence apparatus indicating al-Qaida and the Taliban had a relationship with the regime prior to the 9/11 attacks.

The article provides a plethora of evidence backing the above contention. So what we have is a case of the media lying and obfuscating for years--or indulging in an uninformed smear-campaign, at best. Of course, lies and ignorance emanating from the MSM come as less of a surprise than George Bush hoisting a sign at a La Raza demonstration. What is surprising, and disheartening, is that people believed--and continue believing--what the MSM says. I wonder how many pundits and politicians who have spent years attacking the president and America itself on this issue will admit their error and apologize? Probably no more than the number of women who would feel safe stranded on a desert island with Bill Clinton and a crate of Viagra.

A Load of McCrap

Proving that he can lie with the best of them, John "Bueno Gringo" McCain said this about U.S. immigration policy at a golf course speech: "The old rules are not workable and enforceable. We've certainly proved that over the last 20 years.''

Man, that's hilarious. The government has spent twenty years doing nothing about immigration, except creating more incentives for illegal aliens to hop the border, and ignoring or making excuses for the ones already here. That's the only fact verified in the last two decades. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

Congress "failed you,'' McCain said. "We passed a law in 1986 that said we'd give amnesty to some people and now we have 12 million more,'' illegal immigrants.

So the solution is adding insult to injury, as well as worsening the initial injury? This is like saying that the only way to mend a hairline fracture is with a compound fracture. That's brilliant, John. Presidential, even.

In response to a question from the audience about deportations, McCain said: "In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France. They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America.''

Of course, he neglected mentioning that those poor, downtrodden ghettoized folks in France are mostly self-segregating Muslims, who are little more than fifth columnists desirous of transforming France into a sharia state. Setting this inconvenient tidbit aside, his argument still holds no water. The government created and exacerbated the immigrant problem in the U.S. That tending to it poses difficulties is not surprising news, nor does it provide Congress and the president a pass on addressing these issues. No one expects a cakewalk. His comments amount to: "We screwed up and shirked our duties. We held our countrymen's views on mass immigration in contempt. Now fixing the situation we tailored means getting our hands dirty. How dare you ask or expect us to decrease our comfort level." He also blithely sidesteps the discomfiting reality that these folks are causing us problems right now--in terms of economic drain, assimilation, and crime. One final note: had those holding the reins of power in France protected their country's borders and practiced a little discernment about who was allowed within, they wouldn't be dealing with uprisings and large-scale violence and car-burnings, would they?

France has a lesson for us, all right; just not the one McCain suggests.


UPDATE

Just thought I'd pass along this link detailing some of France's recent responses to illegal immigration.

Rove-ing Toward Gomorrah

Published reports indicate that Karl Rove is an atheist or agnostic--certainly not a Christian, by any stretch of the word. I've seen no refutation of this assertion from Rove or the White House, so I assume it's true.

Taking this as an accurate characterization, I find myself asking the question: If George W. Bush is a devout Christian--as he has portrayed himself--why in the world would he choose a nonbeliever as his chief advisor? Does this decision make any sense to my readers? Was there no better candidate available in the United States of America?

I think this calls into question just how seriously Bush takes Christianity, and makes dubious his claim of being a follower of Jesus. As a Christian, it is inconceivable to me that I would appoint as my special advisor one who disagrees with me on so fundamental an issue as God's existence.

If you're a Christian, would you entrust yourself to the advice of an atheist or agnostic in making decisions that affect the lives of millions?

Miraculous Intervention

A fellow blogger has posited an interesting hypothesis about whether or not miracles of God violate the laws of physics. Though I find his view thought-provoking, I don't agree with all of it, thus this elaboration on the topic.

Let me say up front that I see no reason why God cannot choose to work within the framework of laws fashioned for the Creation's functioning. I just don't believe that He has any reason to do so with exclusivity, since these laws don't apply to Him, but to mortal beings.

As an example of possibly staying within the realm of physics, let's take the multiplication of loaves and fishes from the Gospel. The site held all of the needed elements for this miracle. Manipulating present matter into the desired form was the next step. This offers no explanation of how God did it, or whether man will ever acquire the same ability through scientific and technological advancement. Still, I admit the possibility that Jesus confined Himself to natural laws in the act.

Resurrection, I think, is another basket of fish, so to speak. Bringing someone back from the dead requires much more than making a corpse get up and boogie; it demands the return of a spirit being existing in a different state to its earthly abode, namely, the body. Humans are not biological machines. We are not the sum of our parts. We are unique creatures who exist forever after our initial birth--first on this mortal coil, then in the fires of Hell or the gold-paved streets of Heaven with God; the latter of which is dependant on our acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ's free gift of salvation, accomplished in His redemptive act of dying horribly on the cross for our sins and returning to life everlasting. Resurrection, as I see it, is not a purely physical process; by definition, it involves reaching beyond this world and into the next one.

If miracles have natural explanations, then given enough time and development, man can duplicate them. Doing so calls into question God's power and perfection: is He the sovereign, omnipotent Creator of the universe and all its constituent parts, or just a being on a higher plane of scientific complexity? Remember that the act of Creation detailed in Genesis was a supernatural occurence. Through His divine will, God created ex nihilo--out of nothing--everything in existence. So, too, are the very laws that govern this Creation tangible cogs in a supernatural machine, with God's presence and life-giving power sustaining them. The birth of a child is an event that transcends natural laws. Instilling a spirit within a piece of clay is more than a rearrangement of atoms.

I believe that miracles are the singular province of God. His orderliness isn't defined by adherence to laws written for the governance of others. It's revealed in his consistency and goodness.

