Mini-Vacation

I'll be out of town until Monday. I hope everyone has a great weekend.

Y'all take care until I return.

Refried Brain

I think Bush should ask for a tv spot and provide a little clarity to all the nativists and hate-mongers, out there:

"Folks, let me clear something up. The reason why we have so much contusion about amnesty is because your pewny, non-globalist minds have misunderestimated that the word means whatever I say it means. Sure, this is subject to change, depending on my mood, sobrietaryness, whether or not I just finished listening to Los Lobos, or the day of the week, but what is being el presidente of these Estados Unidos all about if not telling everyone else to shove it, including those who authored our dictionaries? Just as I have bestowed amnesty on all the subequatorial sub-literati, so, too, will I diversificate your bigotary prejudicialness, with a rendemption of Richie Valens singing his most famousest song:

Para bailar la bamba
Para bailar la bamba
Se necesita una poca de gracia
Una poca de gracia pa'mí y pa' ti
Ay Arriba y arriba
Ay arriba y arriba por ti seré
Por ti seré
Por ti seré
Yo no soy marinero,
Yo no soy marinero
Soy capitan
Soy capitan
Soy capitan
Bamba, BambaBamba,
Bamba, BambaBamba

A Muddled Heart

In a recent film, A Mighty Heart, Angelina Jolie takes time off from preening for the media and plays the role of Mariane Pearl, the wife of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl. In his review of the movie, Roger Ebert can't help bestowing his incisive political views upon the hoi polloi:

We reflect that the majority of Muslims do not approve of the behavior of Islamic terrorists, just as the majority of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq.

Ah, ok, I get it, you sneaky devil. Average American = average Muslim; Islamic terrorists = Americans who support the Iraq war effort. That's an astute observation, Rog. Did you glean this from that perennial sage, Michael Moore? Perhaps from his new autobiographical film, Sicko? I think you should quit your trivial day job as a reviewer and put your talents to better use writing hard "news" pieces for The New York Times. As for what the "majority of Muslims believe," we have a fairly good handle on that: most support Jihad, either materially or philosophically, or express zero moral qualms about it. Where is the nigh unanimous public outrage, in the Islamic world? Where's the vocal criticism? Where's the inherent conflict between Islamic fundamentalist behavior, and Muslim teaching and Islamic texts? Maybe all of the above reside in Neverland, because they darned sure aren't facets of our reality. This is an integral point, for we know "moderates" have a platform at their pleasure, given all the strenuous efforts at convincing the citizenry that Muslim men are day traders in turbans, even as their women are soccer moms in burkhas. Yet we hear only a few lone voices, buried under avalanches of fatwas, or whispering apologetically in the relative safety of the West. Poll after poll reveals massive support for Jihad in Middle Eastern nations. After the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in its history, we watched, horrified, as Muslims danced jigs of joy in the streets, handing out candy like indulgent neighbors on Halloween.

Even if a silent moderate majority of Muslims exists--and I contend that this assertion is the worst form of deceit and ignorance--it is irrelevant. Irrelevant because it holds no power, makes no decisions, and retains zero influence over those who do. Good ol' Rog might want to allow this a little consideration, the next time he embarks upon giving monsters a pass, while besmirching his fellow citizens.

Continuing in this morally relativistic vein, Ebert writes:

The Americans who complain about "negative" news are the ideological cousins of those who shoot at CNN crews. The news is the news, good or bad, and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful. More Americans are well-informed about current sports and autoracing statistics, I sometimes think, than anything else.

It seems Rog spends inordinate amounts of time condemning his countrymen as stupid or evil, again, while handling the truly malevolent with kid gloves. Whereas I agree with his final sentence, most people don't like negative news reports because they are one-sided, more often than not. This especially is true regarding the Iraq conflict, of which the MSM has nothing positive to say. The meeting of goals, aid given, or anything remotely beneficial is ignored, while body counts and mahem are treated in excruciating detail. Whether one supports the Iraq effort or not, reports from the MSM offer no context or well-rounded portrayal of the events-in-question. Even if folks dislike negativity in reporting for more mundane reasons, such as the truth being a bitter pill, that's a normal response, and a far cry from ideological kinship to terrorists.

