The Alien American

I'd like to supplement my past comments about the treatment of detainees accused of being enemy combatants, and the recent SCOTUS decision regarding this issue. I think it's an important topic, deserving of further discussion.

After having read articles and blog posts on this subject, and participated in online conversations, I've reached the conclusion that most people adhere to one of two positions:

Position 1: These detainees act like animals, and therefore should be treated like animals. They have no intrinsic rights of any kind. Locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them rot into perpetuity fosters no moral qualms in our hearts. If you don't agree with our take on the treatment of these rabid dogs, you're unpatriotic.

Position 2: These detainees aren't just human beings with God-given rights; we're going further than that. These people deserve to be treated indistinguishably from American citizens. The U.S. Constitution applies to them as much as it applied to Teddy Roosevelt. They are entitled to American trials on American soil, in front of American judges, with American juries of their "peers" (as if American citizens are peers of non-resident aliens), with American representation (up to and including ACLU representation, if that illustrious organization is so inclined); this includes the nigh inexhaustible post-trial appeals process. If you don't agree with indulging the fantasy that these folks are Americans, you're an enemy of liberty.

Make no mistake: I see both of these positions as extreme and morally questionable.The first ignores the biblical description of human beings as creatures made in God's image; the second shows contempt for the concepts of nationhood and citizenship. I'm not advocating a centrist viewpoint; I'm interested in what is right. That may sound quaint to some, but it's the focus of my thoughts on this matter.

I take a Third Position, and I believe it is a minority stance: I think incarcerated aliens deserve recognition and protection of the inborn rights derived from their Creator, that one of these rights is an entitlement to a form of due process. Simultaneously, non-citizens have no justification for expecting treatment equal to that of citizens; they are not empowered to the same measures of privilege or forbearance as those of Americans.

I see this as the proper course, because it respects the importance and dignity of Man, while preserving the singular characteristics of American citizenship and nationhood.

Read the Instructions

Here are some good "Dos" and "Dont's" on the subject of child-rearing.

I found them very. . .ahem. . .illuminating.

Happy Father's Day!

Today and every day, I'm thankful for my earthly father, as well as my Father in Heaven.

Have a great day, everyone!

Americans in Turbans

I recently stated that all human beings have the right not to be locked away without due process; freedom from unjust imprisonment is a basic right of all men, in my opinion.

That said, the Supreme Court’s new ruling wasn’t what I had in mind.

I don’t believe that foreign terrorist suspects should be treated like American citizens. We live in a time when the concept of citizenship rests on shifting sands. If our Constitution applies in its entirety to foreigners, then what is the distinction between citizenship and non-citizenship? Put another way, if everyone is an American, then no one is an American; U.S. citizenship has no meaning.

There’s a difference between allowing a form of due process, and pretending that someone was born in the good old U.S. of A., with all the attendant rights of American citizenship extended to him.

These people were not born in the U.S.; they are not citizens of the U.S.; nor are they legal residents of the U.S. In point of fact, the guilty ones vehemently hate our country, and would love nothing more than the opportunity to kill as many Americans as possible.

When we conducted war crimes trials in post-WWII Europe, we recognized the right of even Nazis to due process. And we managed that task without indulging in the fantasy that they loved baseball and apple pie, pledged allegiance to the U.S. flag each morning before frying a few Jews, and softly sang “The Star-spangled Banner” every night before tucking their swastika-motif blankets under their chins and going beddy-bye.

Origin of Mankind

A little girl asked her father, "How did the human race come about?"

The father answered, "God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so all mankind was made."

Two days later she asks her mother the same question.

The mother answered, "Many years ago there were monkeys, and we developed from them."

The confused girl returns to her father and says: "Dad, how is it possible that you told me that the human race was created by God and Mom says we developed from monkeys?"

The Father answers, "That's simple, honey. I told you about the origin of my side of the family, and your mother told you about her side."

Diversidad Es Bueno

A double-double-plus-ten secret memo just turned up from the McAmnesty campaign records. Therein, Juan had laid out his list of names for future cabinet members and advisory staff. He also received a hearty stamp of approval from Presidente Jorge Bushandez.

When congressional officials got wind of his plans, they chastised him for his “lack of diversity.” He didn’t have enough women on the list. His choices follow below:


Antonio Garcia
Doroteo Salazar
Porfirio Ramirez
Miguel Jesus-Otilio Francisco
Guadalupe Hidalgo
Manuel Noriega
Juan Valdez
Ignacio Fernandez
AnaLucia Calderon
Placenta Tejada
Lucinda “Loco” Lopez
Luis Guzman
Yo Quiero Morales
Puto Pena
Agua Aguilar
Ojo Caliente
Madre Dee Dios
Vaya Con Dios
Hernando de Soto
Alejandro Cruz
Montezuma Vasquez
Atahualpa Muerto
Tenochtitlan Adios
Concepcion Infecundo
Extranjero Ilegal
Mojado Segundo
Hector Elizondo
Adama Olmos
Pendejo Patricio
Bobolito Vila
Julio Cesare Chavez

Shipped Out

An article about the U.S. operating prison ships has been on the waves for a couple of days, now.

Personally, I couldn’t care less if the government keeps prisoners in land-based prisons, barges on San Franfreako Bay, or domed cities on the Moon. It doesn’t concern me.

What does give me pause is the notion of imprisonment without trial, which is one of the claims being tossed about in the news. The accusation appears true.

I understand that many if not most of these people wore no uniform and represented no specific country, when captured. Still, all human beings—whether in military fatigues or civilian attire—have basic human rights; and I expect my government to respect those rights. One such right is extending some sort of due process to those accused of a crime.

What is the primary purpose of a trial? The obvious answer is to determine guilt or innocence. Trials are the principle mechanisms by which humans make such determinations. So if no trial takes place, how is guilt or innocence ascertained? No examination of evidence—impartial, or otherwise—has taken place. No one has spoken in his own defense. No one has even made an open case against the defendant.

Such scenarios foster corruption, injustice, and abuse. Where is mistreatment more likely—in a trial whose proceedings are known and open to the public, or in semi-secretive detention without trial or hearing of any kind?

Some might argue: “But, Wes, these people are terrorists who were caught red-handed committing atrocities against American troops. There is no doubt as to their guilt.”

I understand the argument, and I’ll respond in two ways:

First, I seriously question the assertion that every single one of these people, without exception, was nabbed with the smoking gun in hand, as it were.

Second, if the case against the accused is so damning, then there’s no reason not to conduct a military trial, properly convict and sentence the criminal, and be done with it. The verdict no doubt will be swift, and the justice found in due process and openness will be satisfied.

“Palestinian” Schoolyard Song

Allah loves his people—
Those who will submit—
The rest are worth far, far less
Than day-old camel spit.

Women, don your hijabs,
And your burkas, too;
If we catch you unchaperoned,
We’ll make mincemeat of you.

Son, grab your bombvest
Filled with nails and screws,
And kill the dirty kaffirs,
And their slinking pets, the Jews.

Give them short-cropped haircuts—
Use your scimitar—
Take a whole lot off the top.
Allahu akbar!

Arrivederci!

Guys, this is the first legitimate reason I’ve heard about for voting McAmnesty into office:

SUSAN SARANDON, who appeared in three films last year and won kudos for her TV movie "Bernard and Doris," is still not a contented soul. She says if John McCain gets elected, she will move to Italy or Canada. She adds, "It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people."

Promise, dear Susie? And will you take that big, dumb, gangly, scarecrow shack-up partner of yours along, as well? The one who’s large on acting talent and teeny tiny on intelligence quotient? Pretty please, with sugar on top? Heck, I’d consider voting for McAmnesty twice, if you’ll sail right off the edge of the world.

SNAFU in Kosovo

Our heritage must be stamped out—let no vestiges remain:

U.S. soldiers stationed at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo may be stunned to find three wooden crosses stripped from the exterior grounds of their chapel in coming weeks – and many never saw it coming.

Several high-ranking officers have met behind closed doors to discuss plans for the crosses. They have decided to remove, and perhaps destroy, the Christian symbols located outside Peacekeeper's Chapel in the name of free exercise of religion.

It takes a singularly warped mentality to believe that repressing the prevailing religion’s symbols is acting in the name of free religious exercise.

Lt. Col. William Jenkins, 35th Infantry Division's Kosovo Force 9 command chaplain, told WND, "The removal of the crosses … is bringing the chapel into line with long-standing regulations and policies that apply to every U.S. Army chapel around the world and that are supported by all faith groups in the U.S. Army."

Jenkins cited the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as validation for the cross removal, saying it guarantees every American the right to the free exercise of religion.

I understand. After all, if a cross looms over a doorway, it catches and dissipates all Islamic prayers to Allah, New Age pleas to the crystalloids of Alpha Centauri, and Buddhist conversations with vaunted ancestors. It’s amazing what a couple of wooden crossbars can do. I’d like to ask Lt. Col. William “Witless” Jenkins how one’s freedom of religion is nullified by an inanimate object standing in a chapel-yard. Our military’s in trouble, if this is the kind of idiot it’s entrenching in the position of Lt. Col. He’s a perfect example of how political correctness not only destroys liberty, but also the intellect.

