Here are some first reactions from various public figures on Barelyblack Obrotha's ascendancy to the presiduncy:
Hillary Clinton: "I was the best man for the job!"
Michelle Obrotha: "Only now am I proud to be an American. Only after my husband's trouncing of his opponent and winning of the nation's highest office can I hold my head high in the supermarket, or in passing bag ladies on the street. I have rather high expectations, you see. Just ask Barelyblack about our first date."
Bill Clinton: "I don't care what anyone says; I was the first black president!"
Joe Biden: "I remember listening to FDR's fireside chats on the internet with Algore, back in '33. Barelyblack relates to Americans with that same warmth and trustworthiness, and he does it without the added benefit of having polio."
Michael Jackson: "I don't see what's so special about the guy. Heck, I'm blacker than him."
Je$$e Jack$on: "I must lend my admiration to the africanization of this racist nation. And for this rhyming affirmation, I hope Obrotha offers just compensation."
Al $harpton: "No Barelyblack, no peace. Know Barelyblack, know peace."
Chris Matthews: "Obrotha tossed me his underwear at the Demonratic Convention! I'm never washing them! I'm the luckiest honkey alive!"
Emoprah Winfrey: "I saw him descending from on high in a cloud. As the tears rolled down my face, his radiance shone round about him, and I wept even harder than the first time I joined Jenny Craig. I touched the hem of his garment; in a voice that boomed straight out of Exodus, he said: 'Would you go and walk my dog for me? 'Preciate it.' After which he handed me the leash, and I swooned and knew no more."
Jorge Bushandez: "No hablo Ingles."
Friday, November 7, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Of Mulatto Reds and Hoary Heads
In this, the most important presidential election cycle since the last one, we are faced with an interesting set of choices: stay home and learn macramé, vote for preserving the status quo of gleeful, pedal-to-the-metal flight toward a brick wall, or play outside the Demonrat/Repugniscum sandbox.
I consider shunning the voting booth a legitimate option, but I don’t recommend it for someone with an interest in sending the vermin in D.C. a message. No one will ever know why you didn’t show up; you’ll be lumped in with the morons who were too high or drunk to find the local precinct through the bleary mental fog, the illiterates, the anarchists, the indifferent, those who couldn’t miss Survivor: Ethiopia, those afraid of knocking up a chad, and the handful of racists and geriatricists who fume in protest.
However, if you vote third-party, or write in your own name or that of Porky Pig, you’ll be casting a vote for someone outside the candidate pool rubber-stamped by the treasonous globalists of our two major parties. Your refusal to accept those the elites coronated will serve as evidence that you have no use for their ilk—and that’s a much more direct message than playing the role of wallflower at the square-dance.
If you stick with the familiar comfort of betrayal, you’ll have two doozies on offer to choose from: on the one hand, there’s Juan McAmnazi, who stands proudly as an enemy of free speech, never met a wetback he wouldn’t invite over for enchiladas and refried beans after giving him your job, and remains as stable on an unborn infant’s right to life as a man on stilts in a gopher town. On the other hand, you have the privilege of making Marx clap in Hell for supporting unvarnished socialism in the guise of Barelyblack Obrotha, a man who leans so far Left that one more step will send him reeling off the edge of the world, a man who refused endorsement of a provision protecting infants who survive botched abortion attempts by allowing them prompt medical treatment. We’re talking two jewels mined from the hard granite of humanity, folks.
Ron Paul dropped out of the race, so he’s no longer an option for third-party voters. But he has thrown his support behind Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. When I cast my vote, tomorrow, I’ll give Baldwin my backing—not because Paul did, but because I’m interested in a candidate who’s more concerned about preserving America than protecting his avaricious friends’ access to cheap labor, or implementing as much of the Communist Party platform as possible.
I consider shunning the voting booth a legitimate option, but I don’t recommend it for someone with an interest in sending the vermin in D.C. a message. No one will ever know why you didn’t show up; you’ll be lumped in with the morons who were too high or drunk to find the local precinct through the bleary mental fog, the illiterates, the anarchists, the indifferent, those who couldn’t miss Survivor: Ethiopia, those afraid of knocking up a chad, and the handful of racists and geriatricists who fume in protest.
However, if you vote third-party, or write in your own name or that of Porky Pig, you’ll be casting a vote for someone outside the candidate pool rubber-stamped by the treasonous globalists of our two major parties. Your refusal to accept those the elites coronated will serve as evidence that you have no use for their ilk—and that’s a much more direct message than playing the role of wallflower at the square-dance.
If you stick with the familiar comfort of betrayal, you’ll have two doozies on offer to choose from: on the one hand, there’s Juan McAmnazi, who stands proudly as an enemy of free speech, never met a wetback he wouldn’t invite over for enchiladas and refried beans after giving him your job, and remains as stable on an unborn infant’s right to life as a man on stilts in a gopher town. On the other hand, you have the privilege of making Marx clap in Hell for supporting unvarnished socialism in the guise of Barelyblack Obrotha, a man who leans so far Left that one more step will send him reeling off the edge of the world, a man who refused endorsement of a provision protecting infants who survive botched abortion attempts by allowing them prompt medical treatment. We’re talking two jewels mined from the hard granite of humanity, folks.
Ron Paul dropped out of the race, so he’s no longer an option for third-party voters. But he has thrown his support behind Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. When I cast my vote, tomorrow, I’ll give Baldwin my backing—not because Paul did, but because I’m interested in a candidate who’s more concerned about preserving America than protecting his avaricious friends’ access to cheap labor, or implementing as much of the Communist Party platform as possible.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Whip it Good
A Wisconsin pastor has been charged with felony physical abuse of a child after he spanked his 12-year-old son for lying and a teacher notified social services.
Barry W. Barnett Jr., 43, of Poynette, Wis., is free on a $10,000 bond, but he could face up to three years in prison and fines for disciplining his son, the local Portage Daily Register reported.
Golly, judging by this case, my parents were child abusers a thousand times over—as were my grandparents. Come to mention it, so were most humans prior to the Age of Asininity. How did we survive so long as a race without Big Sissy’s loving care?
At the pastor's hearing, Barnett's son said his father was right to spank him .
"He gave me a chance to tell him the truth, and I just kept lying to him," the boy said.
The boy said his father gave him two "swats" that "hurt a little" on his rear end in June. He told authorities both he and his dad cried while he was disciplined.
The 12-year-old said he was warned he might receive a spanking if he continued to act up and that he understands what he did was wrong.
I can’t decide which is worse: the bruised feelings, or the sore buttocks. I’m sure that a weepy leftist would find the former outweighing the latter. While I’m ruminating over this philosophical quandary, here’s a hint of what scripture says about corporal punishment:
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes—Proverbs 13:24.
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.—Proverbs 22:15
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.--Proverbs 23:13-14
A June 7 report from the Divine Savior Healthcare emergency department indicated that the boy had slight bruising on his buttocks, but it said there was no swelling and he was not experiencing pain. The medical paperwork said the boy told physicians he didn't think he was abused and he loves his father.
The documents show the boy's doctor does not believe he was abused, and he called the event a "social services fiasco."
Alas, if these people only understood that our benevolent government knows best. You poor, silly children. Big Nanny is there to make sure that you save money for retirement, and spend it on the appropriate items. She guides you through life by seeing to it that you never die in a car accident, since she’ll ticket you for neglecting to buckle up. And if you ride off a cliff blindfolded on your quad runner, she’ll cradle your skull in that mandatory helmet. You’ll be thanking her for guarding you from your own stupidity, when you land on your wittle head. She’ll even ignore your desires expressed in referenda, if they exceed what’s good for you. She moderates the number of liquid ounces in your toilet tank, lest you take the notion to drown yourself over that dreadful whipping. Pretty soon, she’ll begin wiping your butt for you (though never spanking it).
District Attorney Jane Kohlwey told the Portage Daily Register the spanking was not reasonable, because it left bruising, though Barnett's attorney claims photographs only reveal red marks.
Even if we assume the bruises were there, that’s information gathered after the fact. It’s not as if the teacher had evidence of such when he/she/it turned the pastor in for his heinous crime. As for the teacher, I believe the correct response is to hang him/her/it spread-eagle by the finger- and toenails on the school grounds, naked, and apply the cat-‘o-nine-tails to its brazen buttocks—for the sake of diversity and anatomical knowledge, if not justice.
"We feel that he went beyond reasonable discipline and that it's a pattern," Kohlwey said.
Yes; and therein lies the problem, Ms. Emo. Your position is based on how you feel. Not on logic. Nor facts. Nor the long history of successful behavior modification techniques. Nor—Marx preserve us—outmoded religious texts.
Barry W. Barnett Jr., 43, of Poynette, Wis., is free on a $10,000 bond, but he could face up to three years in prison and fines for disciplining his son, the local Portage Daily Register reported.
Golly, judging by this case, my parents were child abusers a thousand times over—as were my grandparents. Come to mention it, so were most humans prior to the Age of Asininity. How did we survive so long as a race without Big Sissy’s loving care?
At the pastor's hearing, Barnett's son said his father was right to spank him .
"He gave me a chance to tell him the truth, and I just kept lying to him," the boy said.
The boy said his father gave him two "swats" that "hurt a little" on his rear end in June. He told authorities both he and his dad cried while he was disciplined.
The 12-year-old said he was warned he might receive a spanking if he continued to act up and that he understands what he did was wrong.
I can’t decide which is worse: the bruised feelings, or the sore buttocks. I’m sure that a weepy leftist would find the former outweighing the latter. While I’m ruminating over this philosophical quandary, here’s a hint of what scripture says about corporal punishment:
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes—Proverbs 13:24.
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.—Proverbs 22:15
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.--Proverbs 23:13-14
A June 7 report from the Divine Savior Healthcare emergency department indicated that the boy had slight bruising on his buttocks, but it said there was no swelling and he was not experiencing pain. The medical paperwork said the boy told physicians he didn't think he was abused and he loves his father.
The documents show the boy's doctor does not believe he was abused, and he called the event a "social services fiasco."
Alas, if these people only understood that our benevolent government knows best. You poor, silly children. Big Nanny is there to make sure that you save money for retirement, and spend it on the appropriate items. She guides you through life by seeing to it that you never die in a car accident, since she’ll ticket you for neglecting to buckle up. And if you ride off a cliff blindfolded on your quad runner, she’ll cradle your skull in that mandatory helmet. You’ll be thanking her for guarding you from your own stupidity, when you land on your wittle head. She’ll even ignore your desires expressed in referenda, if they exceed what’s good for you. She moderates the number of liquid ounces in your toilet tank, lest you take the notion to drown yourself over that dreadful whipping. Pretty soon, she’ll begin wiping your butt for you (though never spanking it).
District Attorney Jane Kohlwey told the Portage Daily Register the spanking was not reasonable, because it left bruising, though Barnett's attorney claims photographs only reveal red marks.
Even if we assume the bruises were there, that’s information gathered after the fact. It’s not as if the teacher had evidence of such when he/she/it turned the pastor in for his heinous crime. As for the teacher, I believe the correct response is to hang him/her/it spread-eagle by the finger- and toenails on the school grounds, naked, and apply the cat-‘o-nine-tails to its brazen buttocks—for the sake of diversity and anatomical knowledge, if not justice.
"We feel that he went beyond reasonable discipline and that it's a pattern," Kohlwey said.
Yes; and therein lies the problem, Ms. Emo. Your position is based on how you feel. Not on logic. Nor facts. Nor the long history of successful behavior modification techniques. Nor—Marx preserve us—outmoded religious texts.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A Stolen Life
Once upon a time, a young woman of twenty-one years named Jennifer left her home in Alabama and went to Knoxville, Tennessee on a business trip. There, the former homecoming queen planned to help open a branch of Mama Blue's Buffet Restaurant, which also was her place of employment back home.
She checked into a Day's Inn motel, and promptly disappeared about a day later. Family and coworkers became concerned, and within twenty-four hours, her dead body was found floating in Melton Hill Lake, nearby.
Police checked Jennifer's motel room and discovered her personal belongings. There were no signs of forced entry.
The Medical Examiner's report determined that the young woman was beaten, sodomized, and strangled to death.
A woman who worked at the motel went to the police and gave them some bloody clothes that her husband--who also found employment at the motel--was wearing on the day of the victim's disappearance. The blood matched the young lady's blood. Police later learned that this human filth used the motel's master key to enter Jennifer's room.
Police discovered that the perpetrator already was in their custody, due to having been arrested the same day that Jennifer's body was found dumped in the lake. His arrest came as a result of the police charging him with forgery, when they found a fake Social Security card in his possession.
