Atheist Objections Part I

Preface:

Someone called "Travis" emailed Vox Day with five points made by atheists that he finds convincing enough to urge him on the dead man's walk toward agnosticism. Vox intends to respond to all his points; and I thought to myself: "Heck, why don't you give it a shot, as well?"

So here we are. Pull up a chair and sit a spell.

Let me begin by saying that hundreds if not thousands of Christians over a period of centuries have addressed and answered each of Travis' enumerated points -- satisfactorily, by my lights.
If you find yourself wondering why people still wake these assertions, despite copious writings putting them to rest, the answer is simple:

That is not dead which can eternal lie
Till aroused by he who spits in God's eye.

In other words, in a siege against the battlements of unbelief, the ballistae and mangonels and trebuchets of reason and elaboration may pockmark the very keep itself, but they cannot bring it to earth.

I question the good faith of these points -- for their old - hat aspect, as well as their evidence - free assertiveness. I don't find them trying of my faith in the least, and I suspect that only one unacquainted with -- or uninterested in -- the Christian body of apologetics could become distressed by this effort.

I'll quote the first proposition, followed by my comments:


1. Biblical Ethics are below par at best. The Christian must believe in objective morality, for God is the source of morality. If God is the source of objective morality why do we see ethical commands justifying rape and the harsh treatment of foreign slaves? If Biblical ethics is the objective standard than Wilberforce was a sinner for trying to eliminate slavery, for the Bible certainly does not decree the abolition of slavery? If we take a progressive approach to scripture we all could still certainly agree that the movement toward a better ethical system could have certainly moved faster.

Sam Harris brings this up in "Letter to a Christian Nation"


I agree with the notion of objective morality, with God as its source. However, the idea that biblical ethics are "below par" is a naked assertion, as it stands unsupported by the rest of his commentary. First, Travis assumes that an objective standard for judging biblical ethics exists, that he is conversant with this standard, and that the Holy Bible fails in living up to its lofty heights. Alas, he nowhere demonstrates this assumed truth in his discourse, nor does he reveal whence he derived The Ultimate Ethical Standard. The sole proper examination of biblical ethics entails comparison/contrast with the unbiblical societies surrounding the purveyors of God's Word at the time in which scriptural authorship occurred. Anything less is an unfair and incomplete assessment. So when we delve into that cultural mire, what do we find? Child sacrifice, chattel slavery, demon and idol worship, wanton violence, necromancy, witchcraft, astrology, and on and on in a veritable litany of horrors. Life came cheap and miserable.

Biblical ethics changed all that. They elevated the status and worth of women; put a higher value on human lives as personages created in God's image; and called the highest goods loving the one true God with all of one's being, and loving one's neighbor as oneself. From personal hygiene to sexual relationships, from the treatment of animals to stewardship of our planet, biblical ethics existed -- and exist -- on a higher plain, unreachable by the godless or devil - haunted ethics of contemporary pagan societies. So needless to say, I find the concept of kicking back in one's easy chair and expressing dissatisfaction with God's ethics an exercise in hubris, in a civilization whose comforts derived from the ethical foundation under attack.

Next, the issue of slavery. Bondservanthood under the Jews was unlike slavery experienced by blacks during the trans-Atlantic slave trade era. Think indentured servitude, rather than being worked to death in a cotton field under an overseer's whip. Regardless, the biblical ethic explicated better treatment of slaves or servants than in times before. In an age when slaves toiled until they dropped, with their corpses rolled unceremoniously into a ditch or shallow grave when they expired, the biblical ethic was a giant leap forward. As for the harsh treatment of foreign slaves, many got their just desserts; their bondage came as God's judgment of the sin of infanticide. One item that cannot be overstressed is this: biblical context is important. When you pay attention, you learn more than the what; you also uncover the why. If Travis believes that all forms of involuntary servitude are immoral, no matter the reason for that state, then it behooves him to explain his position, rather than accepting it as self-evident. If a man incurs catastrophic debt and refuses repayment, I see no evil in making him the servant of his creditors until he makes good the debt he owes. It's called justice. By the way, it does not follow that Wilberforce was a sinner for attempting the abolition of an institution that ignored biblical regulations against the mistreatment of slaves. I see no scriptural conflict with his admirable and righteous cause.

Regarding rape, I see no justification for it in the Bible. What I do see is condemnation and punishment for the act. See Deuteronomy 22. Would that Travis had proffered evidence of the sunny view scripture takes of ravishing the maidens fair.