The Fuzz Army

Have you ever noticed how it often takes several police officers to conduct a routine traffic stop? More than once, I've passed motorists standing on the side of the road, calmly talking to a whole gaggle of officers. Just today, I passed a motorcycle cop and two cruisers dealing with one guy. I understand the sense in having backup, but how much is required, if the motorist isn't reacting in an unruly, dangerous fashion? Why not just call in the SWAT team while you're at it, and treat it like a drug bust at Tony Montana's house?

That'll teach him for doing fifty in a forty-five.

Dogma of the Dim

Have you been following the ongoing debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Christian Douglas Wilson? The topical question: "Is Christianity good for the world?" It requires little imagination in determining Hitchens' take on this issue. What's interesting is that Hitchens spins a web of pure smarminess, cutesy retorts, and responses without answers, while Wilson keeps marching him to the wood shed. Here are just a few illustrations of Hitchens' debating style-without-substance:

You also appear to find no distinction between the intelligible injunction to "love thy neighbor" and the impossible order to love another "as thyself." We are not so made as to love others as ourselves

Hitchens unknowingly admits a deficit in atheist "morality," here. He cannot conceive of loving someone else as he loves himself. Why would Jesus exhort us to love others as ourselves, if such an act were impossible? Is giving one's life for one's friends not an example of loving others as ourselves? Is Hitchens suggesting that this never happens?

The Golden Rule is to be found in the Analects of Confucius and in the motto of the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, who long predate the Christian era and who sanely state that one should not do to others anything that would be repulsive if done to oneself. (Even this strikes me as either contradictory or tautologous, since surely we agree that sociopaths and psychopaths actually deserve to be treated in ways that would be objectionable to a morally normal person.)

Apparently Mr. Hitchens can't distinguish between generalities and specifics. The Golden Rule is a general approach to life, not an umbrella under which every imaginable, specific scenario huddles. Scripture deals quite lucidly with capital punishment and crime.

We are simply reluctant to say that, if religious faith falls—as we believe it must and to some extent already has—then the undergirding of decency falls also. And we do not fail to notice that a corollary is in play: The manner in which religion makes people behave worse than they might otherwise have done.

Of course, Hitchens offers no enlightenment on how an atheist determines what "behaving worse" means in his blanket condemnation of all religions, despite frequent requests for this information from Wilson. "Behaving worse," according to whom? Moreover, his point is poppycock. He assumes that human sinfulness and Christian teaching are the same. Sin that deviates from Christian teaching doesn't reflect Christianity; it reflects human fallibility. And what a surprise that he allows no credit to those who help their fellow man, and make the world a better place, as a result of believing what they believe. No, he accuses those people of selfishness. In his perverse little world, atheists act on pure altruism, while the religious act out of fear of being skewered on rotisseries for eternity, by horned devils sporting tridents and forked tongues. This is not an illumination of Christianity; it's a straw man caricature of it.

Hitchens also reveals his paltry understanding of Christianity and its Jewish roots, when making comments like this:

after hundreds of thousands of years of human life and suffering, God chose a moment a few thousand years ago to finally mount an intervention.

And this:

There is no need for revelation to enforce morality, and the idea that good conduct needs a heavenly reward, or that bad conduct merits a hellish punishment, is a degradation of our right and duty to choose for ourselves.

These remarks indicate just how arrogant a critique of Christianity's value is outside a basic knowledge of its teachings. Naturally, such demonstrated ignorance never slows down the enemies of God in their assaults on His people and His Word.

Cajones the Size of Bell Clappers

Look at the state of U.S. immigration policy, in all its farcical splendor: we have a tax amnesty for illegal "workers" on the schedule. I'm sure our illustrious presidente would correct me and assure everyone that it's not an amnesty, but a universal reprieve. That just ain't the same thing, folks. Wink wink. Nudge nudge. Say no more. We have a failed state to the south that Bush claims as our dearest kin, even as it founders under drug-cartel torpedoes and sends its extended family trolling in our waters for a handout. We have illegal familial values advocates murdering, driving without licenses, driving while intoxicated, robbing, raping, and generally indulging in mayhem. And all the while folks like Nat Cherkoff beam upon the little brown children of their desires and tell us that, doggone it, if they could just make it across the border without drowning or getting shot by those maniacal Minutemen, they'd screech the national anthem and wave Old Glory, just like Uncle Pedro did at Yorktown. Sure, they may not render its refrains in English, but who cares?; a few more years and that obsolete language will go the way of Sanskrit, anyway.While we're on the topic, I nominate that we change the anthem from "The Star-Spangled Banner," to Lo que será, será, sung by Doris Day.

Would anyone be surprised at the discovery that el jefe Bush has the words "Proud Citizen of Aztlan" tatooed on his globalist glutes? A president who consciously refuses to enforce sound laws designed for the protection of American citizens is, at best, in dereliction of his constitutionally delegated obligations. The Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government and security from invasion. Such claims remain meaningless outside a closed border and a rational immigration policy geared toward protecting American citizens and sovereignty, not facilitating migratory ingress and "free trade."

Nor does this catastrophe fall under the "consent of the governed" rubric. The majority of Americans stand firm in opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens. But our overlords look to their master--the Allmighty Dollar--and stand blind to everything outside its glow.

Post-GOP Debate Comments

I'm sure everyone sat rapt before the boob tube, enthralled by the GOP debate in South Carolina. I know you skipped Survivor: The Martian Canal Challenge and 25 and American Idol Worshipper, and all the other shows that make one's IQ plummet faster than Paris Hilton's skirt in a camera store.

