The One Who IS

Here's a good description of our God--the One True God--as taken from the book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, by Anthony Esolen:

It's fascinating to note what the God of Israel is not. He is not one god among many. He is not a god tied to a particular city or even culture (the prophets will see God, not Israel, as the ruler of all peoples). He is not a god of nature. He is not personified more than is necessary to make sense of his deeds to a half-barbarous people. We hear nothing of any amours or private life. He decides, but we never stumble upon him worrying, pondering, or reasoning with himself. His right arm is strong to save, but we never hear of his bending it, or cracking his knuckles. He does not move from place to place, like Hermes delivering messages from snowy Olympus. He forbids his people to carve any images of him, lest they confuse him with the power-broking kings around them, or with the beasts. The people are informed not that he looks like them (only with curly locks and a perfect torso), but that they resemble Him. He has made them in His image and likeness, and that cannot be a physically imaginable resemblance.

Who is this God? The revelation strikes like a thunderbolt. He is the God Who Is, beyond specification. He's not simply a maker, a muddler of slush and soil, who takes some always-existing stuff and molds it into trees and birds and people. He creates, because he wills it. Recall the scene in the Sinai, when Moses approaches the burning bush that is not consumed (Ex. 3). When God speaks to him from that bush, Moses asks him his name, something understandable, something to define or limit. The reply shatters expectations: "Tell them that I AM WHO I AM sent you." God does not say "I am the God of fire," or "I am the God of the mountaintop," or "I am the God of the sea." He says, "I am the God who essentially is." To put it in philosophical terms, as later Jewish and Christian thinkers would do, God is Being itself. The Jewish translators of the Septuagint (the Old Testament rendered into Greek in the second century BC) struggled with the name that transcends names. Ho on, they rendered it, The Being, the One whose nature it is to be, and in whom all things that exist have their being.

Just Give Socialism a Chance

I keep hearing people say "Let's just give him a chance," or "I hope he succeeds," regarding our newly-anointed Messiah of the Blessed Four-Year Expiration Date. I've even heard commenters say this at Vox's blog, of all places.

What in the heck is this crap supposed to mean?

Since His Messiahtude's stated positions entail the further entrenchment of pure socialism, why would one want to "give him a chance" or "hope he succeeds," unless one is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist?

I'm reiterating the points of people like Joseph Farah and even Rush Limbaugh, because they bear repeating, and correspond to my own thoughts.

One of Obama's first acts as President of the United States was to rescind an Executive Order of the Bush Administration, which stopped the flow of taxpayer funds to overseas dystopias for the purpose of aborting children. Setting aside the pesky inconvenience that our Constitution gives Obama zero authority toward funding trans-national baby-killing, his decision speaks volumes about the moral putridity his administration has in store for us.

Success--as defined and articulated by Obama, himself--means increased spending of taxpayer monies, heaping piles of dead babies, further government encroachment into your private life, enlargement of the "War on Terror's" ^TM scope, and pandering galore. By "change," Obama means expanding and building upon the Bush Administration's excesses. Why on Earth would I wish for his agenda's success?

Fervently hoping for Obama's "success" is like giving the benefit of the doubt to the torturer who applies hammer and tong to your wife.

Messianic Indulgence

It's interesting to me that a running theme in much of Obama's rhetoric is the need for sacrifice. He alluded to it in his inaugural address, as well as in speeches given around the nation.

What makes this theme remarkable is his apparent exemption when it comes to pinching pennies or persevering through hard times.

My understanding is that his inauguration pricetag was $150 million, much of which came straight out of the taxpayers' pockets. Compare this to Bush's in 2005, at $42.3 million, and Clinton's in 1993, at $33 million. All of these are ridiculous sums, considering that these ceremonies are nothing more than glorified parties. But Obama has taken such extravagance to a new level, the likes of which perhaps only an occupant of Versailles or Buckingham Palace might appreciate. Why didn't he just scream out "I AM THE STATE!" while hovering over his fawning acolytes on the National Mall? With a bill for the party at almost quadruple that of the last Oval Office Demigod, he's living like a king, indeed.

This smacks of hubris and entitlement, and it is neither subtle, nor a pretty thing to behold. While we are weathering a time of recession--and possible depression waiting in the wings--Obama is living high on the hog, and he expects you to buck up, down there in the mud.

So tighten the cinch on your belts just one more notch, folks, and prepare for the lean years ahead.

But fear not, for the Favored One, Obama and his Skin of Many Colors, will see you through those times of trouble.

Even if he has to make the sacrifice of wading through oceans of greenbacks to accomplish the task.

C.S. Lewis on the Importance of Knowing One's History

Most of all, perhaps, we need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set against the present, to remind us that the basic assumptions have been quite different in different periods and that much which seems certain to the uneducated is merely temporary fashion. A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village; the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age.--"Learning in War-Time," 1939, pp. 28-29

The Mulatto Messiah

A king descends upon us
From Windy City Shores.
Semi-chocolate sweet delight
He sprinkles as he soars.