One person stationed in Kosovo became concerned about freedom of religious expression in the military after WND reported the Army deliberately shut down a chaplain's Baptist service at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in Iraq. The soldier expressed agitation at a perceived double standard after an American sniper accused of shooting a Quran for target practice faced disciplinary action and removal from Iraq for desecrating the religious property.

"It is very discouraging as a Christian soldier to see our Army punish him for destroying a Quran, but then it pays a private company to destroy some crosses," the soldier said. "I feel it is a slap in the face to me, my Lord and my freedom."

Unfortunately, the new American model for religious freedom entails tolerating, appeasing, and debasing onself before every religious tradition, except the one upon which Western civilization was built.

We Ignored the Prophecy

I’m a sci-fi nut, so for my recent birthday, my wife bought me the original two “V” miniseries from the 1980s, as well as the follow-up TV show that lasted one season. (A slight digression: I’ve heard that a new miniseries event is in the works for 2009, which continues where the original left off).

Those of you who saw “V” may know where I’m going with this. I assume that those who have never heard of it live in mountain caves, venturing to town only to use the internet.

“V” is about aliens who superficially look like humans, but in fact are bipedal reptilian creatures wearing disguises. These beings invade in massive numbers, first claiming that they come in peace, but later dispensing with the charade and enslaving humanity. A resistance network hits back, and most of the series centers around its efforts at defeating the “Visitors.”

Imagine Nazis from space, and you have the gist of it.

It’s interesting that Vox dubs Hillaroid Clinton “The Lizard Queen,” because it parallels this series, whether intentionally or not. One of the extraterrestrial lizard-leaders goes by the name Diana. She’s portrayed as murderous, uber-ambitious, and completely ruthless. Rewatching the series after so many years, I turned to my wife and said with a laugh: “You know, she’s Hillaroid Clinton! Literally!”

So if you ever want to see how a power-mad reptile looks and acts, watch this prescient show. I assume Hillaroid uses it as a blueprint for world domination.

Which also explains her penchant for menu dainties like kiddie a la mode and rare rodent.

Operation: Sheer Stupidity

Remember when Rush Limbaugh exhorted his listeners to vote in Demonrat primaries for Hillaroid Clinton? He bragged about creating chaos in the party and drawing out the nomination process.

I think the idea presents ethical and practical problems that Rush can’t see, since his massive ego blots out the light of Reason.

Take the ethical issue: shouldn’t Demonrats choose their own candidate, rather than having one artificially shut out, and another empowered by people who have zero intention of voting Demonrat in the general election? Is that ethical? Is it honest? Furthermore, I wonder how Rush would take liberals pulling the same stunt in GOP primaries? Somehow, I don’t think he’d be grinning and shrugging it off, or crowing about the crafty nature of his ideological enemies’ tactics. In fact, I think he’d denounce it as another in an unending line of dirty, below-the-belt tricks in which the leftist party reliably indulges.

As for his plan’s practicality: assuming that a significant percentage of Rush’s listening audience follows his advice and votes for Hillaroid, the possibility arises of her winning the nomination—which in turn increases her chances of becoming president. After all, Rush’s dittoheads will have aided her in hurdling the Obama obstacle to her ambitions. If Rush gives himself credit for keeping her in the race and lengthening the Demonrat nomination process, then he also must accept blame if, Heaven forbid, Hillaroid ascends to the presidency. He can’t pat himself on the back for hurting the liberals, while giving himself a pass, if she wins.

I believe that his “Operation: Chaos” has a high probability of backfiring and becoming “Operation: Shoot Yourself in the Foot.” In fact, I find the idea so questionable and fraught with problems that I’ve asked myself if it’s a deliberate stealth attempt at electing Hillaroid. I’m not a grassy knoll type, but the wanton idiocy of Rush’s Master Plan makes me wonder.

Jews and the Crusades

I’m sure you’ve heard about the rampant persecutions of Jews during the Crusades, that these armed pilgrimages were anti-Semitic ventures, in practice, if not in proclamation. This is a common misconception; the truth is somewhat more complex than the current notion that Christian history is one long orgy of hate and violence.

When Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade, commoners and lords gathered into large bands and armies as they prepared for the long journey to the Holy Land. Some of these had ulterior motives for joining the grand spectacle, and one such desire was utilizing the Crusade as an excuse to attack Jews. However, it’s important to keep several pertinent facts in mind when assessing these events:

1. The primary purposes of the Crusade were the liberation of the Holy Land, aiding the Byzantines, and hopefully reuniting the Eastern and Western churches. Killing, robbing, or roughing up Jews never was part of the equation.

2. The bands that mistreated Jews were rogue elements within the Crusade movement, no more representative of the Crusade’s intentions than white supremacists are spokesmen for American domestic social policy (Robert Byrd being an exception who proves the rule, of course).

3. The Pope offered explicit and public condemnation of those who persecuted Jews. He even sent emissaries to the groups-in-question, in an attempt at dissuading them from their nefarious deeds. Furthermore, he excommunicated some of the ringleaders.

4. Many local bishops in areas under attack opened their homes and took the Jews in, protecting and hiding them. Sometimes this worked; just as often, their pursuers discovered their locations, raided the sanctuaries, and dragged them out into the streets, where they enacted the robberies and murders with which we’re so familiar.

Given the above information, the First Crusade (1095-1099) hardly sounds like a genocidal undertaking. No organized, widespread attempt at eradicating Jews on the part of Europeans ever occurred in the Crusades.

As for Jerusalem, many popular treatments of the subject inform us that the Crusaders came to the city and “liberated” it by slaughtering its citizenry, including innocent Jews. Two points bear mentioning, here:

First, imaginative authors have exaggerated the number killed in the slaughter, even going so far as stating that the streets ran with blood to the depths of horses’ bridles. This is patent nonsense; such “rivers of blood” would have required the deaths of everyone living in the entire region, much less the population of Jerusalem, itself. The slaughter happened, but not on the scale depicted by anti-Western, anti-Christian, or sensationalistic authors.

Second, viewing past events through a modern prism becomes problematic for someone interested in historical accuracy. In the Medieval world of warfare, besieged cities that surrendered early in the fighting, having inflicted light casualties, received merciful treatment once the gates opened. Conversely, cities that put up a stiff resistance and made the siege costly for the conquering army were considered fair game by the besiegers, once the walls were breached. The prevalent attitude was that everything in the city belonged to the victors—including the people, themselves. Our modern sensibilities cringe from such perceived barbarity, but our feelings hold little relevance when discussing the minds of people far removed from us in time. Whether or not you find the outlook morally virtuous or repugnant, it was an accepted convention of the time and place.

What does this have to do with the Jews? It’s simple really: the Crusaders saw them as combatants, since they aided in the city’s defense. To them, people who manned the walls and used anti-siege tactics against them, who took up arms and killed their soldiers, were far from innocent. What percentage of the Jews took part in the defense remains unknown to us, but historical sources suggest that a significant number participated. They received treatment equal to that of the city’s Muslim defenders. It’s also worth noting that some Jews escaped, or were ransomed; the slaughter was far from total.

None of the above should be taken as excusing or dismissing evil behavior. Rather, it is an explanation of what actually happened, with an emphasis on truth, not myth.

They Call Him Plankeye

I lifted this quote from Vox Day’s website. I attempted commenting on it at his place, but his nifty new commenting system dispelled my brilliance into the aether, so I thought I’d reiterate it, here, for everyone’s edification (WARNING! Foul Language Ensues):

Most of us know why theists cling so pathetically to their incorrect definition of the word "atheism". And the clinging truly is pathetic-- the atheists on this group state in plain English that they simply lack a belief in God like they lack a belief in other fictional characters. Theists know that when the burden of proof is shifted where it belongs--on them, for making the outrageous assertions in question--they are thoroughly fucked. Since they realize they cannot carry out a debate honestly--and let's be honest with ourselves, none of them can--they cling to this strawman like a beloved childhood toy they can't bear to part with.

If this particular atheist looked up “Projection” in the dictionary, he’d see a picture of his own goofy face as an accompanying illustration. Of course, that’s assuming he owns a dictionary and understands how to use it—a highly dubious proposition, given the mountainous evidence to the contrary. Apparently, accusing others of one’s personal faults relieves guilt. I’ve participated in countless discussions with atheists online, and, without exception, they distorted the definitions of words, twisting them right out of their conventional meanings. They made Bill Clinton resemble George Washington during the cherry tree incident. It’s as if dissemblance is an inherent trait in the atheist personality. Sure, one can be a liar without being an atheist, but it seems one can’t manage acceptance of atheism without a toxic dose of dishonesty. “Lying is OK, as long as I’m doing the lying,” is not a proven method for winning friends or building respect. Conversely, it guarantees that people despise you as a hypocrite. It’s just more of that typical hubris so prevalent amongst the godless.

As I’ve said before, and will no doubt say again, atheism goes beyond mere unbelief. It’s a positive assertion of a negative: There is no God. The reason why we have words like “atheist” and “agnostic” is not that we love linguistic variety; these words are not synonymous. Rather, we need different words describing distinct philosophical outlooks. An atheist is not the same animal as an agnostic, as a brief perusal of Webster’s will attest. If you use these words interchangeably, you demonstrate your own ignorance or willingness to move goalposts at the drop of a hat, in service to your agenda.