Well, not really. I don't know anyone who watched the debate, except for me. I made the sacrifice for you all. I hope everyone remembers my uncommon valor, over the next few months.

Seeing ten people take the stage was interesting. I enjoyed the short question-and-answer sessions, in which each participant was given enough time to answer, but none to bloviate. I thought the moderators did a great job of asking tough, to-the-point questions, with the exception of one uttered by Chris Wallace, in which he asked how it made one candidate feel that no blacks, women, Hispanics, or transgendered sea-monkeys were in the running. I'm sorry, Chris, but that's a stupid inquiry. First of all, who cares? And second, no individual has control over who chooses to run, or not. It's meaningless, unless you're gauging one's level of PC sensibilities.

As for the guys in the camera's eye, I thought Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore failed in their efforts at gaining supporters. Thompson was stiff and bland in most of his responses, while Gilmore came across as needlessly combative.

John McCain and Mitt Romney comported themselves competently in their answers, though Romney seemed a bit wishy-washy. Neither made a big impression on me.

Giuliani exposed himself for the liberal that he is--big surprise! A couple of times, he looked like a real idiot in his evasion of direct questions. He redeemed himself somewhat in calling Ron Paul on the carpet, later on, which I'll address in a minute.

In my opinion, the most impressive figures in the debate were those most ignored by the media: Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee. All four acquitted themselves well, with quick wits and clarity in stating their positions. Huckabee had the best humorous line of the debate, in which he accused the government of spending like John Edwards in a beauty shop. Each of these men seemed sincere and serious in their convictions. The low point of Brownback's comments was when he endorsed Bush's "Non-amnesty Amnesty" policy.

Ron Paul played the role of the monkeywrench in the works. His loner views separated him from the rest of the flock, which aided his high numbers in the post-debate Fox News poll; he came in first, then dropped to second, where he stayed as of the last time I checked the count. I liked his willingness to shake people out of their complacency and stir up the punchbowl. Alas, the man's a lousy public speaker. He offered an "um" or an "ah" every other word. He did not state his case intelligently or clearly. Worse, he suggested that Al-Qaida hit us on 9/11 as a result of our stationing troops on Muslim soil. I believe this signaled the death-knell for his campaign, whether anyone realizes this or not.

The idea that America created our adversary is absurd. Yes, we have the ability of exacerbating extant problems, but the reality is as Tancredo put it in the debate: to paraphrase, these people follow a religion that dictates our deaths; it demands our destruction. Muslims hate us for no other reason than that we are not Muslims; it's that simple. If we give them no reason to hate us, they'll make one up. This conclusion is inescapable upon learning the true history of Islam. Nor is 9/11 our first tangle with these folks. Remember the Barbary Pirates and the conflict surrounding them? Guess what? They weren't Transcendental Meditationists. They were Muslims, and their religious beliefs played a direct role in their behavior, which included the enslavement of people of all creeds and colors. America is not faultless; yet Al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups are not the Frankensteinian spawn of the U.S., regardless what they claim in their public lies.

So in short, Paul not only projected an unpopular sentiment, but an incorrect one. For that, he's done. However, I do admire his willingness to think for himself and make the whole affair more interesting. Variety is the spice of life, after all.

I like a forum where disparate views are aired from more than two or three people; so this was an interesting debate, over all, and worth seeing.

Tumblin' Tumbleweeds, or "Die, Kid!"

Spurring America's vaunted halls of learning to new lows:

A 12-year-old girl who says she was traumatized when her teacher showed the film "Brokeback Mountain" featuring love scenes with homosexual cowboys is suing the Chicago Board of Education for $500,000.

"What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," is what the substitute teacher told eighth-grade students at Ashburn Community Elementary School after showing the R-rated movie, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court.

Sounds like Ms. Buford hails from Vegas. With a motto like this, I wonder how long we'll have to wait before she's playing "doctor" with the students. Keep in mind that these kids were in elementary school. Calling this putrid is an understatement.


***


In another enlightenment setting, we have this:

A teacher and an assistant principal at a Tennessee school have been suspended for about two weeks because they staged a gunman's attack on their sixth-grade students for a "prank" or a "learning experience," depending upon the explanation.

The newspaper report said the faculty members staged the phony gun attack – repeatedly telling the children it was not a drill – while the kids cried and took shelter under tables.

"A teacher wearing a hooded sweatshirt pulled on a locked door, pretending to be a suspicious subject in the area," the report said. "The students were told to lie on the floor or crawl underneath tables and keep quiet."

The newspaper quoted 11-year-old Shay Naylor, who told of the children crying as the lights went out, and some were holding hands and shaking.

The school, while it initially described the circumstances as a prank, later in the same document called it a "learning experience."

"The children were in that room in the dark, begging for their lives, because they thought there was someone with a gun after them," Brandy Cole, whose son was part of the class, told the newspaper.

Alisha Graves' son was on the trip, and she said it was not good. "Those kids were crying, and they were terrified."

Barbara Corbetta said the details matched in all of the stories the children told their parents – kids on the floor crying and begging for their lives.

"My hope is that we can learn from this, and in the end, it will have a positive result of growth for all of us," Stephens (the school principal) told the newspaper.

I'm really sure these distraught parents appreciate your sentimental pap, Miss Insipid Bureaucratic Crap Regurgitator. I can't think of a more despicable, worthless comment, in light of the event-in-question. It's obvious that the staff are lying about their intentions, given that the lowlife element running the place can't even get its story straight. I suppose the "learning experience" was how to soil oneself properly in a hostage situation. I can tell you with certainty that if something like this happened to one of my children, I'd be lacing up my clodhoppers and seeking out these "teachers," so as to educate them in the meaning of pain by stomping mudholes in their stinking fundaments.