You see, nineteen-year-old Valentino Vasquez Miranda was an alien thug with no legal right to be in the United States.
This is a true story. It happened in the last days of September, 2008.
Besides the atrocity enacted upon Jennifer, and the subsequent suffering endured by her family, the pivotal element, here, is that a woman is dead because our government is indifferent to the mass migration problem pervading our country. In addition, we have a corporation that put the allmighty dollar ahead of its guests' security.
Until our government begins giving a tinker's damn about rapacious murderers running loose in our streets who have invaded from without, and until our home-grown businesses become more interested in patriotism than pinching that last, precious penny, we can and should expect many, many more cases just like this one. We will see more and more of our daughters and wives and sisters and neices floating facedown in lakes, or tossed in gutters like yesterday's trash.
She checked into a Day's Inn motel, and promptly disappeared about a day later. Family and coworkers became concerned, and within twenty-four hours, her dead body was found floating in Melton Hill Lake, nearby.
Police checked Jennifer's motel room and discovered her personal belongings. There were no signs of forced entry.
The Medical Examiner's report determined that the young woman was beaten, sodomized, and strangled to death.
A woman who worked at the motel went to the police and gave them some bloody clothes that her husband--who also found employment at the motel--was wearing on the day of the victim's disappearance. The blood matched the young lady's blood. Police later learned that this human filth used the motel's master key to enter Jennifer's room.
Police discovered that the perpetrator already was in their custody, due to having been arrested the same day that Jennifer's body was found dumped in the lake. His arrest came as a result of the police charging him with forgery, when they found a fake Social Security card in his possession.
You see, nineteen-year-old Valentino Vasquez Miranda was an alien thug with no legal right to be in the United States.
This is a true story. It happened in the last days of September, 2008.
Besides the atrocity enacted upon Jennifer, and the subsequent suffering endured by her family, the pivotal element, here, is that a woman is dead because our government is indifferent to the mass migration problem pervading our country. In addition, we have a corporation that put the allmighty dollar ahead of its guests' security.
Until our government begins giving a tinker's damn about rapacious murderers running loose in our streets who have invaded from without, and until our home-grown businesses become more interested in patriotism than pinching that last, precious penny, we can and should expect many, many more cases just like this one. We will see more and more of our daughters and wives and sisters and neices floating facedown in lakes, or tossed in gutters like yesterday's trash.
Welfare Poem
I received this is an email and thought it was kinda funny:
I cross ocean,
Poor and broke,
Take bus,
See employment folk.
Nice man treat me
Good in there,
Say I need
To see welfare.
Welfare say,
'You come no more,
We send cash
Right to your door.
Welfare checks,
They make you wealthy,
Medicaid
It keep you healthy!'
By and by,
I get plenty money,
Thanks to you,
American dummy.
Write to friends
In motherland,
Tell them 'Come
Fast as you can.'
They come in turbans
And Ford trucks,
I buy big house
With welfare bucks.
They come here,
We live together,
More welfare checks,
It gets better!
Fourteen families,
They moving in,
But neighbor's patience
Wearing thin.
Finally, white guy
Moves away,
Now I buy his house,
And then I say,
'Find more aliens
For house to rent.
And in the yard
I put a tent.
Send for family
They just trash,
But they, too, draw
The welfare cash!'
Everything
Is very good,
And soon we own
The neighborhood.
We have hobby
It's called breeding,
Welfare pay
For baby feeding.
Kids need dentist?
Wives need pills?
We get free!
We got no bills!
American's crazy!
He pay all year,
To keep welfare
Running here.
We think America
Darn good place!
Too darn good
For the white man race.
If they no like us,
They can scram,
Got lots of room
In Pakistan.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Derbyshire’s Dismissal Part III
See the first and second parts.
Derbyshire wrote a long, rambling diatribe at “The Corner.” Can you tell?:
It's no crime to change your mind, and a believer might of course doubt his belief. There's a lot to be said, though, for just getting on with life, and in particular for resolving your doubts. Having come to doubt you're on the right path, weigh the evidence as best you can. Then either stay on the path or (as in my case) get off it onto some other. What seems unconvincing to me is the claims by some believers to have wrestled with doubt for years or decades. To people making those claims, the only thing I can think of to say is: "Isn't it time you, like, made up your cotton-pickin' mind?"
What does he mean by “unconvincing?” Does he believe these people are lying? If so, why not just say that, straight out? Why beat around the bush? And offer a possible motivation for their doing so, while you’re at it.
Wrestling with doubt is a common human problem--even for lengthy periods of time. Derbyshire acknowledges this, to his credit. Obviously, one should make up his mind; otherwise, death will decide for him. But the question is: Why does he care, one way or the other? If I struggle over the question of God’s existence, or my own salvation, or whether or not a miniature troll lives under my footbridge, what is that to him? As an atheist, why does he give a hillbilly hee-haw?
Faith of the Founders. There are different opinions about this too, and I am not competent to judge which of them is correct.
You know what they say about opinions. People differ on this issue because they know little about the Founders. Someone who actually looks into their lives and personal beliefs will find that the vast majority were devout Christians. The reason why this is a contentious issue is because some folks wouldn’t know the truth if it walked up and swatted them in the face with a Bible, while others actively work toward obscuring it.
I note that the Founders all believed in the Four Humors theory of human metabolism — a belief that led, in at least one case, to untimely death from excessive chirurgical bleeding. Fortunately they did not put that theory into their Constitution, so we are not bound by it. They did not put their religious beliefs in, either; so we are not bound by those, either, whatever they were.
So, you have no idea what their religious beliefs were, but you can state in confidence that those beliefs appear nowhere in the Constitution? This is like stating that atheism appears nowhere in the various Humanist Manifestos. Its role may not appear as an overt declaration, but it exists in the spirit and ideals espoused in the documents. And so with the Constitution and Christianity. John Adams—one of the primary Founders--said: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--October 11, 1798. This means people like you, Mr. Derbyshire. The very concept of freedom as fleshed out in the document originated in Western Civilization’s Christian traditions. Saying that those beliefs appear nowhere therein indicates more than mere unfamiliarity with America’s social contract; it reveals ignorance of Christianity’s influence on the development of freedom as we in the west understand it.
To the claim that without Christianity there would have been no U.S.A. (or Western Civ, or science, or orchestral music, or Froot Loops breakfast cereal — the claims here seem to be innumerable) I'll give the answer Macaulay gave two hundred years ago: Even if I allow the claim, it is just as true that you need a midwife to bring a child into the world. Once the delivery is accomplished, however, the midwife is no longer required. That Christianity was necessary in order for X to come about, even if true — and the arguments here strike me as feeble, but let's allow them — does not prove (nor, of course, disprove) that Christianity is necessary for the continued existence and health of X. That has to be proved (or disproved) independently.
This is downright incoherent. With Christianity playing midwife, and the U.S.A. as newborn child, he concludes that Christianity is obsolete and irrelevant to the U.S.A.’s continuance. In the next breath, he speaks of proving or disproving its necessity independently, but makes no efforts toward that end. So what is the point of this paragraph? Regardless, his comparison remains inapt. When a midwife aids in birthing a baby, her continued presence becomes unnecessary after a successful delivery. Her hovering has no bearing on the babe’s life course, from that moment forward. With Christianity, we’re discussing a philosophical outlook, a particular moral world view, informing the existence of our nation; whereas the midwife had no part in the baby’s being, just in its delivery. It would have existed—and probably fumbled its way into the world—even if she weren’t available as an usher from birth canal to waking reality. It’s as if Derbyshire’s intimating that ideas have no consequences, that they don’t shape or change the course of history. This stands as both counterintuitive and demonstrably inaccurate, from a historical perspective.
Suppose an atheist forms a club for atheists. Suppose the organization’s ideals are rooted in atheism. Later, the group’s founder rejects atheism. With this startling metamorphosis, what happens to the club? The answer is simple: It either ceases its existence, or transforms into an entity that bears no resemblance to its former self.
Now suppose Christians build a nation. Suppose their social contract is rooted in Christianity. Later, the populace discards Christianity. What happens to the nation? Again, the answer is simple: It either ceases its existence, or transforms into an entity that bears no resemblance to its former self. This latter transformation is in the works in the U.S. and Europe, as I type these words.
Derbyshire wrote a long, rambling diatribe at “The Corner.” Can you tell?:
It's no crime to change your mind, and a believer might of course doubt his belief. There's a lot to be said, though, for just getting on with life, and in particular for resolving your doubts. Having come to doubt you're on the right path, weigh the evidence as best you can. Then either stay on the path or (as in my case) get off it onto some other. What seems unconvincing to me is the claims by some believers to have wrestled with doubt for years or decades. To people making those claims, the only thing I can think of to say is: "Isn't it time you, like, made up your cotton-pickin' mind?"
What does he mean by “unconvincing?” Does he believe these people are lying? If so, why not just say that, straight out? Why beat around the bush? And offer a possible motivation for their doing so, while you’re at it.
Wrestling with doubt is a common human problem--even for lengthy periods of time. Derbyshire acknowledges this, to his credit. Obviously, one should make up his mind; otherwise, death will decide for him. But the question is: Why does he care, one way or the other? If I struggle over the question of God’s existence, or my own salvation, or whether or not a miniature troll lives under my footbridge, what is that to him? As an atheist, why does he give a hillbilly hee-haw?
Faith of the Founders. There are different opinions about this too, and I am not competent to judge which of them is correct.
You know what they say about opinions. People differ on this issue because they know little about the Founders. Someone who actually looks into their lives and personal beliefs will find that the vast majority were devout Christians. The reason why this is a contentious issue is because some folks wouldn’t know the truth if it walked up and swatted them in the face with a Bible, while others actively work toward obscuring it.
I note that the Founders all believed in the Four Humors theory of human metabolism — a belief that led, in at least one case, to untimely death from excessive chirurgical bleeding. Fortunately they did not put that theory into their Constitution, so we are not bound by it. They did not put their religious beliefs in, either; so we are not bound by those, either, whatever they were.
So, you have no idea what their religious beliefs were, but you can state in confidence that those beliefs appear nowhere in the Constitution? This is like stating that atheism appears nowhere in the various Humanist Manifestos. Its role may not appear as an overt declaration, but it exists in the spirit and ideals espoused in the documents. And so with the Constitution and Christianity. John Adams—one of the primary Founders--said: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--October 11, 1798. This means people like you, Mr. Derbyshire. The very concept of freedom as fleshed out in the document originated in Western Civilization’s Christian traditions. Saying that those beliefs appear nowhere therein indicates more than mere unfamiliarity with America’s social contract; it reveals ignorance of Christianity’s influence on the development of freedom as we in the west understand it.
To the claim that without Christianity there would have been no U.S.A. (or Western Civ, or science, or orchestral music, or Froot Loops breakfast cereal — the claims here seem to be innumerable) I'll give the answer Macaulay gave two hundred years ago: Even if I allow the claim, it is just as true that you need a midwife to bring a child into the world. Once the delivery is accomplished, however, the midwife is no longer required. That Christianity was necessary in order for X to come about, even if true — and the arguments here strike me as feeble, but let's allow them — does not prove (nor, of course, disprove) that Christianity is necessary for the continued existence and health of X. That has to be proved (or disproved) independently.
This is downright incoherent. With Christianity playing midwife, and the U.S.A. as newborn child, he concludes that Christianity is obsolete and irrelevant to the U.S.A.’s continuance. In the next breath, he speaks of proving or disproving its necessity independently, but makes no efforts toward that end. So what is the point of this paragraph? Regardless, his comparison remains inapt. When a midwife aids in birthing a baby, her continued presence becomes unnecessary after a successful delivery. Her hovering has no bearing on the babe’s life course, from that moment forward. With Christianity, we’re discussing a philosophical outlook, a particular moral world view, informing the existence of our nation; whereas the midwife had no part in the baby’s being, just in its delivery. It would have existed—and probably fumbled its way into the world—even if she weren’t available as an usher from birth canal to waking reality. It’s as if Derbyshire’s intimating that ideas have no consequences, that they don’t shape or change the course of history. This stands as both counterintuitive and demonstrably inaccurate, from a historical perspective.
Suppose an atheist forms a club for atheists. Suppose the organization’s ideals are rooted in atheism. Later, the group’s founder rejects atheism. With this startling metamorphosis, what happens to the club? The answer is simple: It either ceases its existence, or transforms into an entity that bears no resemblance to its former self.