If atheists want to influence their surrounding society for the better, they first must stop griping about the motes in others’ eyes, while tripping over the planks jutting from theirs. It’s worth noting that following this advice means shedding that armor of prevarication, which puts one squarely on the road to recovery from atheism. So your choices seem clear: discard atheism, or continue in your role in most people’s minds as Rat Fink of the Century. You decide.

Obama's New Pastuh

I be takin’ Wright’s place,
In da war ‘ginst paleface.
Ahm fightin' da U.S.A. of K.K.K.
Diss mah repartee?
Ah’ll bussacap in yo A.

Kin I git a witness
To da fitness
Uv a yung blood frum da hood?
Ize throwin’ down like Earp
On da streets uv Deadwood.
My Ebonics Iz clear;
I won’t be misundazstood.
I’m aimin’ fo’ Wormwood
Like Robin uv Shuhwood.
I be leadin’ da priesthood,
So check yo’sef, peckerwood.

Ahm da hip-hop pastuh.
A white man’s disastuh.
I hate ya if yo skin iz alabastuh.
An’ my mind’s as lethal as a
Coked-up bushmastuh.

I’m Wright’s yung crony.
I luv macaroni,
Won’ tuch a calzone, or
Sum provolone.
But like mos’ mah homies,
I call “Phony baloney!”
On dat silly instatushun
Called matrimony.

I lissen ta Ice Cube,
Not da Byootiful Danube.
Fo’git about Bach.
Ah’ll settle fo Tupac.

Ahm Publik Enema Numbah Wun,
An’ ahm comin’ aftah Whitey wit’ a loded gun!

The Twisted Candidate

Brokeback Osama made this comment during a town hall meeting in Johnstown, PA on March 29, 2008. He was discussing the dangers of AIDS:

"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education – which should include abstinence education and teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.

“But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

That final line is one of the most vomitous statements I’ve heard gush from a politician’s mouth. It tells you everything you need to know about Osama’s moral center, which is a black hole (no pun intended).

The last I checked, be-bopping into the car’s backseat with your boyfriend so he can demonstrate the suspension’s springiness isn’t a “mistake.” “Hooking up” after the all-night kegger, while your parents think you’re sleeping over at Molly’s house isn’t an “oops” moment. The sexual act is just that—an act. And a conscious one, to boot. It requires forethought and effort. I’m so tired of the deconstruction of language. Deliberate acts are mistakes, and mistakes are intentional acts. Uh-huh. Babies don’t mysteriously fall out of the sky and land in teenage girls’ stomachs; there is no stork flapping overhead, waiting to bomb teen twits with screaming infants: I don’t care what mommy told you when you were five. Personal responsibility lies in the same grave as the T-rex and the dodo, it seems. A mistake is tripping over my own feet, as I make my way to the bathroom in the dark, in the middle of the night. Or mashing my thumb with a hammer as I drive a stake into Hillary’s cold, shriveled heart. Those are legitimate and unintentional errors. Getting it on after the prom because it’s the “in” thing to do extends somewhat beyond the category of “Yikes! Didn’t mean to do that!”

As for Osama’s perverse definition of punishment, babies are punishments in the same sense that strawberries are dire consequences for the vines from which they sprang. Is the logical outcome of your actions a punishment? Calling his statement asinine is unfair to asinine idiots everywhere. God isn’t sitting up in Heaven on a cloud, saying: “I smite thee, oh Betsy Jones, with a howling infant of your own.” That’s not how it works. Rather, God created a biological mechanism by which children are brought into this world. It’s called “procreation.” Look it up. I understand that the sex act isn’t just about producing children, but it’s inextricably intertwined with the pleasure aspects. If you don’t understand this simple, demonstrable fact, I have three words for you: keep it zipped. And pray that someday, someone will come along and help you with your rectal-cranium-insertion problem.

What Osama really means is this: “If my daughters reach puberty and do something stupid and irresponsible, I don’t think they should suffer the consequences of their actions—even if this means an innocent child loses his life. Instead, I think they should live in an artificial world that exists nowhere outside our house, where actions have no reactions, and causes have no effects.”

How’s that for family values?

The Grim Reaper Smiles

So, who croaked on the day of your birth?

According to the site, 134,698 people shuffled off this mortal coil on the day I was born.

At least it was an even number.

May the Farce Be with You

It seems the Sith didn't destroy all the young Jedi apprentices in episode three.

Some escaped, and made their way to Earth, disguising themselves as teenage punks with death-wishes.

Your Children Belong to Us

I thought I’d say a few words about the Mormon compound raided in Texas by Big Brother’s jack-booted thugs.

No one should have his (or her) children snatched from his (or her) custody on the basis of an unsubstantiated, anonymous phone call. I expect that brand of behavior from the defunct U.S.S.R., not the U.S.A. Such information may serve as a catalyst for an investigation, but it isn’t evidence, in and of itself. Anyone can call a tip line and say anything.

Constitutionally and legally speaking, Americans are innocent until proven guilty--in theory, at least.

If the government had indisputable evidence of abuse in this scenario, I believe we’d be aware of it, by now. That nothing more compelling than an anonymous tip has been offered as a rationale for this mockery of justice and spittle on the God-given rights of Americans indicates that no more damning evidence exists. The government isn’t in the habit of incriminating itself for wrongdoing, when it has the moral high ground, and can demonstrate the fact beyond doubt. That it has not done so tells me all I need to know about its moral authority, in this particular situation.

At Vox’s blog, I had an exchange with a commenter a few days ago who goes by the name “Former Children’s Social Worker”:


Wes: When the authorities received the initial phone call, how hard would it have been to trace the call & determine if it was, indeed, coming from the compound?

After the trace, how hard would it have been to match the name the caller gave them w/ the residence from which the call came?

If they determined that the name w/ whom the phone was registered didn't match the name given, & that it came from a location outside the compound, how did they have probable cause to raid the FLDS residence?

Why wasn't the caller visited & questioned by the police, prior to raiding & taking children?


Fmr. Children’s Social Worker: It's usually the responsibility of State and County Welfare Agencies to investigate child-abuse claims. While criminal charges can be filed, most child abuse and neglect is classified as a civil, Welfare & Dependency matter. It's assigned to social workers to investigate such claims.

Why don't social workers visit and question referring callers? Most jurisdictions are set up so that people can anonymously report abuse, under the assumption that, while such a system can itself be abused, if it finds real situations of abuse or neglect it was worth it.

Even if a person leaves their name and contact information, the law and the policy of most welfare agencies requires the workers to investigate most every claim they get.


Wes: I'm not so much concerned about which governmental bureaucracy does the investigating as I am that the investigation occurs prior to children being yanked from their parents' custody.

In this particular case, we're not even sure that the call came from inside the compound, from a member of the FLDS. In fact, the available evidence suggests otherwise. Nor are we sure that abuse actually happened.

Most jurisdictions are set up so that people can anonymously report abuse, under the assumption that, while such a system can itself be abused, if it finds real situations of abuse or neglect it was worth it.

Which is a recipe for present & future tyranny, since anyone can make a phone call and claim anything. This is akin to saying: "If the cop pulled you over w/out probable cause, & he roughed you up because you asked why you were stopped, & he searched your vehicle w/out a warrant or your permission--no harm, no foul, as long as he found a loaded firearm in the trunk."

Another example of this brand of mentality is the person who says: "Banning all guns is worth it, if it saves just one life."

Let's call it what it is: an Anti-freedom Initiative.

Even if a person leaves their name and contact information, the law and the policy of most welfare agencies requires the workers to investigate most every claim they get.

The police have methods of retrieving names & contact info, whether the person provides it, or not. I would think that questioning the accuser in person prior to a raid on the accused's residence would be minimal standard operating procedure. Or at least, it certainly should be.



*****


I’m not going to post his response, as it is long and entails more excuse-making on the government's behalf. However, if you’re interested in reading the rest, you can find it here.

Investigation of the tip-off carried out after the fact suggest the call upon which the government rests its case was a hoax.

Had the authorities conducted this investigation prior to raiding the Zion Ranch, as I said they should have done, justification for such an invasion would've evaporated.

It seems obvious to me that the government officials involved in this case never cared about their victims' rights--or the existence of evidence--in the first place. As to their unstated, genuine motives, they're open to speculation. One thing's for sure: now that these kids are in Big Brother's custody and out of the hands of those filthy separatists, we needn't be concerned about them having their heads filled with silly, outdated notions, like a healthy scepticism toward government, or the asinine fantasy that family is paramount.

Epiphany

I think I've figured out why George Bush has kept our troops in Iraq for so long, with no end in sight. I believe he read Luke 19:13, and the words therein jumped out at him. Being a good fundamentalist, he took them literally. Unfortunately for us, he also took them personally:

"Occupy till I come."

The place of occupation is Iraq, and the occupation's duration is until the final trump sounds.

Expect longer tours of duty in the near future.

Pope Benedict’s Prayer for “Immigrants”

Bless thy ninos and ninas as they swim the turbulent river separating them from jobs Americans just won’t do.