These are the kind of people we have "in charge," folks. The inmates truly are running the asylums. It's not a joke.

I have some sincere questions for those with kids in public schools: Can you do no better than this? Do your offspring deserve something superior to such filth? How many stories of this type must you read, before the truth hits home? Put another way, if your cumulative knowledge doesn't constitute enough convincing evidence that the system is broken, how much do you require? Where is the tipping point? Scripture tells us that a child's education is his parents' duty. Do you think that God looks upon the indoctrination and degradation of your children with fondness?

Moderate Murderers

I'm sure you've heard about the foiled terrorist attempt on Fort Dix, New Joisey. The six suspects were Muslims, one and all. All were spawned in some unholy cesspool outside the United States. Three were--you guessed it--illegal aliens, euphemistically known in some quarters as undocumented workers. Of course, the "work" of these men included murdering total strangers for the benefit of Islam. According to this article, they "worshipped at moderate mosques." We know this is true, because moderate mosques produce wild-eyed fanatical killers who get off on seeing people, places, and things go Boom! Adding insult to injury, the six had criminal records longer than a list of Muhammed's adolescent concubines--low-level drug possession charges and driving-on-revoked driver's licenses. The logical conclusion one must reach is that illegal aliens are extended favoritism, since Americans find themselves behind bars for these repeat offenses. Last night, Billy O'Retard reported fifty-four offenses, amongst the six. Golly, these must be the model citizens Jefe Bush mentions, while gushing about the glory that is multiculturalism, and the grandeur that is invasion.

This is one of those "See, I told ya so!" moments, as I have predicted the infiltration of U.S. territory by Allah's Assassins via Mexico on this very blog. Take this, for example, from nearly two years ago:

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Muslim terrorists already are inside our borders, plotting their next attack. In fact, I think it's likely in the extreme that another major terrorist assault on our people will occur within the next two or three years, if not sooner. I believe it will take large-scale murder and destruction--again--to get our "leaders" finally to confront the border situation. And call me cynical, but I won't be shocked if they still don't address it properly.

And from the comments section of the same post:

Islamic terrorists historically have been trained to exploit loopholes. Is not the porous nature of our borders a glaring loophole? On September 11, 2001, the hijackers expoited the weaknesses in our immigration system. Shouldn't we assume that others like them will do the same, regarding illegal entry? As numerous Mexicans have proven, coming into this country outside appropriate channels is far from difficult.

Now we have a documented, specific case of terrorists entering our borders illegally and plotting nefarious acts. I'm grateful that it didn't come to fruition, though it's no thanks to our government for their plan's failure.

Will our borders be sealed? Will this close call make a difference to our elected officials? Will it change anything?

Sure. In a pig's eye.

The Myth of Media Bias

Let's see, the linked article from ABC News (Association of Bolshevik Cretins) sports a photo of evangelicals worked up in a fervor, so they look kooky. Check. Then we have this: Many in the Evangelical movement are embracing more liberal issues like global warming and adoption, a shift away from core GOP values, observers say. OK, so adoption is a liberal issue, the antithesis of a GOP value. Gotcha. Nah, there's no bias here.

I attempted wading further into this four page gush-fest about how cool evangelicals are, so long as they reject moral convictions and the Republican Party. After the second page, my computer began flashing huge red letters on the screen, which said:


B.S. Overload! B.S. Overload!


So I frantically left the site and went back to my own blog as I watched smoke curl up from the pc's monitor.

This is why I neither watch ABC "News," nor view its online content very often. It's like wading barefoot through a sewer.

Strange but True

David Kennison, born in 1736, was the longest-surviving participant in the Boston Tea Party. He served in both the American Revolution and the War of 1812. He served in the latter at the age of seventy-six, and had his hand shot off at Sackett's Harbor. Several years later, his skull was fractured when a tree fell on his head, and several years after that, while training for a militia drill, a premature cannon explosion shattered both his legs. When he recovered from the injury, his legs became covered with sores that never healed, and he was stricken with rheumatism. Some time later, his face was mutilated when he was kicked by a horse. He finally died a quiet death in Illinois in 1851.

At the ripe old age of 115.

--taken from 2201 Fascinating Facts (1983), by David Louis

Stinko de Mayo

"The Fifth of May" is a celebration of Mexico's glorious defeat of the French at the Battle of Puebla, in 1862. This proved a short-lived victory, since the French subsequently invaded Mexico City and occupied it for five years.

This minor battle is commemorated by an equally minor holiday in Mexico. However, it is much more important in the United States of Aztlan (U.S.A.).

I see this as multicultism in action. It is not just an appreciation of Mexican heritage--i.e., corrupt "government," low wages and unemployment, and moral depravity, to name a few cultural gems. No, it's a recognition of Mexican nationals overcoming invaders of their country; as such, it has no significance outside Montezuma's domain. That Americans of all ethnicities recognize it reveals the depth of Mexican influence on this country, as well as the cluelessness of the average celebrant. "Oh, you mean it's an opportunity to get plastered, and have a swell time? Sign me up! Who cares if it has no relevance for me, as an American. I'll split the tequila worm with ya." Keep in mind, too, that a large portion of those who cherish this holiday are illegal aliens--uh, I mean exclusionary employees or propagators of familial standards. I keep confusing the terms.

