Putting Drunken Sailors to Shame

Here're a few examples of events that have transpired in Iraq, courtesy of U.S. government efficiency:

DynCorp was paid $43.8 million for building and storing a residential camp that was never used, including $4.2 million on VIP trailers and an Olympic-sized swimming pool that were not authorized.

Parsons Global received a contract in 2004 to construct 150 primary health care centers at a cost of $243 million. After $186 million had been spent, only six centers were complete. The contract was terminated, with the contractor required to complete only 14 more.

Bechtel lost its contract for the Basrah Children's Hospital when a $50 million project had reached a cost of $98 million and was about a year behind schedule.

I'm sure one could write a whole book listing nothing but stories like these. The silver lining is that all this blown money came straight out of the taxpayers' pockets. Isn't it comforting that Uncle Scam is putting our funds toward nonsense like this, when it would serve us better as kindling at the hearth? The people involved in such colossal waste should hang their heads in shame. It's criminal, and it's the kind of behavior that would land each of us in jail, if we put it into practice. Of course, when you have a limitless monetary supply, there's no such thing as living beyond your means.

(references taken from John Duncan's Washington Report)

Lopsided

A quarterly newsletter I receive from my district (east TN) congressman, John J. Duncan, Jr., makes some interesting (and unsurprising) revelations about the defeated amnesty legislation:

In a typical week, we receive between a thousand and two thousand letters, emails, or postcards and roughly the same number of phone calls in our four offices put together. Roughly half will be about the bills or legislation, and about half will be from constituents who need some type of help or information. In all my years in Congress, I have never even come close to receiving as large or lopsided a volume as I have on immigration. In addition to all those who have called or written our offices, many, many others have expressed their opinions to me at meetings and events of all types throughout the District. The calls, letters, and comments from our constituents ran more than 50 to 1 against the bill in the Senate or any effort toward more liberal immigration. (emphases mine)

The Holy Spirit

One area in which some Christians tangle is the doctrine of the trinity. Particularly as to the nature of the Holy Spirit. I've never understood this conflict, as scripture is crystal-clear on the subject. In essence, it's a matter of whether or not you've read and believe the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is referenced in scripture in ways that make no sense, unless he is an individual personage. For example:



--Isaiah 63:10 talks about the Holy Spirit being "vexed."


--1 Corinthians 2:13 characterizes the Spirit as a "teacher."


--Ephesians 4:30 admonishes us not to "grieve" the Spirit.


--John 14:16 and John 14:26 both refer to the Holy Spirit as a "Comforter." In 14:26, Jesus uses the pronoun "he" in describing the Spirit.


--John 15:26 differentiates between all persons of the Trinity, and shows Jesus using the term "whom" in speaking of the Spirit.


--John 16:7 again describes the Spirit as a "Comforter," and with the pronoun "him" from Jesus' own lips.


--Matthew 28:19 again treats Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate persons.


--Mark 13:11 talks about the Spirit "speaking."


--Luke 2:26 tells us the Holy Ghost can "reveal."


--Luke 3:22 informs us that the Spirit descended in the bodily form of a dove to Jesus. Yet again, scripture distinguishes here between the Trinity's members.


--In Luke 4:1, the Spirit "leads" Jesus.


--Acts 5:3 reveals Peter criticizing Ananias for lying to the Spirit.


--Acts 5:32 calls the Holy Ghost a "witness."


--Acts 13:2 characterizes the Spirit as "speaking" to Paul and Barnabas.




***




I can go on, but I think the point stands on the above verses' merits. I believe Christians who question the Holy Spirit's personhood should reexamine scripture for themselves and discover that the Bible is not vague or unsatisfying in its elucidation of this matter. If the Spirit merely is the power of God, how can we vex or grieve an inanimate force? How can it teach and comfort us? How can it speak or reveal truths to us? How can it appear in physical form? How can it lead, and how can we lie to it? How can it be a witness? Why does scripture include the Spirit with Jesus and the Father, as a unique individual? And most important of all, why did Jesus Himself use terms in describing the Holy Spirit that we utilize solely in referring to people?

This is a controversy without legitimate dispute. I know we live in a time when dogmatism is the gravest perceived sin of religious people; yet sometimes people are dogmatic because the answer is obvious. The situation is as simple as: have you read the relevant scripture for yourself, and do you believe what it says? If you do so with prayer and meditation, you'll reach the only reasonable conclusion scripture allows.