Now suppose Christians build a nation. Suppose their social contract is rooted in Christianity. Later, the populace discards Christianity. What happens to the nation? Again, the answer is simple: It either ceases its existence, or transforms into an entity that bears no resemblance to its former self. This latter transformation is in the works in the U.S. and Europe, as I type these words.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Derbyshire's Dismissal Part II
See Part I.
John Derbyshire continues in the same vein:
He quotes a priest, who said: "The most monstrous evils of human history were the totalitarian wars and genocides of the twentieth century, most of which were perpetrated by unbelievers, yet fellow unbelievers express neither acknowledgment nor remorse."
As far as body count goes, he's correct. It's also true that most of these atrocities were committed by unbelievers. Going for the trifecta, he's right, yet again, that atheists generally don't acknowledge the connection between these crimes and atheism.
Derbyshire's response to the priest:
So because I decline to believe in some of the same things that Lenin declined to believe in (heliolatry, the Divine Compassion of Avalokitesvara, Hollow Earth Theory, the Easter Bunny, Christianity, witchcraft, Unkulunkulu, homeopathy, the Great Manitou, … there must be quite a lot …), then there is a presumed "fellowship" between me and Lenin? I'd be offended by this if it weren't so toe-curlingly silly. How about noticing that Lenin & Co. did the beastly things they did because they believed certain particular things, and then applying guilt-by-association only to people who believe the same things?
Why not toss in Leprechauns, Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, and Quetzalcoatl, while you're doing a Google search for cutesy things to say? This is what I meant in the earlier post: Derbyshire isn't interested in a serious, accurate, honest appraisal; he's far more drawn to idiocy. The above paragraph offers us two implications: 1.) All beliefs that I, John Derbyshire, reject are equally ridiculous. There's not a whit of difference between two thousand years of Christian teaching and influence, and Peter Cottontail, hoppin' down the bunny trail. 2.) Atheism had no relation to the beliefs and actions of Lenin, or any of the sundry other 20th century mass murderers.
The first implication is infantile and deceptive, so I see no reason to address it further.
The second demonstrates willful ignorance of history--a pigheaded refusal to look at the facts. Lenin hated religion. He didn't merely find it silly. He loathed it with a virulence so great, one wonders if he actually believed in God, but held a grudge against his creator. Furthermore, he was a huge proponent of atheist propaganda. He believed that the people should be saturated with it, until they ate, slept, and breathed atheism. Suggesting that atheism had little or nothing to do with Lenin's actions indicates one's dearth of knowledge about the man, nothing more. The other tyrants we know and love--Stalin, Mao--also despised religion and championed atheism. Hitler was more pagan than atheist, but he saw Christianity and typical religion in general as the enemy. He worshipped an Aryan god created in the image he formulated.
All of these men clung to Darwinian evolution--the belief that humans progressed upward from primitive, animalian forebears. They rejected the notion that "God created the heavens and the earth."
If God doesn't exist--or is irrelevant to life on Earth--then human beings have no risk of facing accountability in an afterlife or even temporal reprimand from a heavenly father.
Worse, the only rules are those that one man--or a group of men--can impose upon others. The atheist can wax sophistically about his feelings or societal consensus, but that's all bunk, and he knows it, if he has a mote's-worth of integrity in his heart.
So if the atheist is correct in his philosophical outlook, we live in a world with no God, no accountability after death, possibly even oblivion after we die. We have no rules save those that we concoct for convenience's sake. Our feelings determine right and wrong, and those change on a whim. Humans are nothing more than animals who have learned to rule the food chain. There is no external order, no Dickensian "great expectations" from above. Short of his fear of other humans punishing him and causing him personal pain and discomfort, the atheist has no good reason not to thumb his nose at existence, itself, and do as he pleases, for better or worse. This is nihilism, of which atheism is a logical facet.
Now what if the above individual finds himself with virtually unlimited power? What if he has positioned himself in such a way that he can use the state as a tool for the implementation of any agenda his heart desires?
If humans are animals, and the only rules are those hammered out by other two-legged animals, everything is fair game. Every barrier that might hinder you from unleashing devastation upon other hapless humans is an artificial construct. There is no universal truth. Life doesn't really matter, in the lesser scheme of things. Neither does death. In fact, nothing matters, except what the atheist deems important. Is indulging in mass murder such a stretch for someone who envisions such a world?
The 20th century killing sprees are reasonable outcomes of atheism unleashed and helming the state.
As for Derbyshire, he would have you believe that non-accountability from on high, coupled with the belief that humans are just advanced animals on the evolutionary scale, plays zero role in how one treats one's fellow beings. The next time he's rounding up the names of obscure Zoroastrian demons, perhaps he should find an online dictionary and look up the word "context."
John Derbyshire continues in the same vein:
He quotes a priest, who said: "The most monstrous evils of human history were the totalitarian wars and genocides of the twentieth century, most of which were perpetrated by unbelievers, yet fellow unbelievers express neither acknowledgment nor remorse."
As far as body count goes, he's correct. It's also true that most of these atrocities were committed by unbelievers. Going for the trifecta, he's right, yet again, that atheists generally don't acknowledge the connection between these crimes and atheism.
Derbyshire's response to the priest:
So because I decline to believe in some of the same things that Lenin declined to believe in (heliolatry, the Divine Compassion of Avalokitesvara, Hollow Earth Theory, the Easter Bunny, Christianity, witchcraft, Unkulunkulu, homeopathy, the Great Manitou, … there must be quite a lot …), then there is a presumed "fellowship" between me and Lenin? I'd be offended by this if it weren't so toe-curlingly silly. How about noticing that Lenin & Co. did the beastly things they did because they believed certain particular things, and then applying guilt-by-association only to people who believe the same things?
Why not toss in Leprechauns, Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, and Quetzalcoatl, while you're doing a Google search for cutesy things to say? This is what I meant in the earlier post: Derbyshire isn't interested in a serious, accurate, honest appraisal; he's far more drawn to idiocy. The above paragraph offers us two implications: 1.) All beliefs that I, John Derbyshire, reject are equally ridiculous. There's not a whit of difference between two thousand years of Christian teaching and influence, and Peter Cottontail, hoppin' down the bunny trail. 2.) Atheism had no relation to the beliefs and actions of Lenin, or any of the sundry other 20th century mass murderers.
The first implication is infantile and deceptive, so I see no reason to address it further.
The second demonstrates willful ignorance of history--a pigheaded refusal to look at the facts. Lenin hated religion. He didn't merely find it silly. He loathed it with a virulence so great, one wonders if he actually believed in God, but held a grudge against his creator. Furthermore, he was a huge proponent of atheist propaganda. He believed that the people should be saturated with it, until they ate, slept, and breathed atheism. Suggesting that atheism had little or nothing to do with Lenin's actions indicates one's dearth of knowledge about the man, nothing more. The other tyrants we know and love--Stalin, Mao--also despised religion and championed atheism. Hitler was more pagan than atheist, but he saw Christianity and typical religion in general as the enemy. He worshipped an Aryan god created in the image he formulated.
All of these men clung to Darwinian evolution--the belief that humans progressed upward from primitive, animalian forebears. They rejected the notion that "God created the heavens and the earth."
If God doesn't exist--or is irrelevant to life on Earth--then human beings have no risk of facing accountability in an afterlife or even temporal reprimand from a heavenly father.
Worse, the only rules are those that one man--or a group of men--can impose upon others. The atheist can wax sophistically about his feelings or societal consensus, but that's all bunk, and he knows it, if he has a mote's-worth of integrity in his heart.
So if the atheist is correct in his philosophical outlook, we live in a world with no God, no accountability after death, possibly even oblivion after we die. We have no rules save those that we concoct for convenience's sake. Our feelings determine right and wrong, and those change on a whim. Humans are nothing more than animals who have learned to rule the food chain. There is no external order, no Dickensian "great expectations" from above. Short of his fear of other humans punishing him and causing him personal pain and discomfort, the atheist has no good reason not to thumb his nose at existence, itself, and do as he pleases, for better or worse. This is nihilism, of which atheism is a logical facet.
Now what if the above individual finds himself with virtually unlimited power? What if he has positioned himself in such a way that he can use the state as a tool for the implementation of any agenda his heart desires?
If humans are animals, and the only rules are those hammered out by other two-legged animals, everything is fair game. Every barrier that might hinder you from unleashing devastation upon other hapless humans is an artificial construct. There is no universal truth. Life doesn't really matter, in the lesser scheme of things. Neither does death. In fact, nothing matters, except what the atheist deems important. Is indulging in mass murder such a stretch for someone who envisions such a world?
The 20th century killing sprees are reasonable outcomes of atheism unleashed and helming the state.
As for Derbyshire, he would have you believe that non-accountability from on high, coupled with the belief that humans are just advanced animals on the evolutionary scale, plays zero role in how one treats one's fellow beings. The next time he's rounding up the names of obscure Zoroastrian demons, perhaps he should find an online dictionary and look up the word "context."
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Derbyshire's Dismissal Part I
John Derbyshire apparently thinks he has made compelling arguments against Christianity and religion in general. Surprise, he hasn’t. I now understand why I never became a regular reader.
In a post on “The Corner” at National Review Online, he first quotes Michael Novak: "It is not credible for atheists to say believers don’t care about evidence."
He then responds: Yes it is, Michael. The Christian religion is founded on the belief that an invisible spirit impregnated a human woman. Not only is there no evidence for that, it is hard to see how there could be any! If I tackle a believer on this point, he invariably says: "You just gotta believe" — i.e. not care about the absence of evidence, or the absence of even the possibility of evidence. QED. Of course, if Michael has a different answer, I'd be glad to hear it.
First, this is a strawman argument; Derbyshire characterizes Christianity in a fashion that sounds asinine, then charges in for an attack on that wobbling dummy. This is an illegitimate form of argumentation, because it can be utilized in making everything known to Man seem absurd. Just once, I’d enjoy seeing an atheist pit his dogmatic disbelief against a strong Christian apologetic, rather than a moronic caricature. And if wishes were horses. . .
Derbyshire also reveals that he’s the type of atheist who believes in one brand of evidence: the scientific variety. All other forms need not apply; not only are they not convincing—they aren’t evidence at all. Documentary evidence? Pshaw. Personal testimony? Flush. It’s funny that atheists cling to “scientific” evidence, anyway, since such evidence no more supports their position than that of Christians.
And what in the world is wrong with having faith? Every human being on planet Earth—and even the handful who reside offworld—exercises faith in his acceptance of certain aspects of reality. Furthermore, if you’re an evolutionist, you’re faith’s bosom buddy. This is the unspoken demand that atheists make when mocking our faith: “You mustn’t have faith in God; everything else is fair game.” If you have faith that mommy loves you, that’s OK. If you have faith that Attila the Hun isn’t the figment of an ancient troubadour’s imagination, that’s acceptable, too. If you have faith that we’re more than just animated pixels in a cosmic video game, that’s just peachy. And if you have faith that you evolved from an apelike ancestor, that life arose from inanimate matter, you’re a well-adjusted, sensible individual.
However, the man who exercises faith in God is a delusional, easily-manipulated idiot.
The humorous part is that many atheists think this is an intellectually consistent, reasonable outlook.
Christianity encompasses far more than "an invisible spirit impregnated a human woman," and Derbyshire know this, if he's ever taken the time to evaluate what Christians believe.
In a post on “The Corner” at National Review Online, he first quotes Michael Novak: "It is not credible for atheists to say believers don’t care about evidence."
He then responds: Yes it is, Michael. The Christian religion is founded on the belief that an invisible spirit impregnated a human woman. Not only is there no evidence for that, it is hard to see how there could be any! If I tackle a believer on this point, he invariably says: "You just gotta believe" — i.e. not care about the absence of evidence, or the absence of even the possibility of evidence. QED. Of course, if Michael has a different answer, I'd be glad to hear it.
First, this is a strawman argument; Derbyshire characterizes Christianity in a fashion that sounds asinine, then charges in for an attack on that wobbling dummy. This is an illegitimate form of argumentation, because it can be utilized in making everything known to Man seem absurd. Just once, I’d enjoy seeing an atheist pit his dogmatic disbelief against a strong Christian apologetic, rather than a moronic caricature. And if wishes were horses. . .
Derbyshire also reveals that he’s the type of atheist who believes in one brand of evidence: the scientific variety. All other forms need not apply; not only are they not convincing—they aren’t evidence at all. Documentary evidence? Pshaw. Personal testimony? Flush. It’s funny that atheists cling to “scientific” evidence, anyway, since such evidence no more supports their position than that of Christians.