This observance is one of Mexican nationalism, not American cohesion. More directly, one who immigrates to this country with prior loyalties may have abandoned his birthplace physically, but his love for it lives on in his heart, as if he stood knee-deep in its fields. Thus, he is in no wise an American. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "a hyphenated American is not an American at all."

Distortions and Lies

Disingenuousness in full-effect: Kansas City International Airport officials have acknowledged installing foot-washing benches in a restroom at the airport, but deny they're intended for Muslim cab drivers.

"Recently, a small expansion was made to the building," said Kansas City Aviation Department spokesman Joe McBride in a statement to WND. "Included were wash areas used for any wash purpose by any of the users, including filling car wash buckets."

He insisted the wash benches were not "built for the exclusive use of any ethnic group or culture."

What a steaming load. Muslims complained, so the facilities were installed. Do Americans have a cultural need for foot-washing in public places? I don't recall seeing that at the local bowling alleys and malls. And no one accused them of providing these for the exclusive use of one group; there's no question, though, that the accomodations exist as a result of one group's bellyaching. People lie about any-and-everything, don't they? Especially when Islam and its adherents are involved.

***

LOS ANGELES - The city's police chief said Wednesday some officers used inappropriate force when they fired rubber bullets into crowds that included children and wielded batons in an incident that marred an otherwise peaceful day of immigration rallies across the United States.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was traveling in El Salvador during a trade mission, said the incident was "a most unfortunate end to a peaceful day."

Villaraigosa. Now there's an unbiased source. They're referring to the "peaceful" demonstration in which: police tried to disperse demonstrators who had moved off the sidewalk onto the street. Authorities said several people of the few thousand still at the rally threw rocks and bottles at officers, who fired rubber bullets and used batons to push the crowd back onto the sidewalk.

You can make a case that the cops went overboard. But throwing rocks and bottles at police who want you to move out of the street is in no wise "peaceful;" it's assault and attempted battery. If you think I'm being melodramatic, find a baseball-sized rock and ask someone to fling it at your head. You'll get my drift faster than Nolan Ryan putting one over home plate. Even the police--as riddled with corruption as they are, nationwide--have a right to defend themselves.

***

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday that having more guns on college campuses is not the way to prevent campus violence like the massacre at Virginia Tech.

"I don't think that is the answer quite frankly," said Gonzales, who was participating in a governor's task force to study safety and security on Oklahoma college campuses.

Instead, authorities should enforce existing laws concerning the ownership and use of handguns, he said.

"We can't guarantee complete security," Gonzales said. "We need to see what we can do as a government -- on the federal level, on the state level -- to ensure the safety of our students."

Bureaucratic drivel. Maybe he believes that locking every student in his classroom and providing an entry/exit keycard only for the armed killer will be more effective. I'd enjoy having Gonzales edify me on which gun "control" laws would've stopped the V-Tech atrocity. I await his response with bated breath. In addition, how is evening the odds a bad idea? Will it work better, or less well, than having an unarmed student population facing a gunman? What's more, does this guy have any synapses firing in his mushy skull? No one's asking for guaranteed, 100% security. Such a thing is impossible. People want a chance at self-defense, you lying dolt. Imagine my comfort level on hearing that the federal government is "looking into" this issue.

Here's the real diamond in the dung-heap: Federal officials must work closely with states to prevent and respond to threats, Gonzales said. "They know best what the problems are, and they know best what the solutions are," he said.

Heck, when Devillry Clinton becomes president, she can keep this guy, since he espouses the same philosophy of embracing Big Brother as the Alpha and Omega of problem-solving. I'm sure Marx has a big fat grin on his moldering lips, on that one.

The Downward Spiral

We have a choice coming in Fall '08.
It makes all our little hearts palpitate:
Repugs and Dhimmicrats nigh salivate
To sit on our birthright and defecate.

Hillary's eating babies from the crib;
A Janus-faced snake, she's crafty and glib.
She's quite unashamed; it's sure not a fib:
Yes, Big Brother is her favorite sib.

Barack Obama has a foreign name.
He's a real good Negro, polite and tame.
He's eloquent, too, but that ain't fair game.
Only white-robed racists speak such acclaim.

McCain sits on both sides of every fence.
Rudy wears miniskirts with confidence.
Romney thinks it's manifest common sense:
Polygyny's the boon of Providence.

So choose your poison: nightshade or hemlock.
Join the clueless idiot voting block.
Bleat like the weakest lamb shorn from the flock.
Raise curtain; light the stage; it's Ragnarok!

Multi-talented

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she sees her sometimes Southern accent as a virtue.

"I think America is ready for a multilingual president," Clinton said during a campaign stop at a charter school in Greenville, S.C.

Ayup. She's multilingual, all right. Her forked tongue approximates English well enough, and she speaks Ebonics better than a ghetto hood with auctioneer training. But no one holds a candle to her fluency in well-modulated Marxian B.S.

The Nativity Story

I went into this movie with trepidation. On the one hand was the subject matter: a story that absorbs me, no matter how many times it receives screen treatment; on the other were the lukewarm reviews, and a director at the helm who made the morally confused movie Thirteen, about two out-of-control teenage girls and one girl's helpless, useless mother. This doesn't inspire confidence in the adaptation of Christ's birth and its surrounding events.

