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.