So thanks, Rog, for your heavy-handed approach and moral turpitude. If I wanted clueless political rhetoric, I'd tune in to NPR, or read the text of a Bush speech. The good news is, if I want to read about the symbolic similarities between a War of the Worlds-type conquest and America careening across the Middle East like a blind colossus on stilts, I know who to call.

Twisting the Knife with a Smile

President Bush was so buoyed by the warm reception he was given in Albania that he immediately gave all 3 million Albanians American citizenship, provided they learn Spanish. The offer was withdrawn when Bush found out most Albanians haven't broken any U.S. laws.

And people wonder why I love Ann Coulter.

The Reliability of Broken Watches

Stop the presses! Dig out the smelling salts, and mark this day on your calendars! President Bush actually did something with which I agree:

Bush announced no new federal dollars for stem cell research, which supporters say holds the promise of disease cures, and his order would not allow researchers to do anything they couldn't do under existing restrictions.

His executive order encourages scientists to work with the government to add other kinds of stem cell research to the list of projects eligible for federal funding - so long as it does not create, harm or destroy human embryos.

A tip of the hat, folks, for this may not pass our way, again.

Compassionate Cretinism

From Rasmussen Reports:

Only 20 percent of American voters want to revive the controversial federal immigration bill that has the backing of business groups, Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, President Bush and Democratic Senate leadership.

Fifty-one percent of respondents said they prefer smaller steps than the comprehensive approach taken in the proposal. Another 16 percent want the immigration plan put off until next year.

Rasmussen polling reports also found that 69 percent of voters would favor an approach to the issue focused on enforcement and security approach rather than on legalizing undocumented immigrants.

***

Further proving that political blindness shadows only his open contempt for the average American citizen, Bush continued his phantasmagorical immigration balderdash at a National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast (rice and refried beans on the menu, I'm sure, with a Tancredo pinata, afterwards):

“Isn’t it a fabulous country where a migrant grandfather can come and have a dream and work hard, and there’s his grandson talking about the promise of America in front of the president of the Untied (sic) States and his classmates,” Bush said. “That’s the beauty of America.”

“We must meet our moral obligation to treat newcomers with decency and show compassion to the vulnerable and exploited,” Bush said at the prayer breakfast, “because we’re called to answer both the demands of justice and the call for mercy.”

This is like pouring syrup on a dungheap, then screeching "Dessert!", while handing out spoons to all the kiddies. It might look nice at first glance, but stinks to high heaven on closer inspection. It's interesting that our illustrious president utters these and similar remarks at a time when the immigration problem--particularly the illegal facet--is the most contentious issue in our country. The man's more out of touch with the reality in front of him than Patsy Cline in a mosh pit. Poll after condemning poll lists the same results; Americans are fed up with third worlders breaking into their country, taking their jobs, diluting their culture, and violating their laws (and their women) with impunity. Bush responds with his "Amnesty By Any Other Name" solution, AKA the "No American Left Unshafted" Act. The president's rose-colored speeches lack substance. Notice that he makes no mention of a legal immigrant grandfather, but a "migrant" one. How touching. And the anchor-baby grandson, man, his story brings a tear to my eye. I had no idea that the "beauty of America" meant benevolence toward those who make raspberries at our just laws. When Bush speaks of "moral obligation," he means amnesty; when he talks about "decency and compassion," he means evicting Americans from jobs they just won't do, so southern sub-literates can take their places; and when he glowingly gushes about "justice and mercy," he means an undeserved, cheater's path to citizenship.

I don't speak Spanish; nor do I speak B.S., but I can translate it, with a little work.

Happy Father's Day!

To all the fathers out there who've stuck with their children through thick and thin, who love them with all their hearts, and who present them with a godly example.

This one's for you.

And to my own father, who's still with us after suffering a debilitating stroke. He grows stronger every day, with the good Lord's help. I have no doubt he'll be his old self again, someday in the near future.

God bless you all.

Interpreting My Own Se'f

This is a small clarification of the last post. If anyone took my words as a personal attack or as hatred toward a select group of believers, they were not intended as such. I'm passionate on the topic of biblical truth and accuracy, and I take it very seriously. I don't consider a literal interpretation of Genesis a salvational necessity, but I do consider it an important subject. The further we move away from acceptance of scripture, the more we open ourselves to worldly or even satanic influence, in my opinion. That bothers me, which hopefully explains my tone a little more. Don't mistake this for backpedaling; I stand by everything I said.