Angels' wings are winnowing
As birds burst forth in song.
A muted roar of fealty
Restrains the smitten throng.

He touches on a hill-top.
Beatific is his smile.
He watches o'er the masses
And tarries for a while.

And as an upstart tasks him
On his birth location,
He gasps that one would test this
Righteous usurpation.

"Drive him from my sight!" he cries,
"And bruise him with a rod!
How dare he fling his spittle
At One less Man than God?"

He turns to his disciples:
"My children, all is well;
But if I rear you Heaven,
I first must raise some Hell."

Dawkins on God's Character

Psychiatrist and theologian Richard Dawkins provided his professional evaluation of God's character and mental state in The God Delusion for the edification of those foolish enough to believe in or love Him:


"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."


He's also arguably none of these things, with the exception of "jealous." Dawkins unwittingly admits that his rant is nothing more than an opinion. And a biased one, at that.

Since we are assured by Dawkins that the above malignant being is nonexistent, I'm not sure why this evaluation is necessary or important. I suppose we'll receive an in-depth examination of Allah, Bartleby the Scrivener, Hester Prynne, Batman, and Frodo Baggins, in the near future. Dawkins should post one write-up per week on the fatal character flaws of a wide assortment of fictional personas.

That aside, let's review Dr. Dawkins's claims.

1. Jealous and Proud of It--No argument, here. God Himself admits his jealousy. Dictionary.com offers multiple definitions of the biblical understanding of "jealous": intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry; intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity; exacting exclusive devotion. Scripture describes God as our perfect and holy Creator. So the question is: if this is an accurate presentation, why should He not be jealous, as per the above definitions, when humans who were made for fellowship with Him worship idols of wood or stone, revere demons, or scoff at his very existence? Using the term "jealous" as a strike against Him has the implied assumption attached that God is unworthy of singular worship, which is a case that Dawkins hasn't made.

2. Petty--mean or ungenerous in small or trifling things. But "small" or "trifling" according to whom? Sinful men who see "through a glass darkly"? This term assumes that one understands the true and complete value of those items labeled "petty" by atheists and other God-detractors. It's a subjective descriptor applied by people who believe God is unworthy of obedience--again, a case that remains unmade.

3. Unjust--As before, according to whom? People who don't have access to all the facts? Those who cannot see the future or the numerous possible outcomes/results of a particular scenario? This is an arena where folks on both sides can go tit-for-tat in providing scriptural references that (supposedly) back their claims. I think this is where faith comes into play. God labels Himself "just" in scripture; taking exception requires more than proffering a verse taken out of context. As a side note, it's worth remembering that Western civilization's understanding of justice came from the Bible.

4. Unforgiving--Reaching this conclusion requires selective reading of scripture. The Holy Bible offers no examples of God rejecting sincere individuals who came to Him with repentant attitudes. As for the defiant lot who wallow in sin without remorse, or refuse the extension of forgiveness to others, it is for Dawkins to explain why such people deserve forgiveness.

5. Control-freak--More selective reading of scripture and subjective conclusions. Dawkins again implies that God is unworthy of worship, obedience, or His rightful position of power. Would a control-freak give Adam and Eve the choice of rebellion or obedience? Would a control-freak give humanity a choice between rejecting or accepting Jesus's gift of salvation? Would he indulge us for a nanosecond in pursuits that fall outside His righteous will? Here's a question for Dawkins: If God gave up His control--even temporarily--what would become of us and our world? The thought of demonic entities gnashing their teeth in pleasure at the possibility of savaging us isn't a pleasant one.

6. Vindictive--If Dawkins means vengeful, I see no problem. God is the Creator, and He makes the rules. We ignore them at our peril, because God fashioned them with our best interests in mind. Of greater probability is that Dawkins means motivated by spite, since he's disinclined toward ever giving God the benefit of the doubt. But this is another subjective take on God's character. Literally millions--if not billions--of people have read the Bible and come to the opposite conclusion. His opinion is no less biased than theirs. Keep in mind that Dawkins thinks he has ferreted out the clandestine motivations of a fictional character.

7. Bloodthirsty--More in the same subjective vein. I propose that Dawkins peruse the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham's involvement in that particular historical chapter.

8. Ethnic Cleanser--Forget context, right? Ignore the fact that God had the Israelites destroy or drive from the land the Canaanite tribes because they engaged in all manner of perversions and abominations, including burning children alive in sacrifice to the idols they worshipped. Forget that they rejected the One True God and would have blighted the Children of Israel with their ungodly filth. None of that matters. The important point is that God engaged in ethnic cleansing, an atrocity to which a properly PC God would never lower Himself.

