Looks good.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Happy New Year
Many people look forward to the new year for a new start on old habits. -- Author unknown
Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let each new year find you a better man. -- Benjamin Franklin
Ring Out, Wild Bells (1850)
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky,
The flying cloud, the frosty light; The year is dying in the night; Ring out, wild bells, and let him die.
Ring out the old, ring in the new,
Ring, happy bells, across the snow:
The year is going, let him go;
Ring out the false, ring in the true.
Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let each new year find you a better man. -- Benjamin Franklin
Ring Out, Wild Bells (1850)
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky,
Ring out the old, ring in the new,
Ring, happy bells, across the snow:
The year is going, let him go;
Ring out the false, ring in the true.
- Ring out the grief that saps the mind,
- For those that here we see no more,
- Ring out the feud of rich and poor,
- Ring in redress to all mankind.
- Ring out a slowly dying cause,
- And ancient forms of party strife;
- Ring in the nobler modes of life,
- With sweeter manners, purer laws.
- Ring out the want, the care, the sin,
- The faithless coldness of the times;
- Ring out, ring out thy mournful rhymes,
- But ring the fuller minstrel in.
- Ring out false pride in place and blood,
- The civic slander and the spite;
- Ring in the love of truth and right,
- Ring in the common love of good.
- Ring out old shapes of foul disease,
- Ring out the narrowing lust of gold;
- Ring out the thousand wars of old,
- Ring in the thousand years of peace.
- Ring in the valiant man and free,
- The larger heart the kindlier hand;
- Ring out the darkness of the land,
- Ring in the Christ that is to be.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Merry Christmas
I know I've been lax in posting for the last month, but I hope to get back to a more regular blogging schedule after the Christmas holiday is over. In the meantime, I leave my dear readers with some excerpts from the Word of God, which we all would do well to ponder at this time of year -- and year-round, for that matter. Without Christ, there is no Christmas.
Have a truly merry Christmas, and God bless you. Every one.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. -- John 3:16
*****
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. -- Luke 1: 30-33
*****
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth -- John 1: 10-14.
*****
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
I and my Father are one. -- John 10:27-30
*****
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. -- 1 Timothy 1:15-16
Have a truly merry Christmas, and God bless you. Every one.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. -- John 3:16
*****
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. -- Luke 1: 30-33
*****
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth -- John 1: 10-14.
*****
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
I and my Father are one. -- John 10:27-30
*****
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. -- 1 Timothy 1:15-16
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Happy Thanksgiving
Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. -- 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18
Saturday, November 19, 2011
A Vegetative State?
Those who believe that people in "persistent vegetative states" are nothing more than lumps of meat with no inner lives that are hooked up to machines might want to read this:
Signs of consciousness have been detected in three people previously thought to be in a vegetative state, with the help of a cheap, portable device that can be used at the bedside.
"There's a man here who technically meets all the internationally agreed criteria for being in a vegetative state, yet he can generate 200 responses [to direct commands] with his brain," says Adrian Owen of the University of Western Ontario. "Clearly this guy is not in a true vegetative state. He's probably as conscious as you or I are."
In 2005, Owen's team, used functional MRI to show consciousness in a person who was in a persistent vegetative state, also known as wakeful unconsciousness – where the body still functions but the mind is unresponsive – for the first time. However, fMRI is costly and time-consuming, so his team set about searching for simple and cost-effective solutions for making bedside diagnoses of PVS. Now, they have devised a test that uses the relatively inexpensive and widely available electroencephalogram (EEG).
In three of the people with PVS, brain regions known to be associated with those tasks lit up with activity, despite physical unresponsiveness. This suggested to the researchers that the subjects were carrying out a complex set of cognitive functions including hearing the command, understanding language, sustaining attention and tapping into working memory.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street
Americans have two political protest movements of significance growing around the country at present: the Tea Party movement, and the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Both have legitimate grievances, to a degree, but neither agrees with the other on solutions to our nation's ills, or even on defining the problems plaguing us.
I do not hang my hopes on political movements. I put my faith in God, as He has overcome the world, whether we realize it or not. The best social movement we could ask for right now is revival -- revival of our homeland's love for God, recognition of His sovereignty, a longing for the enactment of His will, and a renewed patriotism that seeks the preservation of our way of life, rather than throwing our heritage at the feet of people who neither understand it nor deserve it.
When the Founding Fathers spoke of securing the blessings of liberty and bequeathing that gift to posterity, they were talking about us. We are posterity. And so are our children. And so are theirs.
The aforementioned protest movements understand, as seeing through a glass darkly, that the blessings of liberty are slipping away. My own take on this is that when the blessings of God fall away, so does liberty, as the two go hand-in-hand. I believe that the United States of America once was a nation blessed by God, but I think that the time of blessings is over, for the most part. Now is the time of judgment.
Who can deny that we deserve judgment? Our ruling elite wages wars around the globe for the most frivolous reasons, wars of such a self-serving nature for that selfsame elite that they cannot even articulate to the populace in a coherent fashion an answer to the question: "Why are we there?" We have slaughtered fifty million unborn innocent children since the advent of Roe v. Wade in 1973. In that time, the powers that be have tried convincing two generations that the selfish killing of their own flesh and blood is a constitutionally-enshrined holy right. Also within that same rough time frame, our "leaders" have transitioned from calling homosexuality a sin or a mental illness to its outright glorification, going so far as to promote homosexual adoption and "marriage," and allow the open serving of homosexuals in the U.S. military.
We are as ripe for judgment as a June blackberry.
That said, let's analyze the two popular political movements mentioned above for a few moments. The targets in their sights are the Wall Street bankers and lenders, and the federal government. These are the correct targets, as both are working together for the enrichment of themselves at the American people's expense. They're crony corporatists, not capitalists. And when they have drained the country dry like the parasites or vampires that they give a bad name, they plan to withdraw into their gated communities and palatial estates and live off the fabulous wealth extracted from people of much humbler means than themselves, while the rest of the nation goes to hell. The written word adequately cannot express my contempt for these people.
I see the Tea Party as the better movement of the two, for what it's worth. My reasoning follows.
1.) A significant segment of the Tea Party seems to understand that Wall Street is as much a thorn in our sides as the federal government. I don't believe that a majority of Tea Partiers have this awareness, but a not-trivial percentage does. I put the numbers at around 20-25%, and I base those numbers on the numerous news articles, blog posts, comments, and video footage I have read and watched involving people who associate themselves with the Tea Party movement.