When Travis talks about moving toward a better ethical system at a faster pace, I assume he means that God should've delivered the goods via bullet-train. This is another glimpse of his arbitrary ethical standard, rearing its cloistered head for but a moment, before he pummels it back behind its boudoir's secure doors. How much faster? What is the proper speed? Will 186,000 mps do the trick? He forgets that God passed his standards to certain segments of humanity, then charged them with the task of sharing his morals with the world - at - large. That's what the Bible is all about. Remember, it was humanity's rebellion against God in the beginning that required the tortuous process that Travis finds so unsatisfying and glacially slow.

The blame lies with fallen humanity, not God.

God has shown us His grace -- we who are unworthy of his loving kindness. Critically judging and rejecting his timing is not just biting the hand that feeds.

It's spurning the hand that saves.


MORE TO COME. . .

Funny Stuff

Bush Disaster

Help Me, Y'all

I'd like to get in touch with our friend Triton, from Triton Unleashed. If you have his email address, and if it's OK with him, let me know, so I can drop him a line.

Thanks in advance, guys.

All Is Vannity

I was listening to Sean Vannity's radio program a few days ago, just passing the time as I waited for my wife to do some shopping.

A man called in and mentioned Vannity's persistent attacks on Okenya for his multitudinous verbal gaffes. He asked Vannity where he was for the past eight years of Duhbya's misstatements, misunderestimations, and malapropisms.

I'm assuming the caller was a supporter of Our Savior from the Serengeti; regardless, his question was a legitimate one.

Here's where the situation became problematic. Rather than answering the question with an explanation of his seeming hypocrisy, Vannity instead launched into a paean of praise for Bush's leadership qualities, calling them "second to none." I suppose this meant that if Bush stood in comparison with someone with zero leadership skills, our illustrious former president would come in second place.

Anyhow, when Vannity had finished Vannitizing the caller, the inquiry remained unanswered.

Such evasions supply the reason why a growing number of conservatives and libertarians consider Vannity a partisan hack. When faced with his own double standard, he blows smoke and breaks out the mirrors; forget providing a specific refutation of a pointed charge.

This is inappropriate behavior for someone who portrays himself as a leader in the conservative vanguard. In fact, his actions paint him as a party animal, first and foremost.

Look at Vannity's recent record: First, let's start with Duhbya. He has a love-affair with Señor Bushandez, the man who dons a sombrero and clicks his castanets every time the immigration issue arises. His response to the American people's disapproval? Try something along the lines of "Olé!" He never met a spending bill he didn't want to take home to momma; he presided over enlarging the federal government's scope and power; and he thought the home mortgage and subsequent bailout scam was a delightful joke on the populace. None of this is conservative in nature, yet Vannity considers Bush's leadership "second to none."

Vannity also endorsed Tooty Frooty Giuliani for president -- you remember, the philandering, pump-wearing, queen-loving metrosexual from New Yuck.

Worse, he dismissed Ron Paul in a post-debate interview, treating him as an eccentric kook. This is a rather odd tack for a self-proclaimed conservative, since Paul comes closer to the conservative ideal than anyone else who ran on the GOP ticket.

All of the above indicates one who puts party loyalty above principled conservatism. It also implies that his oath of fealty primarily lies with the party's "neoconservative" elements; think less "conservative" and more "con."

Vannity's attitude of "party first -- everything else is just gravy" may sound great to some Republicans, but I don't see how it's a boon for the country, or a manifestation of true conservatism.

Exorcise the Demonrats-at-Heart

Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of a few remaining GOP moderates in the Senate, called Specter's decision another sign that the Republican Party needs to move toward the center."

Ultimately, we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history, the way events have been unfolding," she said. "If the Republican Party fully intends to become a majority party in the future, it must move from the far right back toward the middle."

Our Founders envisioned a Senate peopled by older men who already had made their fortunes in life and gained the wisdom that comes with age and experience. They hoped for an august body of those who surpassed the general populace in morality and discernment. Those with "horse-sense," if you will. But somehow we managed to rope ourselves a whole herd of foolish, braying jackasses -- people who have less circumspection or ethical insight than the average fast-food worker or housewife.