9. Misogynistic--hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. Let's see if I have this straight. God hates, dislikes, and mistrusts the very creature that He created as a companion for Adam, a creature whose creation He described as "good," before the Fall, a being who births other humans--male and female--into the world. If God loathes women, why does He not speak them out of existence? I contend that continued female presence on this planet forms compelling evidence that God does not hate women.

10. Homophobic--Huh? God harbors an irrational fear toward homosexuals? Really? Is He afraid they'll storm Heaven and doll Him up in drag and make Him attend musical stage shows? There's nothing rational about this analysis. It's the rhetorical equivalent of a sneering child throwing a temper-tantrum, slinging as many insults as he can and hoping that at least one or two will stick. It's corrosive PC drivel. Given that homosexual behavior leads to a truncated lifespan, propensity for disease, and an increased likelihood of dabbling in other perversions, the question of interest isn't "Is God homophobic?", but rather, "Why is Richard Dawkins defending a demonstrably destructive lifestyle, and demonizing those who take issue with it?"

11. Racist--Yes, let's judge an infinite God revealed to us in a millennia-old book by a loaded, left-wing term. Seems sensible. I'd appreciate an explanation from Dawkins about how God can be a racist, while being the originator of all races.

12. Infanticidal--So the God who punished the Canaanites (and later, the Israelites) for practicing infanticide--for which Dawkins shakes his fist and screeches "Ethnic cleanser!"--now finds Himself seared under Dawkins's righteous glare for the same crime. In short, infanticide isn't a problem, unless God's the perpetrator; then it becomes monstrous beyond all human ken. Yep, Dawkins is as balanced as a set of scales with a feather on one side, and Fat Albert in lead boots on the other. While grounded on his little see-saw, he might want to read up on the biblical penalty for making a pregnant woman miscarry. (Hint: God doesn't come to the culprit in a dream and say: "Thataboy!")

13. Genocidal--See number eight above, as this is a rehash. If he's referencing the Deluge-era, I'll just point to scripture, which states And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5) Sounds like a swell bunch.

14. Filicidal--a willingness to kill one's son or daughter. So should we reference Abraham, whose hand God stayed from killing Isaac? Or should we mention Jesus, who was God in the flesh, who submitted willingly to execution for the purpose of taking Man's sins upon Himself, to bring salvation to all who accept his sacrifice? Dawkins is flailing like a blind sot on ice skates.

15. Pestilential--Maybe I should write a book about Dawkins's biblical views, and title it Surprised by Context. Or maybe he can author his own weighty tome, dubbing it No Context Allowed. Either God is contagious, or Dawkins is tilting his nose at the Egyptian plagues. I assume the latter, though given Dawkins's earlier masterful evaluation, I suppose I should tread carefully. See, that's recognizing context. God rained plagues upon the Egyptians due to disobedience and rejection of Him as the One True God, but also for their treatment of the Children of Israel. The patriarch Joseph--a son of Jacob--rose high in the ranks of Egypt's hierarchy, and later led the country successfully through a terrible time of famine. After Joseph's death, the Egyptians repaid this kindness by enslaving Jacob's descendants for more than four hundred years. But this centuries-long abuse elicits no concern from Dawkins. He's like the man who protests the enactment of capital punishment on a serial killer, while remaining silent and nonchalant about his victims.

16. Megalomaniacal--someone with a symptom of mental illness marked by delusions of greatness, wealth, etc. Mr. Dawkins, I dare say that the Creator of the universe's claim to greatness transcends mere delusion. 'Nuff said.

17. Sadomasochistic--The combination of sadism and masochism, in particular the deriving of pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting or submitting to physical or emotional abuse. This is where Dawkins proves himself eminently qualified for the intellectual booby prize. In an incredible act of faith, Dawkins accepts that a bodiless being can experience sexual pleasure. He then tops himself, by assuring us that the being-in-question receives sexual satisfaction from the infliction of suffering upon others, despite zero scriptural support for this belief. It seems that Dawkins lives by the notion that no faith is too great, except that required for belief in a holy God. And when it comes to mocking God, no accusation or label is too outlandish--including one made up out of whole cloth.

18. Capriciously malevolent bully--More along the lines of Dawkins's earlier comments, in which he demonstrates an uncanny talent for cherry-picking scripture that appears supportive of his thesis, while ignoring selections that undermine it.

Dawkins is a living illustration of how atheism transforms an otherwise intelligent person into a fool. By the way, that's not a slur from me; it's from the Word of God Himself: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.--Psalm 14:1

Dawkins has no interest in a fair-minded appraisal of the Holy Bible. He is not one who went to the Bible for answers, and became disillusioned by its hatefulness. Rather, he began with a toxic animosity for God and His Word, and found apparent justification for his seething venom within its pages. His is an emotional reaction minus historical or textual context. It forms a hit-piece without even the facade of objectivity. His one-sided display of bigotry paints an unflattering portrait of his character for the perusal of anyone who hears or reads his hysterical attack. In every instance, he chooses the most negative possible interpretation of God's words and actions, then dismisses Him from consideration for anything but contempt. It's a grade-school level critique with all the depth of a playground argument.