Constructionism

I want to expand upon a point I made in the comments section recently, because it's one far too many people fail in grasping. When interpreting the U.S. Constitution, we cannot limit ourselves to the text alone; we must take into consideration the intent behind the words: what was the goal or end the authors were trying to meet? If we neglect this obligation, we create a comfortable zone for misinterpretation.

For example, let's take the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The local militia was a volunteer organization, peopled by free individuals who owned guns. They formed this body for the protection of their homes and families against Indians, road agents, etc. The militia was not an arm of the government. Rather, it was a communal effort. We know this by examining history. Militias as understood by the Founders don't exist at present in most states. Ignorant people who know little about the Constitution and even less about the time in which it was drafted claim that the National Guard is the current equivalent. Wrong. National Guardsmen are government employees, beholden to bureaucratic whims. They usually serve their respective states; but in some cases--the current Iraq fiasco being one--the federal government takes hold of their reins. The neighborhood watch movement bears closer resemblance to militias than the National Guard.

All of this leads me to my point: if militias don't exist, now, and we cannot contextually examine anything outside the Amendment's textual confines, we soon draw (or become susceptible to) the conclusion that the right to bear arms is defunct, obsolete. However, if we study history and the writings and speeches of the men who cobbled the Constitution together, we realize that they understood the Amendment as covering individual rights, for purposes of self-defense and taking action or making a stand against a corrupt, overreaching government. But this reality doesn't dawn upon us by reading the Amendment; it becomes apparent by knowing our history and the intentions behind the words.

Constitutional constructionism doesn't mean enslaving oneself to the phrases of the document; it means reading the words and abiding by the original intent behind them.

Don't Hate Me Because I'm Beautiful

After a nice dinner of dog chow mein at my favorite local Chinese restaurant, I cracked my fortune cookie and read these words:

"Rarely do great beauty and virtue dwell together as they do in you."

My wife rolled her eyes, but she knows deep down that truer words were never spoken.

(Speaking of virtue, Chinese cuisine probably is the one redemptive quality of that ideological cesspool).

Citizens and Aliens II

I thought I'd continue the last post by appending relevant quotes on immigration from the Founding Fathers:


John Adams: (Referring to public office applicants) "Among the number of applications..., cannot we find an American capable and worthy of the trust? ...Why should we take the bread out of the mouths of our own children and give it to strangers?" (Letter to Sec. State John Marshall, Aug. 14, 1800)

***

Benjamin Franklin: "The importation of foreigners into a country that has as many inhabitants as the present employments and provisions for subsistence will bear, will be in the end no increase of people, unless the new comers have more industry and frugality than the natives, and then they will provide more subsistence, and increase in the country; but they will gradually eat the natives out. Nor is it necessary to bring in foreigners to fill up any occasional vacancy in a country for such vacancy will soon be filled by natural generation." ("Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind and the Peopling of Countries," 1751)

***

Thomas Jefferson: "Yet from such [absolute monarchies], we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. Their principles with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us in the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." ("Notes on Virginia," 1782)

***

Alexander Hamilton: "The opinion advanced [by Jefferson] is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, [italics in original] so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency." ("Examinations of Jefferson's Message to Congress of December 7th, 1801," Jan. 12, 1802)

***

James Madison: "Our kind reception of emigrants is very proper, but it is dictated more by benevolent than by interested consideration, tho some of them seem to be very far from regarding the obligations as lying on their side." (Letter to Richard Peters, Feb. 22, 1819)

***

George Washington: "My opinion, with respect to emigration, is that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement, while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body...may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them." (Letter to John Adams, Nov. 15, 1794)

Citizens and Aliens

In recent comments, Erik and GlennT made observations that have led me to the writing of this post. The question on the table is: does the U.S. Constitution apply to legal and illegal aliens? Having studied the issue, my answer is yes and no.

It's clear to me that Mr. Madison and the numerous Founders who lent their input to the Constitution's formation were drafting a document for U.S. citizens, not those of Mexico, China, England, Russia, or France. This is self-evident, for in the Preamble itself we are informed that:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The document differentiates between citizens and non-citizens. For example, aliens cannot hold the offices of U.S. Representative or Senator. Article I Section 8 bestows Congress with the power to create uniform Rules of Naturalization. Section 9 reveals that Congress may not hinder individual states in allowing the migration or importation of people who meet the states' approval. We're also told that Habeus Corpus may not be suspended, with the exceptions of invasion or rebellion. Question: If 1.1 million illegal aliens entering our borders annually doesn't constitute an invasion, pray tell, what would?