And what in the world is wrong with having faith? Every human being on planet Earth—and even the handful who reside offworld—exercises faith in his acceptance of certain aspects of reality. Furthermore, if you’re an evolutionist, you’re faith’s bosom buddy. This is the unspoken demand that atheists make when mocking our faith: “You mustn’t have faith in God; everything else is fair game.” If you have faith that mommy loves you, that’s OK. If you have faith that Attila the Hun isn’t the figment of an ancient troubadour’s imagination, that’s acceptable, too. If you have faith that we’re more than just animated pixels in a cosmic video game, that’s just peachy. And if you have faith that you evolved from an apelike ancestor, that life arose from inanimate matter, you’re a well-adjusted, sensible individual.
However, the man who exercises faith in God is a delusional, easily-manipulated idiot.
The humorous part is that many atheists think this is an intellectually consistent, reasonable outlook.
Christianity encompasses far more than "an invisible spirit impregnated a human woman," and Derbyshire know this, if he's ever taken the time to evaluate what Christians believe.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Reasons to Vote for Barelyblack Odumma
1. He’s black. Except he isn’t; he’s half-black. Hence: “Barelyblack.” Oh, well, he’s black enough for you, and that’s what matters most, yes? I mean, having the first “black” person in the Oval Office is far more important than silly questions of character, oath-keeping, or support for policies that don’t do violence to liberty. This is an historic occasion. Sheesh, homies, let’s have a little perspective.
2. You’re a leftist. Karl Marx had it right. Red Uncle Joe was slandered and vilified. Communism worked just fine on paper—improper implementation marred its success in practice; and as our teachers told us, “practice makes perfect.” Big Brother does it better. Yes, you have the T-shirt. The only good fetus is one that has ceased its irksome kicking. The State knows best how to spend your money, and will take it at gunpoint and demonstrate its charitable demeanor. Each night, you whisper a prayer to Saint Hillary. “All power to the worker Soviet!”
3. You’re a knee-jerk Demonrat. Your great-granddaddy voted Demonrat. Your granddaddy voted Demonrat. Your daddy voted Demonrat. You survived the abortion, so now that you’re all grown up, there’s nothing left for you to do but vote Demonrat. It’s a family tradition, and you’ll do your darnedest to carry the torch to the next generation--if it survives long enough to procure a voter registration card.
4. You’re ignorant. You don’t know the difference between the Constitution and constipation. You think that exercising your right to bear arms means wearing a tank-top. The Declaration of Independence was the day you stood up from the dinner table and told your momma that you weren’t about to eat those Brussels sprouts. What you don’t know spans the breadth and depth of eternity, but you see no reason why this should serve as an obstacle to your voting. After all, pulling that lever is the culmination of a popularity contest, and Barelyblack talked a better game. At least, that’s what Oprah told you.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Truth
I saw a bumper-sticker, today, that said:
"If Hillary Clinton is the answer, then it must have been a stupid question."
"If Hillary Clinton is the answer, then it must have been a stupid question."
Where's My Shovel?
Why should Democrats be buried 100 feet down?
****
Because deep down, they really are good people.
****
Because deep down, they really are good people.
Friday, September 12, 2008
@#$!%^&**^$@!#%&
Recently, I was at a local fast food restaurant getting a quick bite to eat with my wife, when we witnessed a strange event.
A woman came in and ordered a cup of coffee. She waited at the counter, and when the employee gave her the cup, she paid and turned to leave. As she walked toward the door, she spilled some of the coffee. At this point, she sat the cup down on a nearby table and said:
"G-- - da---- son of a b----!"
She said this in an angry tone loud enough for everyone in the place to catch. Luckily, only one other customer was present, besides my wife and myself.
When the woman finished cleaning up the mess, she stalked over to the counter and spat:
"The next time you fix my coffee like that, you'll die!"
I don't know if the young man behind the counter heard her, but she left immediately after making her little threat.
Maybe the woman was mentally ill. I recognize that ever-increasing possibility, these days. But the more likely scenario was that she was just revealing her Class Z Jackass status with her little temper-tantrum.
I suppose the bigger picture is that I believe public decorum has gone straight down the tubes, flushed faster than a crackhouse toilet during a police raid. I hear open cursing in public often, these days. Such occurences were rare, when I was growing up--not unheard of, but not common, either. Now I hear people shamelessly spewing profanity and other filth in public, unconcerned about a little child or a gentle church lady overhearing their unpleasantness. They don't seem to care that most people view their behavior as cretinous and low-bred.
I don't see the transition from Southern hospitality to Southern vulgarity as a positive change in my neck of the woods.
A woman came in and ordered a cup of coffee. She waited at the counter, and when the employee gave her the cup, she paid and turned to leave. As she walked toward the door, she spilled some of the coffee. At this point, she sat the cup down on a nearby table and said:
"G-- - da---- son of a b----!"
She said this in an angry tone loud enough for everyone in the place to catch. Luckily, only one other customer was present, besides my wife and myself.
When the woman finished cleaning up the mess, she stalked over to the counter and spat:
"The next time you fix my coffee like that, you'll die!"
I don't know if the young man behind the counter heard her, but she left immediately after making her little threat.
Maybe the woman was mentally ill. I recognize that ever-increasing possibility, these days. But the more likely scenario was that she was just revealing her Class Z Jackass status with her little temper-tantrum.
I suppose the bigger picture is that I believe public decorum has gone straight down the tubes, flushed faster than a crackhouse toilet during a police raid. I hear open cursing in public often, these days. Such occurences were rare, when I was growing up--not unheard of, but not common, either. Now I hear people shamelessly spewing profanity and other filth in public, unconcerned about a little child or a gentle church lady overhearing their unpleasantness. They don't seem to care that most people view their behavior as cretinous and low-bred.
I don't see the transition from Southern hospitality to Southern vulgarity as a positive change in my neck of the woods.
Uh-Huh
This is one reason why I don't take the "War on Terror" seriously:
The U.S. is planning to issue a letter guaranteeing the country will back agreements reached during current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at creating a Palestinian state before President Bush leaves office in January, WND has learned.
So, we're in a global war against terrorists (culture, ideology, and religion withheld to protect the guilty, as per the PC Code of Ethics), and as a demonstration of our resolve, our government wholeheartedly supports the formation of a terrorist state on Israeli soil, headed by the Palestinian Authority, which is nothing more than a gang of terrorist thugs masquerading as statesmen.
The "Palestinians" are individuals who are enamored with destruction and chaos. They are not a distinct people, but a death cult. They raise their children from toddlerhood instilled with a visceral hatred of Jews. The deliberate targeting of innocent civilians for murder is their standard operating procedure. They are Janus-faced in their approach to propaganda, telling the western media one story, and the Arab media an altogether different one. They have no honor, and not a whit of decency or compassion. They deserve nothing but contempt. They've earned the kind of terrible justice that would send most men quailing in fear.
Regardless your view of the modern nation of Israel--secular Middle Eastern state, or "the Promised Land to the Jews"--you should shun the championing of people who wallow in moral debasement.
The "Palestinians" offer nothing to this world but lies and murder, served up under the guise of righteous indignation. I shake my head in shame that my government finds their "cause" worthy of support. This offers a great deal of insight into the trustworthiness of those at the reins of power in the U.S.A.
The U.S. is planning to issue a letter guaranteeing the country will back agreements reached during current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at creating a Palestinian state before President Bush leaves office in January, WND has learned.
So, we're in a global war against terrorists (culture, ideology, and religion withheld to protect the guilty, as per the PC Code of Ethics), and as a demonstration of our resolve, our government wholeheartedly supports the formation of a terrorist state on Israeli soil, headed by the Palestinian Authority, which is nothing more than a gang of terrorist thugs masquerading as statesmen.
The "Palestinians" are individuals who are enamored with destruction and chaos. They are not a distinct people, but a death cult. They raise their children from toddlerhood instilled with a visceral hatred of Jews. The deliberate targeting of innocent civilians for murder is their standard operating procedure. They are Janus-faced in their approach to propaganda, telling the western media one story, and the Arab media an altogether different one. They have no honor, and not a whit of decency or compassion. They deserve nothing but contempt. They've earned the kind of terrible justice that would send most men quailing in fear.
Regardless your view of the modern nation of Israel--secular Middle Eastern state, or "the Promised Land to the Jews"--you should shun the championing of people who wallow in moral debasement.
The "Palestinians" offer nothing to this world but lies and murder, served up under the guise of righteous indignation. I shake my head in shame that my government finds their "cause" worthy of support. This offers a great deal of insight into the trustworthiness of those at the reins of power in the U.S.A.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Get Your Hands Off My Buns!
The profits from families who buy Happy Meals for their children have been used to pay for 56 McDonald's staff members to meet in San Diego to strategize about promoting homosexuality within the company, according to the organizer of a boycott of the fast-food chain.
Ronald is a gay old clown;
A gay old clown is he.
He dons a wig
Dances a jig.
Wears his shoes a little big.
I've heard he's quite the devotee
Of unrestricted sodomy.
Under the golden arches,
With Grimace in cahoots,
He'll make you squeal;
Two-for-one deal.
The new prize in your Happy Meal
Is a big side-order of fruits.
Ronald is a gay old clown;
A gay old clown is he.
He dons a wig
Dances a jig.
Wears his shoes a little big.
I've heard he's quite the devotee
Of unrestricted sodomy.
Under the golden arches,
With Grimace in cahoots,
He'll make you squeal;
Two-for-one deal.
The new prize in your Happy Meal
Is a big side-order of fruits.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Give 'Em a Hand!
The largest single-workplace immigration raid in U.S. history has caused panic among Hispanic families in this Mississippi town, where federal agents rounded up nearly 600 plant workers suspected of being in the country illegally.
I know this story happened several days ago, but I think it deserves special mention. Here's some food for thought: If immigration authorities managed a haul of 600 illegal aliens working at one plant in a small Mississippi town, what does this tell us about the sheer number of these people sneaking into our country?
Here's the best part of the story:
One worker caught in Monday's sweep at the Howard Industries transformer plant said fellow workers applauded as immigrants were taken into custody.
Heck, they should've had a hoedown, afterwards.
I know this story happened several days ago, but I think it deserves special mention. Here's some food for thought: If immigration authorities managed a haul of 600 illegal aliens working at one plant in a small Mississippi town, what does this tell us about the sheer number of these people sneaking into our country?
Here's the best part of the story:
One worker caught in Monday's sweep at the Howard Industries transformer plant said fellow workers applauded as immigrants were taken into custody.
Heck, they should've had a hoedown, afterwards.
Friday, August 29, 2008
FYI
I enjoy receiving emails with subject titles like:
"Lose Up to Fifty Pounds with Pomegranate Cleanse"
These idiot spambots have no idea that my strawberry kiwi mango flush works just fine, thankyouverymuch.
I think they should try selling Firehose Colonics in Washington, D.C., though. I can think of nothing more fitting. Or necessary.
"Lose Up to Fifty Pounds with Pomegranate Cleanse"
These idiot spambots have no idea that my strawberry kiwi mango flush works just fine, thankyouverymuch.
I think they should try selling Firehose Colonics in Washington, D.C., though. I can think of nothing more fitting. Or necessary.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Bipartisanship
How many times have you seen this ugly word rear its head?
"Let's set aside partisan politics and come together in the unity of bipartisanship. . ."
"In a bipartisan move, today. . ."
Blah blah blah.
This is just another word for unity or oneness. The implied assumption in such statements is that coming together is a good thing. Without exception or condition.
Is unity a good, in and of itself? Or is the worth of oneness determined by the moral virtue or constitutional adherence of the principle upon which we find ourselves unified? I contend the latter's truth.
For example, let’s suppose that we pick up tomorrow’s newspaper. On the front page, we read the day’s leading story:
"In a stunning bipartisan initiative yesterday, both houses of Congress passed legislation bestowing blanket amnesty and citizenship on every illegal alien in the country. Building upon the edifice of bipartisanship erected by the House and Senate, the Grand Enchilada, himself--President Jorge W. Bushandez--signed the new legislation into law. Afterwards, President Bushandez was seen at a pinata party, throwing back shots of tequila and striking a papier-mache George Washington effigy with a broomstick. Hillary Clinton also made a brief appearance before procuring the broomstick and flying home for the evening. . ."
Here we have universal bipartisanship and treason, in unison.
"Bipartisanship" is political jargon designed toward one end: to make you stop thinking, and start emoting. "Oh, well, they came together, after all. It's the sole relevant factor in judging that steepened confiscatory tax rate."
If a Crip and a Blood join forces in robbing you blind, should your focus lie on their making nice, or should it zero in on the fact that they just carted your big-screen tv out the front door?