Fortunately, the director succeeded in making a good film. It offers beautiful cinematography and attention to detail. We see the thought processes of the Wise Men play out on-screen, and realize how arduous was their journey to see the newborn Messiah. We also see the trials Joseph and Mary endured: local gossip about Mary's pregnancy, the turmoil Joseph probably experienced after discovering she was with child, Mary's parents' anxiety and confusion, and the fears the couple shared about their future. Most impressive was the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, and the obstacles they overcame in making it. One rarely gives this thought, but their trek was a great undertaking, first to Bethlehem, and then the subsequent flight into Egypt. Their plight makes me appreciate them all the more for their sacrifices and hardships.

Overall, I recommend this movie. But it wouldn't be an honest review, without mentioning the flaws. The final fifteen minutes or so seem rushed, as if the production team went overboard in trimming the film down under two hours. In addition, we're treated to a scene in the marketplace on the road to Bethlehem, in which a palm reader predicts Mary's birthing of a son. This event serves no purpose, other than the novelty of having occultic practices depicted for the Christian audience's enrichment. Some minor, unjustifiable biblical inconsistencies occur, such as when only one angel appears to the shepherds at Jesus' birth; scripture reveals that a heavenly host manifest itself. Also, the Wise Men decide of their own volition not to return to their homeland by way of Jerusalem; the Gospels say that they were warned about Herod in dreams, precipitating their deviation. Such flaws crop up in the film's latter portion. The worst mistake is the choice of actress as Mary. She's a pretty girl, about the right age, but her expression has all the animation of the figures carved into Mount Rushmore. No matter the situation--from an angelic visitation, to the shepherds and Magi attending her like servants, it is as changeless as a statue's. In contrast, the actor who plays Joseph provides a much superior performance.

I'm not attempting to deter anyone from viewing this film. It's worth seeing at least once. But with closer attention to scriptural accuracy, an unhurried ending, and a livelier actress in Mary's role, we'd have more than just a good movie; we'd have a great one.

Post-Atrocity Blues

Late last week, Virginny Tech held a memorial service on campus for those murdered by resident alien devil Cho Seung-Hui. President Bush was in attendance, and gave a very poignant address to the audience, in which he mentioned God and hinted that the Bible has value beyond its door-stop potential. I'm not a fan of Mr. Bush, as many of you may find yourselves aghast to hear, but he deserves credit where its due. He did well, in an uncharacteristically eloquent speech, and I commend him.

Afterwards, I gritted my teeth through the next few speakers: a Muslim imam, a Buddhist spokesperson, and a couple of Jewish ladies. Topping it off like rat droppings on a wedding cake was a Lutheran minister who sounded more like someone kicked out of Woodstock for being too positive about human nature than a Christian pastor. I'm not interested in refusing them a public forum for their views, but I found myself asking myself: "Self, since the overwhelming majority of Americans profess belief in Christianity, or find more in common with it than any other religion, why am I seeing Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and feel-good weenies take center stage? Is it an attempt at inclusiveness? Does V-Tech have a large, unrepresentative student population of adherents to these religions?" To my chagrin, my Self didn't have a definitive answer to this question.

I'm inclined to believe that it's about inclusiveness--the ill-spawned child of multiculturalism, which posits that all religions, cultures, and philosophical viewpoints are of equal worth and beauty. But the administrators' reach exceeded their grasp, in my opinion. Why do it half-hearted? I resented the absence of Confucianists, Zoroastrians, Taoists, and Hindus. I was outraged that no Satanists, Thuggees, or Wiccans had the floor. Where were the Druids? Where were those swarthy individuals who long for Quetzalcoatl's return? I wanted grove dancers and folks who bask in the radiant glow of crystals. I wanted worshippers of bulbous-headed, gray beings from Zibblezok. I wanted animism, pantheism, and Arianism. I squinted for those who prostrate themselves at the foot of Mount Olympus, and spit Crom's name to the four winds, but they were not there. Once I thought I saw Cthulhu's squamous mass, but it was Hillary mugging for the cameras. I sat close to the tv in hopes of glimpsing a Hare Krishna's chrome dome, but no. Alas, I was deprived of my precious Moonies, Goonies, and Loonies, though in fairness some of the speakers on-site approached the latter.

In the goal of inclusiveness, how dare you draw a line of demarcation!

Happy Earth Day

I'd like to tell the U.S.A.:

Stop killing off the trees!

Stay out of ANWR with your drills,

If you pretty please.

I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony,

So take Osama by the hand

In childlike bonhomie.

I'd like to teach the world to smoke

From pipes and bowls and bongs.

I'd like to buy the world a toke

And sing these happy songs.

That's the real thing.

Can't ya hear what I say?

What the world needs today

Is the real thing, dude.

The V-Tech Atrocity

There's something chilling and inexplicable about a person whose soul drives him to brutally murder innocent civilians. Even understanding that humanity is a fallen, wretched creation, it's difficult wrapping one's head around the concept.

Cutting right to the chase, we have over 20,000 gun "control" laws in this country; not one of them would have hindered this devil from obtaining a firearm. Not one. Even if the local gun dealer had refused him, acquiring one on the black market would've been a cinch. Guns are easy to come by, in America--and throughout the world, for that matter. The issue is not widespread availability of guns, or too few laws. The problem is sin. Contributing to the enlargement of sin's options is keeping firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Virginia Tech's administrators prided themselves on having zero tolerance for gun possession on campus. This resulted in sixty people shot, over thirty of whom are dead. Since these policies apply only to those inclined to heed them, a situation arose in which mowing down large numbers of people was easier than shearing penned sheep. How many citizens must suffer and die before the utter worthlessness--and, indeed, counterproductivity-- of gun laws is acknowledged?

The most depressing aspect of this situation is that, in all likelihood, no one will learn a thing from it. I expect anti-gun crusaders will utilize this as a tool for more restrictions on those least likely to commit such acts.

