Miracles Are Miraculous

"I don't believe in miracles, because they are unscientific."

How many times have you heard atheists / agnostics / evolutionists say this, or something along similar lines? I'm betting you're familiar with this "reasoning," if you've ever engaged a non-believer in a discussion of this topic.

My response is: "Yes. And?"

That miracles are unscientific is a flaccid observation, offering little insight into miracles, themselves. Of course they're unscientific. Miracles -- by definition -- are special acts of God. If mundane scientific explanations accounted for them, they wouldn't be miracles.

Let's reword the above statement for clarity's sake:

"I don't believe in miracles, because they are miraculous."

See how absurd and circular this reasoning appears?

The above reveals plenty about the mindset of those who utter it. They imply that God either does not exist, or is impotent in the performance of miracles. But these are two assumptions that stand unproven and unprovable. Non-believers take them on faith.

The assertion also suggests that scientific evidence either is the sole form of evidence available to us, or the one form of valid evidence. But both demonstrably are false. We know that other evidential types exist -- documentary, physical, testimonial, etc. Courts of law have accepted these as legitimate categories of evidence throughout the history of Western civilization.

The relevant question is not: "Are miracles scientific?" but: "Do miracles happen?"

Existing evidence offers us stronger reason for an answer in the affirmative than the negative.

The bottom line is that the secular dismissal of miracles is based upon faithful assumptions and / or faulty premises.

Fashion Statement

In the South, we make do with what we have.

Happy Easter

May the Lord bless and keep you all on this day, and in days to come. I thank Him for His act of sacrifice, so that we may spend eternity in His presence. I'm unworthy of His love, but I'm overjoyed that He has chosen to share it with me.

He'll share it with you, as well, if you'll just ask Him to reveal Himself to you, and come into your heart.

No decision is more important, or more worthwhile.

Islam Is the Enemy

In a major speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara Monday, Obama declared that the United States "is not and never will be at war with Islam" and called Turkey a "critical ally," earning himself much praise in a country where his predecessor left the US image in tatters.

This is why the "War on Terror" is a farce, and would end as a failure even it it was a sincere effort. Obama is continuing the same PC, history-whitewashing tone initiated by George W. Bush.

We are at war with Islam, whether we acknowledge this truth, or not. Osama bin Laden and his ilk are not radical, cultish offshoots and lunatics. They represent standard Islam--historically and philosophically. The proof of this lies in the acceptance and approval of their tactics and agenda the world over, by millions of "mainstream" Muslims.

Muslims have inundated Europe and become a powerful political force in what was once the realm of Richard the Lionheart, Charles Martel, and Janos Hunyadi. They are remaking Christendom in their own image--and this time not by conquest, but through cultural saturation. They are making similar efforts in the U.S.A., to a lesser degree. Complicit in this travesty are the elite heirs of Western civilization--people who have willingly diseased their own minds with the degenerative effects of political correctness.

Just as Obama dabbles in prophecy in assuring Turkey that we "never will be at war with Islam"--as if someone so unwise has a clue as to what the future holds--I am reminded of T.S. Eliot's far more pertinent words playing out in the West as I type this post:


This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.


--"The Hollow Men" (1925)

Updating Our Terms

Obama has changed the name of Bush's global "War on Terror. " Now he's calling it the "Overseas Contingency Operation."


He's also recommended a few other minor alterations:


Abortion will be redubbed a "Life Extraction Technique."


Heavy taxing and spending: "Financial Flagellation."


Ebonics: "P-Diddy Palaver."


Terrorist: "Overwrought Dissenter."


Birth Certificate: "Optional Documentation."

Racism=Disagreeing with the Mulatto Messiah

Given that dipping into the Hollywood mind is often akin to wading barefoot through an open cesspool, this is a refreshing change of pace:

Angie Harmon is not afraid to come out and say she doesn’t like how President Obama is handling the job — but she’s sick of having to defend herself from being deemed a racist.

"Here's my problem with this, I'm just going to come out and say it. If I have anything to say against Obama it's not because I'm a racist, it's because I don't like what he's doing as President and anybody should be able to feel that way, but what I find now is that if you say anything against him you're called a racist," Harmon told Tarts at Thursday’s Los Angeles launch of the new eyelash-growing formula, Latisse. "But it has nothing to do with it, I don’t care what color he is. I’m just not crazy about what he's doing and I heard all about this, and he’s gonna do that and change and change, so okay … I'm still dressing for a recession over here buddy and we've got unemployment at an all-time high and that was his number one thing and that's the thing I really don't appreciate. If I'm going to disagree with my President, that doesn't make me a racist. If I was to disagree with W, that doesn't make me racist. It has nothing to do with it, it is ridiculous."