"Let's set aside partisan politics and come together in the unity of bipartisanship. . ."
"In a bipartisan move, today. . ."
Blah blah blah.
This is just another word for unity or oneness. The implied assumption in such statements is that coming together is a good thing. Without exception or condition.
Is unity a good, in and of itself? Or is the worth of oneness determined by the moral virtue or constitutional adherence of the principle upon which we find ourselves unified? I contend the latter's truth.
For example, let’s suppose that we pick up tomorrow’s newspaper. On the front page, we read the day’s leading story:
"In a stunning bipartisan initiative yesterday, both houses of Congress passed legislation bestowing blanket amnesty and citizenship on every illegal alien in the country. Building upon the edifice of bipartisanship erected by the House and Senate, the Grand Enchilada, himself--President Jorge W. Bushandez--signed the new legislation into law. Afterwards, President Bushandez was seen at a pinata party, throwing back shots of tequila and striking a papier-mache George Washington effigy with a broomstick. Hillary Clinton also made a brief appearance before procuring the broomstick and flying home for the evening. . ."
Here we have universal bipartisanship and treason, in unison.
"Bipartisanship" is political jargon designed toward one end: to make you stop thinking, and start emoting. "Oh, well, they came together, after all. It's the sole relevant factor in judging that steepened confiscatory tax rate."
If a Crip and a Blood join forces in robbing you blind, should your focus lie on their making nice, or should it zero in on the fact that they just carted your big-screen tv out the front door?
Friday, August 22, 2008
Sick and Twisted
A website sponsored by Planned Parenthood, the biggest player in America's billion dollar abortion industry, is promoting oral sex and casual encounters in the name of encouraging the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, critics say.
This is like telling the morbidly obese that a great weight-loss success method entails devouring a dozen donuts daily.
The organization specifically cited a video that appears to have a black youth performing oral sex on a white youth, under the supervision of a white guidance counselor.
A review of the promotional videos created by Planned Parenthood show the following scenarios:
--A girl who appears only from the waist up appears to drop her slacks to the floor, then asks a second girl, a third girl, and a boy, "Do you see anything down there?" The counselor advises her to get a test for STDs.
--Two girls, a guy and the counselor talk about what HPV means. The teens' guess is a reference to a sex organ.
--A white youth appears only from the waist up, then a black youth suddenly stands up in front of him, and the white youth says, "I didn't spew."
--A girl says, "I like me. I like spending time with me. It's not like I can get me pregnant or give me diseases."
--The theme song gives the message, "Whatever you call it, you've got to know how to take care of it."
The Texas-based pro-life group Life Dynamics previously conducted an extensive undercover project in which an adult volunteer posing as a 13-year-old called every Planned Parenthood clinic in the U.S., saying she was pregnant by a 22-year-old boyfriend. Almost without exception, the clinics advised her to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge and told her how to protect her boyfriend, who would be guilty in any state of statutory rape.
This isn't being "pro-choice," which theoretically is a disinterested position, as long as the mother/killer has control over when or if her baby's life is snuffed out. This is active promotion of abortion and the undermining of parents, as well as criminal cover-ups, in some instances. Premeditated non-Parenthood is a pro-death organization; we should characterize it as nothing less.
This is like telling the morbidly obese that a great weight-loss success method entails devouring a dozen donuts daily.
The organization specifically cited a video that appears to have a black youth performing oral sex on a white youth, under the supervision of a white guidance counselor.
A review of the promotional videos created by Planned Parenthood show the following scenarios:
--A girl who appears only from the waist up appears to drop her slacks to the floor, then asks a second girl, a third girl, and a boy, "Do you see anything down there?" The counselor advises her to get a test for STDs.
--Two girls, a guy and the counselor talk about what HPV means. The teens' guess is a reference to a sex organ.
--A white youth appears only from the waist up, then a black youth suddenly stands up in front of him, and the white youth says, "I didn't spew."
--A girl says, "I like me. I like spending time with me. It's not like I can get me pregnant or give me diseases."
--The theme song gives the message, "Whatever you call it, you've got to know how to take care of it."
The Texas-based pro-life group Life Dynamics previously conducted an extensive undercover project in which an adult volunteer posing as a 13-year-old called every Planned Parenthood clinic in the U.S., saying she was pregnant by a 22-year-old boyfriend. Almost without exception, the clinics advised her to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge and told her how to protect her boyfriend, who would be guilty in any state of statutory rape.
This isn't being "pro-choice," which theoretically is a disinterested position, as long as the mother/killer has control over when or if her baby's life is snuffed out. This is active promotion of abortion and the undermining of parents, as well as criminal cover-ups, in some instances. Premeditated non-Parenthood is a pro-death organization; we should characterize it as nothing less.
Love, Adam and Steve
Most states don't recognize gay marriage -- but now Hallmark does.
The nation's largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards -- featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. "Two hearts. One promise," one says.
Awwww, isn't that precious?
"It's our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can," Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said.
I'll bet this made NAMBLA's day.
Not to mention that of Habib and his pet goat.
The nation's largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards -- featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. "Two hearts. One promise," one says.
Awwww, isn't that precious?
"It's our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can," Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said.
I'll bet this made NAMBLA's day.
Not to mention that of Habib and his pet goat.
Building a Reputation
Today's story makes the second time in less than a month that Knoxville has made national headlines regarding violent crimes.
First was the Unitarian church shooting, and now this.
First was the Unitarian church shooting, and now this.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Religious Fundamentalism
Chris Hedges has written a new book titled I Don't Believe in Atheists, in which he criticizes the New Atheists for their agenda. I agree with his criticism, as it is well-earned, but I've noticed some problems with Hedges' ideas, in an extensive interview with him conducted by John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute. In the interview--which serves more as an opportunity for Hedges to sound-off than anything else--Hedges takes the monolithic view of religious fundamentalism. This is an issue that crops up in Dinesh D'Souza's book, What's So great About Christianity?, as well.
It seems that both men, and most politicians and members of the media, see religious fundamentalism as one big zealous family unit, working hard in the good fight against human progress in all its guises. This opinion holds true most visibly in the sciences. My concern with this approach is its basis in either willful ignorance, or conscious deceit. Ignored is the simple truth that "religious fundamentalists" often hail from drastically different walks of life, and vary greatly in worldviews, values, and behaviors.
When one begins a study of comparative religion, one finds little in common between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, with the exception that both embrace religion on serious terms.
The Christian fundamentalist believes in scriptural authority and inerrancy, taking each book of the Bible at face-value. He believes in sharing the Good News and helping his fellow man, in Christ. He thinks our society should be tailored after Christian principles, since those selfsame principles brought Western civilization to heights undreamed by the rest of the planet.
The Islamic fundamentalist, on the other hand, holds a tribalistic view of the world around him. He engages in--or offers moral or material support of--jihad against the infidel. His reality lies broken in two halves: the House of Islam, and the House of War. Enlarging the House of Islam until it incorporates the House of War into its dominion is his goal. Killing in the name of his god is not only defensible, but commendable. It is an expression of his love for Allah, and falls well within the dictates of his god's will.
One who lumps all religious fundamentalists into a single category exhibits intellectual laziness and an incuriosity about the chasmic distinctions between religions and cultures. He shuns history and clutches at a contemporary fad.
One of the reasons why I believe in the correctness of a fundamental approach to Christianity is the irrational, dishonest, and nigh-universal revilement it receives outside fundamentalist circles--in the realm of politics, from the sundry media, the scientific establishment, secular institutions and figures, and even from other self-professing Christians.
It seems that both men, and most politicians and members of the media, see religious fundamentalism as one big zealous family unit, working hard in the good fight against human progress in all its guises. This opinion holds true most visibly in the sciences. My concern with this approach is its basis in either willful ignorance, or conscious deceit. Ignored is the simple truth that "religious fundamentalists" often hail from drastically different walks of life, and vary greatly in worldviews, values, and behaviors.
When one begins a study of comparative religion, one finds little in common between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, with the exception that both embrace religion on serious terms.
The Christian fundamentalist believes in scriptural authority and inerrancy, taking each book of the Bible at face-value. He believes in sharing the Good News and helping his fellow man, in Christ. He thinks our society should be tailored after Christian principles, since those selfsame principles brought Western civilization to heights undreamed by the rest of the planet.
The Islamic fundamentalist, on the other hand, holds a tribalistic view of the world around him. He engages in--or offers moral or material support of--jihad against the infidel. His reality lies broken in two halves: the House of Islam, and the House of War. Enlarging the House of Islam until it incorporates the House of War into its dominion is his goal. Killing in the name of his god is not only defensible, but commendable. It is an expression of his love for Allah, and falls well within the dictates of his god's will.
One who lumps all religious fundamentalists into a single category exhibits intellectual laziness and an incuriosity about the chasmic distinctions between religions and cultures. He shuns history and clutches at a contemporary fad.
One of the reasons why I believe in the correctness of a fundamental approach to Christianity is the irrational, dishonest, and nigh-universal revilement it receives outside fundamentalist circles--in the realm of politics, from the sundry media, the scientific establishment, secular institutions and figures, and even from other self-professing Christians.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
A Blank Check for AIDS
I receive a monthly newsletter from U.S. Senator Bob Corker, who represents my state in Washington, D.C. In the August 2008 edition, this jumped out at me:
Combating HIV/AIDS is one of the most critical long-term health and national security issues facing the developing world, which is why I recently supported legislation to reauthorize funding for U.S. global HIV/AIDS programs. During trips to Haiti and South Africa over the past year, I’ve had the privilege of talking with individuals that, because of the generosity of the American people, are accessing prevention programs, receiving anti-retroviral medications, and learning skills to improve their quality of life with AIDS. I also met with individuals that have not been so lucky and recognize that more can and should be done to reach these people in need. I was disappointed that the Senate did not pass a couple of amendments that would have further increased accountability so that in the future we can better ensure U.S. programs and contributions are going to fight this disease in the most effective way. Overall, I am pleased to have had a role in shaping the bill, and I hope it brings us closer to meeting the needs of HIV/AIDS patients globally.
First, I'd like Mr. Corker to explain to the good people of Tennessee why dealing with AIDS in Haiti and South Africa is their responsibility. I'd also enjoy watching him shred the Constitution as he searches in vain for that clause giving him authority to fight diseases in Can'tKeepItZipped-world countries. I won't hold my breath waiting for his explanation. He's far too busy emoting for such inanities.
because of the generosity of the American people. . .
This is politician-speak for "that good ol' boy didn't run me down and bash my head in, when I mugged him. Whatta guy!" I think the American people's record on giving selflessly dwarfs that of all other countries, but I see a difference between charity--which is voluntary, by definition--and having my money confiscated without my input.
Suppose I'm walking down the street with you, when I see a drunken bum lying on the sidewalk. I turn and remove your wallet from your pants pocket, peel out a five-dollar-bill, and proffer it to Ned the Wino. Then I look at you, smile, and say: "Thanks for your generosity to the less fortunate; you're a real inspiration, bub."
That about sums up Mr. Corker's attitude, whether he realizes it or not.
As for utopian tripe like "meeting the needs of HIV/AIDS patients globally," I have a little idea of my own that I'd like Mr. Corker to remember:
As you open your heart, keep your hand out of my wallet. Nobility on someone else's dime is nothing more than robbery committed in knight's garb.
Combating HIV/AIDS is one of the most critical long-term health and national security issues facing the developing world, which is why I recently supported legislation to reauthorize funding for U.S. global HIV/AIDS programs. During trips to Haiti and South Africa over the past year, I’ve had the privilege of talking with individuals that, because of the generosity of the American people, are accessing prevention programs, receiving anti-retroviral medications, and learning skills to improve their quality of life with AIDS. I also met with individuals that have not been so lucky and recognize that more can and should be done to reach these people in need. I was disappointed that the Senate did not pass a couple of amendments that would have further increased accountability so that in the future we can better ensure U.S. programs and contributions are going to fight this disease in the most effective way. Overall, I am pleased to have had a role in shaping the bill, and I hope it brings us closer to meeting the needs of HIV/AIDS patients globally.
First, I'd like Mr. Corker to explain to the good people of Tennessee why dealing with AIDS in Haiti and South Africa is their responsibility. I'd also enjoy watching him shred the Constitution as he searches in vain for that clause giving him authority to fight diseases in Can'tKeepItZipped-world countries. I won't hold my breath waiting for his explanation. He's far too busy emoting for such inanities.
because of the generosity of the American people. . .
This is politician-speak for "that good ol' boy didn't run me down and bash my head in, when I mugged him. Whatta guy!" I think the American people's record on giving selflessly dwarfs that of all other countries, but I see a difference between charity--which is voluntary, by definition--and having my money confiscated without my input.