We're all friends, here. Perhaps I should use the term compadres, given the increasing third world attributes of my home country. I may disagree, or shake my head in bewilderment at something you've said. I might even laugh at you, sometimes. But I'll not call you names or run you off or put a voodoo hex on you. I like the discussions that evolve from posts, and I even appreciate the comments that challenge my own. Butter sharpens iron, ya know.

Fundamental Truth

I consider myself a Christian fundamentalist. What this means is that I believe the Holy Bible is more than a book of fairy tales. I believe that it is God's Word for the ages, significant to all men, in all times and places. I reject the notion that He uplifted Man out of the muck and slime from the world's basement, ushering him through a slow, painstaking process of molecule to mold to wriggling worm to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal to human. Embracing such means rejecting scripture, for it's clear that the Word teaches no such thing. Genesis tells us that God created Man in His image, that he was fashioned in this way from the beginning. You either believe that, or not. Don't tell me, however, that the Bible doesn't lead one to this conclusion; it allows no other conclusion, if one is honest with himself in his studies. The lengths some people go to in ridiculing and denying the Genesis creation story sadden and confound me. I especially find mystifying the idea that "Adam and Eve weren't real people. The Earth wasn't created in six days. God used symbolism in these passages in revealing truths to us about Himself." Really? That sounds like something a hippie might've stuttered at Woodstock, after holing up in his VW van with a bong for a few hours. If the Genesis account doesn't mean what it says, pray tell how we determine what it does mean? Should I consult a palantir, or perhaps John Travolta? Maybe Richard Dawkins can sell me a clue. The Bible is reliable because it means what it says. If it's open to individual interpretation, then it means nothing at all. We rightly consider people who utilize this tactic in discussing the Constitution of the United States as ignorant or dishonest; yet many accept the same when addressing the Bible. Genesis tells us that death is a direct result of Man's fall from grace, part of a curse on the creation. How do we harmonize this with the evolutionary insistence that Man is a product of eons of birth, propagation, and death in a vicious cycle of misery, which culminated in monkey boy gaining an intellectual edge over the other beasts of the field? You cannot believe this and accept scripture at face-value. Isn't it logically inconsistent when someone says: "I believe the Bible is God's Holy Word, except for the parts I consider unmitigated crap."? Jesus believed in Adam, Noah, and Jonah. Paul believed in Adam, as well. Jesus' geneology assumes Adam was more than a figment of some kooky desert nomad's imagination. Who are we to question our Creator and Savior? Was Jesus confused, when he spoke of them as flesh-and-blood people?

I think much of today's attitude about scripture may be attributed to the "higher criticism" movement, which began in the "Enlightenment" (there's a misnomer, if I ever saw one). This trend attempted a deconstruction and neutering of scripture, sapping it into irrelevance for some, and removing the threatening and insensitive aspects for others. The goal was--and still is--calling into question the Bible's validity, from both historical and spiritual perspectives. Our world has never recovered from it. Whole churches have sprung up in its shadow. And so now we have so-called Christians making comments such as: "I don't believe a big ol' fishy swallered a feller named Jonah. That's bunk." It's always characterized in the most asinine terms imaginable. My question is whyever not? You don't deny that God crafted the universe, shaped the Earth, and breathed life into Man--and created all of the above out of nothing--but you find His preserving a man's life in a fish's belly for three days beyond ridiculous? I wish you could hear yourselves. You don't even realize how remarkably absurd that sounds.

Scripture is our primary method of understanding God. It is our best insight into His nature. I reject that it's a convoluted mess of symbols, allegories, and nifty little stories that have no basis in reality. A God who would commission such a tome is one I have no interest in meeting. He is a God without substance, lighter than a whim, and just as phony.

I would write more, but being a good little fundamentalist, I'm off to blast someone who doesn't think in lock-step with me straight to kingdom come. Hey, I'm just doing my part in perpetuating the stereotype.