I see no corresponding sense of awareness that the federal government is culpable for our economy's sorry state coming from the Occupy Wall Street crowd. In fact, the sole criticism that I have heard them direct at the feds is that our government has too little control and isn't left-wing enough to suit them. And as for Obama, I've heard nary a peep of protest aimed at him from the OWS people. That's particularly telling, because Barack Obama is more responsible for the disastrous shambles of our economy and the institution of socialism in every conceivable area of life than any other single individual.
2.) The Tea Party is protesting the federal government for the right reasons. Tea Partiers see the government as too big and unwieldy, too corrupt, with too much regulatory power over the economic market. Taxes are through the roof, and we're drowning in debt that will drag down our children and even our grandchildren, if we sit back and don't take action. The government provides too many handouts at taxpayer expense.
I don't think the Tea Party goes far enough in its criticism, as its leaders focus on the economy to the detriment of other equally important issues, such as immigration, the homosexual agenda, abortion, etc. But within the narrow scope of its protests, its members are right on the money.
They offer viable solutions, as well: hold accountable and remove from office corrupt government officials; loosen or eliminate regulatory controls; lower taxes; stop going deeper into debt and pay off the debts we've accumulated; stop confiscating monies from those who earned them, and giving them to those who consider channel surfing or getting knocked up for the nth time a hard day's work.
As for the Occupy Wall Street protesters, their beef with Wall Street primarily stems from their hatred of free enterprise. They see Wall Street as a bastion of free enterprise; they hate free enterprise; ergo, they hate Wall Street. Why? Because most of these protesters are socialists or communists or hippie types. They're ticked off because the government isn't even more massive than its present bloated, planetoid-sized carcass. They believe in more handouts, more bailouts -- when it comes to student loans -- and less soap.
What are their solutions to the problems we face? Ignore the rotten-to-the-core corruption of the highest official in our land; tighten and increase regulatory controls on the economic market; soak the rich by raising their taxes, though we already have a "progressive" tax system that has done just that (and when I say "Rich," I don't just mean crony corporatists; I mean everyone who makes above a certain dollar amount); go deeper into debt as a nation by handing out more taxpayer-funded goodies like a benevolent neighbor on Helloween; and redistribute wealth so that we all can live in Utopian mediocrity and poverty.
In terms of effectiveness at reaching its goals, neither movement is a humdinger. Both have myopia regarding the dual nature of our enemy. As I said earlier, both have understandable complaints and feelings of an ill wind blowing through the land. But when we look at the worldviews and political philosophies of the two movements, they couldn't be more different. One is for limited government, and one is for socialism, or its uglier cousin, communism.
Hope springs eternal in the human breast. If a hope is to be found in one of these political movements, however small, I think it is more likely to be found in the Tea Party, or a related offshoot. Either way, our faith in God and His Son and His Holy Spirit should come first. All else follows.
I do not hang my hopes on political movements. I put my faith in God, as He has overcome the world, whether we realize it or not. The best social movement we could ask for right now is revival -- revival of our homeland's love for God, recognition of His sovereignty, a longing for the enactment of His will, and a renewed patriotism that seeks the preservation of our way of life, rather than throwing our heritage at the feet of people who neither understand it nor deserve it.
When the Founding Fathers spoke of securing the blessings of liberty and bequeathing that gift to posterity, they were talking about us. We are posterity. And so are our children. And so are theirs.
The aforementioned protest movements understand, as seeing through a glass darkly, that the blessings of liberty are slipping away. My own take on this is that when the blessings of God fall away, so does liberty, as the two go hand-in-hand. I believe that the United States of America once was a nation blessed by God, but I think that the time of blessings is over, for the most part. Now is the time of judgment.
Who can deny that we deserve judgment? Our ruling elite wages wars around the globe for the most frivolous reasons, wars of such a self-serving nature for that selfsame elite that they cannot even articulate to the populace in a coherent fashion an answer to the question: "Why are we there?" We have slaughtered fifty million unborn innocent children since the advent of Roe v. Wade in 1973. In that time, the powers that be have tried convincing two generations that the selfish killing of their own flesh and blood is a constitutionally-enshrined holy right. Also within that same rough time frame, our "leaders" have transitioned from calling homosexuality a sin or a mental illness to its outright glorification, going so far as to promote homosexual adoption and "marriage," and allow the open serving of homosexuals in the U.S. military.
We are as ripe for judgment as a June blackberry.
That said, let's analyze the two popular political movements mentioned above for a few moments. The targets in their sights are the Wall Street bankers and lenders, and the federal government. These are the correct targets, as both are working together for the enrichment of themselves at the American people's expense. They're crony corporatists, not capitalists. And when they have drained the country dry like the parasites or vampires that they give a bad name, they plan to withdraw into their gated communities and palatial estates and live off the fabulous wealth extracted from people of much humbler means than themselves, while the rest of the nation goes to hell. The written word adequately cannot express my contempt for these people.
I see the Tea Party as the better movement of the two, for what it's worth. My reasoning follows.
1.) A significant segment of the Tea Party seems to understand that Wall Street is as much a thorn in our sides as the federal government. I don't believe that a majority of Tea Partiers have this awareness, but a not-trivial percentage does. I put the numbers at around 20-25%, and I base those numbers on the numerous news articles, blog posts, comments, and video footage I have read and watched involving people who associate themselves with the Tea Party movement.
I see no corresponding sense of awareness that the federal government is culpable for our economy's sorry state coming from the Occupy Wall Street crowd. In fact, the sole criticism that I have heard them direct at the feds is that our government has too little control and isn't left-wing enough to suit them. And as for Obama, I've heard nary a peep of protest aimed at him from the OWS people. That's particularly telling, because Barack Obama is more responsible for the disastrous shambles of our economy and the institution of socialism in every conceivable area of life than any other single individual.
2.) The Tea Party is protesting the federal government for the right reasons. Tea Partiers see the government as too big and unwieldy, too corrupt, with too much regulatory power over the economic market. Taxes are through the roof, and we're drowning in debt that will drag down our children and even our grandchildren, if we sit back and don't take action. The government provides too many handouts at taxpayer expense.
I don't think the Tea Party goes far enough in its criticism, as its leaders focus on the economy to the detriment of other equally important issues, such as immigration, the homosexual agenda, abortion, etc. But within the narrow scope of its protests, its members are right on the money.
They offer viable solutions, as well: hold accountable and remove from office corrupt government officials; loosen or eliminate regulatory controls; lower taxes; stop going deeper into debt and pay off the debts we've accumulated; stop confiscating monies from those who earned them, and giving them to those who consider channel surfing or getting knocked up for the nth time a hard day's work.
As for the Occupy Wall Street protesters, their beef with Wall Street primarily stems from their hatred of free enterprise. They see Wall Street as a bastion of free enterprise; they hate free enterprise; ergo, they hate Wall Street. Why? Because most of these protesters are socialists or communists or hippie types. They're ticked off because the government isn't even more massive than its present bloated, planetoid-sized carcass. They believe in more handouts, more bailouts -- when it comes to student loans -- and less soap.