Bless them as they do the crawl-stroke, back-stroke, and, yea, even the doggy paddle.

Bless them in the rapids and the shallows, oh Lord of Fruit Pickers and Burger Flippers.

Bless them as they brave the desert sun, following “how-to” books and maps provided by their benevolent presidente.

Bless thy brown children as they gnaw the fleshy innards of cacti, for hydration’s sake.

Bless thy rattlesnakes who do not bite, and thy scorpions who withhold their stings. Bless the white man who treats them to his largesse, as they ransack his house while he’s at work.

Bless them as they creep and scuttle over mountain and sand dune, avoiding all the dreaded snares of the Border Patrol gringos. Hide them from the aerial drones’ sight, make virtual fences visible, and lead them through thy underground tunnels for righteousness’ sake, oh Lord of Unlawful Entry.

Bless them with forged birth certificates, fake social security numbers, and matricula consular cards found acceptable in thy sight, oh Lover of Truth.

Yea, though they walk through the Valley of Nativism, they shall fear no evil; for thou art with them. Thy anchor baby and expired visa comfort them.

Thou preparest a job for them in the presence of bigots. Thou anointest their heads with tequila. Their mamacitas' bank accounts in Mexico runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow them all the days of their lives, and they shall dwell in the occupied territories of Aztlan forever.

Amen.

Pucker Up

I was reading at World Net Daily about how Jimmy "Nuts" Carter met with and kissed a Hamas terrorist. Cute, huh?

The article tells us: Carter hugged Shaer and kissed him on each cheek. . .

Missing from the story, however, was the most relevant information of all: when he planted his smooch, was the man's naked backside exposed, or did he merely give some love to his fully-clothed keister?

This Land Ain't Your Land

I hope everyone paid those income taxes in a timely fashion. After all, we have muchos millions of illegal aliens to support.

Since they're just like us, we should be proud to foot the bill for them, in all things. Right, pendejos?

There's No Reason Like Unreason

Atheists portray themselves as paragons of logic, while theists—particularly Christians—are characterized as silly, superstitious dunderheads. This is nothing more than illogical sleight-of-hand; let me demonstrate why.

We have two basic options when it comes to explaining the origins of life and the universe: (1.) they are the work of a Supreme Being, or (2.) they came into existence on their own. Claims about aliens from Shazbot seeding the Earth don’t answer the question; they merely move it off-world. You still need an origin for the little green men.

The notion that “Once upon a time, nothing existed, and then ‘Poof!’ there it was” violates the laws of logic. Ever heard of the Law of Non-contradiction? It states that a thing and its contradiction cannot both be true at the same time, in the same relationship (A cannot be non-A at the same time, in the same relationship).We see evidence bearing this out on a daily basis. A man can be a father and a son, but not in the same relationship. If I say “The man is fat, but he is also skinny,” I’ve violated the Law of Non-contradiction, because the man may be fat or skinny, but he cannot be both at the same time, in the same relationship.

Materialistic evolutionists, believers in naturalism—whatever you want to call them, they share a common belief: that if you go back far enough in time, you will find that life arose from non-life, order coalesced out of chaos, information came from non-information, and something came from nothing. All of this happened without benefit of a Creator.

This is an obfuscatory way of saying that the universe and everything in it is, ultimately, self-created. But the very notion of self-creation violates the Law of Non-contradiction. For something to be self-created it must have existed before it existed. Reread the italicized part, again. How can something exist before it exists? To create itself, it had to be here already; to be created it couldn’t have existed at the time of its creation. So self-creation requires a thing’s existence and non-existence at the same time, in the same relationship. This is a nonsense statement accepted entirely on blind faith. It contradicts—there’s that pesky word, again—observable evidence and common sense. A belief in self-creation renders logic itself null and void. If logic is meaningless, how do we determine if something is factual, or not? How do we acquire knowledge? If you throw out the Law of Non-contradiction, you also toss Reason to the curb. If you eject Reason, you also expel the scientific method, for the latter relies upon and assumes the former.

So it’s amusing that the people who dismiss me and my fellow Christians as nutty, anti-scientific zealots have embraced an idea that takes a wrecking ball to the foundation of Science and Reason—the very bedrock upon which they claim to stand.

Can You Hear Me, Now? Good!

It’s funny—and scary—how technology changes society and personal behavior. One phenomenon I’ve noticed of late is that of full-grown men walking around in stores jabbering on cell phones. Business-related phone conversations I understand, but how about the chatty ones?

I was at Wetback-Mart the other day, buying a few groceries, when I saw two unrelated men—one of whom was of grandfatherly age—talking on cell phones. They wandered aimlessly down the aisles, with no buggy or visible merchandise, chatting. I especially enjoy when such folks block aisles and get in everyone’s way as they meander. Sorry, but when I’m in a hurry, and I’m weaving my shopping cart between Julio and Santa Anna as they stuff tv dinners down their pants and have their pregnant wives and twin broods of twelve children standing lookout, I’m not interested in hearing about how it made you feel when Bubba laughed at your favorite for a shoo-in at the local tractor pull. Or about that time on your annual hunting trip when a bear carved its initials in your backside because you forgot which end of the rifle goes “BANG!” Or your thoughts on re-mortgaging the house and selling the wife and kids to the Sudanese so you could buy that new-fangled “road hawg” for which you’ve been pining. See, I don’t give a Woodsy Owl hoot about your personal life, total stranger. However, I do care about the fact that I can’t get to the milk, as you lean on the cold case and sigh in reminiscence with Billy Bob about drinking everyone else under the table during Tuesday’s happy hour at Bazoonga’s Bar and Grill. Get a handle on reality, “guys.” You’re in a public place. The world is not a deserted stage for you and only you to play upon. This ain’t I Am Legend, and you ain’t Robert Neville.

Before the advent of cell phones, I never saw men standing around in public places—malls, grocery and department stores, and the like—involved in inane conversations on pay phones. Such luxuries were for calling someone for a ride, or other important purposes. Not getting the skinny on last night’s episode of American Idol-worshipper from Butch.

Now don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against cell phones; they’re useful tools. But remember the maxim everything to its season. There’s a time and place for it, fellers. How about sitting in your car in the parking lot, rather than shuffling along, head-down, in the middle of the walkway in a crowded store? There’s a revolutionary idea, dummy. It’s sad that you can’t run in Wetback-Mart and buy a six-pack and the new selection in Oprah’s Book Club (yecch!) without dialing Leroy’s house for some chitty –chat.

When I was a kid, we had a name for people who spent loads of time on the phone embroiled in ephemeral conversation, who seemed to have the receiver surgically attached to their ears.

“Girls”, we called them. I still do.

Now all you need is some bubblegum, Hank.

Creeping Death

Regarding Israel, why don't we forget all the talk of peace, the gatherings of witless politicians around tables, and the shuffling of important-looking but meaningless paperwork? Let's forget the Clintonian Legacies and the Piece In Our Time gibberish. Let's set aside the hanging on every word of Arab statesmen, even as we listen to the bombs ticking under their kaffiyehs. Why all the pussyfooting around? I have a simple solution to the trademarked Israel Problem: let's round up all the oppressive zionist entities--known as Jews in the vulgar--and confine them to a "ghetto," as it were, in Jerusalem. Heck, let's build it just beneath the Wailing Wall; how fitting is that? Call it a Final Solution.

Meanwhile, give back the land to the "Palestinians;" you know, the ones who peopled it in their countless millions, before the Zionist bacteria infected the "body terrorist," and relegated it to savagery. Remember what a paradise Israel--I mean, "Palestine"--was before the dreaded Jewish Blight? Remember the industry, the civilized refinery, the land flowing with milk and honey?

And the dirty Jews? Well, they're the reason Allah invented concentration camps, after all.

Charlton Heston, R.I.P.

I just learned that he passed away Saturday. He was one of the few remaining great actors. This is a sad occasion, and I'll miss him.

Charlton Heston, 1923-2008

God bless and keep him.

In Lighter Vein

Why does the Iraqi Navy have glass-bottom boats?


*****


So they can see their Air Force.

The Way of the Dodo

At Vox’s blog, a commenter said this in a discussion about secularism’s corrosive influence on society:



Mr. Day,

I recall a statement by you in support of the institution of Christianity. You summed it up with two words. "It works".

At the time I wondered how does he figure? In many western countries the marriage rate and birth rate among Christians has plummeted, and both the numbers of raghead immigrants, and the number of births to raghead immigrants, have skyrocketed.

By what perverse definition can you conclude that this works? It works to destroy Christian societies?

Humans evolved for several million years on this earth. As they spread around the globe, those societies either prospered or failed. Those that "worked" prospered, those that did not work, failed.

That was all before Christ's time. Christianity really doesn't work. It's just hasn't totally failed yet. It looks like another century or so should do the job though.

Eddie 03.27.08 - 11:06 am #



A strange observation; too bad it isn’t the least bit observant of reality. What does a profusion of ragheads have to do with whether or not Christianity “works?” Perhaps he should consider that importing Islamoids by the baker’s thousand is a relatively recent phenomenon—a product of political correctness and multiculturalism, which find their headwaters in secularism. Of course, that means gleaning information from deeper sources than tonight’s episode of Are You Dumber than a Pre-skeweler?