The Islamic Connection

This past weekend, a commenter at Vox's suggested that the commonplace terrorist acts and violence in Israel find little or no motivation in Islam. I asked him some pointed questions, which he responded to without answering. I'll elaborate on those questions, here, as food for thought.

If Islam plays no significant role in this chaos, then why is it that:

1. "Palestinian" Arab Christians--who are like their Muslim brethren of the region in every regard save their religious beliefs--are not targeting and murdering innocent civilians, utilizing suicide bombings as the method of carrying this out?

2. The terrorist organizations responsible, and those individuals and their family members who make up their foot soldiers, characterize everything they do in religious terms.

3. We find similarities between suicide bombings and the long tradition within the Islamic world of dying for one's religion while simultaneously committing acts of violence against infidels.

Until someone can answer these questions in a coherent fashion that doesn't require besmirching Jews for humanity's ills, I'll continue believing as I have for years: that Islam not only plays a part, but an integral one.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Logic's End

Even checking your brain at the door won't help this movie make sense.

I greatly enjoyed the first installment in the series. The sequel didn't hold up to the first; still, it was a good movie. The third is a complete joke. It's as if the screenwriters got together, with one half-wit declaring: "I have an idea! Let's make this film insane! Let's cut out the heroism, goodness, and logical progression and replace it with mind-numbing action and inexplicable behavior from the protagonists! Whaddaya say, fellas?" The others grin and nod until their heads rattle, then set about creating a movie as reasonable as shouting "Full steam ahead!" in an iceberg field.

The story offers us no heroes with whom we can relate, only a gaggle of back-stabbing idiots who all deserve to kick their last beneath a gallow's pole. I would've paid extra for that. Johnny Depp's character is demoted to the role of comic relief, hovering about the periphery and acting the fool for most of the running time. Orlando Bloom's Will Turner has the onscreen presence of a doorstop. And Keira Knightly's Elizabeth has made an incredible transformation: from frilly, feminine lady in the first film, to Amazonian she-panther in the third. With her smouldering expressions and delicate beauty, she's all woman--from the neck up. Otherwise, she's built like an undernourished ten-year-old schoolboy. I'm sorry, but I cannot take seriously a girl-child who weighs, at most, 110 pounds in lead boots thrashing the living daylights out of burly pirates who pick their teeth with dirks all day and call keel-hauling "good sport." Female buccaneers existed in the heyday of piracy, but they were far from common. The rare few who survived long enough to forge a name for themselves weren't stick-thin imps with fencing skills that would send Errol Flynn fleeing into his cups in terror. But in the PC movie realm, women can bodyslam the likes of Andre the Giant, and can out-fight, out-spit, out-chew, and out-cuss the most venomous devil in the bunch. Imagine if Stallone's movie, Over the Top, were remade, today. His nemesis would be a woman.

When the final credits rolled, I saw people quietly filing out, with looks on their faces as if to say: "What the !@#$%^&* did I just see?"

Considering the good acting and fantastic special effects, the movie has some value. I also can understand the desire to see it for the sake of completion, after having viewed the first two films. But don't expect a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy. You won't find it on this sinking ship.

A Myth Debunked

For everyone's edification:

. . .a thorough review of open-source material demonstrates conclusive and widespread cooperation between former members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime and terrorists from the Iraqi al-Qaida network.

Dozens of former Saddam Hussein loyalists captured by U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq were found to be working with al-Qaida or linked to their operations.

While the Bush administration contended there was evidence of a Saddam Hussein/al-Qaida connection before the war, those assertions have come under heavy criticism, especially from Democrats who contend they and others were deceived about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. However, as WND reported last year, pre-war documents posted online by the Pentagon included a letter from a member of Saddam's intelligence apparatus indicating al-Qaida and the Taliban had a relationship with the regime prior to the 9/11 attacks.

The article provides a plethora of evidence backing the above contention. So what we have is a case of the media lying and obfuscating for years--or indulging in an uninformed smear-campaign, at best. Of course, lies and ignorance emanating from the MSM come as less of a surprise than George Bush hoisting a sign at a La Raza demonstration. What is surprising, and disheartening, is that people believed--and continue believing--what the MSM says. I wonder how many pundits and politicians who have spent years attacking the president and America itself on this issue will admit their error and apologize? Probably no more than the number of women who would feel safe stranded on a desert island with Bill Clinton and a crate of Viagra.