What are their solutions to the problems we face? Ignore the rotten-to-the-core corruption of the highest official in our land; tighten and increase regulatory controls on the economic market; soak the rich by raising their taxes, though we already have a "progressive" tax system that has done just that (and when I say "Rich," I don't just mean crony corporatists; I mean everyone who makes above a certain dollar amount); go deeper into debt as a nation by handing out more taxpayer-funded goodies like a benevolent neighbor on Helloween; and redistribute wealth so that we all can live in Utopian mediocrity and poverty.
In terms of effectiveness at reaching its goals, neither movement is a humdinger. Both have myopia regarding the dual nature of our enemy. As I said earlier, both have understandable complaints and feelings of an ill wind blowing through the land. But when we look at the worldviews and political philosophies of the two movements, they couldn't be more different. One is for limited government, and one is for socialism, or its uglier cousin, communism.
Hope springs eternal in the human breast. If a hope is to be found in one of these political movements, however small, I think it is more likely to be found in the Tea Party, or a related offshoot. Either way, our faith in God and His Son and His Holy Spirit should come first. All else follows.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
An Improper Attribution
Atheists' Billboard Falsely Attributes Quote To Thomas Jefferson:
The sign, paid for by atheist group Backyard Skeptics, includes a quote about Christianity attributed to Thomas Jefferson. But further research reveals there's no solid evidence that Jefferson ever uttered or wrote the words, the Orange County Register first reported.
The billboard includes a picture of Jefferson with the quote: "I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature. It is founded on fables and mythology."
Bruce Gleason, a member of the group, told the Orange County Register that he should have done a bit more research before putting the words on the sign. The billboard was unveiled on Wednesday, the newspaper reports. Gleason explained that purpose of this sign and others around the city was to "expunge the myth that this is a Christian nation," as well as to "share the idea that you can be good and do good without a religion or god."
Typical irrational atheist sloppiness. Setting aside the fact that Jefferson never said the above words, the statement has other problems.
First, it contradicts or does not harmonize with comments or observations Jefferson is known to have made. For example, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237 (1782), Jefferson said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." These are not the musings of an atheist or an agnostic. In a letter to Benjamin Rush on 12 April, 1803, Jefferson said, To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other. Since Jesus is the central "feature" of Christianity, the idea that Jefferson found not one redeeming feature of Christianity is nonsense. He is not the ally that atheists believe him to be, and their usage of him in their quest for the eradication of Christianity and its influence smacks of desperation. Only the most ignorant or manipulable would fall prey to this quality of evidence. Apparently being a "Bright" means drawing as many of the unlearned and the gullible to The Cause as possible.
Second, it's an appeal to authority -- an authority who was one of the least Christian of all the Founding Fathers. His words or thoughts are not representative of the typical Founder's views. So even if Jefferson had indeed spoken those words, we would have no insight into the zeitgeist of early America. We'd have nothing more than his personal, aberrant opinion.
As for the atheist group responsible for the billboard: they must have an anemic case for their beliefs, if the best that they can do is to put spurious words into Thomas Jefferson's mouth.
I'll close with a question: Is attempting the destruction of someone's cherished beliefs with inept research and false information an example of being good or doing good without a religion or god?
The sign, paid for by atheist group Backyard Skeptics, includes a quote about Christianity attributed to Thomas Jefferson. But further research reveals there's no solid evidence that Jefferson ever uttered or wrote the words, the Orange County Register first reported.
The billboard includes a picture of Jefferson with the quote: "I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature. It is founded on fables and mythology."
Bruce Gleason, a member of the group, told the Orange County Register that he should have done a bit more research before putting the words on the sign. The billboard was unveiled on Wednesday, the newspaper reports. Gleason explained that purpose of this sign and others around the city was to "expunge the myth that this is a Christian nation," as well as to "share the idea that you can be good and do good without a religion or god."
Typical irrational atheist sloppiness. Setting aside the fact that Jefferson never said the above words, the statement has other problems.
First, it contradicts or does not harmonize with comments or observations Jefferson is known to have made. For example, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237 (1782), Jefferson said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." These are not the musings of an atheist or an agnostic. In a letter to Benjamin Rush on 12 April, 1803, Jefferson said, To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other. Since Jesus is the central "feature" of Christianity, the idea that Jefferson found not one redeeming feature of Christianity is nonsense. He is not the ally that atheists believe him to be, and their usage of him in their quest for the eradication of Christianity and its influence smacks of desperation. Only the most ignorant or manipulable would fall prey to this quality of evidence. Apparently being a "Bright" means drawing as many of the unlearned and the gullible to The Cause as possible.
Second, it's an appeal to authority -- an authority who was one of the least Christian of all the Founding Fathers. His words or thoughts are not representative of the typical Founder's views. So even if Jefferson had indeed spoken those words, we would have no insight into the zeitgeist of early America. We'd have nothing more than his personal, aberrant opinion.
As for the atheist group responsible for the billboard: they must have an anemic case for their beliefs, if the best that they can do is to put spurious words into Thomas Jefferson's mouth.
I'll close with a question: Is attempting the destruction of someone's cherished beliefs with inept research and false information an example of being good or doing good without a religion or god?
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
All Foam, No Beer
Here's video of the full speech given by Rick Perry in New Hampshire on October 28, 2011. The man comes across as intoxicated.
I see two possibilities: either he knows that his campaign has gone to hell in a bucket, and he's just enjoying the ride, or he has an intellect rivaled only by garden tools.
From his ardor for criminal aliens, to his inane ramblings during speeches, to his literally incoherent jabs at Mitt Romney during the Republican debates, "Blotto" Perry is about as statesmanlike as Jeff Dunham with dummy in tow. And in that particular relationship, he'd be playing the dummy.
I see two possibilities: either he knows that his campaign has gone to hell in a bucket, and he's just enjoying the ride, or he has an intellect rivaled only by garden tools.
From his ardor for criminal aliens, to his inane ramblings during speeches, to his literally incoherent jabs at Mitt Romney during the Republican debates, "Blotto" Perry is about as statesmanlike as Jeff Dunham with dummy in tow. And in that particular relationship, he'd be playing the dummy.
Friday, October 28, 2011
No Accounting for Taste
I saw NRO's list of the presidential candidates' favorite films, including Obama's: Casablanca, The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
The above doesn't sound right to me, so I've created a list that I think is more realistically representative of Obama's favoritest movies:
-A-
Action Jackson
Adam & Steve
The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
All About the Benjamins
Avatar
-B-
B.A.P.S.