A century ago, this spree of wanton destruction wouldn't have happened; not because of technological crudity or evil's rarity, but for a more comforting reason:

When the shooter opened fire, he would've had twenty people shooting back at him.

To Bee or Not to Bee

Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?: Scientists claim radiation from handsets are to blame for mysterious 'colony collapse' of bees.

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.

Gives new meaning to the old adage, "You can't go home, again." And how do you like "Colony Collapse Disorder?" Isn't that a British description of the American Revolution? Sounds painful. Who knew bees had their own pathological conditions? Kinda like drunks who suffer from Ambulatorius Interruptus.

In other news, globalgore warming is culling the polar bears, hunters are systematically wiping out Bambi and his friends with glee, Flipper became sushi because of homies playin' dey rap too lowd, and I just killed a singular horsefly specimen with a flyswatter.

Thus another species hovers on the brink of extinction.

Death Is a Nappy-headed Ho

By now, I'm betting you've heard or read Don Imus' name on every tv channel, radio station, newpaper and magazine in the past week exponentially more times than you'd catch the descriptor for a female dog at a rap recording session. This post constitutes my humble contribution to that burr under your saddle.

Up front, let me say that I think Imus is a left-wing idiot. I have zero use for him or his show, Imus Schmuck in the Morning. That said, his terminal case of foot-in-mouth disease offers an interesting revelation about current realities; realities that cost him his job after forty years on the air.

Imus committed the cardinal sin of kicking sand over the PC line. That's the career equivalent of hara kiri, these days--especially when it involves our precious minority, the Warriors of Infinite Moral Pulchritude and Strength (WIMPS). It's a worse mistake than a nubile young girl seeking a shower at the Bates Motel.

Reptiles in glossy suits--like that greasy character Al $harpton, and his counterpart Je$$e Jack$on--never bat a nictitating membrane when someone of Imus' septic caliber trashes Christians on-air, or smears other racial, political, or religious groups. It's simply a non-issue. But make a remark implying that blacks are anything less than angels of light, and we get hucksters circling the waters, like sharks on the blood-scent.

The bottom line is that it's not about what's appropriate or virtuous behavior in public; it's about the acquisition of power, fame, and viewing the world through racial lenses permanently affixed to the mind's eye. Imus didn't forfeit his career because he's a cad; he lost it because he made the fatal error of deviation from the party line, in public.

Who's the bigger racist: the man who makes an off-color remark on a radio show with a reputation for crass, unkind comments; or the man who attacks this individual for his sin, while ignoring it in those of his own skin pigmentation?

Keep on the Sunny Side

A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.

Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

Doubtless warmer surface temperatures and simultaneous increased solar activity are unrelated. We know this because Algore tells us that in his upcoming dystopian pseudo-gospel, Hysteria Personified: How I Started the Gaian Cult of Doom. . .and Invented the Internet in the Process.

Even if these findings were accurate, the end result would be humanity's fault. I can hear the econazis now: "Sol's active state indicates a fiery loss of temper, due to humanity's abuse of the edenic planetary organism called Earth. Its justifiable wrath will broil the human contaminant into ashes, like a self-cleaning oven. Thus achieving universal equilibrium, once again."

The March of Progress

A commenter named Ivan Poland posted this joke over at Vox's a while back. I enjoyed it so much, I thought I'd share it, here:

Teaching Math In the fifties: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching Math In the sixties: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

Teaching Math In the seventies: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

Teaching Math In the eighties: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20 Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

Teaching Math In the nineties: A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.)

Teaching Math In 2007: Un ranchero vende una carretera de madera para $100. El cuesto de la produccion era $80. Cuantos tortillas se puede comprar?

Happy Easter!

For non-Christian celebrants: happy springtime pastoral long-eared rodentlike specimen of the Leporidae family day!

Have a Drink on Me

More reasons to import them by the baker's million:

In 2005, there were 37 alcohol-related crashes caused by Hispanic drivers for every 10,000 Hispanics in the state, according to the UNC Highway Safety Research Center. That is more than three times the rate of alcohol-related crashes among non-Hispanics.

Bobby Dunn, who counsels Spanish-speaking DWI convicts in Johnston and Wilson counties, said his clients are often young men far from home with money in their pockets for the first time. Many were too poor to have cars in Mexico, so they have little experience behind the wheel.

That'll make me feel muy better next time I hear of a drunken Mexican running down a young mother pushing a baby stroller.

They also see drinking as a way of showing their manhood.

"The magic number is 12," Dunn said, or "un doce" in Spanish. "If you can drink 12 beers, you're a man."

Yep, because it takes a real man to pickle himself.

Many Hispanics have not grown up with anti-drunken-driving messages, and it will take time for the ideas to take hold.

Yes, I'm sure the "messages" will sink right into the besotted brains of those who were alcoholics before they clambered out of the Rio Grande. If you're getting blotto every other night, chances are the signals won't reach you through all the haze. All the sympathetic articles in the world can't hide this truth.

There's No Fool Like an April Fool

Here are 10 of the top April Fool's Day pranks ever pulled off, as judged by the San Diego-based Museum of Hoaxes for their notoriety, absurdity, and number of people duped.

-- In 1957, a BBC television show announced that thanks to a mild winter and the virtual elimination of the spaghetti weevil, Swiss farmers were enjoying a bumper spaghetti crop. Footage of Swiss farmers pulling strands of spaghetti from trees prompted a barrage of calls from people wanting to know how to grow their own spaghetti at home.