A Load of McCrap

Proving that he can lie with the best of them, John "Bueno Gringo" McCain said this about U.S. immigration policy at a golf course speech: "The old rules are not workable and enforceable. We've certainly proved that over the last 20 years.''

Man, that's hilarious. The government has spent twenty years doing nothing about immigration, except creating more incentives for illegal aliens to hop the border, and ignoring or making excuses for the ones already here. That's the only fact verified in the last two decades. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

Congress "failed you,'' McCain said. "We passed a law in 1986 that said we'd give amnesty to some people and now we have 12 million more,'' illegal immigrants.

So the solution is adding insult to injury, as well as worsening the initial injury? This is like saying that the only way to mend a hairline fracture is with a compound fracture. That's brilliant, John. Presidential, even.

In response to a question from the audience about deportations, McCain said: "In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France. They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America.''

Of course, he neglected mentioning that those poor, downtrodden ghettoized folks in France are mostly self-segregating Muslims, who are little more than fifth columnists desirous of transforming France into a sharia state. Setting this inconvenient tidbit aside, his argument still holds no water. The government created and exacerbated the immigrant problem in the U.S. That tending to it poses difficulties is not surprising news, nor does it provide Congress and the president a pass on addressing these issues. No one expects a cakewalk. His comments amount to: "We screwed up and shirked our duties. We held our countrymen's views on mass immigration in contempt. Now fixing the situation we tailored means getting our hands dirty. How dare you ask or expect us to decrease our comfort level." He also blithely sidesteps the discomfiting reality that these folks are causing us problems right now--in terms of economic drain, assimilation, and crime. One final note: had those holding the reins of power in France protected their country's borders and practiced a little discernment about who was allowed within, they wouldn't be dealing with uprisings and large-scale violence and car-burnings, would they?

France has a lesson for us, all right; just not the one McCain suggests.


UPDATE

Just thought I'd pass along this link detailing some of France's recent responses to illegal immigration.

Rove-ing Toward Gomorrah

Published reports indicate that Karl Rove is an atheist or agnostic--certainly not a Christian, by any stretch of the word. I've seen no refutation of this assertion from Rove or the White House, so I assume it's true.

Taking this as an accurate characterization, I find myself asking the question: If George W. Bush is a devout Christian--as he has portrayed himself--why in the world would he choose a nonbeliever as his chief advisor? Does this decision make any sense to my readers? Was there no better candidate available in the United States of America?

I think this calls into question just how seriously Bush takes Christianity, and makes dubious his claim of being a follower of Jesus. As a Christian, it is inconceivable to me that I would appoint as my special advisor one who disagrees with me on so fundamental an issue as God's existence.

If you're a Christian, would you entrust yourself to the advice of an atheist or agnostic in making decisions that affect the lives of millions?

Miraculous Intervention

A fellow blogger has posited an interesting hypothesis about whether or not miracles of God violate the laws of physics. Though I find his view thought-provoking, I don't agree with all of it, thus this elaboration on the topic.

Let me say up front that I see no reason why God cannot choose to work within the framework of laws fashioned for the Creation's functioning. I just don't believe that He has any reason to do so with exclusivity, since these laws don't apply to Him, but to mortal beings.

As an example of possibly staying within the realm of physics, let's take the multiplication of loaves and fishes from the Gospel. The site held all of the needed elements for this miracle. Manipulating present matter into the desired form was the next step. This offers no explanation of how God did it, or whether man will ever acquire the same ability through scientific and technological advancement. Still, I admit the possibility that Jesus confined Himself to natural laws in the act.

Resurrection, I think, is another basket of fish, so to speak. Bringing someone back from the dead requires much more than making a corpse get up and boogie; it demands the return of a spirit being existing in a different state to its earthly abode, namely, the body. Humans are not biological machines. We are not the sum of our parts. We are unique creatures who exist forever after our initial birth--first on this mortal coil, then in the fires of Hell or the gold-paved streets of Heaven with God; the latter of which is dependant on our acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ's free gift of salvation, accomplished in His redemptive act of dying horribly on the cross for our sins and returning to life everlasting. Resurrection, as I see it, is not a purely physical process; by definition, it involves reaching beyond this world and into the next one.