Christianity works because it’s true; it has a tempering effect on Man’s passions. The current portrait of Western Civilization is one of a world in flight from its roots, a society in which ideals once taken for granted as true now meet with sneers. The unquestionable is questioned; the sacred is profaned; moral virtue draws hisses, while lasciviousness becomes enthroned over all. When secularism usurps Christianity’s place in society, all that remains is “Do what thou wilt, with due consideration to the policeman around the corner.” This is synonymous to the biblical description of a land without God being one in which “every man did what was right in his own eyes.”

Why the surprise about marriage and birth rates plummeting, when denouncing motherhood as a form of enslavement, “no-fault” divorce, sexual promiscuity, and an insistence on a mythological right to abortion-on-demand have become commonplace? I contend that the expectation of stable marriage and birth rates in such a scenario is a position unacquainted with Reason.

It’s interesting how secularists conclude that problems stemming from a rejection of Christian values somehow indicate Christianity’s failure as a belief system. This is like Oprah blaming Jenny Craig for her weight gain, despite her regular, midnight chocolate rendezvous. It seems secularists are looking for a scapegoat for whatever problems assail us, and Christianity fits their bill.

Christian influence too pervasive? “Help! I’m being repressed! Now I can’t indulge in all my favorite sins and continue receiving pats on the head and 'Attaboy!'s from society.” Christian influence too sparse? Why, we’ll just chalk up all the attendant problems to Christianity’s ineffectual nature. Notice how Christianity takes it on the chin, whatever the outcome.

This is an intellectually dishonest stance having less to do with Christianity’s warts and inadequacies than with the secularist’s refusal to address the logical outcome of his beliefs put into practice: a civilization in decay.

It would be humorous, if it weren’t so sad and destructive: For upwards of fifty years, the Eddie’s of the world have dedicated their lives to eradicating or limiting Christian influence on western societies. They’ve captured public education, most institutions of higher learning, the news media, government, and virtually the entire entertainment industry. With the exception of the internet—and radio, to a lesser extent—they dominate the communication outlets of our countries. They’ve indoctrinated our children into the notion that truths and mores higher than Man’s desires are fairy tales. They insist that our “fearfully and wonderfully made” selves are products of mindless, undirected chemical processes and favorable mutations—despite convincing evidence to the contrary. And to top it all off, when the inevitable collapse precipitated by their outlook rears its ugly head, do they see this as cause for introspection, for a reevaluation of their worldview? Alas, no. Rather, they castigate the very people who built from the ground up and maintained our society, who created it from scratch, with God’s help, who stand as its sole guardians, albeit imperfect ones. Oh, the blind irony.

When a civilization expels Christianity as its foundation, another philosophical paradigm takes over. The products of secularism are apathy and nihilism, both of which strive with Christian values. The negative commentary on our society is not a representation of Christian influence, but of its attempted displacement.

Prelude to a Sermon

Overheard during the "hymnal" session at Barack Obama's Church of Blackitude:



My man Barack,
He black.
He ain' white!
Ahhhh'ight?

When da Man git ya down,
Obama comin' aroun,'
An' he takin' on Hill
Wit'out gittin' shrill.

Now he gonna rep-uh-zent
All da homies an' hoods;
He creepin' to da Black Howse
While da creepin' be good.

An' he 'bout ta bus' a cap
In all da howse niggas.
Oh, it gives me da sniggas
When he pull dose triggas.
He diggin' down deep
Like a l'il black chigga,
An' da itch dat ya scratch
Git bigga an' bigga.

He comin' on strawng
Like da National Det,
Poppin' on da muzzle,
Takin' Hill to da vet.
He a ink-jet threat
To da Lizardette,
An' he tawkin' up da Bible
From a high minaret.
He a big-time Black-powah marionette.
He take yo life in his han's an' play Russhun Roolette.

So git down wif Obama,
Cuz he sellin' da drama.
He don' like Brahma or da Dalai Lama,
But he 'bout ta let loose a big "Yo Mamma!"
To a smelly camel jockey by da name'a Osama.

He givin' free helth care
Wit' style an' flair,
An' he handin' out cheks
To da brothas on wellfare.
He suaver den Kildare
So ya bettah beware!
He dumpin' Hill down a stair
Like a crip in a wheelchair.

Now I gots ta mention McCain--
He insane in da membrane--
Obama gonna hit 'im like a bullet train;
Won' be nuffin' lef' but a greasy ol' stain.
So doncha complain; maintain an' refrain
From callin' him "BHO" or "Barack Hussein."

He bringin' on Change.
If ya find dat strange,
Well, let me explange
His national gearchange.

We need ourselves a whole lotta Progress;
I confess I guess we need ta fix diss mess.
He kickin' sum butt like a bully at recess,
An' slippin' threw da cracks like da monstah in Loch Ness.
I profess I regress when he starts ta impress,
An I can't supress; I jus' acquiesce:
Ever'thing starts ta coalesce
When I break out my trusty ol' Afferkin headdress.
But I digress.

Ya see, Big's gittin' Bigga,
An bettah iz bettah;
Da grass gittin' greenah, an'
Da sea gittin' wettah.
Da sky gittin' blue-ah,
So take dat, crackuh!
Barack keep on gittin blackah an' blackah;
He gonna rock yo worl' like a
Septembah hijackah.

So take heed of my rap,
An don' gimme no crap.
Watch my lips flap
While I steal yo hubcap.
Hear my mind snap
Like a well-oiled mousetrap.
An' whatevah ya does,
Don' ax fo' a recap!

That's Gratitude for Ya

The Washington Post reported recently that Iraq has ordered $100 million worth of military equipment for its police forces from China. The Iraqis claim the U.S. is too slow in delivering arms shipments. Here's the funny part: in light of this complaint/explanation for its behavior, Iraq's security forces already cannot account for the location of 190,000 weapons shipped to Iraq by the U.S. Would Iraq find speedy weapons shipments so necessary, if it actually could keep track of the weapons once they entered its territory?

I think this situation provides us a clear insight into the minds of Iraqi government officials, revealing just how appreciative they are of American efforts on their behalf. Agree with the Iraq war or not, our country has built schools, hospitals, and power plants for these people--at American taxpayer expense, for the most part. Our men in uniform died fighting the revolution Iraq's citizens had neither the courage nor the wherewithal to fight. Our soldiers continue dying in misguided efforts at keeping the Iraqi people "liberated" and "stable" in their government and nation. Iraq repays us by accepting all of this largesse, and doing business with China.

We're spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. The Bush Administration has requested $189 billion for Iraq in the next fiscal year.

It's time the well dried up. Let them dig their own.

Work 'Em If Ya Got 'Em

From Congressman John J. Duncan's Legislative Update:


Best Workers


Contrary to what some think, the U.S. is not losing jobs because American workers are spoiled or lazy. In fact, according to the latest rankings by the International Labor Office of the U.N., American workers are the most productive in the world, by far, mainly due to working longer hours. U.S. workers produce about $64,000 a year in value-added labor--$8,000 a year more than Ireland, the next closest economy. Most countries are not even close to the U.S. in this ranking, with the less-developed nations producing at least three times less per worker. Sub-Saharan Africa is the lowest, producing about one-twelfth per worker as in the developed or industrialized countries.


This belies the notion that Mexicans and others are such stellar workers--far exceeding the efforts of Americans--that our economy simply can't function without them. If they're such workaholics, why aren't Mexico and other countries running rings around the U.S., economically speaking? I note that Duncan gleaned his information from the U.N.--not a body well-known for its pro-American stances on a host of issues.

I patronize businesses almost every day, where dark-skinned, jet-haired people work, speaking broken or no English. A few short years ago, American citizens--many of them teenagers--performed these duties. So I ask myself: in a nation with a growing population, where did all those people go? Should we believe that these folks refuse to do such jobs--as we're told by our illustrious president--or should we believe that businesses who idolize the dollar above all else consciously seek out or favor applicants with questionable legal status, or even legal immigrants, in hopes of cutting corners on payday? Which seems more probable?

"If You Build It, They Won't Come"

Wouldn't that make a good bumper sticker promoting a fence on our southern border?

She Blinded Me with Science II

Scientific theories change over time. So do paradigms. Case-in-point: Preceding Darwin's cloaking of evolution in respectability, and its subsequent popularization, the prevailing understanding of origins in the western scientific realm was one of a Creator who brought all that exists into being. This assessment changed after Darwin--at least in terms of those who controlled the discussion.

Another example is Phlogiston Theory. The American Heritage Science Dictionary describes it thusly: A hypothetical colorless, odorless, weightless substance once believed to be the combustible part of all flammable substances and to be given off as flame during burning. In the 18th century, Antoine Lavoisier proved that phlogiston does not exist.

First postulated in 1702, this theory remained intact for nearly a century.

Even today, some scientists--Stephen Hawking, among others--debate the validity of Big Bang Theory.

From the biblical viewpoint, God's Word does not change over time.