Battlefield Earth
Beaches
Beavis and Butthead Do America
Becoming Barack
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls
The Birdcage
Bowling for Columbine
Boys N the Hood
Black Caesar
Black Devil Doll from Hell
Blackenstein
The Black Gestapo
The Black Godfather
The Black Hole
Black Knight
Black Like Me
Black Mama, White Mama
Black Shampoo
The Black Stallion
Blacula
Boogie Nights
Breakin'
Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo
Born on the Fourth of July
Boys Don't Cry
Brokeback Mountain
Brother from Another Planet
Bruno
Burlesque
By the People: The Election of Barack Obama
-C-
Che!
Chopper Chicks in Zombie Town
Cleopatra Jones
Coming to America
Crack House
The Crying Game
-D-
Dances with Wolves
The Day After Tomorrow
Deliverance
The Devil Wears Prada
Dirty Dancing
Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood
Dollman Vs. Demonic Toys
Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood
-E-
Eat, Pray, Love
The Emperor's New Groove
-F-
Fahrenheit 9/11
Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
Ferngully: The Last Rainforest
The First Wives Club
Foxy Brown
Frankenfish
Friday
The Full Monty
-G-
Gang Related
The Garbage Pail Kids Movie
Gigli
G.I. Jane
Godsend
-H-
Halloween III
Hamlet 2
The Happening
Happy Feet
He Got Game
House Party franchise
Howard the Duck
How Stella Got Her Groove Back
How to Be a Player
-I-
I Am Legend
I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka!
-J-
JFK
Juice
Jungle Fever
-K-
Killer Tomatoes Strike Back!
-L-
Lake Placid 3
The Last Temptation of Christ
Leprechaun: In the Hood
-M-
Malcolm X
Mandela
Mannequin 2
Mansquito
Mega Shark Vs. Crocosaurus
Menace II Society
Morons from Outer Space
My Own Private Idaho
-N-
New Jack City
Norma Rae
Night of the Lepus
-O-
Out of Africa
Old Skool Thugz
-P-
Panther
Pinnocchio
Pitch Black
Plan 9 from Outer Space
The Princess Diaries
-R-
Reds
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
-S-
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
The Scarlet Letter (Demi Moore Version)
Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed
Scream, Blacula, Scream
Senator Obama Goes to Africa
Sex and the City franchise
Shaft (1971)
Sharktopus
Showgirls
The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants
Snakes on a Plane
Something to Believe In
Soul Plane
Stalin
Steel Magnolias
Superfly
Surf Nazis Must Die
-T-
The Terror of Tiny Town
Thelma and Louise
They Call Me MISTER Tibbs!
Titanic 2
To Wong Fu, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar
Troll 2
The Twilight franchise
-W-
Waiting to Exhale
Wall Street
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
The Wiz
-#-
1984 (both versions)
27 Dresses
The above doesn't sound right to me, so I've created a list that I think is more realistically representative of Obama's favoritest movies:
-A-
Action Jackson
Adam & Steve
The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
All About the Benjamins
Avatar
-B-
B.A.P.S.
Battlefield Earth
Beaches
Beavis and Butthead Do America
Becoming Barack
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls
The Birdcage
Bowling for Columbine
Boys N the Hood
Black Caesar
Black Devil Doll from Hell
Blackenstein
The Black Gestapo
The Black Godfather
The Black Hole
Black Knight
Black Like Me
Black Mama, White Mama
Black Shampoo
The Black Stallion
Blacula
Boogie Nights
Breakin'
Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo
Born on the Fourth of July
Boys Don't Cry
Brokeback Mountain
Brother from Another Planet
Bruno
Burlesque
By the People: The Election of Barack Obama
-C-
Che!
Chopper Chicks in Zombie Town
Cleopatra Jones
Coming to America
Crack House
The Crying Game
-D-
Dances with Wolves
The Day After Tomorrow
Deliverance
The Devil Wears Prada
Dirty Dancing
Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood
Dollman Vs. Demonic Toys
Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood
-E-
Eat, Pray, Love
The Emperor's New Groove
-F-
Fahrenheit 9/11
Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
Ferngully: The Last Rainforest
The First Wives Club
Foxy Brown
Frankenfish
Friday
The Full Monty
-G-
Gang Related
The Garbage Pail Kids Movie
Gigli
G.I. Jane
Godsend
-H-
Halloween III
Hamlet 2
The Happening
Happy Feet
He Got Game
House Party franchise
Howard the Duck
How Stella Got Her Groove Back
How to Be a Player
-I-
I Am Legend
I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka!
-J-
JFK
Juice
Jungle Fever
-K-
Killer Tomatoes Strike Back!
-L-
Lake Placid 3
The Last Temptation of Christ
Leprechaun: In the Hood
-M-
Malcolm X
Mandela
Mannequin 2
Mansquito
Mega Shark Vs. Crocosaurus
Menace II Society
Morons from Outer Space
My Own Private Idaho
-N-
New Jack City
Norma Rae
Night of the Lepus
-O-
Out of Africa
Old Skool Thugz
-P-
Panther
Pinnocchio
Pitch Black
Plan 9 from Outer Space
The Princess Diaries
-R-
Reds
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
-S-
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
The Scarlet Letter (Demi Moore Version)
Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed
Scream, Blacula, Scream
Senator Obama Goes to Africa
Sex and the City franchise
Shaft (1971)
Sharktopus
Showgirls
The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants
Snakes on a Plane
Something to Believe In
Soul Plane
Stalin
Steel Magnolias
Superfly
Surf Nazis Must Die
-T-
The Terror of Tiny Town
Thelma and Louise
They Call Me MISTER Tibbs!
Titanic 2
To Wong Fu, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar
Troll 2
The Twilight franchise
-W-
Waiting to Exhale
Wall Street
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
The Wiz
-#-
1984 (both versions)
27 Dresses
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
First Do No Harm Part II
Part I
Third, here are some interesting quotes found here:
It is only in extremely rare cases that abortion can even be mentioned as a potential means of saving the mother's life. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, stated in a 1996 New York Times editorial that because of the advances in modern medicine, "partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother" (1). Sixteen years earlier, he wrote: "In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother's life." Even Planned Parenthood's Dr. Alan Guttmacher acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”
The same article makes this interesting observation about ectopic pregnancies:
. . . if ectopic pregnancy is left untreated, the likelihood that the mother will die lies somewhere between .05%-.119%.
An untreated ectopic pregnancy would constitute a worst-case scenario.
Fourth, here is a brief excerpt from a letter to the editor of a newspaper, written by a neonatologist:
In fact, Ireland — a country where the unborn child is constitutionally protected — has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. More than a decade ago, a group of Ireland’s top obstetricians concluded that “there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child.”