Imagine if you will a scenario in which an intruder rushes into Dawkins's house with intent to harm him or a family member. By some secular miracle, Dawkins gets the upper hand, but is forced to kill the home invader in the scuffle. However, he has saved himself and his family from the threat. Now imagine that you asked me what I thought about Dawkins's actions, and I told you: "He's violent," after which I offered no further explanation or acknowledgment of the known circumstances. Would you consider that a logical conclusion--one in which all the available facts were weighed in the balance? Or would you characterize it as an obtuse, spiteful outlook exposing my complete disregard for the truth? A reasonable person would admit the latter. Alas, Dawkins can't see the fatal flaw in his intellectual jewel, because he's more a Champion of Subversion than a Champion of Reason.

Give Me Acceso

When I voted for president back in November, the geriatric precinct workers assigned each voter an access code that we then had to enter on a keypad to make the machine work. This posed no inconvenience, but imagine how thrilled I was when I read the slip of paper and saw this:

Access Code

Clave de Acceso

Then the access number, date, time, and place followed.

I can think of no more brilliant idea than allowing non-English speakers voices in our election process.

Viva la multiculturalism!

Saying Adios

The Bush Administration had this poster commissioned as part of its "immigration reform" package.

Call it a farewell gift.

Ring out the Old, Bring in the New

Happy New Year, Everyone!

Happy Kwanzaa

Whitey got moves!

Merry Christmas

Better Watch Out

I suppose this is what happens to folks who make Santa's naughty list.

Yuletide Cheer

A public school teacher in Mississippi marked down an eleven-year-old's Christmas poem assignment and told the boy to rewrite it because he used the word "Jesus," which, the instructor explained, is a name not allowed in school.

Unless used as an expletive, of course. This is what I mean, when I say that political correctness destroys the intellect. Knocking a point off a student's grade and telling him to rewrite his Christmas poem after mentioning Jesus is like jumping down someone's throat when he raises the dread specters of Pilgrims and turkey on Thanksgiving.

If you think writing about Jesus during the Christmas season is controversial, you're a maleducated moron.

As trite as it sounds, JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON. There is no holiday without Him. In fact, the very word "holiday" means "holy day," so I suppose you'll have to drop that offensive moniker, as well, and produce a new, even less galling term:

"Happy Great Ashen Faggot Day, y'all!"

And no, I'm not talking about Elton John after he tumbles down your chimney.

Kenyan Klam-up

I treasure Orwellian Doublespeak, no matter whence its origin:


The Kenyan government has barred unapproved contacts between the media and President-elect Barack Obama's extended family.

Family members will be required to receive permission from the government before making any public statements about their famous relative, according to the Nairobi Star.

"We are doing this because we want to ensure better flow of information," Athman Said, an under-secretary in the Ministry of Heritage, told the Obama family in Kogelo.


This is like instituting a fee for listening to the radio, in hopes of reaching a wider audience.

A Paean to Political Lucre

It's the most overpriced time of the year:
With creditors yelling
And Ol' Condi telling us "Be of good cheer!"
It's the most overpriced time of the year.

It's the crap-crappiest season of all:
With those holiday fleecings
and dirty palm-greasings and bailout windfalls.
It's the crap-crappiest season of all.

There'll be orgies of spending;
Mulattoes ascending;
And Dubya kicked out in the snow.
There'll be leftists a-beaming,
While we take a reaming,
As Big Brother spends all our dough.

It's the most covetous time of the year:
There'll be Middle-class scraping
And demagogues raping the whole hemisphere!
It's the most covetous time of the year!

It's the most overpriced time,
It's the crap-crappiest time,
It's the most covetous time,
It's the most lucrative time of the year!

Bushism: Part II

See Part I


(2.) I've never seen "scientific proof" of evolution, if by "evolution," we mean that humans all have a common, animalian ancestor. I'm interested in seeing that concrete evidence. What I have seen, however, is evidence that has sundry possible interpretations, and a "scientific" establishment that ignores all these interpretations, save one. If we have two prevailing preceptions, and the second fits the available evidence as well or better than the first, why toss the second and cling to the first? Because it fits your self-constructed paradigm, and brings you emotional satisfaction? Fine, but that isn't science.

It all comes down to faith, in the end.

I covered (3.) earlier, so:

(4.) The idea that all religions worship the same God is universalism. The notion that we have a multitude of pathways to God is universalism. This is a non-Christian concept. One cannot be a true Christian, and a universalist.