Article II Section 1 informs us that non-citizens may not hold the office of the President. By extension, the Vice President also must meet citizenship requirements, since the possibility exists of his becoming Chief Executive in a time of crisis. Electors must be residents of the states they represent, disqualifying illegal aliens.

The point of the above is to illustrate that the Constitution--and those who molded it--made distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. Non-citizens did not hold the same rights and privileges as citizens.

Let's take a look at the Bill of Rights and its application to aliens. Amendment 1 provides freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petitioning the government. It only applies in part. It's absurd on its face that aliens should have the latitude to become members of our press, initiate assemblies, or petition the government. I have no gripe with extending freedom of religion or speech to aliens.

The Second Amendment deals with gun ownership. The idea that aliens have a right to bear arms within our borders is asinine and conducive to chaos.

Amendment 3 is not applicable to this conversation. Amendment 4 entails search and seizure rights. I believe this applies to aliens, because private property is just that, regardless one's position on a map, and should be held inviolate.

Amendment 5 details due process and just compensation. This extends to aliens, because it harkens back to the natural rights of all men: life, liberty and property, except where due process has run its course.

Amendments 6 (speedy trial, confronting witnesses), 7 (trial by jury in civil cases), and 8 (no cruel or unusual punishment) are relatives of Amendment 5, so they apply to aliens. Amendments 9 and 10 are general statements about the Constitution's nature, and the powers of the states and their citizens.

For length purposes, I'll not deconstruct the other Amendments. We have a mixed bag. When we speak of life, liberty, property and due process, the Constitution sides with everyone in our territories, not just citizens. This harmonizes with a key principle fleshed out in our earlier Declaration of Independence, which states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Fitting aspects of our Constitution apply to all people within our borders, whether citizen or alien. Outside these parameters, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that other elements in the Constitution should be construed to elevate aliens to the level of citizens. After all, if aliens share all the same rights and privileges as citizens, then there is no such thing as citizenship. This idea is diametrically opposed to everything our Founders held dear.

Ouch

Florida now probing Ann Coulter for fraud

I read this headline at World Net Daily, and my first reaction was:

"That must hurt. Just be thankful it's Florida, and not Alaska."

Yes, I have a somewhat tarnished mind.

"For the Wetback, Everything; for the American, Nothing!"

Indeed, Barack Obama is one heck of an enlightened "person of color," as is illustrated in his recent praise of a court decision that castrates Hazelton, Pennsylvania's "Illegal Immigration Relief Act." A slight digression: is a "person of color" who is half-white more aptly described as a "person of diluted color?"


Either way, Obama called the judge's ruling "a victory for all Americans." This "victory" entailed halting efforts to stop landlords from renting to known illegal aliens. In what utopian plane of existence or topsy turvy dimensional offshoot is this a win for Americans? Since illegal aliens are more likely to commit crimes and carry diseases than citizens, how is deterring them from entering or staying in one's city a negative? And shouldn't states and cities with popular support in these matters have the right to decide for themselves?

"Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not," Munley (the judge) wrote.

This is a cute, legalistic way of saying: "I suggest we ignore problems associated with illegal migration." At stake here is whether or not states or cities should have the right of handling illegal immigrants, when the federal government shirks its duty in addressing the issue. In this judge's opinion, the answer is no. Furthermore, I'd like an elaboration on how one's mere presence in this country can be a crime, yet the criminal-in-question has a constitutional right to become a tenant on a particular tract of land within our borders. This judge has the same grasp of logic and our Constitution that Porky Pig has of crisp elocution.

Munley also wrote that Hazleton's law was at odds with current federal immigration policy, which he said avoids "excessive enforcement" against illegals so as not to jeopardize foreign relations. Hazleton, he said, failed to consider "the implications of the ordinances on foreign policy."


More garbage. Federal "immigration policy" in a nutshell is "Let's make them all Americans," which solves nothing and creates a host of new obstacles. Apparently, anything less than citizenship, full constitutional rights, and a voter's registration card and driver's license is "excessive." And since when does the U.S. allow foreign opinion dictation rights on policy? That's certainly not the approach the executive has taken in Iraq or Afghanistan. I suppose we should make an exception when it comes to Mexico's role in determining who should and shouldn't be an American.