Suppose I'm walking down the street with you, when I see a drunken bum lying on the sidewalk. I turn and remove your wallet from your pants pocket, peel out a five-dollar-bill, and proffer it to Ned the Wino. Then I look at you, smile, and say: "Thanks for your generosity to the less fortunate; you're a real inspiration, bub."
That about sums up Mr. Corker's attitude, whether he realizes it or not.
As for utopian tripe like "meeting the needs of HIV/AIDS patients globally," I have a little idea of my own that I'd like Mr. Corker to remember:
As you open your heart, keep your hand out of my wallet. Nobility on someone else's dime is nothing more than robbery committed in knight's garb.
"We Don' Need No Steenkeeng Border!"
Mexican soldiers have made yet another incursion into U.S. territory:
TUCSON, Ariz. — Four Mexican soldiers crossed into Arizona and held a U.S. Border Patrol agent at gunpoint before realizing where they were and returning to Mexico, federal authorities said Wednesday.
The confrontation occurred early Sunday on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation, about 85 miles southwest of Tucson, in an area fenced only with barbed wire, said Dove Crawford, a spokeswoman for the Border Patrol.
The soldiers, outfitted in desert camouflage, pointed their rifles at the agent and shouted at him not to move, Crawford said. They lowered their weapons after about four minutes when the agent convinced them of who he was and where they were, she said. The soldiers then retreated into Mexico.
And now for the U.S. government's reaction:
State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos in Washington said the encounter "stemmed from a momentary misunderstanding as to the exact location of the U.S.-Mexican border."
What interests me is two aspects of stories like this: first, the frequency with which these supposed goofs occur; and second, the automatic, identical response from the Bush Administration in each instance. It seems that the federal government's standard policy entails downplaying these "accidents" and playing defense for the Mexican nationals who ended up on American turf with guns drawn. In at least one case, Mexican weaponry included a jeep-mounted .50-caliber machine gun.
How many of these violations must we endure, before the feds come to the understanding that so-called mistakes of this nature actually are messages to the effect that "you can stick your border where the sun don't shine, gringo."?
TUCSON, Ariz. — Four Mexican soldiers crossed into Arizona and held a U.S. Border Patrol agent at gunpoint before realizing where they were and returning to Mexico, federal authorities said Wednesday.
The confrontation occurred early Sunday on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation, about 85 miles southwest of Tucson, in an area fenced only with barbed wire, said Dove Crawford, a spokeswoman for the Border Patrol.
The soldiers, outfitted in desert camouflage, pointed their rifles at the agent and shouted at him not to move, Crawford said. They lowered their weapons after about four minutes when the agent convinced them of who he was and where they were, she said. The soldiers then retreated into Mexico.
And now for the U.S. government's reaction:
State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos in Washington said the encounter "stemmed from a momentary misunderstanding as to the exact location of the U.S.-Mexican border."
What interests me is two aspects of stories like this: first, the frequency with which these supposed goofs occur; and second, the automatic, identical response from the Bush Administration in each instance. It seems that the federal government's standard policy entails downplaying these "accidents" and playing defense for the Mexican nationals who ended up on American turf with guns drawn. In at least one case, Mexican weaponry included a jeep-mounted .50-caliber machine gun.
How many of these violations must we endure, before the feds come to the understanding that so-called mistakes of this nature actually are messages to the effect that "you can stick your border where the sun don't shine, gringo."?
Saturday, August 9, 2008
The Ol' Gray Mare Aint What She Used to Be
It's the question every presidential candidate must be prepared to answer, but when it was posed to Barack Obama by a 7-year-old yesterday, the Democratic senator seemed at a loss for words.
Appearing before a packed high school gym in Elkhart, Ind., the young girl asked Obama why he is running for the White House.
"America is, is no longer, uh, what it could be, what it, it once was," Obama said haltingly. "And I say to myself, I don't want that future for my children."
It's more of that evil future that Odumma doesn't want for his children: you know, like the ugly side effect of sex that some folks euphemistically call "pregnancy." Remember that one? Odumma didn't want his honeychile burdened with a baby, if she had the misfortune of getting knocked up in her boyfriend's backseat. He's added to his list of dystopian future goblins lurking around the corner; this time, it's the terror of America not living up to what she used to be.
It's amusing, but Odumma often is right in what he says, but for all the wrong reasons. It's true that America is not what it could be, or what it was at one time. And we have people like Odumma to thank for that. The America of old was a devoutly religious country, where our liberties were cherished as gifts from God, not to be abused or taken lightly; where government intrusion into private life occured at a much lower level than that of the present; and the burden of taxation paled in comparison to that of today.
This is the America that Odumma hates and actively wages war against in his support of big government and left-wing ideals. Given that we were more religious, more free, and more independent, I wonder which aspect of past America appeals to him over our pseudo-religious, less free, and more dependent current state?
Appearing before a packed high school gym in Elkhart, Ind., the young girl asked Obama why he is running for the White House.
"America is, is no longer, uh, what it could be, what it, it once was," Obama said haltingly. "And I say to myself, I don't want that future for my children."
It's more of that evil future that Odumma doesn't want for his children: you know, like the ugly side effect of sex that some folks euphemistically call "pregnancy." Remember that one? Odumma didn't want his honeychile burdened with a baby, if she had the misfortune of getting knocked up in her boyfriend's backseat. He's added to his list of dystopian future goblins lurking around the corner; this time, it's the terror of America not living up to what she used to be.
It's amusing, but Odumma often is right in what he says, but for all the wrong reasons. It's true that America is not what it could be, or what it was at one time. And we have people like Odumma to thank for that. The America of old was a devoutly religious country, where our liberties were cherished as gifts from God, not to be abused or taken lightly; where government intrusion into private life occured at a much lower level than that of the present; and the burden of taxation paled in comparison to that of today.
This is the America that Odumma hates and actively wages war against in his support of big government and left-wing ideals. Given that we were more religious, more free, and more independent, I wonder which aspect of past America appeals to him over our pseudo-religious, less free, and more dependent current state?
Olympic Nonsense
I admit I've never been a big follower of the Olympics; yet the current activities in China give me no reason to change my mind on the issue.
As you read these words, the Chinese government is murdering Christians, or imprisoning them without trial. The Uyghur ethnic minority--made up primarily of Muslims, with a few Christians--is enduring a systematic campaign of persecution at the government's hands.
People are sitting in re-education camps for the crime of starting "cults." The government considers Christian churches or Bible-study groups "cults," unless they have prior official approval for their meetings.
Perhaps even more egregious, the Chinese are in the process of destroying Tibetan culture. In the midst of this nation's rape, we're seeing commercials on tv about the proud Olympic tradition.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have zero interest in a tradition that won't recognize or condemn open evil. I harbor no enthusiasm for a games commission that refuses even the symbolic rejection of China's behavior, by turning down this massive labor camp as host for the Olympics. Here was an opportunity to send a strong message to the world: we will not offer respect and distinction to a regime that abuses its citizens as a matter of entrenched policy. It's an opportunity not just lost, but thrown away. Besides the requisite moral relativism that saturates everything, these days, I have no doubt that money is a factor in this decision, as well.
China is a place where rights to freedom of religion, petition, press, assembly, and speech receive no recognition. Practical reality indicates they don't exist.
I see little difference between holding the Olympic games in Beijing, this year, and locating them in Berlin, circa 1936. It disgusts me.
As you read these words, the Chinese government is murdering Christians, or imprisoning them without trial. The Uyghur ethnic minority--made up primarily of Muslims, with a few Christians--is enduring a systematic campaign of persecution at the government's hands.
People are sitting in re-education camps for the crime of starting "cults." The government considers Christian churches or Bible-study groups "cults," unless they have prior official approval for their meetings.
Perhaps even more egregious, the Chinese are in the process of destroying Tibetan culture. In the midst of this nation's rape, we're seeing commercials on tv about the proud Olympic tradition.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have zero interest in a tradition that won't recognize or condemn open evil. I harbor no enthusiasm for a games commission that refuses even the symbolic rejection of China's behavior, by turning down this massive labor camp as host for the Olympics. Here was an opportunity to send a strong message to the world: we will not offer respect and distinction to a regime that abuses its citizens as a matter of entrenched policy. It's an opportunity not just lost, but thrown away. Besides the requisite moral relativism that saturates everything, these days, I have no doubt that money is a factor in this decision, as well.
China is a place where rights to freedom of religion, petition, press, assembly, and speech receive no recognition. Practical reality indicates they don't exist.
I see little difference between holding the Olympic games in Beijing, this year, and locating them in Berlin, circa 1936. It disgusts me.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Sheer Genius
Barelyblack Odumma has a brilliant new energy policy. Here it is, short and sweet, the product of a true wunderkind:
"There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy," Obama said. "Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much!"
Now, if I wanted advice about making my car run more efficiently, this would be just fine. And talk about your temporary solutions. "I won't support drilling for more oil that we know exists, and is there for the taking, but I will support short-term measures that help us make each drop of what little oil we have go as far as possible--until we run out, of course. Remember The Road Warrior? That's what we have to look forward to. Ka-chunk Ka-chunk Ka-chunk!"
Golly, I'm ready to go out and vote for the guy, right now! Can't we have erection day a little early, this year?
Barelyblack isn't addressing the problem. The issue is the outrageous gas prices at the pump. The issue is keeping our known oil supply off limits through force of law, which artificially ensures that gas remains high-priced, and climbs higher still. There's nothing organic about the gas prices in this country. The law of supply and demand works, but what happens when the available supply dwindles, as a direct result of government interference?
Rather than discussions of tire inflation at proper 44 psi capacity (or whatever), new spark plugs, and vehicles that run on hippie flatulence fumes, a better solution is for the government to get its meddling, unconstitutional, stupid, dependency-oriented carcass out of the way. How about that? Let's build refineries, explore for oil off our coasts, in the heartland, and in the Gulf of Mexico, and tap the extant resources we have in ANWR.
Odumma should get on-board this project. As Bruce Willis said, "Stop being part of the problem, and start being part of the solution," minus about twenty expletives.
Imagine a poster for his campaign: trees and mountains stretching into Heaven in the background; a glistening black pipeline gushing oil down to the lower fifty; beside the pipeline stands a tall, graceful caribou; perched atop its majestic back is our next president, Barelyblack Odumma, staring off into the future of HopeChange with a speckled owl blinking from his shoulder.
"There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy," Obama said. "Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much!"
Now, if I wanted advice about making my car run more efficiently, this would be just fine. And talk about your temporary solutions. "I won't support drilling for more oil that we know exists, and is there for the taking, but I will support short-term measures that help us make each drop of what little oil we have go as far as possible--until we run out, of course. Remember The Road Warrior? That's what we have to look forward to. Ka-chunk Ka-chunk Ka-chunk!"
Golly, I'm ready to go out and vote for the guy, right now! Can't we have erection day a little early, this year?
Barelyblack isn't addressing the problem. The issue is the outrageous gas prices at the pump. The issue is keeping our known oil supply off limits through force of law, which artificially ensures that gas remains high-priced, and climbs higher still. There's nothing organic about the gas prices in this country. The law of supply and demand works, but what happens when the available supply dwindles, as a direct result of government interference?
Rather than discussions of tire inflation at proper 44 psi capacity (or whatever), new spark plugs, and vehicles that run on hippie flatulence fumes, a better solution is for the government to get its meddling, unconstitutional, stupid, dependency-oriented carcass out of the way. How about that? Let's build refineries, explore for oil off our coasts, in the heartland, and in the Gulf of Mexico, and tap the extant resources we have in ANWR.
Odumma should get on-board this project. As Bruce Willis said, "Stop being part of the problem, and start being part of the solution," minus about twenty expletives.
Imagine a poster for his campaign: trees and mountains stretching into Heaven in the background; a glistening black pipeline gushing oil down to the lower fifty; beside the pipeline stands a tall, graceful caribou; perched atop its majestic back is our next president, Barelyblack Odumma, staring off into the future of HopeChange with a speckled owl blinking from his shoulder.
Nightmare on a Bus
This is one of the more inexplicable news stories I've ever seen reported. Our local newspaper had a story on it, and Foxy News mentioned it, as well. I've also read online articles dealing with this atrocity. But I've seen no attention paid to a key element of this case in these reports.
The killer spoke with a thick Chinese accent, which means he's not a native Canadian. I know nothing of his legal status, as the media has studiously avoided discussing the matter. However, I note the seeming correlation between this vile crime committed by a non-native and the locality being a nation with perhaps the most open immigration policy in the world. I have serious doubts that this is mere coincidence.