If It Ain't Dixie, It Just Won't Do

A fellow from Boston was in Alabama visiting family. One day he decided to take a walk around the area where his relatives lived to enjoy their fine, comfortable southern way of life-- something he was not accustomed to, being from the north.

While walking he happened upon a pit bull attacking a small child. His instincts took over, and he ran to the child's aid.

He grabbed the dog, pulled him from the child, and choked the dog until he was dead.

As the dead animal lay at his feet, a man came running over from the other side of the street. He announced that he was the star reporter for a big Alabama newspaper, and he would make the rescuer famous.

"LOCAL MAN SAVES CHILD FROM GRUESOME DEATH," the headlines would proclaim.

The would-be savior thought that this sounded great, but explained that he was not a local.

"Don't worry," said the reporter. "We'll just make it say: "ALABAMA MAN SAVES CHILD FROM GRUESOME DEATH."

"But I'm not from Alabama, either," the man said sheepishly. "I'm from Boston."

The newsman gave him a disgusted look and left in a hurry.

The next day the headlines of the newspaper read:

"YANKEE KILLS FAMILY PET."


--paraphrased from Reader's Digest

Looking Forward to It

A docudrama about Obama's (an Odrama?) life is coming to theaters near you in mid-July. In keeping with the tone of his books and public persona, the story unfolds within a fantasy framework.

Perhaps you've already heard the buzz.

It's called Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince.

"Calling Criminals Lawbreakers is Un-American"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has called raids by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which is following laws established by Congress, "un-American."

Well, let's see: the laws were written by Americans, for the protection of Americans. So which part is un-American? Standing for law and order, instead of chaos? Fending off an invasion of millions who are taught contempt for us from childhood, and have no intention of assimilating? Not rewarding those who cheated their way in and whose first act upon entering our country was a violation of its laws?

I think Ms. Pelosi made a mistake. When she said "un-American," she must have meant the aliens, themselves, because a significant percentage meet that definition in legal fact, as well as in temperament.

In related news, Obama continues building upon his reputation as a clear communicator:

At a town hall meeting in southern California yesterday, Obama renewed his support for comprehensive reform, including a possible path to citizenship for law-abiding people who entered the country illegally, along the lines of the bill that stalled in Congress in 2007. (Emphasis mine)

Aren't exercises in defying the Law of Non-contradiction fun? "A" cannot be "non-A," just as one cannot be in the U.S.A. illegally and also call himself a law-abiding person. It's like being a shoplifter who's never stolen anything in his life.

This is what becomes of a person who embraces leftist, treasonous policies: his mouth becomes a geyser of literal nonsense.

GOP: We Don't Learn from Our Screwups; We Revel in Them

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is under fire from social conservatives for telling GQ magazine that abortion is an "individual choice" and homosexuality is not.

Despite declaring to GQ that women have the right to choose an abortion, Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Michael Steele has issued a statement saying he has always been pro-life and supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, says in Steele's interview with GQ, he "sounded like he was on the payroll of Planned Parenthood."

Barber admits he is also troubled that Steele told GQ that believing homosexuality is a choice is equivalent to saying, "Tomorrow morning I'm going to stop being black."


Some observations:

1. If Steele means that a person doesn't suddenly get up one fine day and say: "Hm, think I'll try the opposite sex for a while," I agree. I doubt that one chooses homosexual feelings or thoughts in the way that one chooses canned green beans over peas at the grocery store. However, I take issue with the notion that homosexuals have no control over how they act. Engaging in sodomy or its female counterpart isn't a whim, but a behavior. Suggesting otherwise implies that humans are mindless, rutting robots, enslaved to their genetic "wiring," or malfunction, in this particular instance.

2. Abortion is an "individual choice" in the same way that shooting my neighbor is an "individual choice." That I may choose a specific course of action says nothing about its moral goodness or abhorrence. If Steele believes that women have a right to kill their unborn children, then he is no believer in the ideal that humans--or even just Americans--have God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Perhaps he can explain how a person explores these rights, after being vacuumed from his mother's womb like so much refuse and tossed into a dumpster.

3. Steele's public backpedaling on abortion indicates that he's either a liar or a moron. How does he make the transition from supporting a woman's "right to choose," to claiming that he "has always been pro-life," and an advocate of overturning Roe v. Wade? Sounds like someone has no core principles. Or perhaps he simply tells people what he thinks they'd like to hear. Either way, he embodies the GOP's ongoing problem of blurring the demarkation line between itself and the Democrats. Republicans can't wait to lose the next election.