If miracles have natural explanations, then given enough time and development, man can duplicate them. Doing so calls into question God's power and perfection: is He the sovereign, omnipotent Creator of the universe and all its constituent parts, or just a being on a higher plane of scientific complexity? Remember that the act of Creation detailed in Genesis was a supernatural occurence. Through His divine will, God created ex nihilo--out of nothing--everything in existence. So, too, are the very laws that govern this Creation tangible cogs in a supernatural machine, with God's presence and life-giving power sustaining them. The birth of a child is an event that transcends natural laws. Instilling a spirit within a piece of clay is more than a rearrangement of atoms.

I believe that miracles are the singular province of God. His orderliness isn't defined by adherence to laws written for the governance of others. It's revealed in his consistency and goodness.

The Fuzz Army

Have you ever noticed how it often takes several police officers to conduct a routine traffic stop? More than once, I've passed motorists standing on the side of the road, calmly talking to a whole gaggle of officers. Just today, I passed a motorcycle cop and two cruisers dealing with one guy. I understand the sense in having backup, but how much is required, if the motorist isn't reacting in an unruly, dangerous fashion? Why not just call in the SWAT team while you're at it, and treat it like a drug bust at Tony Montana's house?

That'll teach him for doing fifty in a forty-five.

Dogma of the Dim

Have you been following the ongoing debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Christian Douglas Wilson? The topical question: "Is Christianity good for the world?" It requires little imagination in determining Hitchens' take on this issue. What's interesting is that Hitchens spins a web of pure smarminess, cutesy retorts, and responses without answers, while Wilson keeps marching him to the wood shed. Here are just a few illustrations of Hitchens' debating style-without-substance:

You also appear to find no distinction between the intelligible injunction to "love thy neighbor" and the impossible order to love another "as thyself." We are not so made as to love others as ourselves

Hitchens unknowingly admits a deficit in atheist "morality," here. He cannot conceive of loving someone else as he loves himself. Why would Jesus exhort us to love others as ourselves, if such an act were impossible? Is giving one's life for one's friends not an example of loving others as ourselves? Is Hitchens suggesting that this never happens?

The Golden Rule is to be found in the Analects of Confucius and in the motto of the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, who long predate the Christian era and who sanely state that one should not do to others anything that would be repulsive if done to oneself. (Even this strikes me as either contradictory or tautologous, since surely we agree that sociopaths and psychopaths actually deserve to be treated in ways that would be objectionable to a morally normal person.)

Apparently Mr. Hitchens can't distinguish between generalities and specifics. The Golden Rule is a general approach to life, not an umbrella under which every imaginable, specific scenario huddles. Scripture deals quite lucidly with capital punishment and crime.

We are simply reluctant to say that, if religious faith falls—as we believe it must and to some extent already has—then the undergirding of decency falls also. And we do not fail to notice that a corollary is in play: The manner in which religion makes people behave worse than they might otherwise have done.

Of course, Hitchens offers no enlightenment on how an atheist determines what "behaving worse" means in his blanket condemnation of all religions, despite frequent requests for this information from Wilson. "Behaving worse," according to whom? Moreover, his point is poppycock. He assumes that human sinfulness and Christian teaching are the same. Sin that deviates from Christian teaching doesn't reflect Christianity; it reflects human fallibility. And what a surprise that he allows no credit to those who help their fellow man, and make the world a better place, as a result of believing what they believe. No, he accuses those people of selfishness. In his perverse little world, atheists act on pure altruism, while the religious act out of fear of being skewered on rotisseries for eternity, by horned devils sporting tridents and forked tongues. This is not an illumination of Christianity; it's a straw man caricature of it.

Hitchens also reveals his paltry understanding of Christianity and its Jewish roots, when making comments like this:

after hundreds of thousands of years of human life and suffering, God chose a moment a few thousand years ago to finally mount an intervention.

And this:

There is no need for revelation to enforce morality, and the idea that good conduct needs a heavenly reward, or that bad conduct merits a hellish punishment, is a degradation of our right and duty to choose for ourselves.

These remarks indicate just how arrogant a critique of Christianity's value is outside a basic knowledge of its teachings. Naturally, such demonstrated ignorance never slows down the enemies of God in their assaults on His people and His Word.