What I'm getting at is this: when your attitude about immigration finds its roots in utopian ideals--as opposed to observational realities in this harsh, fallen world--you should expect not just the commission of such crimes, but an eventual increase in their frequency, in which they "progress" from the exceptional to the commonplace.
The killer spoke with a thick Chinese accent, which means he's not a native Canadian. I know nothing of his legal status, as the media has studiously avoided discussing the matter. However, I note the seeming correlation between this vile crime committed by a non-native and the locality being a nation with perhaps the most open immigration policy in the world. I have serious doubts that this is mere coincidence.
What I'm getting at is this: when your attitude about immigration finds its roots in utopian ideals--as opposed to observational realities in this harsh, fallen world--you should expect not just the commission of such crimes, but an eventual increase in their frequency, in which they "progress" from the exceptional to the commonplace.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
What the Moon Brings
At a local Chinese restaurant, today, my wife opened her fortune cookie and read the slip inside:
"The next full moon brings an enchanting evening."
I told her: "Honey, I hope you don't become a werewolf; but if you do, please remember that I'm your husband, and don't eat me."
We'll see what happens. Wish me luck.
"The next full moon brings an enchanting evening."
I told her: "Honey, I hope you don't become a werewolf; but if you do, please remember that I'm your husband, and don't eat me."
We'll see what happens. Wish me luck.
Monday, July 28, 2008
One Nation Under God
Did you know that each individual state constitution acknowledges God as our Sovereign? And I mean without exception. In light of the Declaration of Independence, this belies the idea of intended secular government--on both a federal and state level. Here's a list of the states, followed by the location of relevant passages in these documents:
Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution. . .
Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land. . .
Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. . .
Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government. . .
California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.
Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe.
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy. . .
Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences .
Florida 1845, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty. . .establish this Constitution. . .
Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution. . .
Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance. . . establish this Constitution. . .
Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful toAlmighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings . . .
Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government. . .
Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings. . . establish this Constitution. . .
Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges. . . establish this Constitution. . .
Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties. . .
Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy. . .
Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity. . . and imploring His aid and direction. . .
Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty. . .
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We. . .the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of theUniverse. . .in the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring Hisdirection. . .
Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom. . . establish this Constitution. . .
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings. . .
Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work. . .
Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness. . .establish this Constitution. . .
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution. . .
Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom. . .establish this Constitution. . .
Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom. . .establish this Constitution. . .
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. . .
New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors. . .
New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty. . .
New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings. . .
North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those. . .
North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain. . .
Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common. . .
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty. . .establish this. . .
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences. . .
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance. . .
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island. . .grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing. . .
South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution. . .
South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties. . . establish this. . .
Tennessee 1796, Art. I, Section III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience. . .
Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God. . .
Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution. . .
Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man. . .
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator. . .can be directed only by Reason. . . and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other. . .
Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. . .
West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of WestVirginia. . .reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God. . .
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility. . .
Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties. . . establish this Constitution. . .
Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution. . .
Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land. . .
Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. . .
Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government. . .
California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.
Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe.
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy. . .
Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences .
Florida 1845, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty. . .establish this Constitution. . .
Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution. . .
Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance. . . establish this Constitution. . .
Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful toAlmighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings . . .
Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government. . .
Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings. . . establish this Constitution. . .
Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges. . . establish this Constitution. . .
Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties. . .
Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy. . .
Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity. . . and imploring His aid and direction. . .
Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty. . .
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We. . .the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of theUniverse. . .in the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring Hisdirection. . .
Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom. . . establish this Constitution. . .
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings. . .
Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work. . .
Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness. . .establish this Constitution. . .
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution. . .
Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom. . .establish this Constitution. . .
Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom. . .establish this Constitution. . .
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. . .
New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors. . .
New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty. . .
New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings. . .
North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those. . .
North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain. . .
Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common. . .
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty. . .establish this. . .
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences. . .
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance. . .
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island. . .grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing. . .
South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution. . .
South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties. . . establish this. . .
Tennessee 1796, Art. I, Section III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience. . .
Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God. . .
Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution. . .
Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man. . .
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator. . .can be directed only by Reason. . . and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other. . .
Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. . .
West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of WestVirginia. . .reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God. . .
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility. . .
Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties. . . establish this Constitution. . .
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Deadly Diversity
1 in 3 Muslim students in the U.K. support killing in Islam's name:
The report of this finding, based on a poll of 600 Muslim and 800 non-Muslim students at 12 universities in the UK, and conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Center for Social Cohesion, will be released tomorrow as "Islam on Campus."
Among its findings of Muslim beliefs:
1.) 40 per cent support introduction of sharia into British law for Muslims
2.) One-third back the idea of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia law
3.) 40 per believe it is unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely
4.) 24 per cent do not think men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah
5.) 25 percent have little or no respect for homosexuals.
6.) 53 per cent believe killing in the name of religion is never justified (compared with 94 per cent of non-Muslims), while 32 per cent say it is
7.) 57 percent believe Muslim soldiers serving in the UK military should be able to refuse duty in Muslim countries
8.) More than half favor an Islamic political party to support their views in parliament
9.) One-third don't think or don't know if Islam is compatible with Western views of democracy
The report echoes one released last year by the Policy Exchange which found 37% of all Muslims aged 16-24 would prefer to live under a sharia system.
In addition to polling of 1,400 students, the researchers visited more than 20 universities to interview students and listen to guest speakers brought on campus. The report notes radical Islamic preachers regularly deliver inflammatory speeches that target homosexuals and border on anti-Semitism.
The authors of the report note that campus Islamic societies have, in the past, been where some UK terrorists became radicalized. They cite Kafeel Ahmed, who drove a jeep engulfed in flames into a building at the Glasgow airport last year and died of his burns. Investigators believe he adopted jihadist beliefs while studying at Anglia Ruskin university, Cambridge.
The report of this finding, based on a poll of 600 Muslim and 800 non-Muslim students at 12 universities in the UK, and conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Center for Social Cohesion, will be released tomorrow as "Islam on Campus."
Among its findings of Muslim beliefs:
1.) 40 per cent support introduction of sharia into British law for Muslims
2.) One-third back the idea of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia law
3.) 40 per believe it is unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely
4.) 24 per cent do not think men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah
5.) 25 percent have little or no respect for homosexuals.
6.) 53 per cent believe killing in the name of religion is never justified (compared with 94 per cent of non-Muslims), while 32 per cent say it is
7.) 57 percent believe Muslim soldiers serving in the UK military should be able to refuse duty in Muslim countries
8.) More than half favor an Islamic political party to support their views in parliament
9.) One-third don't think or don't know if Islam is compatible with Western views of democracy
The report echoes one released last year by the Policy Exchange which found 37% of all Muslims aged 16-24 would prefer to live under a sharia system.
In addition to polling of 1,400 students, the researchers visited more than 20 universities to interview students and listen to guest speakers brought on campus. The report notes radical Islamic preachers regularly deliver inflammatory speeches that target homosexuals and border on anti-Semitism.
The authors of the report note that campus Islamic societies have, in the past, been where some UK terrorists became radicalized. They cite Kafeel Ahmed, who drove a jeep engulfed in flames into a building at the Glasgow airport last year and died of his burns. Investigators believe he adopted jihadist beliefs while studying at Anglia Ruskin university, Cambridge.
This is an inevitable result of multiculturalism, "diversity," and pluralism, and should surprise no one. When you open wide the floodgates and allow into your borders those who do not share your paradigm, your language, culture, or values, a great expectation of societal cohesion and harmony becomes as realistic as a John Lennon song composed after he hit the hash pipe.
When a country embraces "The Other" in massive numbers it gives up its identity and becomes a new and altogether different entity. After all, why would "The Other" merge itself with you, when you're prefectly willing to let it devour you, instead.
Kumusta!
I was checking my Sitemeter statistics, and I discovered that I've had recent visits to my blog from Seoul, the Philippines, and even Kenya (!).
As they say in Nepal, "Howdy, y'all!"
As they say in Nepal, "Howdy, y'all!"
Sunday, July 20, 2008
A Secular Government?
We live in a time in which American history has become a casualty of secular influence. Our school textbooks tell us that, though Americans are a religious people, their government is secular. That may stand true as a present reality, but it only highlights how far the republic has fallen from its original heights. As I have elaborated elsewhere, our Founding Fathers were neither secular men, nor were they champions of godless government. Understand that secularism isn't a neutral position; it entails taking a specific side as much as Christianity does.
Dictionary.com provides several definitions of secularism:
1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
3. Religious skepticism or indifference.
4. A doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations.
So many of us spent our formative years having the notion drilled into our heads that American government is a product of the Enlightenment, of Deism, of sceptical thinkers who saw the evils of religion, and fled its dire influence. This is a modern myth with no historical substance. It allows the spirit of the French Revolution employment as a stand-in for the American Revolution--when in actuality, the former was the true secular movement, while the latter was a religious one.
People tend toward viewing historical facts through narrow, extreme lenses. They see the polar opposites--secularism on one end of the spectrum, and religiosity on the other--and dwell on these to such an extent that they forget the vast middle ground of viewpoints that lies between the two. The Founders eschewed theocracy, so the sole logical conclusion left to us is that they wanted secular government. Right?
Quite the contrary. They wanted non-denominational government, because they realized that the most important property a man or woman owns is his or her freedom of conscience. Denominational compliance through force of law destroys that freedom. They also looked to the sad model of their ancestors' trials and tribulations under the Church of England, in which people received jail sentences for reading the Bible and discussing it with friends in their own homes; in which Christians who deviated from Church norms earned the label of heretic, lost their lands and possessions, suffered banishment, and on rare occasions, became martyrs for their beliefs. They saw loosely bridled political power as a corruptor of religion, and they had ample reason for holding this view. A rejection of theocracy or enforced denominationalism is a far cry from irreligiosity.
Our system of government finds its expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. The Ten Commandments revealed God's general expectations for the Jews, while Levitical law specified the Decalogue for daily living. Our founding documents work in similar fashion. The Declaration is a sweeping statement of principles, while the Constitution takes those principles, accepts them as true, and codifies them in a binding legal code and framework for governance. I make this point for a simple reason: the claim to secular government must find its roots in these two documents. In other words, if our government is meant as a secular institution, then our founding documents necessarily must be secular, as well.
However, when we read the Declaration, we run up against a wall at the very beginning; for here we find acknowledgment of God in the first two paragraphs, and in the closing two paragraphs. How do we reconcile this with the notion of secular documents leading to secular government?
We cannot. This leaves us two options: rejecting the idea of secularism as our Founders' intention, or redefining "secular" as "that which embraces the existence, divine power, and will of God." The first is our one viable option, as the second is nonsensical and reminiscent of the atheist's redefinition of key words, such as "atheism," whenever the spirit of nihilism moves him.
I leave you with a handful of thoughts from John Adams, one of the principal Founders. They nicely illustrate his delusional character, if, indeed, we are beneficiaries of secular government:
"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God." --June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson
"We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!"--April 18, 1775, uttered when he and others were ordered by a British major to disperse in "the name of George the Sovereign King of England."
"[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty."--in a letter to his wife on the day of Congressional approval of the Declaration
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--October 11, 1798
Dictionary.com provides several definitions of secularism:
1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
3. Religious skepticism or indifference.
4. A doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations.
So many of us spent our formative years having the notion drilled into our heads that American government is a product of the Enlightenment, of Deism, of sceptical thinkers who saw the evils of religion, and fled its dire influence. This is a modern myth with no historical substance. It allows the spirit of the French Revolution employment as a stand-in for the American Revolution--when in actuality, the former was the true secular movement, while the latter was a religious one.
People tend toward viewing historical facts through narrow, extreme lenses. They see the polar opposites--secularism on one end of the spectrum, and religiosity on the other--and dwell on these to such an extent that they forget the vast middle ground of viewpoints that lies between the two. The Founders eschewed theocracy, so the sole logical conclusion left to us is that they wanted secular government. Right?
Quite the contrary. They wanted non-denominational government, because they realized that the most important property a man or woman owns is his or her freedom of conscience. Denominational compliance through force of law destroys that freedom. They also looked to the sad model of their ancestors' trials and tribulations under the Church of England, in which people received jail sentences for reading the Bible and discussing it with friends in their own homes; in which Christians who deviated from Church norms earned the label of heretic, lost their lands and possessions, suffered banishment, and on rare occasions, became martyrs for their beliefs. They saw loosely bridled political power as a corruptor of religion, and they had ample reason for holding this view. A rejection of theocracy or enforced denominationalism is a far cry from irreligiosity.