Obama, addressing the National Council of La Raza's annual convention in Miami Beach last week, called the debate that defeated the Senate immigration bill "both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights" and pointed to his marching in the May 2006 immigration rallies in his appeal for the group's support.


This is one of the more hilarious things I've read in a long time. The irony of dubbing opponents of the failed amnesty bill racists at a La Raza meeting doesn't escape me (La Raza means "The Race," and the group's motto is "for The Race, everything, for those outside The Race, nothing!"). You know all you need to know about someone who would sully himself in a public speaking engagement with these people. In his accusation of nativism leveled toward those who don't embrace amnesty, he stands on the same side of the Rio Grande as G.W. Bush.

Obama continued: "Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year," he said. "Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk – because I walked.


That depends on where the rally took place. If it happened at the border, chances are, you had to run to keep up.

Stunned by the Obvious

For weeks, commentators and analysts in the Muslim world have been grappling with the implications that a Muslim doctor and engineer, at the pinnacle of their society, may have been behind the failed car bombings in London and Glasgow last month.

The question being asked in many educated and official circles is this: how could such acts be committed by people who have supposedly dedicated their lives to scientific rationalism and to helping others?

The answer, some scientists and analysts say, may lie in the way that a growing movement of fervent Muslims use science as reinforcement of religious belief, rather than as a means for questioning and exploring the foundations of the natural world.

Muslim scientists are among the most politicized groups in the region, and the Muslim approach to the scientific method, in the most extreme cases, can squelch the freewheeling curiosity at the heart of scientific discovery.

"Fundamentalist-type attitudes are relatively common among people in applied science in the Muslim world," Edis said. "The conception has been that modern science is developed outside, and we need to bring it into our societies without it corrupting our culture."

In other words, science is a tool for furthering an ideology rather than a means of examining core beliefs.

"Wherever you go in the Muslim world, those who are most violent and most extremist are the ones who have the most scientific tendencies," Abu Hanieh said. "One could even argue that sciences might contribute to increasing one's radical thinking if the radical finds justifications to his philosophy through science," he said.

***

First off, the idea that someone is rational in his outlook simply because he makes his living in a scientific or technical profession is a non sequitur, as Vox Day and others have demonstrated many times. When one delves into the "scientific" explanations for life on Earth in its current form, it becomes clear that scientists are as susceptible to ideology and faith-based conclusions as the poor benighted masses they look down upon from the lofty heights of Mt. Elitism.

As for Islam, it has a long history of utilizing science in furtherance or support of its tenets, not in finding the truth. This is neither a new development, nor an "extreme" one. I notice the consistent use of labels like "extreme" and "radical" in describing normal behaviors of Muslims that constitute logical extensions of their beliefs.

Apparently, some "moderates" (Muslims who can't afford bombvests) in the Islamic world have excavated the lie that others unearthed a long time ago: that poverty or ignorance causes spontaneous Muslim combustion. In reality, ideas do.

I Got Your "Healing" Right Here

Disgraced former prosecutor Mike Nifong acknowledged Thursday there is "no credible evidence" that three Duke lacrosse players committed any of the crimes he accused them of more than a year ago, offering for the first time a complete and unqualified apology.

Wow, Sherlock, you're a day late and a dollar short on that brilliant deduction. I wonder why you couldn't see this while you were ramming the case home like a stiletto in the back?

"We all need to heal," Nifong said. "It is my hope we can start this process today."

Any time you hear someone utter nonsense like this in public, just go ahead and assume he has an invisible tattoo across his forehead that says: LIBERAL TWIT. Yes, I'm sure you have a long and arduous healing process ahead of you, Dingdong, after doing your level best to assassinate the characters of those three innocent lacrosse players. I'm sure it expended a great deal of energy. What an idiot.

Two-steppin' Toward Disaster

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney lashed out at his top Democratic rivals Wednesday, saying their liberal views are out of step with the nation.

Given the GOP's "damn the citizenry, full-speed ahead" tactic regarding amnesty for illegal migrants--despite overwhelming American contempt for the idea--as well as prosecuting a war that becomes more unpopular by the day--I don't think Romney is in a position to lecture the Demonrats about being in or out of step with the nation. I can think of no better reason to skip voting for him than this absurd observation.

When you're dancing like a drunk on stilts, don't expect to be taken seriously by anyone in your criticism of how others cut a rug.