-- In 1985, Sports Illustrated magazine published a story that a rookie baseball pitcher who could reportedly throw a ball at 270 kilometers per hour (168 miles per hour) was set to join the New York Mets. Finch was said to have mastered his skill -- pitching significantly faster than anyone else has ever managed -- in a Tibetan monastery. Mets fans' celebrations were short-lived.

-- Sweden in 1962 had only one television channel, which broadcast in black and white. The station's technical expert appeared on the news to announce that thanks to a newly developed technology, viewers could convert their existing sets to receive color pictures by pulling a nylon stocking over the screen. In fact, they had to wait until 1970.

-- In 1996, American fast-food chain Taco Bell announced that it had bought Philadelphia's Liberty Bell, a historic symbol of American independence, from the federal government and was renaming it the Taco Liberty Bell.

Outraged citizens called to express their anger before Taco Bell revealed the hoax. Then-White House press secretary Mike McCurry was asked about the sale and said the Lincoln Memorial in Washington had also been sold and was to be renamed the Ford Lincoln Mercury Memorial after the automotive giant.

-- In 1977, British newspaper The Guardian published a seven-page supplement for the 10th anniversary of San Serriffe, a small republic located in the Indian Ocean consisting of several semicolon-shaped islands. A series of articles described the geography and culture of the two main islands, named Upper Caisse and Lower Caisse.

-- In 1992, US National Public Radio announced that Richard Nixon was running for president again. His new campaign slogan was, "I didn't do anything wrong, and I won't do it again." They even had clips of Nixon announcing his candidacy. Listeners flooded the show with calls expressing their outrage. Nixon's voice actually turned out to be that of impersonator Rich Little.

-- In 1998, a newsletter titled New Mexicans for Science and Reason carried an article that the state of Alabama had voted to change the value of pi from 3.14159 to the "Biblical value" of 3.0.

-- Burger King, another American fast-food chain, published a full-page advertisement in USA Today in 1998 announcing the introduction of the "Left-Handed Whopper," specially designed for the 32 million left-handed Americans. According to the advertisement, the new burger included the same ingredients as the original, but the condiments were rotated 180 degrees. The chain said it received thousands of requests for the new burger, as well as orders for the original "right-handed" version.

-- Discover Magazine announced in 1995 that a highly respected biologist, Aprile Pazzo (Italian for April Fool), had discovered a new species in Antarctica: the hotheaded naked ice borer. The creatures were described as having bony plates on their heads that became burning hot, allowing the animals to bore through ice at high speed -- a technique they used to hunt penguins.

-- Noted British astronomer Patrick Moore announced on the radio in 1976 that at 9:47 am, a once-in-a-lifetime astronomical event, in which Pluto would pass behind Jupiter, would cause a gravitational alignment that would reduce the Earth's gravity. Moore told listeners that if they jumped in the air at the exact moment of the planetary alignment, they would experience a floating sensation. Hundreds of people called in to report feeling the sensation.


***


They say these are not true, but I swear I used to own one of those Swedish tvs.

The Big Lie

A letter to the editor found at WorldNetDaily:

[Joseph Farah:] I read with interest your article about the nontheist congressman from California.

Where did you learn your history? The United States was the shining example of a secular constitution and government. Can you show me where God is mentioned in the Constitution? And you may take any angle you like, but most of our Founding Fathers were borderline theists at best. Fact, documented. The Taliban was able to build a theocracy of violent zealots by miseducation and misrepresentation of the origin of Islam. You seem to be taking the same tack yourself.

Would you like to live in a country of zealots out to kill every non-Christian? That certainly is the way it looks from here. Get your god out of Washington; he was never invited!

SL


***


I've noticed that the more ignorant or dishonest a person is, the more willing he becomes to proclaim his ignorance or dishonesty from the highest rooftop. Let's see what we've got: the U.S. government was intended as a secular institution; our Founders were barely theists; Islam is distorted by Al-Killya and Taliban types; and Christianity is an "Amen" away from producing self-detonating Jihadis for Jesus. Before I continue, I'd like to commend the author for being wrong so many times in such a short letter; that requires skill in the art of cluelessness.

The United States government was never intended as a godless body. Our Constitution reveals a thoroughly Christian worldview, and the Declaration of Independence--which the writer ignores as irrelevant to his false argument--does mention God. There's nothing secular about our founding documents, nor our government in its conception. That these documents and institutions may be twisted into secular variants or obtusely misinterpreted says nothing about the original intentions of the people who conceived and/or penned them.

Regarding religious affiliations, the majority of the Founders were Christians, not "borderline theists." We had an atheist or two, and some Unitarian deists and what are known as theistic rationalists, but these latter two groups are a far cry from secularists. Understand, too, that the non-Christian theists of that day were believers in Jesus' moral authority, and in the basic worth of Christian principles. They rejected the specific claims of revelation, such as Christ's godhood; sad as this is, it does not a secular humanist make.

As for Talibanites and Muslim terrorist groups perverting true Islam, I'll just say that history, the Koran, and the Hadith (teachings & sayings of Muhammed) do not bear out this falacious assertion. Further, since Christianity has neither the same roots, nor similar priorities, nor even the same god or basic teachings as Islam, the contention that Christians--fundamentalist, or otherwise--pose a terror threat to the world is ludicrous and, again, not borne out by observable reality. Of course, that doesn't impede the Goebbelsian Big Lie policy on the part of those who have a vested interest in seeing Christianity's influence on this country eroded.

The bottom line is that the notion of Church and State separation as contemporarily understood emanates from a deliberate warping of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, not from the desires of those who founded this once-great nation.