In Mark 13:31, Jesus tells us: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

2 Timothy 3:16-17: 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

One either believes these verses, or he doesn't. But if you do believe, then God's holy Word should be placed on a pedestal far above the assertions and dogmas of sinful, misguided men.

If God's Word remains ever the same, while science verifiably does change over time, then tailoring one's understanding of scripture to science is a mistake. If you accept Big Bang Theory, and this in turn informs your view of scripture, what happens to your lodestar if the Big Bang becomes discredited? Will you continue following the zeitgeist, in crying: "Oh science gods, what's next on your endless list of theories? Please tell me what to believe." Will you continue in the assumption that it is theirs to declare, and yours faithfully to accept? That seems an erratic, unstable method of viewing reality.

I'll put faith in the Word of God, while exercising cautious respect for science, in light of its shortcomings. Better that than placing my faith in science, while pinballing back and forth over fluctuating scriptural interpretations based upon naturalistic science du jour.

All beliefs need a mooring. Will you dock yours in the immutable berth of scripture, or the mined shoals of science?

She Blinded Me with Science

I understand why certain folks have devotional awe of science. Each person approaches science from a different paradigm. On the one hand, some people believe that nothing exists beyond the material, while others have faith in something that supersedes the material universe.

The materialist sees science as humanity's best tool for studying all of existence. So to him, science is the ultimate if not only arbiter of truth.

However, the genuine Christian sees science as a flawed tool, albeit a useful one--an imperfect implement forged by an imperfect people. Science is limited in its capacity to analyze reality. For him, it never can be the paramount or sole arbiter of truth.

The point is that science is a neutral mechanism. The paradigm already in place in a person's mind determines how one views science: as the Alpha and Omega, or as a method of examining merely one aspect of a much broader reality. It is the rare individual who comes to science as a tabula rasa, deriving his worldview from his scientific studies. Rather, science becomes a validator of views long possessed.

There is no such thing as neutrality in the human heart. No one lacks biases. This is why blind acceptance of "scientific" conclusions is dangerous; religious or not, doing so means subordinating oneself to the pronouncements of people who are neither infallible nor objective in their determinations.

Thus Spake Wheelie

Have y'all ever read Mr. W. Lindsay Wheeler's babblings over at Vox Popoli? For those who've missed out, let me give a brief summation of his shtick:

1. There's a Jew in every woodpile, and he spends an inordinate amount of time sullying it.

2. Protestants are stupid.

3. Christianity owes as much (if not more) to Hellenism as it does to a timeless, sovereign God's influence and inspiration.

4. One should offer slavish, fawning devotion to human rulers, if the philosopher-kings-in-question fit certain "leadership" criteria--determined, of course, by Wheelie himself.

Now, who could argue with such impeccable reasoning?

Here's a recent Wheelie quote:


Protestants are such simple-minded peasants.

For instance The Flood--that covered "the whole world". Now Protestants think this means today's concept of an earth. Notice the word "concept" that I used. Reading other ancient texts, one comes across a saying of Sargon the Great, and he exclaims, "I have conquerod the """Whole"""" world".

Did he really?

The concept that the earth is a globe, that is round and huge is a MODERN concept due to technology.

The ANCIENT concept is from "horizon to horizon". The ancient peoples had NO concept of a globe of a Pacific Ocean and huge bodies of waters. Their concept of the World was of their eyesight from horizon to horizon. That the Flood was a huge event that covered their world.

And this is why Protestants are such simple-minded fools, and they bring true religion into disrepute, because they are NOT sophisticated enough to understand cultural context, don't make an effort to understand ancient peoples and take things for face value. Applying MODERN concepts to ancient phrases that NEVER had that meaning.


WLindsayWheeler Homepage 03.02.08 - 10:03 am


This entire critique seems based on a false assumption: namely, that scripture is a product of the human mind, not that of God. First, all Protestants don't hold unanimous views on the biblical Deluge; some take the Bible at its word, while others "spiritualize" the text. So his blanket criticism of Protestants is silly and demonstrably inaccurate.

Second, the relevant biblical passages on the Flood indicate a world-wide event, if taken at face-value. Rather than rehash this detailed argument, here, I'll point interested parties to, "A Worldwide Flood?," wherein I discuss the matter at length.

Third, due to the element of divine inspiration, for a Christian to compare the words of Sargon to the words of God seems a somewhat bizarre tactic in making one's point. Sargon was a mere man, and was either ignorant, exaggerating for effect, or perpetrating a deceit. His expressions of hubris or cluelessness shouldn't serve as interpreters of God's message to Mankind.

Fourth, that Earth is a globe is not "a modern concept due to technology." If Wheelie spent more time reading his Bible, and less drooling over the spoutings of long-dead Mesopotamian kings, he might grasp that scripture specifically addresses this topic:

Isaiah 40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. . .

Outside scriptural confines, the ancient Greeks and Indians understood that Earth was a round ball, not a flat plane supported on the backs of four gigantic turtles, or a piece of flotsam swirling in a celestial toilet bowl, or a Burroughsian raft floating in a lake of fire, or whatever.

Fifth, the "horizon to horizon" myth may have infected some ancient peoples, but not all, for conquering armies and wanderers had travelled farther than the far horizons--many times over, in some cases. They knew that the world encompassed more than what lay within their eyesight, though they couldn't see or experience it by walking outside and looking around. Technological inferiority doesn't equal irredeemable stupidity and ignorance.

And of course, what better method of ending an arrogant, condescending tirade than with a little good old-fashioned name-calling? That hits the spot. Right, Wheelie?

Sola Scriptura and Tradition

Roman Catholics and Protestants tussle over many ideas, not the least of which is sola scriptura. Some Catholics consider Protestants wayward brothers and sisters of the same faith, while others have a virulent dislike of the Reformers. I find it interesting that people who elevate the beliefs and philosophies of men to an equal plane with God's Word sneer and label as heretics those who refrain from doing so. However, if one cracks his Bible, from time to time, he might understand the complete disdain revealed therein for Man's maundering over philosophical matters. Here's what Jesus said about the traditions and wisdom of Men:

7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.--Mark 7:7-9

In Colossians 2:8, Paul said: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

In I Corinthians 1:18-25, Paul delivers this critical message on the subject of Man's wisdom:

18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

It seems to me that God has a very low estimation of Man's wisdom, and certainly doesn't consider it on a par with His own. A coherent reading of scripture makes this obvious. If the Bible represents God's wisdom and insight, how can the traditions and opinions of men stand in their radiance and not flinch? That is the ridiculous concept. That is the nigh-heretical view. That is the unbiblical perspective.

The concept of sola scriptura doesn't mean that truth is found nowhere outside scripture. Rather, it is the notion that the Holy Bible is the ultimate authority--never trumped, and never equalled.

Man's traditions and wisdom should subject themselves to God's Word. Not the other way around.


*For further reference, here's a past blog post that I wrote on the same topic.

You've Got Mail

A man was in his front yard mowing the grass when his attractive blonde female neighbor came out of the house and went straight to the mailbox. She opened it then slammed it shut & stormed back in the house.

A little later she came out of her house again, went to the mailbox and, again, opened it, and slammed it shut again. Angrily, back into the house she went.

As the man was getting ready to edge the lawn, here she came out again, marched to the mailbox, opened it and then slammed it closed harder than ever.

Puzzled by her actions the man asked her, "Is something wrong?"

To which she replied:

"There certainly is! My stupid computer keeps saying, 'YOU'VE GOT MAIL.'"

Proverbial Wit

Some old adages I find insightful or just plain amusing:


A clear conscience is a soft pillow.--German Proverb

A close friend can become a close enemy.--Ethiopian Proverb

A dimple on the chin, the devil within.--Gaelic Proverb

A dog is wiser than a woman; it does not bark at its master.--Russian Proverb

A drowning man is not troubled by rain.--Persian Proverb

A friend's eye is a good mirror.--Irish Proverb

A good husband is healthy and absent.--Japanese Proverb

A lie travels round the world while truth is putting her boots on.--French Proverb

A man is not honest simply because he never had a chance to steal.--Yiddish Proverb

A prudent man does not make the goat his gardener.--Hungarian Proverb

A rumor goes in one ear and out many mouths.--Chinese proverb

A single Russian hair outweighs half a Pole.--Traditional Russian Saying

A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.--Greek Proverb

A thief believes everybody steals.--Proverb of Unknown Origin

A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows the public opinion.--Chinese Proverb

A woman has the form of an angel, the heart of a serpent, and the mind of an ass.--German Proverb

Advice when most needed is least heeded.--English Proverb

After shaking hands with a Greek, count your fingers.--Albanian Saying

An ass in Germany is a professor in Rome.--Traditional German Saying

An enemy will agree, but a friend will argue.--Russian Proverb

As sluttish and slatternly as an Irishwoman bred in France.--Traditional Irish Saying

Both your friend and your enemy think you will never die.--Irish Proverb

Children suck the mother when they are young and the father when they are old.--English Proverb.