4. Notice how Steeleskull consolidates homosexuality and having black skin under the classification: "Things People Just Can't Help." As if there's no discernible difference between the color of one's skin and engaging in buggery. If I were black, I'd find this comparison offensive and intellectually feeble. By the way, equating the two is a typical tactic of the Left--those destroyers of the family, those wreckers of everything that once represented Christendom.

What's the substantial difference between Steele and a Democrat?

This Is a Test

In the event of an actual blog post, you will see words strung into more or less meaningful sentences and paragraphs, commenting on the socialist nightmare realm in which we now find ourselves mired, not unlike one who has tripped and fallen into a cesspool.

Please stay tuned to this channel for further updates.

He Black. He Eligible.

A U.S. senator has suggested that voters have made Barack Obama eligible to occupy the Oval Office, whether or not he meets the constitutional mandate of being a "natural born" citizen.

The comments from Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., came in an e-mail sent to a constituent shortly after the election, which just now was forwarded to WND.

The constituent had asked about Martinez's perspective on the issue on which WND and others have reported: claims made by dozens of lawsuits around the country that Obama might not meet the constitutional qualification for various reasons.

"Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history," Martinez responded.

"And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president," he wrote.


These days, the only time the GOP halts its implementation of Democrat policy is when its members actively defend Democrats against spiteful, audacious constituents. Why, the nerve of questioning Da Messiah's rightful messiahtude! I just can't understand why Repugnicruds didn't win big in the last election. Maybe it's because they were shilling for Obama instead of resisting him.

It seems that Martinez is too stupid or starstruck to comprehend the simple truth that, if Obama did not meet constitutional criteria for presidential eligibility, he never should have reared his saintly head in the primaries or the general election. If I cheat at cards and win big, will you afterward point to the number of people who slapped me on the back and praised my abilities as a defense of my duplicity?

What if Obama gained the presidency illegally, by lying to the American voters about his qualifications? What if such a revelation had received wide dissemination before the primaries?

"Who cares?" says Martinez. "Powah to da people!"

It's interesting how politicians who couldn't care less what American citizens think about anything suddenly become enraptured with voter opinions regarding Obama's messianic ministry.

What strikes me as odd about the whole situation is that Obama can settle the matter of his eligibility at one stroke by providing empirical evidence that he qualifies for the job. If you ask me for my birth certificate, I'll not break a sweat producing it for you--and it will be the entire document, not just the portion that I deem suitable for your peasant eyes. That Obama refuses to do so is the most singular aspect of this kerfuffle. I see two possible explanations for this: 1. He has a skeleton in his closet that he'd rather keep tucked away; or 2. His sense of entitlement to the presidency destroys all feelings of obligation to us silly proles.

Either way, it stands as lousy testimony for a president of the United States of America, speaking volumes about his character. Whether he likes it or not, Obama serves at the citizenry's pleasure. He has an obligation to the American people to answer this accusation and provide documentation proving the rightfulness of his position.

He is not a king, and contrary to popular belief, he is not a god, though I realize he and his acolytes would decry vehemently the latter claim.

Scientific Classification

Atheists and cephalopods.

File both under "Invertebrates."

All Hail the Conquering Hero!

When Americans were asked whom they admired enough to call their No. 1 hero, the majority of respondents answered "President Obama."

In the new online Harris poll, citizens chose Jesus Christ as No. 2, followed by Martin Luther King.

Others in the top ten, in descending order, were Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, John McCain, John F. Kennedy, Chesley Sullenberger and Mother Teresa, according to Harris Interactive.

The 2,634 respondents were not provided a list of names. Americans named their heroes spontaneously.

When asked to explain their choice of heroes, most responded with the following:

Doing what's right regardless of personal consequences: 89 percent

Not giving up until the goal is accomplished: 83 percent

Doing more than what other people expect of them: 82 percent

Overcoming adversity: 81 percent

Staying level-headed in a crisis: 81 percent

The same question was also asked in 2001 – except, in that year, Jesus Christ was the No. 1 answer. He was most often followed by Martin Luther King, Colin Powell, John F. Kennedy and Mother Teresa.


Just incredible. I wonder how many participants in the poll also were bailout recipients?