Christianity and Judaism: One God, Jehovah.

Islam: One god, Allah, who has a distinct personality from Jehovah.

Buddhism: Sometimes atheistic. Sometimes polytheistic. Depends upon the day of the week. Alas, since nothing is permanent, we can't even be sure of atheism or polytheism.

Hinduism: One god with more manifestations and natures than you can shake a stick at.


This is just a brief sampling. The question is: How do religions with warring views on Heaven, Hell, reincarnation, and other doctrines all point the same direction? How can they worship the same God, when they can't even agree on the number of gods that exist? Even a perfunctory study of comparative religion reveals universalism as an illogical sham.

I'm sure there's a connection between Mr. Bush's biblical non-literalism, his theistic evolutionism, and his universalism.

Bushism: Part I

Our current president once again has shared his garbled religious views with an impatient public. I'll sum up by reiterating his main assertions/admissions in my own words:

1. He is not a biblical literalist.

2. He's a theistic evolutionist who believes there's "scientific proof" of evolution.

3. He believes an important message of the New Testament is that "God sent a son."

4. He believes he prays to the same god as those of different religious beliefs.

He shed no light upon how he defines "literalism," "scientific proof," or "evolution." He also didn't clarify that God sent His One and Only Begotten Son, who was God in the flesh--not just "a" son. In all fairness, perhaps that's what he meant. We don't know, because he provided just enough of an inkling to assure us that he's a confused man--and no more.

(1.) By "literalist," I suppose he's referencing those who take the Bible at face-value, such as fundamentalists. This is what gets me in hot water with various Christians, because I do take scripture at face-value. In other words, if God says something along the lines of, "This is what happened when I created the world," I don't argue with Him. I don't assume He's kidding, and I don't attempt shackling His awesome power with my imagination's limits. I don't gasp and say, "That's impossible! It doesn't fit my preconceived notions of how God works!" Nor do I view such accounts as esoteric symbolism, when nothing within the text indicates such an interpretation.

I've noticed that certain Christians reject fundamentalism because their incredulity toward the miraculous or embrace of theistic evolution impedes their acceptance. I'll just note that this entails understanding scripture according to the predilections or pronouncements of men, not according to the actual words of scripture. "I don't believe in biblical miracle stories because I don't believe in miracles" is circular reasoning.

Worse, how does one call oneself a Christian, while scoffing at the miraculous? Even within the theistic evolution framework, our existence is a miracle of rare device. Why is the story of Jonah difficult to swallow (pardon the pun), if his time in a fish's belly was the working of a God who created the entire universe from nothingness? What could be beyond such a personage as our Creator?

Even more puzzling is how some who self-identify as Christians say, "Talking snakes? Pshaw! Six-day creation? Hyuk! A Worldwide flood? Quit pulling my leg!

"But a man born of a virgin, who walked on water, fed the five thousand, and turned water into wine. . .oh, sure, I believe that. And I also have no trouble believing that he raised the dead, was murdered, buried, and rose from the grave. Oh, and He appeared to numerous people before ascending back to Heaven through the clouds. Yessiree, no problem with that."

Huh? That's a bigger disconnect than you'll find in a Swiss euthanasia center. This is what fundamentalists call "cafeteria-style" Christianity, where one goes down the line, picking and choosing certain sweet items, while tossing aside the "Brussells sprouts" of scripture. How does one laugh at the stories of cherubim with flaming swords, pillars of smoke and fire, and Egyptian plagues, while bowing in reverence to equally outrageous tales of a man who cast out demons, made the lame walk, and the blind see? I find this view far more incredible and inconsistent than general acceptance of biblical miracle stories from the Old and New Testaments.


(TO BE CONTINUED)

Surprise!

Another "Con" Job

Condaleewza Rice is on a roll, y'all; she's bound and determined to make herself, President Bush, and the GOP look like simpering morons. She's striving manfully toward convincing the public that there's not a gnat's-hair's worth of difference between the Republican and Democrat Parties. After her insipid "Change Iz Good" speech and glowing remarks about Obama three weeks ago, she's at it, again, taking her stupidity to the streets:

Outgoing US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice predicted Sunday that Hillary Clinton will "do a great job" succeeding her at the State Department because of her love of country and faith in U.S. values.

"She's terrific," Rice told ABC television.

After which she rolled up her sleeve and revealed a tattoo of Hillary's face framed in a red heart on her skinny biceps.

Seriously, now: I can't figure out if this is a form of lesbionic infatuation, or if she's emitting signals into the aether about her imminent flight from the GOP and into the loving arms of the Hillaroid Party--A.K.A., the Democrats.