Our system of government finds its expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. The Ten Commandments revealed God's general expectations for the Jews, while Levitical law specified the Decalogue for daily living. Our founding documents work in similar fashion. The Declaration is a sweeping statement of principles, while the Constitution takes those principles, accepts them as true, and codifies them in a binding legal code and framework for governance. I make this point for a simple reason: the claim to secular government must find its roots in these two documents. In other words, if our government is meant as a secular institution, then our founding documents necessarily must be secular, as well.
However, when we read the Declaration, we run up against a wall at the very beginning; for here we find acknowledgment of God in the first two paragraphs, and in the closing two paragraphs. How do we reconcile this with the notion of secular documents leading to secular government?
We cannot. This leaves us two options: rejecting the idea of secularism as our Founders' intention, or redefining "secular" as "that which embraces the existence, divine power, and will of God." The first is our one viable option, as the second is nonsensical and reminiscent of the atheist's redefinition of key words, such as "atheism," whenever the spirit of nihilism moves him.
I leave you with a handful of thoughts from John Adams, one of the principal Founders. They nicely illustrate his delusional character, if, indeed, we are beneficiaries of secular government:
"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God." --June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson
"We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!"--April 18, 1775, uttered when he and others were ordered by a British major to disperse in "the name of George the Sovereign King of England."
"[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty."--in a letter to his wife on the day of Congressional approval of the Declaration
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--October 11, 1798
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Deism and the Founding Fathers
How many times have you heard that the Founders were Deists? Personally, I lost count long ago. I read it in books; I hear it on TV; I see the assertion on blogs.
It's everywhere, and it's complete hogwash.
I define the Founders as those who:
--signed the Declaration of Independence
--signed the Articles of Confederation
--attended the 1787 Constitutional Convention
--signed the Constitution of the U.S.A.
--served as Senators or Representatives in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
(* Including the members of the pre-Declaration Continental Congresses also is perfectly legitimate, though I don't have specific statistics on those individuals. These and the rest include some overlap.*)
Let's take the Declaration, first:
56 signers
26 Episcopalians/Anglicans
10 Congregationalists
11 Presbyterians
1 Catholic
Several who switched denominations or beliefs in later life:
2 Congregationalists/Unitarians
2 Quakers/Episcopalians
2 Episcopalians/Deists
1 Episcopalian/Congregationalist
1 Episcopalian/Presbyterian
The Articles of Confederation:
48 signers
18 Protestant, denomination unknown
12 Episcopalians
9 Congregationalists
4 Presbyterians
1 Catholic
1 Huguenot
1 Lutheran
Two who switched denominations or beliefs in later life:
1 Episcopalian/Deist
1 Quaker/Episcopalian
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and signers of the Constitution:
55 delegates/signers:
20 Episcopalians/Anglicans
10 Presbyterians
6 Congregationalists
2 Catholics
2 Methodists
2 Dutch Reformed
1 Lutheran
Several who switched denominations or beliefs in later life:
3 Episcopalians/Presbyterians
2 Presbyterians/Episcopalians
2 Quakers/Episcopalians
1 Congregationalist/Episcopalian
1 Episcopalian/Deist
1 Episcopalian/Congregationalist
1 Huguenot/Presbyterian/Episcopalian
1 Quaker/Lutheran
Summary
The Declaration of Independence: 56 signers; 2 Deists.
The Articles of Confederation: 48 signers; 1 Deist.
Constitutional Convention delegates/signers of the U.S. Constitution: 55 people; 1 Deist.
Even if we include Unitarians in the Deist category, this gives us 4 of 56 men who signed the Declaration and were Deists, which is Deism at its highest representative numbers. Furthermore, though 18th Century American Unitarianism denied Trinitarianism--specifically the divinity of Jesus Christ--it adhered to Christianity in all other regards, such as ethics, behavior, and culture. By today's standards, I think classifying Unitarians with the Watchtower Society and Mormonism is more accurate than placing them under the rubric of Deism, but I suppose the point is arguable.
So it's quite clear that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were members of orthodox Christian denominations, not Deists. The numbers are neither debatable on this particular issue, nor even close.
Thus, the pertinent question arises: whence the origin of the idea that the Framers principally were Deists? I think the question has two answers. First, some people are liars; their goal is the belittlement of Christianity, in general, and the obscuration of Christian influence on the formation of the United States of America, in particular. Second--and more prevalent--is the reality that we have fumbled and dropped much of our history in a well of ignorance. Knowledge once accepted as true now has become controversial--not because we know more than in days of old, but because we know less.
It's everywhere, and it's complete hogwash.
I define the Founders as those who:
--signed the Declaration of Independence
--signed the Articles of Confederation
--attended the 1787 Constitutional Convention
--signed the Constitution of the U.S.A.
--served as Senators or Representatives in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
(* Including the members of the pre-Declaration Continental Congresses also is perfectly legitimate, though I don't have specific statistics on those individuals. These and the rest include some overlap.*)
Let's take the Declaration, first:
56 signers
26 Episcopalians/Anglicans
10 Congregationalists
11 Presbyterians
1 Catholic
Several who switched denominations or beliefs in later life:
2 Congregationalists/Unitarians
2 Quakers/Episcopalians
2 Episcopalians/Deists
1 Episcopalian/Congregationalist
1 Episcopalian/Presbyterian
The Articles of Confederation:
48 signers
18 Protestant, denomination unknown
12 Episcopalians
9 Congregationalists
4 Presbyterians
1 Catholic
1 Huguenot
1 Lutheran
Two who switched denominations or beliefs in later life:
1 Episcopalian/Deist
1 Quaker/Episcopalian
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and signers of the Constitution:
55 delegates/signers:
20 Episcopalians/Anglicans
10 Presbyterians
6 Congregationalists
2 Catholics
2 Methodists
2 Dutch Reformed
1 Lutheran
Several who switched denominations or beliefs in later life:
3 Episcopalians/Presbyterians
2 Presbyterians/Episcopalians
2 Quakers/Episcopalians
1 Congregationalist/Episcopalian
1 Episcopalian/Deist
1 Episcopalian/Congregationalist
1 Huguenot/Presbyterian/Episcopalian
1 Quaker/Lutheran
Summary
The Declaration of Independence: 56 signers; 2 Deists.
The Articles of Confederation: 48 signers; 1 Deist.
Constitutional Convention delegates/signers of the U.S. Constitution: 55 people; 1 Deist.
Even if we include Unitarians in the Deist category, this gives us 4 of 56 men who signed the Declaration and were Deists, which is Deism at its highest representative numbers. Furthermore, though 18th Century American Unitarianism denied Trinitarianism--specifically the divinity of Jesus Christ--it adhered to Christianity in all other regards, such as ethics, behavior, and culture. By today's standards, I think classifying Unitarians with the Watchtower Society and Mormonism is more accurate than placing them under the rubric of Deism, but I suppose the point is arguable.
So it's quite clear that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were members of orthodox Christian denominations, not Deists. The numbers are neither debatable on this particular issue, nor even close.
Thus, the pertinent question arises: whence the origin of the idea that the Framers principally were Deists? I think the question has two answers. First, some people are liars; their goal is the belittlement of Christianity, in general, and the obscuration of Christian influence on the formation of the United States of America, in particular. Second--and more prevalent--is the reality that we have fumbled and dropped much of our history in a well of ignorance. Knowledge once accepted as true now has become controversial--not because we know more than in days of old, but because we know less.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
R.I.P. Tony Snow
I liked his commentary when he sat in for Rush Limbaugh, but I lost a lot of respect for him when he embarked upon his career as Bush II's propaganda minister. I think he genuinely believed in Bush, though from my perspective, he abandoned conservative principles in shilling for the administration. Still, I wish he could've lived a long life with his family. He came across as a good man, however misguided. I'm sorry he's gone.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Killing Is My Business, and Business Is Good!
An abortionist who claims to have destroyed more than 20,000 unborn children and who once was Hillary Clinton's OB-GYN says he is doing "God's work" when he terminates a pregnancy.
"Embryos and fetuses spontaneously aborted – most, but not all of those 'canceled' by 'God' – are ... luckless human souls," wrote William Harrison, referring to an ancient poem describing the plight of mankind. "But a few spontaneous abortions occur in desired pregnancies with no discernable abnormalities. For those girls and women and their families whose circumstances would make their babies 'luckless human souls,' I 'cancel' them before they become babies."
Kinda like stopping payment on a check, right? I bet his favored tool is a big rubber stamp.
Here we have a devil in jackass clothing. "Spontaneous abortions" are a product of living in a world in which biology labors under the curse brought about by fallen Man. They're natural events, as even nature groans and trevails in pain like that of a woman in childbirth. What relation does this have to the intentional, premeditated taking of innocent human life? I see no comparison.
"Life is being terminated when a male wears a condom, or has a wet dream or 'spills his seed of life on the ground' or in someone's mouth or anus. Or when he ejaculates into the vagina of a woman who isn't ovulating or is post menopausal. The sperm are alive until they die. And the egg is alive until it dies. Each is a unique human life, etc.
This is abject stupidity. Now he's equating "Life" with "Human Life," as if there's no discernible difference. A sperm is not a "unique human life." Neither is an egg. A human life does not exist, until an egg is fertilized by a sperm. On its own volition, will a sperm become a fully-developed human? How about an egg? You'd think that Dr. Demented would know a little more about human reproduction than the typical fembot who believes that the only good baby is one who's no longer kicking.
"Anyone who has delivered as many babies as I have, and has seen hundreds of living and dead embryos and fetuses being spontaneously aborted as have I, knows exactly what we are doing when we provide an elective abortion for our patient. We are ending the life of an embryo or a fetus. Not the life of a person, but certainly a creature that might have become a person under other circumstances.
Comparing abortions to miscarriages is like comparing blowing my neighbor's head off to death by natural causes. And what does this idiot mean by "a creature that might have become a person under other circumstances."? Pray tell, what else might it have become besides a human? Hm? When someone says, "It wasn't a human, but a potential human," I simply ask, "What other potential did it have, dummy?" I think we reasonably can conclude that it wouldn't have grown into a mature platypus. This is akin to declaring, "My child might've grown into an adult, had I not enacted my right of "cribside cancellation."
"Embryos and fetuses spontaneously aborted – most, but not all of those 'canceled' by 'God' – are ... luckless human souls," wrote William Harrison, referring to an ancient poem describing the plight of mankind. "But a few spontaneous abortions occur in desired pregnancies with no discernable abnormalities. For those girls and women and their families whose circumstances would make their babies 'luckless human souls,' I 'cancel' them before they become babies."
Kinda like stopping payment on a check, right? I bet his favored tool is a big rubber stamp.
Here we have a devil in jackass clothing. "Spontaneous abortions" are a product of living in a world in which biology labors under the curse brought about by fallen Man. They're natural events, as even nature groans and trevails in pain like that of a woman in childbirth. What relation does this have to the intentional, premeditated taking of innocent human life? I see no comparison.
"Life is being terminated when a male wears a condom, or has a wet dream or 'spills his seed of life on the ground' or in someone's mouth or anus. Or when he ejaculates into the vagina of a woman who isn't ovulating or is post menopausal. The sperm are alive until they die. And the egg is alive until it dies. Each is a unique human life, etc.
This is abject stupidity. Now he's equating "Life" with "Human Life," as if there's no discernible difference. A sperm is not a "unique human life." Neither is an egg. A human life does not exist, until an egg is fertilized by a sperm. On its own volition, will a sperm become a fully-developed human? How about an egg? You'd think that Dr. Demented would know a little more about human reproduction than the typical fembot who believes that the only good baby is one who's no longer kicking.
"Anyone who has delivered as many babies as I have, and has seen hundreds of living and dead embryos and fetuses being spontaneously aborted as have I, knows exactly what we are doing when we provide an elective abortion for our patient. We are ending the life of an embryo or a fetus. Not the life of a person, but certainly a creature that might have become a person under other circumstances.
Comparing abortions to miscarriages is like comparing blowing my neighbor's head off to death by natural causes. And what does this idiot mean by "a creature that might have become a person under other circumstances."? Pray tell, what else might it have become besides a human? Hm? When someone says, "It wasn't a human, but a potential human," I simply ask, "What other potential did it have, dummy?" I think we reasonably can conclude that it wouldn't have grown into a mature platypus. This is akin to declaring, "My child might've grown into an adult, had I not enacted my right of "cribside cancellation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)