Deal with the faults of others as gently as with your own.--Chinese Proverb

Death always comes too early or too late.--English Proverb

Do not blame God for having created the tiger, but thank him for not having given it wings.--Indian Proverb

Every ass loves to hear himself bray.--Proverb of Unknown Origin

Everyone loves justice in the affairs of another.--Italian Proverb

Glutton: one who digs his grave with his teeth.--French Proverb

God heals, and the physician takes the fee.--French Proverb

Gray hairs are death's blossoms.--English Proverb

He lied like an eyewitness.--Russian Insult

He that marries for money will earn it.--American Proverb

He that seeks trouble never misses.--English Proverb (17th century)

He who knows nothing, doubts nothing.--Spanish Proverb

He who sups with the devil has need of a long spoon.--English Proverb

Heaven lent you a soul Earth will lend a grave.--Chinese Proverb

If you wish to die young, make your physician your heir.--Romanian Proverb

In a calm sea every man is a pilot.--Spanish Proverb

It is better to exist unknown to the law.--Irish Proverb

Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one.--Chinese Proverb

Life without a friend is death without a witness.--Spanish Proverb

Love enters a man through his eyes, woman through her ears.--Polish Proverb

Love your neighbors, but don't pull down the fence.--Chinese proverb

Luck has a slender anchorage.--English Proverb

The Crusades: Myth Vs. Reality

How many times have you read criticism from atheists/agnostics/Islamophiles/anti-Western deconstructionists about the wretched, soul-searing evil of the Crusades--you know, those proto-imperialistic attempts at conquering the noble turbaned savages of Eden. Yes, you've probably read about how Duke George W. I looked across the turbulent Mediterranean and said: "Thou shalt heareth all of us sooneth," or some such grand expression, at which point he and Cheney of Blois, Condi of Lusignan, and papal legate Rumsfeld powwowed about how best to parcel up those oily sands and peaceful townships, for the satiation of God's greed.

The problem is that this depiction is bunk, and anything remotely resembling it is a crock. In fact, if your understanding of the crusades is limited to popular histories and film, you know even less about the Crusades than Osama bin Hiden.

In 632, Muhammed--blessings upon his flea-bitten backside--gave up the ghost and ventured for hotter climes. He had pacifistically conquered a portion of the Arabian Peninsula during his waging of relentless peace. His immediate successor finished that endeavor, saw the rest of the world, and said, "Wow, more kindling for the fire!" And so the warriors of heaven continued in their greatest skill: the art of killing and enslaving for Allah. One hundred years after Muhammed's demise, they had destroyed the Persian Empire, made forays against the Byzantines, taken the Holy Land and Syria, consumed northern Africa (including Egypt), conquered three-fourths of Spain, and invaded France. Charles Martel halted their advance into French lands and sent them fleeing at the battles around Tours and Poitiers. With the exceptions of Arabia and Persia, all of the above lost territories were components of Christendom. The Spaniards--exhibiting Job's own patience--spent the next seven hundred sixty years winning back their stolen country from Muhammed's Peaceniks, in what is known today as the Reconquista.

The Islamic world continued spreading smiles into lands known today as Khazakhstan and Pakistan, as well as Sicily. They also took to beating the peace out of each other, such was their penchant for unity and harmony. The Sunni caliphate of Baghdad began disintegrating, and the Fatimids--Shiites who claimed descent from Muhammed's daughter--ruled over Egypt. A third group of newly-Islamocized nomads, the Seljuk Turks, found Byzantine lands enticing. Even within these three major divisions of Islamic lands, infighting and dynastic struggles ran amok.

During this time period, Western Christendom failed in presenting a united front against expansionist Islam, due to the petty exigencies of surviving swarms of invading Vikings and Magyars. However, the West managed integrating and converting most of these troublemakers by the tenth century's end.

The Seljuks began raiding Byzantine territory--a favorite pasttime of Muslims in the region--and the emperor became worried as these attacks hit close to home. So he reluctantly asked the pope for help. This is an important point: The First Crusade was, in part, a direct response to Byzantine pleas for aid. The pope saw the situation as one in which he could kill several birds with one stone, as it were: He wanted to help fellow Christians in the fight against Muslims, heal the rifts between the Eastern and Western Churches, and even make efforts at winning back Jerusalem, a holy city to Christians. The pope understood the Islamic threat, as north Africa had been utilized already as a launching platform for assaults on western Europe.

Christians didn't call their efforts a "crusade," but an armed pilgrimage. The word "crusade" is a more modern appellation for these events. Christians saw their aid of the Byzantines and subsequent journey to the Holy Land as pleasing to God. The trek to Jerusalem was as much an act of worship as one of warfare. Other crusades to the Holy Land followed from this first endeavor, which began in 1095, and ended in 1099.

Islamic threats in the East and West were tangible, but more immediate in the East at the time of the First Crusade. Virtually since Muhammed's day, Christians had endured numerous onslaughts by Muslims, who violated their boundaries and their women, sacked their towns, and proselytized with their swords. They offered three appealing alternatives: death, de facto or literal enslavement, or conversion to Islam. One cannot make heads or tails of the Crusades outside this critical context: that they were a response to centuries of unprovoked Islamic aggression. Imagine tolerating unrelenting attacks against your friends and neighbors for a period twice as long as America has existed as a nation, then ask yourself: what would I have done?

So we have a history fashioned from myth, a web of lies thicker than that of Tolkien's Shelob.

Lie: Crusaders were the aggressors.

Lie: The Islamic world was peaceful, before the dreaded Christians struck.

Lie: Mesopotamia, Arabia, the Holy Land, and their environs all were united under Islam's banner, just prior to the Crusades.

Lie: Crusaders were imperialists (the Crusades had enormous monetary costs; rich men broke themselves on their behalf, and poor men went bankrupt, losing everything they owned. The absurdity of suggesting that the Crusades were precursors to 18th and 19th century European/white colonialism is demonstrated by the fact that, when a Crusade ended, the vast majority of crusaders returned home).

Were there excesses? Certainly. Undertakings of such magnitude always attract opportunists, ne'er-do-wells, and bloodthirsty hatemongers. But the typical crusader--of high or low station--fit none of these descriptions. His involvement was an act of worship, or penance, or a good work motivated by hope of salvation, however the wrongheadedness of such a works-based outlook.

I think it's pathetic and infuriating that people shriek in outrage about the Crusades, formulating their questions as "How dare those Europeans. . .", or "Why did the Crusaders do. . .", fill-in-the-preferred-atrocity, etc. A sure sign of ignorance is asking the wrong questions within a faulty framework. Often, one's true worldview is found therein. Revealing repugnance toward the West when discussing the Crusades is asinine, when one looks at the actual events, instead of relying upon the works of anti-Western "historians" like Karen Armstrong. It's like condemning Israel for not going belly-up in the course of one of its many wars. Come to think of it, I've heard castigations along those very lines.

My question is: how was Christendom able to stomach so much unmitigated wrecking of its lands and the wholesale murder of its people for so long, before hitting back? That's a far more reasonable question.

Honestly, Abe?

According to a recent (Jan. 14-22, 2008) Harris Interactive poll, Americans consider Abraham Lincoln the overall best President of the United States:


Abraham Lincoln: 20% of respondents labeled him "best."
Ronald Reagan: 14%
Franklin Roosevelt: 12%
George Washington: 12% (tie w/ FDR)
John Kennedy: 11%
Bill Clinton: 7%
Thomas Jefferson: 4%
Theodore Roosevelt: 3%
Harry Truman: 2%
George W. Bush: 1% (tie w/ Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, & Richard Nixon)
George H.W. Bush: less than 0.5% ( along w/ LBJ, Ford, John Adams, Jackson, Wilson, & Coolidge)


Looks like all that Yankee propaganda paid off.

Humble Pride

From Foxy News:


Brokeback Osama’s wife, Michelle, is under fire for leaving the impression that she hasn’t been proud of her country until now, when Democrats are beginning to rally around her husband’s campaign.

Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, she said, "People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

Isn't that special? Now that Brokeback's in the limelight, with people fawning all over him like he's the second coming of Martin Luther King, Jr.--now she's suddenly proud? The woman was born in 1964. Not once in that time period has she ever found reason for pride in her American identity? Pretty interesting that she requires her husband to be skipping on the cusp of the presidency before she can feel pride in her country. High standards, indeed.

By the way, I love Osama's "Change" schtick. "We need change. Why? Because change is the kind of change we need. Change is good. Don't ask what changes I'll make; that's beside the point. The important factor, here, is that I'm for change, which is a great moral virtue, in and of itself."

The Mist

A better title would've been The Mist Opportunity.

I went and saw it friday night, with my wife. It's based on a "novella" by Stephen King (King has a habit of writing novel-length works of about half the length of his typical six-inch thick tome, and dubbing them "novellas;" this is one of those). If you've never read the story, I recommend it--for the nail-biting suspense, if for no other reason. It's one of his best.

As for the movie: if you scare easily, or have a low threshold for gore, I advise against it. The bloodletting's nasty, though I wouldn't quite call it gratuitous. My wife covered her mouth or hid her eyes several times. Frank Darabont, who directed The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption, also helmed this film. He follows the original story as closely as one could ask of a Hollywood director--until the final five minutes. At this point, Darabont says: "Aw, what does King know? Just because he's sold quintillions of books doesn't mean he knows what an audience wants. Let's throw out his ending and craft our own! Yeah, that's a great idea! Love me for my courage!"