This woman is going out of her way in heaping praise upon people who, in theory, represent everything her party rejects: big government, decreased freedom in all areas except those of license, and judicial activism. Hillary is "terrific?" And we know she'll be capital as Secretary of State, due to her "faith in U.S. values?" I suppose she's referencing universal, taxpayer-funded healthcare-- you know, like they had in the Soviet Union. Yes, pseudo-communism makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Since no one's holding a gun to her head, since no one's forcing these silly utterances from her yapping mouth, we must ask ourselves the question: why does she continue going around the country, extolling the virtues of those who kicked her party's collectively clueless butt to the curb in November, for the very "virtue" that she embodies so well--a lack of stark distinction between Republican and Democrat offerings?

I have two possible explanations:


1. She's the poster-child for rectal cranium-insertion.


2. There's no significant difference between herself and Hillary, in terms of political philosophy. And she's publicly admitting it, albeit in an indirect fashion.


When George W. Bush first elevated her to the position of Affirmative Action and Public Relations Advisor, we were assured of her brilliance--the likes of which the world hasn't see since, well, Hillary Clinton. Then she became Secretary of State (SOS, as in Help!), and has spent the better portion of her time in that illustrious position producing moral equivalency comparisons between Israel and Satan--I mean, the "Palestinians"--and inventing new methods of PC adherence. What an impressive resume.

If such a profound intellect indeed exists behind that daffy smile, I can only assume that it lies gasping out its last under the fetid muck of political correctness, because I see no evidence of its merest glimmering in her behavior or words. In fact, what I see is a woman who has no wisdom, no loyalty to the party for whom she works, and zero understanding of how our country is supposed to function.

A Legacy for the Ages

Revisionism Set in Marble

A constitutional scholar says the new Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, DC, is an extremely biased and historically inaccurate exhibit that "twists and distorts" the Constitution.

The new $621 million Capitol Visitor Center features an exhibition hall that is dominated by a very large marble wall called "The Wall of Aspirations." Dr. Matthew Spalding of The Heritage Foundation says the exhibit is not about the Constitution's limits on powers delegated to the government, but instead lists aspirations such as unity, freedom, common defense, knowledge, exploration, and general welfare, and then points back to where they are found in the Constitution.

"The job of Congress, according to the exhibit, is to achieve these aspirations. So the old notion that says Article 1, Section 8 [of the Constitution] lists the powers that Congress has -- these are the things that Congress can do. [But] that old notion is set aside," he contends. "In its place we have this kind of open-ended 'aspirations' which Congress is going to define and achieve. And to get there, they do very selective quoting and...mangle many phrases in the Constitution to get them where they want to go."

By "general welfare," I'm sure they mean in the form of checks and public-subsidized housing projects.

Maybe they'll add multiculturalism, secularism, and non-Caucasianism to the list of congressional aspirations. Wouldn't that be nice?

This is my favorite part:

The underground 580,000-square-foot Visitor Center, which opened to the public this week, was completed three years behind schedule and almost $360 million over budget. It is approximately two-thirds the size of the entire Capitol itself.

Now that's bureaucratic efficiency in action!

Amurrakin Pride

Death for a Bargain

I'm sure you remember this despicable story from "Black" Friday. After seeing these pictures, I now understand how the day received its name.

I know, I know; I'm a racist. You see, racism is pointing out obvious but unpleasant facts surrounding controversial matters. For example, American blacks are far more likely to be criminals than whites, statistically speaking. Such utterances equal vying for the Imperial Wizardship of the KKK.

This is the sort of mindlessness I expect from a herd of cattle in a lightning storm, not from human beings looking for a discount at Wal-Mart. One would think these were starving people in a Soviet bread line. I understand fleeing for one's life--self-preservation, and all that. But the people-in-question weren't escaping danger. They created it.

I've read five separate articles about this incident; and the one factor that leaped out at me was the total callousness of those who participated in the stampede. Out of a crowd of two thousand people, not one stopped and helped the victim. Those who didn't trample him stepped over or around his body and went shopping. The only people who came to his aid were store employees, some of whom sustained injuries for their efforts. They also met with attitude problems from participants in the stampede, when they announced that the business was closing as a result of the fatality. In all the news coverage, I saw no evidence that anyone in the crowd felt remorse or sorrow for the event that had transpired. Alas, I suppose the expectation of respect for human life from a ghetto thug is akin to hoping a treehugger will help you cut firewood.

As John Wayne used to say: "That'll be the day."

I'll leave you with my brother's contrasting experience at our local Wal-Mart on "Black" Friday. At 5:00 A.M., he waded through a crowd so large that people bumped elbows. Strangely, he experienced:


No deaths
No arguments
No fistfights
No stealing from other customers' shopping carts
No pushing
No cursing
No stampeding
No destruction of company or individual property


Incredible, you say. It's nothing short of astonishing that no one died over a discounted toaster, or a half-off pack of bloomers. Somehow, us stupid rednecks made it through a whole day of super-duper savings without a single murder or negligent homicide. Who'dathunkit?