To sum up: ectopic pregnancies are a concern, but they usually resolve themselves without medical intervention. Even dealing exclusively with untreated cases, a hair over one-tenth of one percent of women -- at most -- die of this complication. Once one factors in access to proper medical care, the number drops, becoming effectively nonexistent.
Third, here are some interesting quotes found here:
It is only in extremely rare cases that abortion can even be mentioned as a potential means of saving the mother's life. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, stated in a 1996 New York Times editorial that because of the advances in modern medicine, "partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother" (1). Sixteen years earlier, he wrote: "In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother's life." Even Planned Parenthood's Dr. Alan Guttmacher acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”
The same article makes this interesting observation about ectopic pregnancies:
. . . if ectopic pregnancy is left untreated, the likelihood that the mother will die lies somewhere between .05%-.119%.
An untreated ectopic pregnancy would constitute a worst-case scenario.
Fourth, here is a brief excerpt from a letter to the editor of a newspaper, written by a neonatologist:
In fact, Ireland — a country where the unborn child is constitutionally protected — has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. More than a decade ago, a group of Ireland’s top obstetricians concluded that “there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child.”
To sum up: ectopic pregnancies are a concern, but they usually resolve themselves without medical intervention. Even dealing exclusively with untreated cases, a hair over one-tenth of one percent of women -- at most -- die of this complication. Once one factors in access to proper medical care, the number drops, becoming effectively nonexistent.
First Do No Harm
A commenter has questions about a claim I made in this post:
You siad, "Numerous physicians have attested that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother."
I've never heard this before. I'd love it to be true, though I'll remain anti-abortion regardless. Can you point me towards a source? What about ectopic pregnancies? Aren't they life-threatening to the mother?
A fair inquiry, and one I'll do my best to answer.
First, a declaration that an abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother, signed by 481 medical doctors.
Second, a selection from the Association of Pro-Life Physicians' official position statement:
When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.
Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.
Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease.
The abortion exception for the life of the mother is the exception that most commonly seduces the sincere pro-lifer. The scenario in which this exception is most frequently packaged is an ectopic pregnancy, which is when the embryo attaches somewhere inside the mother’s body in a place other than the inner lining of the uterus. It is argued that in an ectopic pregnancy, an abortion must be performed in order to save the mother’s life.
What is rarely realized is that there are several cases in the medical literature where abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived! There are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving, but several large studies have confirmed that time and patience will allow for spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy the vast majority of the time. So chemical or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not always necessary to save the mother’s life after all.
However, if through careful follow-up it is determined that the ectopic pregnancy does not spontaneously resolve and the mother’s symptoms worsen, surgery may become necessary to save the mother’s life. The procedure to remove the ectopic pregnancy may not kill the unborn child at all, because the unborn child has likely already deceased by the time surgery becomes necessary. But even if not, the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life, and the death of the unborn baby is unavoidable and unintentional.
A chemical abortion with a medicine called methotrexate is often recommended by physicians to patients with early tubal ectopic pregnancies, when the baby may still be alive, to decrease the chances of a surgical alternative being necessary later, but we have found this to be an unnecessary risk to human life. We offer the following true case to demonstrate this point.
One patient was diagnosed with a tubal ectopic pregnancy by her obstetrician, and he informed her that they were fortunate to have made the diagnosis early and that she should have a methotrexate abortion. The patient was pro-life, and did not want to take the medicine, but the physician insisted. The baby was not going to survive, he argued, and a chemical abortion now could prevent the need for a surgical procedure later. The chemical abortion would lessen her chances of a rupture of her fallopian tube and subsequent life-threatening hemorrhage. The chemical abortion was also better at preserving future fertility than surgical removal of the ectopic pregnancy later. Feeling like she had no other reasonable alternative, she took the methotrexate.
However, there was a complication. Two weeks later, she still had vaginal bleeding and pelvic discomfort. A repeat ultrasound confirmed the physician’s worst fears: his patient was pregnant with twins – one in the fallopian tube, and one in the uterus! He missed the uterine pregnancy in his ultrasound examination, and that baby was dying from his prescription.
Holding off surgery and watchful waiting in this case might have resulted in spontaneous resolution of the tubal pregnancy or would have required surgical removal of the tubal pregnancy when the embryo was likely to be dead, but in both cases the uterine pregnancy would probably have survived. Unfortunately, the chemical abortion killed both babies, much to the dismay of this young pro-life woman.
It is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after watchful waiting and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins. At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and, even if not, the death is unavoidable and unintentional, and the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.
In conclusion, there are no occasions in which the intentional killing of the pre-born child is justified. Scientific fact and divine law are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.
(To be continued)
You siad, "Numerous physicians have attested that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother."
I've never heard this before. I'd love it to be true, though I'll remain anti-abortion regardless. Can you point me towards a source? What about ectopic pregnancies? Aren't they life-threatening to the mother?
A fair inquiry, and one I'll do my best to answer.
First, a declaration that an abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother, signed by 481 medical doctors.
Second, a selection from the Association of Pro-Life Physicians' official position statement:
When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.
Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.
Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease.
The abortion exception for the life of the mother is the exception that most commonly seduces the sincere pro-lifer. The scenario in which this exception is most frequently packaged is an ectopic pregnancy, which is when the embryo attaches somewhere inside the mother’s body in a place other than the inner lining of the uterus. It is argued that in an ectopic pregnancy, an abortion must be performed in order to save the mother’s life.
What is rarely realized is that there are several cases in the medical literature where abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived! There are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving, but several large studies have confirmed that time and patience will allow for spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy the vast majority of the time. So chemical or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not always necessary to save the mother’s life after all.
However, if through careful follow-up it is determined that the ectopic pregnancy does not spontaneously resolve and the mother’s symptoms worsen, surgery may become necessary to save the mother’s life. The procedure to remove the ectopic pregnancy may not kill the unborn child at all, because the unborn child has likely already deceased by the time surgery becomes necessary. But even if not, the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life, and the death of the unborn baby is unavoidable and unintentional.
A chemical abortion with a medicine called methotrexate is often recommended by physicians to patients with early tubal ectopic pregnancies, when the baby may still be alive, to decrease the chances of a surgical alternative being necessary later, but we have found this to be an unnecessary risk to human life. We offer the following true case to demonstrate this point.