Darabont's conclusion--which I won't detail for the sake of those planning to see this film--is a contrived piece of crap that brings nothing to the table, in terms of story improvement. In fact, it's so twisted and perverse and, yes, evil, that it ruins the entire movie. It's that bad. This is sick even by King's standards, which is no glowing testimonial of Hollywood's decency. King's story has a much better, more organic conclusion. If the director had been present at my screening of his little experiment in the ruination of a plot, I'd have fought the temptation to punch him dead in the face. Some people in the audience were so disgusted, they got up and made their exit en masse.

Aside from this major flaw, the movie's scary and well-made. The acting's universally good, and the special effects are far better than some of the critics have claimed, to my puzzlement.

One other flaw, which one expects from contemporary filmmakers: A major character is a religious fanatic, in the Christian tradition. She reads her Bible, prays, preaches, and literally raves about the End of the World. To his credit, the director doesn't present her as the sole representative of religion; other characters who are not depicted as lunatics express belief in God, and see her as a repugnant, extreme idiot. So whereas there's some balance, the first nut is a far stronger, more dedicated person than the others in her beliefs. It seems the message is that religious adherence is acceptible, but great religious zeal is insane. When the woman is ranting, she mentions the monstrosities of abortions and stem-cell research; but this is in the context of a lunatic's frothings, not the calm attempts of someone reasoning with those steeped in error. Interestingly, I don't recall the original story mentioning stem-cells or abortions, so I suppose the director felt the irresistible urge to "contemporize" it, since anything that happened before yesterday can't be adapted to the screen without drawing parallels with today's headlines--even when doing so makes zero sense.

This movie is a bizarre mixture of respect and contempt for both its audience and the work upon which it's based.

The Irrational Atheist

Vox Day's new book, The Irrational Atheist, aptly demonstrates the basic thesis implicit in the book's title: that today's most outspoken atheists have no idea what they're talking about, having utilized a healthy dose of conscious falsehood, illogic, and error in arriving at this point of intellectual "brightness."

Imagine watching Andre the Giant piledrive a blind, quadraplegic midget, and you'll have an inkling of the proverbial head-handing Vox provides. I actually felt sorry for Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens upon finishing the book. Not only do they come across as dishonest, mistaken, and desperate, but they also look like bumbling idiots. These "brights" must have broken headlights.

Vox does not set out to debunk atheism by making a positive case for God; rather, he shows that leading proponents of atheism provide reasoning for their arguments that are anything but reasonable. Their attacks on religion--particularly Christianity--are fallacious, while their attempts at insulating themselves from the logical actions and ends of disbelief make clear the higher standard to which they hold religion. The book's novelty is that it meets atheists on the ground of their choosing--i.e., reason and science--and achieves victory, not content in a mere defeat of the enemy, but gnashing for a full-on rout.

I enjoyed the humor and highly factual nature of the text. The footnotes slow one's reading pace a bit, but they're worth the effort, offering anecdotes, tidbits of information, and snickers.

I disagree with some of Vox's assessments, such as his take on the Crusades and his game designer concept of God, articulated near the book's conclusion. I also question his declaration, "I don't care if you go to Hell," in Chapter One, though I appreciate his candor. But in the long run, these are just quibbles, because they don't constitute the book's focus, nor do they negate its basic premise: that the leading lights of atheism are far dimmer than their followers imagine.

Big Endorsement

"Howdy, folks. I believe the Right Honorable Juan McAmnesty will make an excellent President of the United States of Aztlanica. He's a strong conservative--and by "strong conservative," I mean someone who strongly believes in the empowerment of our divine elder sibling, Big Brother. Take campaign finance reform as an example: Juan believes "there's too much money in politics;" and I agree, one hunnert percent. So what better solution than ensuring that only the most fabulously wealthy citizens can afford to run a political campaign? Makes perfect sense to me. After all, wealth=virtue. We must keep all the Middle and Lower class riffraff as far away from the presidency as an Iranian mullah from a suitcase nuke.

"Additionally, my friend Juan has assured me that he will not stop until everyone on Earth's an Aztlanican. He's a strong proponent of immigration reform--and by "reform," I mean erasing all our borders, welcoming aliens with open arms--especially those of third-world, non-European ancestry--and creating a heterodisingenuous polyglot of perfection, a stock-pot of Balkanized municipalities and communities, a Promised Land where the Amero is our lingua franca, and skin colors, religions, loyalties, and worldviews change starkly, depending upon which side of the street you're standing.

"So I ask potential voters one question: who better than a man who believes in cultural incohesion, and simultaneous unbridled federal power?

"Juan McAmnesty is a true statesman for the twenty-first century. Let him provide amnesty from your doubts and fears."

Not So Super

After tuesday's orgy of primaries and caucuses, I noted that Yuckabee and Her Scaliness won my home state of Tennessee. Ugh. Ron Paul made a respectable showing in my county, coming in ahead of Giuliani and Thompson.

I heard today that Sniff Romney tearfully dropped out of the race. Ah, well. I suppose he'll just have to go back to working toward godhood via Mormonism, instead of politics.

So all we have left is Juan McAmnesty, Yuckabee, and Paul. That leaves us with an erratic schizophrenic with a bad temper, a socialist for Jesus, and someone who believes the Constitution should be read, understood, and followed--not used as birdcage lining.

So vote for Ron Paul, or don't vote at all. That's how I see it. A vote for anyone else is a vote for socialism.

State of Dysfunction

In the work ahead, we must be guided by the philosophy that made our nation great. As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. And so in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives for their futures. (Emphasis mine).

Mr. Bush said the above in his State of the Union speech, on Monday. Sadly, In light of his total disregard of Americans' overwhelming disgust with de facto amnesty proposals for illegal aliens, we can assume that the entire paragraph is pure bilge.

America needs to secure our borders -- and with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We're increasing worksite enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings. We've effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border, and by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents.

Interesting comments, considering that the money allocated for building 700 miles of border fencing hasn't been utilized to that effect. As for "catch and release," the Bush administration has restricted that policy to the country's interior, as opposed to the border. Bush has also demonstrated his concern about border security by withdrawing the national guard from the area. Impressive.

Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy. (Applause)

If we assume--hypothetically, of course--that he's being honest, here, his attitude is not one of someone who cares about the rule of law. Rather, it's a defeatist posture. It's giving up without making a sincere effort at solving the problem. We already have a lawful way for foreign workers to come here; it's called immigration; and by immigration, I'm not talking about the Olympian triathlon of crossing rivers, scaling fences, and trekking sweltering deserts. Furthermore, what does allowing "workers" easy access to our country have to do with securing our borders for America's safety? Are we incapable of using our great resources and materiel without rolling out the red carpet for X number of foreigners? That's nonsense. I assume the applause at the end came from representatives of big business who exploit illegal aliens for cheap labor, while shafting their fellow citizens in the process. Truly noble and altruistic, isn't it?

This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm.

Yes, because rewarding lawlessness always stymies further unlawful behavior. How's the weather in Neverland, Mr. President?

Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals.

Said the man who ignores our laws when they don't suit his agenda, and spits full in the face of American ideals, while catering to interests other than those targeting our nation's welfare.

I merely skimmed through the rest of his speech, because I'm a firm believer in the concept of "garbage in, garbage out," and there's only so much B.S. I can tolerate.

Mi Casa es su Casa!

State of the North American Union, 2008 (Estado de los Asuntos, 2008)



"Mi companero norteamericanos:

"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Arizona the sons of former undocumented workers will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. After we make the blancos muerto. It is all bueno.

"I have a dream that one day even the state of Nuevo Mejico, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, sweltering with the heat of global warming, and 110 degrees in the shade, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice for those who believe that all borders should be erased like chalk from a blackboard; or conquistadores from Tenochtitlan.

"I have a dream that my house maid and gardener will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by their legal status, but by how them dishes sparkle and how that mary-jay-uany grows straight and tall out back.

"I have a dream today.

"I have a dream that one day, in America, with its vicious racists, with its people having their lips dripping with words like "wetback" and "illegal"; one day right there in America, little brown boys and brown girls will be able to join hands as sisters and brothers, singing Kumbaya in perfect Spanish, as the little gringos and gringas trod the steps of our pyramids and meet their fates at the hands of obsidian knives and leering priests in feathered headdresses.

"I have a dream today.

"I have a dream that one day every guest worker shall be exalted, every Anglo and other blanco diablos shall be made low, the welfare checks will be written plain, and the crooked whites will be made straight, and the glory of La Raza shall be revealed, and all bronze flesh shall see it together.

"This will be the day when all of Dios' children will be able to sing with a new meaning the Nuestro Himno.

"And if Aztlan--I mean 'America'-- is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious slums of Los Angeles. Let freedom ring from the mighty barrios of Chicago. Let freedom ring from the heights of Spanish Harlem!

"And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every hacienda and every shanty, from every maquiladora and every taco stand, we will be able to speed up that day when all of Dios' ninos and ninas, bronze men and bronze women, Aztecs and Mayans, Olmecs and those who await Quetzalcoatl's return from o'er the oceano--all of Montezuma's happy people will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Mexica spiritual, "La Reconquista es consumado!"