Cajones the Size of Bell Clappers

Look at the state of U.S. immigration policy, in all its farcical splendor: we have a tax amnesty for illegal "workers" on the schedule. I'm sure our illustrious presidente would correct me and assure everyone that it's not an amnesty, but a universal reprieve. That just ain't the same thing, folks. Wink wink. Nudge nudge. Say no more. We have a failed state to the south that Bush claims as our dearest kin, even as it founders under drug-cartel torpedoes and sends its extended family trolling in our waters for a handout. We have illegal familial values advocates murdering, driving without licenses, driving while intoxicated, robbing, raping, and generally indulging in mayhem. And all the while folks like Nat Cherkoff beam upon the little brown children of their desires and tell us that, doggone it, if they could just make it across the border without drowning or getting shot by those maniacal Minutemen, they'd screech the national anthem and wave Old Glory, just like Uncle Pedro did at Yorktown. Sure, they may not render its refrains in English, but who cares?; a few more years and that obsolete language will go the way of Sanskrit, anyway.While we're on the topic, I nominate that we change the anthem from "The Star-Spangled Banner," to Lo que será, será, sung by Doris Day.

Would anyone be surprised at the discovery that el jefe Bush has the words "Proud Citizen of Aztlan" tatooed on his globalist glutes? A president who consciously refuses to enforce sound laws designed for the protection of American citizens is, at best, in dereliction of his constitutionally delegated obligations. The Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government and security from invasion. Such claims remain meaningless outside a closed border and a rational immigration policy geared toward protecting American citizens and sovereignty, not facilitating migratory ingress and "free trade."

Nor does this catastrophe fall under the "consent of the governed" rubric. The majority of Americans stand firm in opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens. But our overlords look to their master--the Allmighty Dollar--and stand blind to everything outside its glow.

Post-GOP Debate Comments

I'm sure everyone sat rapt before the boob tube, enthralled by the GOP debate in South Carolina. I know you skipped Survivor: The Martian Canal Challenge and 25 and American Idol Worshipper, and all the other shows that make one's IQ plummet faster than Paris Hilton's skirt in a camera store.

Well, not really. I don't know anyone who watched the debate, except for me. I made the sacrifice for you all. I hope everyone remembers my uncommon valor, over the next few months.

Seeing ten people take the stage was interesting. I enjoyed the short question-and-answer sessions, in which each participant was given enough time to answer, but none to bloviate. I thought the moderators did a great job of asking tough, to-the-point questions, with the exception of one uttered by Chris Wallace, in which he asked how it made one candidate feel that no blacks, women, Hispanics, or transgendered sea-monkeys were in the running. I'm sorry, Chris, but that's a stupid inquiry. First of all, who cares? And second, no individual has control over who chooses to run, or not. It's meaningless, unless you're gauging one's level of PC sensibilities.

As for the guys in the camera's eye, I thought Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore failed in their efforts at gaining supporters. Thompson was stiff and bland in most of his responses, while Gilmore came across as needlessly combative.

John McCain and Mitt Romney comported themselves competently in their answers, though Romney seemed a bit wishy-washy. Neither made a big impression on me.

Giuliani exposed himself for the liberal that he is--big surprise! A couple of times, he looked like a real idiot in his evasion of direct questions. He redeemed himself somewhat in calling Ron Paul on the carpet, later on, which I'll address in a minute.

In my opinion, the most impressive figures in the debate were those most ignored by the media: Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee. All four acquitted themselves well, with quick wits and clarity in stating their positions. Huckabee had the best humorous line of the debate, in which he accused the government of spending like John Edwards in a beauty shop. Each of these men seemed sincere and serious in their convictions. The low point of Brownback's comments was when he endorsed Bush's "Non-amnesty Amnesty" policy.

Ron Paul played the role of the monkeywrench in the works. His loner views separated him from the rest of the flock, which aided his high numbers in the post-debate Fox News poll; he came in first, then dropped to second, where he stayed as of the last time I checked the count. I liked his willingness to shake people out of their complacency and stir up the punchbowl. Alas, the man's a lousy public speaker. He offered an "um" or an "ah" every other word. He did not state his case intelligently or clearly. Worse, he suggested that Al-Qaida hit us on 9/11 as a result of our stationing troops on Muslim soil. I believe this signaled the death-knell for his campaign, whether anyone realizes this or not.