The herculean task of winning the presidency makes one an automatic hero, in the eyes of blithering idiots everywhere. I see no other conclusion to draw from this poll result, since Obunga has accomplished nothing of note, as president--unless one considers taking a wrecking ball to the economy a worthy accomplishment. A little over one whopping month into his power-grab, and he's a hero? I assume his very existence is mythic, what with the merging of racial chocolate and vanilla into the perfect incarnation of messiahtude.

So if stepping blithely into the Oval Office makes one a modern Perseus or Theseus, why single out Obunga for this distinction? Why not dub every president who ever served a legend for the fawning masses? What makes Obunga so special?

I'll answer that. It's because we live in the era of style over substance. We have thrown out circumspection and embraced a cult of personality. A winning smile and agreeable delivery of a few meaningless platitudes means more than the Constitution, more than our history and heritage, and more than the liberty that so many died in winning and keeping for posterity. And we are that posterity.

If you want examples of superficiality over profundity, look at the tv and music industries. Look at Capitol Hill and the White House. Look at Hollywood. It's like watching an exquisitely filmed movie with no plot. It is the spirit of anti-Christ.

Let's face it: as long as we're willing to buy tickets to Jackass, we'll never see another Gone with the Wind.

No Offense Intended When We Spit on You

A plan by Lawrence, Massachusetts, school Superintendent Wilfredo Laboy to make up a snow day by holding classes on Good Friday is drawing fire.

Good Friday, which falls on April 10 this year, is the day when Christians recall Jesus' death on the cross. Laboy says that day and June 25 and 26 could be used to make up for five snow days.

Good call. What makes more sense than having the chillun in skewel on the day honoring Christ's sacrifice for mankind, a day revered by millions? That's far more reasonable than making the kiddies attend on Martin Luther King's mistress's birthday. That might offend some venereal disease-riddled free-love advocate.

And we wouldn't want that.

Tasertag

My brother served a recent stint in the hoosegow as a reward for Exceptional Citizenship. A lump of pride fills my throat and wells my eyes as I type these words.

Anyway, he regaled me with an interesting story about an event that he witnessed On The Inside.

The guards brought in a man who was drunk and put him in a holding cell, alone. He began raising Cain, cursing and yelling at the guards. He also mooned them, when he thought someone might see and appreciate his better side.

Before I continue, let me assure everyone that no, the sot-in-question was not Teddy Kennedy.

Moving right along, a guard hollered at the man and told him that if he didn't shut up, he was going to come into the cell, and that the pickled offender wouldn't like that.

The man didn't take the hint, and continued his ruckus. So this representative of our city's finest opened the cell door, walked inside, and let him have it with a taser. He then gave him two pulses of electricity. The man stumbled back and sat down hard. Then the guard called in his cronies--for you see, it takes a whole gaggle of cops to subdue a man who is sitting on the floor and nursing the aftereffects of the Intemperance Movement and some therapeutic shock therapy.

The peace officers then removed him from the cell and dragged him none too gently into a different room, in which sat The Chair. The Chair stood bolted to the floor, waiting patiently.

Those who protect and serve put him in The Chair and immobilized all four of his limbs, as well as his torso. When he was good and comfortable, they then strapped a helmet to his head, with a stylish visor that nullified the occupant's eyesight. Sensory deprivation, kiddies. Don't try this at home.

Mr. Sloshed spent three-and-a-half to four hours in The Chair.

I understand that Jack Daniels brought it on himself. I also understand that the above goes beyond my definition of proper punishment--right into simple abuse. Think about it: the man made no attempt to harm himself or anyone else. He simply acted like a jackass by being rude and loud. Is his punishment fair compensation for such behavior?

I Lift My Taser Beside the Golden Door

Sovereign States

As the Obama administration attempts to push through Congress a nearly $1 trillion deficit spending plan that is weighted heavily toward advancing typically Democratic-supported social welfare programs, a rebellion against the growing dominance of federal control is beginning to spread at the state level.

So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

"What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon told WND.


I see this as a positive development. Anything that signifies a return to constitutional principles is for the betterment of our nation. However, if these congressmen take it far enough, they'll find themselves contending with those who worship at the altar of Lincoln; and their motto is: Fed take. Fed keep. Or Fed smash.

I want to see the Leviathan starve.

We may get that second "civil" war, after all.

Now That's Stimulating

I love those "stimulus" perks:

Shackling Religious Worship

Allowing Illegal Aliens Job Opportunities

I can think of nothing more beneficial to our economy than restraining religious speech and worship, and putting unemployed American citizens on a playing field where they must continue competing against illegal aliens. If that won't take our economy soaring back to 1980s levels, nothing will.

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.