My attitude about these situations is that a crowd's behavior is determined by the caliber of individuals who constitute that crowd. To this extent, we know all we need to know about the brand of individuals who made up that Long Island mob, don't we?

Keep at Arms' Length

Fo Shizzle

Happy Thanksgiving, Everyone

Obama Campaign Signs Seen in Ghettos Nationwide

*Please forgive all these goofy signs, folks, but I'm having fun with them. It's a guilty pleasure.

Stupid Is as Stupid Does

This must constitute further proof of the stark differences between Republicans and Democrats:


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made comments contrary to the opinions of many fellow Republicans, including praises for the election of Democratic President-elect Barack Obama.

"Change is a good thing," Rice said on the campus of Rice University. "I think the time comes when it is time for new people and new ideas."

Ms. Rice has an amazing talent for encapsulating libraries of idiocy in a single paragraph. The idea that change inherently is good is one with which pre-Holocaust European Jews would disagree, no doubt. As would the defenders of Constantinople just prior to Mehmet the Conqueror's assault on their city walls. Change is an unavoidable requisite of our temporal existence; but whether or not it is good depends upon the change unfolding itself.

All "change" gobbledegook aside, does her remark strike you as bizarre, coming from one whose party dropped the ball and lost the 2008 presidential election? Hm, change is just peachy, even if it means having your own keister kicked to the curb.

"[For] a girl like me who grew up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama, to now elect an African-American president is an extraordinary matter," Rice declared, "and it says to the world that differences can be overcome and in a world in which different is still a license to kill; that is an awfully important message."

Even more extraordinary is the inability of neo-cons and leftists to differentiate between "black" and "bi-racial." By the way, is a black person born in England also called an "African-American?" It seems to me that Ms. Rice's utmost concern is towing the PC line.

In a valiant effort at removing all doubt as to whether or not she's a blithering idiot, Ms. Rice waxed authoritative on the subject of immigration:

Rice also diverged from typical Republican rhetoric by calling for comprehensive immigration reform and criticizing Americans for holding anti-immigrant attitudes.

"Unless we can renew that spirit of wanting to be open to those who want to be part of us, we lose a part of who we are," Rice said, reports Voice of America News.

"America cannot continue to be a place where people live in the shadows, contributing to our economy but afraid to go to the emergency room," Rice said.

This deceitful, clueless rhetoric typifies the reason why the GOP lost the 2008 election. The average American doesn't hold "anti-immigrant attitudes." Rather, he's anti-invasion; he's anti- flouting of our established laws; he's anti- non-assimilation; he's anti- the destruction of his culture, as foreign flags wave in his streets; and he's anti- "immigrants" making demands of the American citizenry while trashing that selfsame populace in every conceivable medium.

These people don't live in the shadows, nor do they fear a trip to the emergency room. Perhaps Ms. Rice should condescend to look into the frightening number of hospitals that have closed as a direct result of being inundated by aliens who use their services as primary-care physician equivalents. This isn't an underground movement; it's an open attempt at a takeover.

A former provost at Stanford University, Rice also made education a significant topic of her speech, saying that an uneducated citizenry creates an America unable to lead in international affairs.

Case-in-point: Condoleeza Rice--a dishonest lightweight in affairs both international and domestic.

Obi-wama

Look Out

Digging for Gold

Question

I'm wondering about something.

We have a president-elect who's 50% black, yet the black community and the MSM treat him as if he's our first "African-American" president.

Using the same logic, can I also dub him fully white--since he's half-white--and claim him as one for the Caucasians?

And if not, why not?

What's Black and White, and Red All Over?

Barack Obama!

Post-election Observations, or The Stupid Party's Game Attempts at Living Up to its Nickname

The current election cycle that just concluded in a big, steaming pile offers an important message for the Republican Party. Here's the lesson in a nutshell:

Fake conservatism is a tottering foundation for the GOP, and in the current political climate, it loses elections.

It's that simple.

We live in a center/right country, so this poses a serious problem for liberals seeking the presidency. The only avenue around this obstacle is by masquerading as something other than the dull-eyed beast known as the liberal. Take Bill Clinton, a liberal who ran from the center and stole Republicans' thunder by implementing some of their own agenda. And now with Obrotha, who jabbered on ad nauseum about tax cuts for the middle class--a decidedly non-liberal initiative--in the final weeks leading up to the election. Leftists can win presidential elections only through trickery and deceit. Bubba Gump Clinton understood this. Hillaroid understood this. And Obrotha understands this. If Barelyblack had come out for open socialism, McAmnazi would've cleaned his clock. Instead, he took a page from the Bill Clinton play book and used the "I feel your pain and just want to help" tactic, and took home the prize.