One patient was diagnosed with a tubal ectopic pregnancy by her obstetrician, and he informed her that they were fortunate to have made the diagnosis early and that she should have a methotrexate abortion. The patient was pro-life, and did not want to take the medicine, but the physician insisted. The baby was not going to survive, he argued, and a chemical abortion now could prevent the need for a surgical procedure later. The chemical abortion would lessen her chances of a rupture of her fallopian tube and subsequent life-threatening hemorrhage. The chemical abortion was also better at preserving future fertility than surgical removal of the ectopic pregnancy later. Feeling like she had no other reasonable alternative, she took the methotrexate.
However, there was a complication. Two weeks later, she still had vaginal bleeding and pelvic discomfort. A repeat ultrasound confirmed the physician’s worst fears: his patient was pregnant with twins – one in the fallopian tube, and one in the uterus! He missed the uterine pregnancy in his ultrasound examination, and that baby was dying from his prescription.
Holding off surgery and watchful waiting in this case might have resulted in spontaneous resolution of the tubal pregnancy or would have required surgical removal of the tubal pregnancy when the embryo was likely to be dead, but in both cases the uterine pregnancy would probably have survived. Unfortunately, the chemical abortion killed both babies, much to the dismay of this young pro-life woman.
It is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after watchful waiting and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins. At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and, even if not, the death is unavoidable and unintentional, and the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.
In conclusion, there are no occasions in which the intentional killing of the pre-born child is justified. Scientific fact and divine law are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.
(To be continued)
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Abortion and Pelosi
The House approved legislation, the Protect Life Act, to stop abortion funding in Obamacare. Senate Democrats are not expected to approve the bill and, pro-abortion President Barack Obama is expected to veto the measure if it reaches his desk.
This is a step in the right direction, but that's all it is -- a step. With Democratic control of the Senate, and a "president" who would never saddle a woman with something as icky and soul-destroying as a newborn baby, this legislation is a long shot. However, the Republicans can do only the possible, not the impossible.
In reaction to the above news, Nancy Pelosi came out in Perpetual Liar mode and shared her hysteria with the country:
“For a moment, I want to get back to what was asked about the issue on the floor today that Mr. Hoyer address,” Pelosi said. “He made a point and I want to emphasize it. Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”
The term "wicked witch" is far too kind a descriptor for Pelosi. Think about her repugnant, deceitful statement for a moment: her position is that A.) taxpayers should fund the murders of unborn human infants; and B.) anyone who opposes taxpayers footing the bill for such atrocities wants to see women die. Can you imagine a more perverse, immoral accusation?
As far as women "dying on the floor" goes, it's a myth. Numerous physicians have attested that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. Regardless, the claim is a smokescreen; rougly 99% of abortions are elective. The other 1% encompass rape, incest, and the mother's "health" -- dubious justifications all.
People like Nancy Pelosi can't be taught. They can't be reasoned with or persuaded. They only can be defeated. She will stand before her Maker some day and account for her wanton promotion of the physcal destruction of children made in His image -- whether she likes it or not, whether she believes in Him or not.
On that day, I would not want to be in her shoes.
This is a step in the right direction, but that's all it is -- a step. With Democratic control of the Senate, and a "president" who would never saddle a woman with something as icky and soul-destroying as a newborn baby, this legislation is a long shot. However, the Republicans can do only the possible, not the impossible.
In reaction to the above news, Nancy Pelosi came out in Perpetual Liar mode and shared her hysteria with the country:
“For a moment, I want to get back to what was asked about the issue on the floor today that Mr. Hoyer address,” Pelosi said. “He made a point and I want to emphasize it. Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”
The term "wicked witch" is far too kind a descriptor for Pelosi. Think about her repugnant, deceitful statement for a moment: her position is that A.) taxpayers should fund the murders of unborn human infants; and B.) anyone who opposes taxpayers footing the bill for such atrocities wants to see women die. Can you imagine a more perverse, immoral accusation?
As far as women "dying on the floor" goes, it's a myth. Numerous physicians have attested that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. Regardless, the claim is a smokescreen; rougly 99% of abortions are elective. The other 1% encompass rape, incest, and the mother's "health" -- dubious justifications all.
People like Nancy Pelosi can't be taught. They can't be reasoned with or persuaded. They only can be defeated. She will stand before her Maker some day and account for her wanton promotion of the physcal destruction of children made in His image -- whether she likes it or not, whether she believes in Him or not.
On that day, I would not want to be in her shoes.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Columbus Day
In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He cruised out from obscurity
Right on into infamy.
He sailed for pillage and for vice.
He picked his nose and scratched his lice.
And when he saw an island fair,
He said: "Curse this mal de mer!
Let's drop anchor over there,
So I can snatch an Injun's hair!"
He added, "It's my solemn duty
To get some native island booty."
So he rowed in, lickety split,
To kill just for the fun of it.
He maimed and tortured, burned and slew,
Stole some 'backer for to chew.
He gifted all the noble reds
With burlap blankets for their beds;
And with intentions none too vague,
He gave them all Bubonic plague.
Now with his purpose all but done,
He floated in a gatling gun.
"Time for missionary work!"
He cried, and watched 'em twitch and jerk.
He cranked it till it ceased to fire,
Then sang a hymn and led the choir.
And as the smoke rose up he said,
"I'm glad those savages are dead.
We found no passage to the East,
But all these buggars are deceased."
And with a laugh, he sailed away.
That's why we have Columbus Day.
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He cruised out from obscurity
Right on into infamy.
He sailed for pillage and for vice.
He picked his nose and scratched his lice.
And when he saw an island fair,
He said: "Curse this mal de mer!
Let's drop anchor over there,
So I can snatch an Injun's hair!"
He added, "It's my solemn duty
To get some native island booty."
So he rowed in, lickety split,
To kill just for the fun of it.
He maimed and tortured, burned and slew,
Stole some 'backer for to chew.
He gifted all the noble reds
With burlap blankets for their beds;
And with intentions none too vague,
He gave them all Bubonic plague.
Now with his purpose all but done,
He floated in a gatling gun.
"Time for missionary work!"
He cried, and watched 'em twitch and jerk.
He cranked it till it ceased to fire,
Then sang a hymn and led the choir.
And as the smoke rose up he said,
"I'm glad those savages are dead.
We found no passage to the East,
But all these buggars are deceased."
And with a laugh, he sailed away.
That's why we have Columbus Day.
Friday, October 7, 2011
I Just had an Idea . . .
. . . for a new T-shirt. The front will say, in bold Spanish:
If you can read this, thank a wetback.
I mean, we'd might as well have a little fun with our demographic suicide, right?
If you can read this, thank a wetback.
I mean, we'd might as well have a little fun with our demographic suicide, right?
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Anwar al-Awlaki: Did the U.S. Government Murder an American Citizen?