Harry Potter and the Murky Moral Worldview

I saw the new Harry Potter movie over the weekend. I thought it was the weakest entry in the series, but that's not the point of this post. I want to address the mindset of these movies. Each depicts adults as either evil, superfluous, kindly but ineffectual, or obtuse to the point of mental retardation. Have you noticed this trend? Those who harbor the keenest understanding are children, for the most part. They are more observant, empathetic, and sensitive to the realities around them. They are more reliable in a fix than anyone else.

Another problem with the storyline is its rebelliousness, and its manipulation of the audience into embracing persistent disobedience as reasonable. Adult rules all to often are portrayed as stifling, moronic, or counterintuitive. Since this is the case, Harry and his friends consistently violate them at every available opportunity; rules are made to be broken. Often, they have no choice but to smash the barriers set before them. This theme runs throughout the movies, starting with the first one.

The cinematic preoccupation with enlightened children in a world of stupid grownups is one that began in the 1980s, I believe, with movies like E.T. It thrives today in the Harry Potter series.

I find the films mildly diverting, with their fantastic special effects and interesting creatures. But I've never understood the popularity of the movies or books. I've read literally dozens of novels and short stories that offer a much grander and more coherent basis for moviemaking, and viewpoints with moral clarity, not mixed or detrimental messages.

Line of Demarkation

Recently, a commenter insinuated that there's no moral difference between abortion and capital punishment. I thought I'd take the opportunity to address this bizarre notion at more length.

As I've said elsewhere, the distinction between the two is the same as the difference between my going next door and shooting my neighbor in the head as he watches tv, versus shooting the man who just broke into my house and attempted to rape my wife and kill us both. In other words, the incongruity between them is stark. They are separated by the line drawn between innocence and guilt. With the unborn child, we're talking about someone who is innocent--whose innocence isn't even in question. There's no moral equivalency, here. Capital punishment occurs after a suspect has been accused of a crime and tried in front of a jury of his peers with representation. He has been found guilty and sentenced. He has exhausted the appeals process. So unless you believe that all human life is of equal value--from Mao-tse-Tung to Mother Theresa--with no exceptions whatsoever, following the logic shouldn't prove difficult. If you understand the distinction between innocence and guilt, the difference between abortion and capital punishment becomes apparent. If you don't comprehend the difference, I cannot imagine what a bewildering series of conundrums life must present for you.

Besides moral confusion explaining this mindset, the other possibility is intellectual dishonesty: the person making the argument knows, subconsciously at least, that his conflation of these two is nonsensical; but he remains adamant, due to his devotion to the pro-abortion agenda--an agenda which often questions the consistency of those who support the death penalty, but decry baby killing. Of course, as I have illustrated, no inconsistency exists. It also strikes me as a form of macabre humor that someone who believes women should have the legal right to butcher their unborn children would take members of the pro-life movement to task on morality--whether consistent, or otherwise.

Headline Headaches

From Word Net Daily: "Feinstein to Bush: Free Border Agents"

Bush to Feinstein: "Nah, I reserve amnesty only for illegal Messicans."

***

From Breitbart.com: "Report Says al-Qaida Seeks to Attack U.S."

Wow, that's like saying, "Clouds are billowy and white, except when they are storm clouds, in which case they are dark and thundery."

***

Elizabeth Edwards: "Hillary behaves like a man."

Big deal; so does her husband. They're both faking it.

***

U.S. Eyes Direct Talks with Iran

Sure, I can see it now:

U.S.: "Howdy, Iranians."

Iran: "Die, Great Satan!"

U.S.: "Hey, we're makin' progress! They called us 'Great!'"

***

Senate Democrats refused to flinch Tuesday as the chamber moved toward a rare, all-night session of debate on legislation to bring troops home this fall.

They called for sleeping cots to be rolled into a room off the Senate floor and told members to prepare for repeated votes throughout the evening.

C'mon, we know the real reason behind the slumber party: so Ted Kennedy could sleep off the popskull, and some others could get to know their interns better.

Biased Neutrality

"I am a proud Christian. My beliefs are strong and dearly held. However, I believe religion is a private matter, so you can rest assured that my beliefs won't enter into my decision-making process, as I address issues important to the American people."

Have you ever heard a politician running for public office utter these words, or a variation thereof? I know I have, more than once. Such statements reveal all you need to know about the person declaring them: he's a liar, has weak, malleable beliefs, or will say anything to coax a vote out of you; maybe a combination of the three.