Did he win because he's the right man for the job, or because he's a superior candidate to McAmnazi? No. He won for several other reasons:

1. He ran a better campaign. After McAmnazi fought a hard fight in the primaries, he set his campaign on "Coast" from there to the end, and reaped his reward.

2. Barelyblack is a good public speaker with lots of charisma.This superficial talent sways unprincipled moderates who straddle every fence they encounter.

3. He seems to have Baracked the black vote, including turncoat Republicans like Colonic Powell and J.C. Watts.

(A brief digression: Are Powell, and Watts and others of like mind color-infatuated, or are they examples of how little the two major parties differ, in their comfort with the idea of endorsing Obrotha?)

4. The most important reason for Obrotha's win, in my view, is that he pitted himself against a phony conservative. The Democrats have the liberal/leftist/socialist/Communist/utopian market cornered. By championing liberalism, Obrotha caters to his base. But the GOP party base is conservative; so a conservative-in-name-only is a person who stands aloof from the GOP base. This poses an interesting challenge for someone who likes winning presidential elections.

When a political candidate is at war with his own party's base, his sole chance for victory either lies in hoodwinking that base, or in pitting himself against an opponent so blatantly inept or extreme that the party faithful vote for him anyway, despite their reluctance.

Duhbya defeated Gaia Gore by putting one over on his base, and in challenging a stiff golem fashioned by Mother Nature's cruel jest. He won his second term by facing gross ineptitude embodied in a man with less personality than a cigar-store Injun. The interesting part is that he won the first by the skin of his teeth in a contentious, ugly recount process that terminated in a court decision. The second was a close race, as well. These are not what I'd call strong votes of confidence for fake conservatism.

In 2006, we watched the GOP lose Congress. This came after years of phony conservatism from the Executive and Legislative branches. Congressmen who ran as conservatives and governed center/left got their treacherous backsides booted from office. "Conservatives" who supported open borders were deported from their offices in D.C. People who typically voted Republican sat home or sought third-party alternatives. Hope springs eternal in the human breast, and so I dared hope at the time that Republicans had learned that people will take an honest liberal over a phony conservative any day.

Then came the 2008 election season, and I realized that Republicans had learned nothing from the midterm elections. In fact, quite the opposite: the party's leadership had fallen arse over tea kettle in love with the idea of future defeat. That's when we witnessed "conservatives" like Sean Vannity gushing in orgiastic fervor over pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-"gay" marriage liberals like Booty Giuliani. That's when we saw party elites scrambling in support of virtually anyone but a genuine conservative. This gave us the Aw-Shucks Huckster, Juan McAmnazi, and Mitt Mormon, none of whom are true conservatives, but all of whom attempted convincing the electorate otherwise.

As further evidence that this country swings center/right, look at the near draw in the popular vote. Obrotha had a difficult time convincing the populace that he was a superior choice to the pretend conservative who has expressed hatred for free speech in public, is an open-borders globalist, and holds a weak, contradictory record on the rights of unborn children. What an impressive achievement. Imagine Obrotha's performance if he'd faced the Real McCoy, rather than the Real Counterfeit. Can you say GOP landslide?

The short of it is that political pragmatism eked out narrow-margin victories in 2000 and 2004, lost Congress in 2006, and conceded the 2008 presidential election. How is this a winning strategy?

A party dedicated to endearing itself to moderates doesn't just alienate its conservative base; it necessarily transforms into a party lacking in principles, since moderates, themselves, stand distinguished by their unprincipled, vacillating outlooks.

Say what you want about the Democrats, but they have principles. Sure, they're abhorrent and counter to everything this nation stands for, historically speaking; but they defend them with vigor, in uncompromising fashion. They don't field fake liberals as candidates; just the genuine article.

Would that the Republican Party did the same with conservatives.

Ronald Reagan was the last genuine conservative whom the GOP offered its support in a presidential election. He was neither a perfect man, nor a flawless president. Nor was he a charlatan. Somehow, he managed a landslide victory not once, but twice, and the first was against a sitting president. This is what happens when conservatism is given a chance.

I've said this a dozen times, and I'll say it again, for it bears repeating:

People vote Republican because they want an alternative to the Democrats. When the GOP leadership presents them with candidates indistinguishable from Democrats on major issues, or ones who differ insignificantly, they kill all incentive for those people to vote Republican. This is particularly true in cases where the GOP touts these stealth liberals as conservatives.

If the Republican Party can't come to terms with these simple facts, it should settle in and embrace the reality of a losing streak with no foreseeable end.

After all, for a Republican to "out-Democrat" the Democrats, he first must become one--which is a concession of defeat and an admission of irrelevancy.

All Quiet on the Election Front

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."

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.

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.

Whoa

Now that's one big jellyfish.

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.

Silly Snapshots

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.

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'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."