Case-in-point: the bubblehead above, Ms. Snowe. The party needs to move to the center, because a liberal fled its ranks? Can anyone follow her non sequitur logic? "Far-right?" Is she hanging out with Cheech and Chong? When in the past twenty years has the GOP done anything properly classifiable as "far-right?" Oh, she must mean the proper care and feeding of Big Brother: skyrocketing spending increases, massive federal intrusion into private life, porous borders, a "War for the Glorious Democracies of Shariastan," and socializing various industries, such as the home loan organizations. You know, typical "far-right" tactics. Not to mention the sparse ground gained in fighting homosexual redefinitions of marriage, and abortion. Ms. Snowe wouldn't know a representative of the "far-right," if he strolled up and crammed a Gadsden Flag down her throat.

Rather than "far-right," let's call it true: Democrat-lite.

I'm sure you're familiar with Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result, each time. Ms. Snowe's living out that little equation. After all, being the "big-tent" party has worked so well for the GOP thus far, we'd be crazy to forego expanding it into a full six-ring circus. Barnum and Bailey would be proud.

Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, head of the Democratic campaign committee, called the development "proof positive that the Republican Party is so out of touch with Americans that they're losing one of its most prominent leaders."

Another senatorial sage weighs in. I can think of no better way of replenishing the GOP than listening to opposition advice. He's right that the GOP is out of touch, but not for any reason he might imagine. Specter used the Republican Party platform as a diving board into the Demonrat pool. Gosh, I'm gonna miss him.

Specter's betrayal is the culmination of a career of knifing others in the back. The GOP is a better party for his absence. Now it's time to clean house: take out all the garbage. People like Snowe should be driven from the Party, if they won't leave on their own accord. I'm sure the Jackasses will make room for them in their big tent. They'll never turn away one of their own.

Just watch where you step.

Adding insult to injury, Specter grew animated as he blamed conservatives for helping deliver control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006, a result he said made it impossible to confirm numerous judicial appointees of Bush.

"They don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don't understand it, but that's what they said," he added.

Whew! Good thing they didn't make that mistake when they helped you win reelection.

"We'll Not Give Up the Ghost!"

Sometimes, it's fun to rub people's noses in a big, steaming pile of I Told You So.

Nearly five years ago, I said this about Bush endorsing and campaigning for Arlen Specter against his more conservative GOP opponent (Pat Toomey) in his Senate campaign:

For the staunch Republicans out there, here's a question to ponder: If Bush is a conservative, and if he has the nation's best interests at heart, why in the world would he vehemently fight against someone who is pro-life, while championing someone who diametrically is opposed to doing away with abortion?

In the comments section, I added this:

Perhaps Toomey would've made a much better showing, though, if Bush had publicly campaigned for him. My problem with this--& other situations like it--is that it seems the Republicans almost always put pragmatism (keeping the party in power) ahead of principle. This bothers me to no end.

Furthermore, why is keeping a Republican in power important, if he's the sort who will stonewall and be a burr under his own party's saddle?

I was told that backing Specter was needed for the simple reason that Toomey had no chance of winning, among other issues. Yet all was for naught, because Specter ghosted away to the Demonrat Party last Tuesday.

So I hope those who defended Bush, et. al.'s actions are proud of themselves. You went to bat for those who gave us not just a Demonrat in temperament, but a Demonrat in literal fact. It's a perfect example of pragmatism over principle backfiring and blowing up in your faces, and it comes as no surprise at all.

Go, team, go!

Twilight of Okenya

Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its controversial report warning against "right-wing extremists" in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups – animal rights activists, black separatists, tax protesters, even worshippers of the Norse god Odin – as potential "threats."


Fools! Dost thou stoke the flames of Odin's wrath? Woe unto thee, for he shall stalk from the halls of Valhalla and clamber o'er the walls of Asgard, descending with your dooms upon his smiling lips! Quail before his mighty hand! Thou hast reaped thine own personal Ragnarok from a field of folly!

And when he fells thee and spurns thy cloven carcasses, the Choosers of the Slain shall sweep in and spit into the vacant eyes and wipe their feet upon the useless clay, even as thy souls are cast gibbering into the bowels of Nifelhel -- there to stumble through the mists of thine own idiocy for an eternity of eternities!

Thus spake Snorri Snorersson, Harbinger of the Valkyries and Caretaker of Odin's Chamber-pot!

Spectral Morality

I'm sure you've heard that Arlen Specter has abandoned Sauron and dived into the willing embrace of Morgoth. (For those who snub Tolkien, It's like disassociating oneself from Stalin to spoon with Satan). In other words, he left the Repugnicruds and joined the Demonrats.

Philosophically speaking, this poses no long-term problem for the GOP, since Specter's loyalty to the party platform is as genuine as an abortion doctor's to the Hippocratic Oath. He's the quintessential RINO; it's logical that he's now coming out, as it were, and revealing his true self. Let's face it: losing a big-government liberal from one's ranks is never a bad thing.