Well, not unless you believe that anchor babies are U.S. citizens, which entails embracing the modern "living Constitution" brand of jurisprudence. The concept of birthright citizenship -- i.e., that anyone born on U.S. soil is an American citizen, even if his father was Osama bin Laden, and his mother is Lilith -- comes primarily from a distortion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Before I continue, let's look at the relevant portion of the Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Anwar al-Awlaki's parents were Yemenis who attended school in the U.S., spawned a squalling representative of the natal Jihad, and later returned to Yemen when Pride-of-the-Red-White-and-Blue was seven years old. He returned to the U.S. at age eighteen, reentering on a foreign student visa and attending school at Colorado State University. The Yemeni government paid his college bills through scholarship funds. During his university years, al-Awlaki went to Afghanistan and trained with the mujahideen. I'm sure there's a Will Rogers anecdote in there, somewhere.
Unless you want to argue that Yemeni nationals and their offspring are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to non-citizens, then dubbing al-Awlaki a U.S. citizen is a non-starter. The Fourteenth Amendment applied to black Americans and the protection of their rights as freed slaves. The whole purpose of the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was to recognize a distinction between citizens and aliens, not to make aliens born to aliens automatic citizens. Original intent matters, contrary to the opinions of those who think the Constitution makes an excellent litterbox liner.
If one insists that al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, consistency requires that one also accept a woman's right to murder her unborn child, as per the right that materialized before the astonished eyes of the Burger Court, after spending over two hundred years shyly cloistering itself in the penumbras and emanations of the flatulations of the aberrations of that limbic region known as the Twilight Zone. Imagine the surprise of the Bill of Rights' authors as they turned over in their graves in consternation, having scribbled down abortion rights in unwitting quillmanship code for the delight of a later, more enlightened age.
And now, the patriarchy withers and dies, as women sing: "I can kill my infant, this I know, for the baby killers tell me so."
Shall we add a second verse? "Dropped my brat in the Dar al-Harb, cloaked in red, white, and blue garb."
Amen.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Anwar al-Awlaki's parents were Yemenis who attended school in the U.S., spawned a squalling representative of the natal Jihad, and later returned to Yemen when Pride-of-the-Red-White-and-Blue was seven years old. He returned to the U.S. at age eighteen, reentering on a foreign student visa and attending school at Colorado State University. The Yemeni government paid his college bills through scholarship funds. During his university years, al-Awlaki went to Afghanistan and trained with the mujahideen. I'm sure there's a Will Rogers anecdote in there, somewhere.
Unless you want to argue that Yemeni nationals and their offspring are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to non-citizens, then dubbing al-Awlaki a U.S. citizen is a non-starter. The Fourteenth Amendment applied to black Americans and the protection of their rights as freed slaves. The whole purpose of the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was to recognize a distinction between citizens and aliens, not to make aliens born to aliens automatic citizens. Original intent matters, contrary to the opinions of those who think the Constitution makes an excellent litterbox liner.
If one insists that al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, consistency requires that one also accept a woman's right to murder her unborn child, as per the right that materialized before the astonished eyes of the Burger Court, after spending over two hundred years shyly cloistering itself in the penumbras and emanations of the flatulations of the aberrations of that limbic region known as the Twilight Zone. Imagine the surprise of the Bill of Rights' authors as they turned over in their graves in consternation, having scribbled down abortion rights in unwitting quillmanship code for the delight of a later, more enlightened age.
And now, the patriarchy withers and dies, as women sing: "I can kill my infant, this I know, for the baby killers tell me so."
Shall we add a second verse? "Dropped my brat in the Dar al-Harb, cloaked in red, white, and blue garb."
Amen.
Monday, September 26, 2011
"The Tea Party Is Homophobic and Racist."
Hollywood actor Alan Cumming said that the Tea Party is “full of such hatred in terms of politics,” in a recent interview. He went on to contradict himself somewhat before getting his train of lies back on track, by admitting that the Tea Party has “some quite sensible notions,” but “that kind of seems to be an umbrella thing that just covers up a lot of real homophobia and racism.”
Regarding same-sex "marriage," he observed: “I just think the Tea Party is out of touch with America, actually. That’s the sad thing for them to have to come to terms with.”
In March, he informed the world that, “I wanted to become a U.S. citizen so that I could vote for Obama.”
Let's all take in the above for a moment. Now give this British, leftist, bisexual dual-citizen's words the shrift that they deserve. The guy's a poster-child for why Congress should flush the idea of dual citizenship.
I love the rank hubris of celebrities like Cumming. "I'm rich and famous; therefore, people should invite me on T.V. shows and let me pontificate to the unwashed masses about how they should live and what they should think. After all, name recognition and a sizeable bank account translates to expertise on political and cultural matters."
As for the Tea Party being "out of touch with America" on the issue of same-sex "marriage," perhaps Cumming would care to explain how his opinion harmonizes with the verifiable fact that forty-one states prohibit homosexual "marriage?" Or why the federal government gives no official recognition to same-sex "marriage?" Or why the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed with overwhelming support in the House and Senate in 1996? Or why "The legalization of same-sex marriage has been driven by court rulings and legislative action, rather than voter referendums"? Or why twenty-eight out of twenty-eight state voter referendums approved legislation defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman?
Don't hold your breath waiting for the likes of Cumming to answer any of these questions. You'll be able to sit under a palm tree and soak up the sun while sipping pina coladas at McMurdo Sound before that happens. Being famous means saying or doing whatever you desire, with little or no accountability. It means never having to answer the tough questions, or demonstrate that you have even an inkling of an idea what's going on outside your precious noggin. It means constantly pronouncing, while saying nothing.
I'm typing this in my new flat in the U.K., with citizenship papers running the bureaucratic gauntlet.
Why?
Because I reely want to vote for David Cameron.
Regarding same-sex "marriage," he observed: “I just think the Tea Party is out of touch with America, actually. That’s the sad thing for them to have to come to terms with.”
In March, he informed the world that, “I wanted to become a U.S. citizen so that I could vote for Obama.”
Let's all take in the above for a moment. Now give this British, leftist, bisexual dual-citizen's words the shrift that they deserve. The guy's a poster-child for why Congress should flush the idea of dual citizenship.
I love the rank hubris of celebrities like Cumming. "I'm rich and famous; therefore, people should invite me on T.V. shows and let me pontificate to the unwashed masses about how they should live and what they should think. After all, name recognition and a sizeable bank account translates to expertise on political and cultural matters."
As for the Tea Party being "out of touch with America" on the issue of same-sex "marriage," perhaps Cumming would care to explain how his opinion harmonizes with the verifiable fact that forty-one states prohibit homosexual "marriage?" Or why the federal government gives no official recognition to same-sex "marriage?" Or why the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed with overwhelming support in the House and Senate in 1996? Or why "The legalization of same-sex marriage has been driven by court rulings and legislative action, rather than voter referendums"? Or why twenty-eight out of twenty-eight state voter referendums approved legislation defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman?