My question is: if your beliefs are sincere and powerful, how can you possibly avoid their informing every word, thought, or deed formulated in your mind? The answer is that you can't. Furthermore, if your views are legitimate, who would you want to bar them from your assessment of a situation? That's irrational. There is no such thing as total neutrality, folks. Nature abhors a vacuum, and all that. If you remove one worldview, another will take its place. Especially when dealing with "issues" important to your fellow countrymen, such as immigration, abortion, the sanctity of marriage, taxes, etc. These are not matters of simple practicality, but have moral dimensions, as well. If this frightens you, I suggest staying at home in the playpen with the other kiddies and refraining from venturing out into the big bad world of adults. Your "beliefs" may make a nice selling point for those who sleepwalk through life; otherwise, they're insipid to the point of uselessness.

Politicians and commentators love framing matters as religious vs. neutral; but that's a false dichotomy. As I said, there is no neutral, only warring worldviews. For example, is it neutral when schools exclude discussion of Intelligent Design or Creationism, while simultaneously promoting a secularistic evolutionary view of origins? Of course not. Secularism is as much a worldview as Creationism. When you remove God, the sole possible replacement for Him--godlessness--usurps His throne. This is as relevant to politics as it is to education.

If a man leaves his religious convictions at the door, what yardstick or criterion does he utilize in making decisions or choosing sides? Feelings, nothing but feeeelings? Don't be fooled into believing that irreligiosity means a nonpartisan approach; it just means running with an opposing standard.

The Devil Made Me Do It

A man serving a 20-year sentence for murder has been rebuffed so far in his effort to sue God for breach of contract by failing to protect him from evil and turning him over to Satan who encouraged him to kill.

Pavel Mircea, 40, filed his lawsuit in the western Romanian town of Timisoara, charging God with failure to fulfill an agreement Micera alleged was made at his baptism.

"He was supposed to protect me from all evils and instead he gave me to Satan who encouraged me to kill," he charged.

A man serving a 20-year sentence for murder has been rebuffed so far in his effort to sue God for breach of contract by failing to protect him from evil and turning him over to Satan who encouraged him to kill.

Pavel Mircea, 40, filed his lawsuit in the western Romanian town of Timisoara, charging God with failure to fulfill an agreement Micera alleged was made at his baptism.

"He was supposed to protect me from all evils and instead he gave me to Satan who encouraged me to kill," he charged.

Thus far, Micera is not getting an answer to his prayer to the court for relief, either.

The Timisoara public prosecutor rejected the case, saying God is not a person in the eyes of the law and does not have a legal address where he could be served with court papers.


Too bad Daniel Webster or Clarence Darrow isn't around to represent him. It bears repeating: truly we live in the Age of Asininity.

Palestine Pacifism

I sometimes wonder what tv and school is like in the "Palestinian" territories, within the Zionist entity's borders. Maybe a possible tv commerical goes like this:


I'm a martyr
She's a martyr.
He's a martyr.
We's a martyr.
Wouldn't ya like to be a martyr, too?


Or a school cheer:


We gonna drive ya right on out!
We gonna drive ya right on out!
We gonna punch ya, smack ya, gut ya, cut ya!
Drive ya to (clap clap) the sea!


Or a mother's lullabye:


Hush, little jihadi, don't say a word.
Allah's gonna buy you a new goat herd.
And if that new goat herd gets et,
Allah's gonna buy you a minaret.
And if you make polite request,
Allah's gonna buy you a new bomb-vest.
And if that bomb-vest serves you well,
There might be one less infidel.
And while his soul's consumed in Hell,
Allah's gonna give you a demoiselle;
Seventy in all, to be precise,
Long on looks and short on lice.
You'll have an everlasting bash,
And your good deed will bring us cash.
So off to sleep; don't you deplore.
If you get killed, I'll make ten more.

More than a Fairy Tale

Following are some quotes mentioning Jesus gleaned from extra-biblical sources:

Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today.--Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter Three, Part Three, early 2nd century A.D.

From the same book: ...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned...--Book 20, Chapter Nine, Part One

***

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.--Tacitus, Annals: Book XV, A.D. 109

***

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.--Seutonius (A.D. 69-140), Lives of the Caesars, sec. 25.

***

The link at the top of the page lists other references to early Christianity, as well.

Return of the Living Post

It seems the "Fundamental Truth" post from June 13 still has legs. Rather than move the whole thing to the top of the page, I'll just provide this handy little link, instead.