But his Benedict Arnold approach to politics indicates a man of less-than-sterling character. How many people voted for him--at least in part--because he was a Republican? This brand of party loyalty sounds silly to those of us who believe principle trumps the letter after one's name, but we know that a significant percentage of voters cast their votes according to political affiliation, however misplaced such dedication seems.

Specter's "switch" is the political equivalent of giving those people the finger. His attitude may be summed up thusly: "I don't care if you idiots voted for me because I was a Republican. I don't care if you would have withheld your vote and given it to someone else, had you known that I would later turn to the Democrat side. I don't care if you would have shunned me, if I had been a Democrat in the beginning. I have your vote, and I've put it toward obtaining and retaining power. Thanks, suckers."

His decision leads us to this inevitable conclusion; such a dishonest tack is far removed from constitutional notions of representative government. Imagine Samuel Adams' disgust with this brand of turncoat politics.

Other possibilities for Specter existed--stepping down from his position, or waiting until the next election cycle to disengage from the GOP, becoming an Independent, etc. All would have stood as more honorable measures than abandonment of his consituents mid-term. But hoping for common decency and integrity from those devoted to power above all else is a pipe dream.

In further confirmation of his righteous Messiahship, Okenya said he was "thrilled" with Specter's decision to jump ship. "Thrilled?" Really? You're ecstatic that Specter betrayed the voters and created an unfair advantage for the Jackass Party by subverting the people's will?

Mr. President, when conservatives and libertarians classify you as evil and power-hungry, remember how this situation exemplifies and confirms their belief.

Ch-ch-changes

As you've probably noticed by now, I've made a few changes to the ol' blog. Okenya's positivity and reshaping of the American order was my inspiration.

I thought upgrading my template was a good idea, so imagine my surprise, when doing so stripped HaloScan and Sitemeter from the blog, and jumbled up my sidebar. Oh, well. You live, you learn, as that stringy-haired waif Alanis Morissette says.

Through a little trial and terror, I forced everything into working order, with one exception. When I reinstalled HaloScan, my blog title and new picture at the top vanished. I experimented by removing HaloScan, again, and both reappeared. Then I put the commenting system back on, and they're gone, again. Poof! I emailed HaloScan about this, Friday night; so far, I haven't heard from them. Maybe they're gone to an HTML convention.

Speaking of HTML, I know almost as little about its mysteries as Okenya kens about the economy, so bear with me through the tweakery.

Here's a place for you to bloviate on pretty much anything that's on your mind.

If Thy Freedom Offend Me, I'll Pluck It Out

The Alliance Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit on behalf of students and parents against the Wilson County School Board in Tennessee.

Lakeview Elementary School students wanted to display posters that referenced God and prayer, but school officials said they had to cover up those references before the posters could be displayed. The posters were hand-drawn by students and announced voluntary activities such as the "See You at the Pole" prayer event.

Kellum says the school is arguing that the posters cause an Establishment Clause problem, and that some students might be offended if these religious students were able to express their beliefs.


These are the same dishonest, constitutionally-illiterate excuses offered up by our godless public schools over the last twenty years.

On the one hand, we have elementary students attempting the exercise of their God-given, constitutionally-protected rights of free speech and religion. On the other, we have a school administration that believes this is identical to the Congress of the United States of America establishing a specific religion. This should serve as ample justification for an automatic dismissal from one's position as teacher, principal, or superintendant. It's patent idiocy, and the people shoveling this buzzing fly-heap know it. Either that, or they remain so clueless about American history that they'd give a North Korean labor-camp prisoner a run for his money in terms of pure ignorance of the outside world. Regardless, one could argue that they have little of value to impart to the rising generation.

I love the "Someone might be offended!" argument. It's as impervious to logic as a Sherman tank's armor under the barrage of a squirt gun. Remember when James Madison passionately championed your right to remain un-offended, until you crossed the bar?

Me neither.

There is no God-ordained right to remain unoffended. There is no constitutional protection of your delicate sensibilities. It's unenforceable, subjective nonsense. I suppose we should shoot Michael Moore, because his mere existence offends me.

And used within the context of restricting speech and religion on a school campus, it's also a lie. Otherwise, why no equal level of concern for the Christians and others who have their speech curtailed and their religious expression squelched? Somehow, that's not so important.

But that "Bugaboo to frighten ye" that they've created--well, he might take offense, and we can't have that.

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?