The idea that America created our adversary is absurd. Yes, we have the ability of exacerbating extant problems, but the reality is as Tancredo put it in the debate: to paraphrase, these people follow a religion that dictates our deaths; it demands our destruction. Muslims hate us for no other reason than that we are not Muslims; it's that simple. If we give them no reason to hate us, they'll make one up. This conclusion is inescapable upon learning the true history of Islam. Nor is 9/11 our first tangle with these folks. Remember the Barbary Pirates and the conflict surrounding them? Guess what? They weren't Transcendental Meditationists. They were Muslims, and their religious beliefs played a direct role in their behavior, which included the enslavement of people of all creeds and colors. America is not faultless; yet Al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups are not the Frankensteinian spawn of the U.S., regardless what they claim in their public lies.

So in short, Paul not only projected an unpopular sentiment, but an incorrect one. For that, he's done. However, I do admire his willingness to think for himself and make the whole affair more interesting. Variety is the spice of life, after all.

I like a forum where disparate views are aired from more than two or three people; so this was an interesting debate, over all, and worth seeing.

Tumblin' Tumbleweeds, or "Die, Kid!"

Spurring America's vaunted halls of learning to new lows:

A 12-year-old girl who says she was traumatized when her teacher showed the film "Brokeback Mountain" featuring love scenes with homosexual cowboys is suing the Chicago Board of Education for $500,000.

"What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," is what the substitute teacher told eighth-grade students at Ashburn Community Elementary School after showing the R-rated movie, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court.

Sounds like Ms. Buford hails from Vegas. With a motto like this, I wonder how long we'll have to wait before she's playing "doctor" with the students. Keep in mind that these kids were in elementary school. Calling this putrid is an understatement.


***


In another enlightenment setting, we have this:

A teacher and an assistant principal at a Tennessee school have been suspended for about two weeks because they staged a gunman's attack on their sixth-grade students for a "prank" or a "learning experience," depending upon the explanation.

The newspaper report said the faculty members staged the phony gun attack – repeatedly telling the children it was not a drill – while the kids cried and took shelter under tables.

"A teacher wearing a hooded sweatshirt pulled on a locked door, pretending to be a suspicious subject in the area," the report said. "The students were told to lie on the floor or crawl underneath tables and keep quiet."

The newspaper quoted 11-year-old Shay Naylor, who told of the children crying as the lights went out, and some were holding hands and shaking.

The school, while it initially described the circumstances as a prank, later in the same document called it a "learning experience."

"The children were in that room in the dark, begging for their lives, because they thought there was someone with a gun after them," Brandy Cole, whose son was part of the class, told the newspaper.

Alisha Graves' son was on the trip, and she said it was not good. "Those kids were crying, and they were terrified."

Barbara Corbetta said the details matched in all of the stories the children told their parents – kids on the floor crying and begging for their lives.

"My hope is that we can learn from this, and in the end, it will have a positive result of growth for all of us," Stephens (the school principal) told the newspaper.

I'm really sure these distraught parents appreciate your sentimental pap, Miss Insipid Bureaucratic Crap Regurgitator. I can't think of a more despicable, worthless comment, in light of the event-in-question. It's obvious that the staff are lying about their intentions, given that the lowlife element running the place can't even get its story straight. I suppose the "learning experience" was how to soil oneself properly in a hostage situation. I can tell you with certainty that if something like this happened to one of my children, I'd be lacing up my clodhoppers and seeking out these "teachers," so as to educate them in the meaning of pain by stomping mudholes in their stinking fundaments.

These are the kind of people we have "in charge," folks. The inmates truly are running the asylums. It's not a joke.

I have some sincere questions for those with kids in public schools: Can you do no better than this? Do your offspring deserve something superior to such filth? How many stories of this type must you read, before the truth hits home? Put another way, if your cumulative knowledge doesn't constitute enough convincing evidence that the system is broken, how much do you require? Where is the tipping point? Scripture tells us that a child's education is his parents' duty. Do you think that God looks upon the indoctrination and degradation of your children with fondness?