Don't hold your breath waiting for the likes of Cumming to answer any of these questions. You'll be able to sit under a palm tree and soak up the sun while sipping pina coladas at McMurdo Sound before that happens. Being famous means saying or doing whatever you desire, with little or no accountability. It means never having to answer the tough questions, or demonstrate that you have even an inkling of an idea what's going on outside your precious noggin. It means constantly pronouncing, while saying nothing.
I'm typing this in my new flat in the U.K., with citizenship papers running the bureaucratic gauntlet.
Why?
Because I reely want to vote for David Cameron.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Ending the Threats of Islamic Terrorism and Influence in the U.S.
I had intended a post on Monday, in which I would offer a solution to Islamic influence and terrorism in America. After a little searching through the archives, I realized that I already had posted on that very subject in quite some detail. So here, from September 2010, is my answer to the question, "How do we stop Islam from spreading throughout the United States?"
The fleshed-out version: Defeating Islamic Terrorism and Expansionism in America
Here's the short version:
1. Acknowledge, as a society, that Islam is not now -- nor has it ever been -- a peaceful religion, from the time of its founding 1,400 years ago, to this day. Admit that Islam is not just a religion, but a political ideology, and that the two stand intertwined, with no chance of unraveling. Accept that Islam poses an existential threat to Western Civilization -- a threat that, left unchecked, promises the destruction of our way of life.
2. Close and secure our borders.
3. End Islamic immigration to the United States, whether from Muslim or non-Muslim countries.
4. End the building of mosques on U.S. soil.
5. Send all non-citizen Muslims home.
6. Revoke citizenship from and deport all Muslims with known ties to terrorism, jihad, and/or the non-republican institution of sharia.
7. Dissolve and outlaw all organizations that share the ideals of Islamic supremacy.
8. Close all mosques that espouse the aforementioned principles.
9. Provide incentives -- up to and including a possible one-time cash payment -- for naturalized Muslim citizens to return to their nations of origin.
The question is not, "Does this problem have a solution?" The question is, "Do we have the grit and the will to solve it?"
The fleshed-out version: Defeating Islamic Terrorism and Expansionism in America
Here's the short version:
1. Acknowledge, as a society, that Islam is not now -- nor has it ever been -- a peaceful religion, from the time of its founding 1,400 years ago, to this day. Admit that Islam is not just a religion, but a political ideology, and that the two stand intertwined, with no chance of unraveling. Accept that Islam poses an existential threat to Western Civilization -- a threat that, left unchecked, promises the destruction of our way of life.
2. Close and secure our borders.
3. End Islamic immigration to the United States, whether from Muslim or non-Muslim countries.
4. End the building of mosques on U.S. soil.
5. Send all non-citizen Muslims home.
6. Revoke citizenship from and deport all Muslims with known ties to terrorism, jihad, and/or the non-republican institution of sharia.
7. Dissolve and outlaw all organizations that share the ideals of Islamic supremacy.
8. Close all mosques that espouse the aforementioned principles.
9. Provide incentives -- up to and including a possible one-time cash payment -- for naturalized Muslim citizens to return to their nations of origin.
The question is not, "Does this problem have a solution?" The question is, "Do we have the grit and the will to solve it?"
Sunday, September 11, 2011
The Legacy of September 11, 2001
Begin with a man in slacks and a button-up shirt with a collar plummeting through the air -- a man who began his day in an office at a desk, and ended his day and his span on Earth hurtling toward the ground in a ten-second fall at one hundred twenty-five miles per hour. Seek out the photographs online. Look at those still shots of terror taken moments before death swooped in and took its victims away. Yes, viewing such grim reminders is a painful, depressing task, but a necessary one for understanding what September 11, 2001 meant. For approximately three thousand people, that day meant death -- and not a quiet, dignified passing at a ripe old age, in a bed surrounded by family and loved ones; but a noisy, confusing cut-off filled with dread, overshadowed by a backdrop of fire and smoke and raining debris. A proper perspective on the tenth anniversary of the September 11 atrocities begins and ends with a human being plunging into eternity.
Paeans to multiculturalism and platitudes about strength through diversity cannot erase this indelible image. No matter what those who rule over us say -- I dare not suggest that they govern -- multiculturalism and diversity were the unreasoning juggernauts that brought the victims low.
It saddens me to say that we are no better off today, ten years later, then we were on that day in September when Musim jihadists struck in Pennsylvania, at the Pentagon, and brought the World Trade Center towers crumbling into rubble. Indeed, the situation is worse than ever.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, it is said that Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said, in effect, that "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." Subsequent events proved him correct. The American people retaliated, declaring war on Japan and defeating the nation in a long, bitter conflict.
Fast-forward to 2001. The evil acts committed in New York City and elsewhere roused the "Sleeping Giant" once again; but this time, the giant's handlers steered its ire in the wrong direction, and dissipated its resolve in fruitless democracy-building projects and assaults on people who had nothing to do with the attacks, while leaving our worst enemies in peace. All the while, people in positions of power assured America's citizenry that the problem was not Islam or Muslims or jihad, but rather "extremism," "terrorism," and the "hijacking" of religion for nefarious purposes. Islam was a religion of peace and goodness and light, and its followers were not that different from Americans. And so after going on an unfocused tear like a drunken sailor on shore leave, the giant settled back down into placidity and sleep.
Today, the "Sleeping Giant" is in a coma. It is an artificially induced coma, brought about by people with motivations as lofty and honorable as those of the man who drags a young woman off the street and chloroforms her into oblivion in the backseat of his car. It is a state of lassitude born in the honied lullabyes of a liar.
Since 2001, the powers-that-be have subjected the U.S. to a daily regimen of pablum regarding the identity of our enemy. We're in a "War on Terror," as if a tactic is an enemy. Listening to the mouthings of liberals and neo-cons like Obama and Bush and their cronies, one would think that the terrorists have no ideology, no over-arching philosophical worldview. They just exercise terror and mayhem for the sheer joy that terror and mayhem bring. They believe nothing. Religion is a tool in their hands, used cynically in the art of destruction. It means nothing to them on a metaphysical level.
Here is a partial post-September 11 list of policies, statements, and positions taken or made by our "leaders":
-- George W. Bush promoted unfettered immigration from the Third World, upping the ante in his second term by supporting amnesty, while lying about his intentions. He did not support true immigration reform, which would entail changes for the better to our chaotic system. He also refused to construct and complete a border security fence of any lasting significance.
-- The Bush Administration launched a war against Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the atrocities on September 11, 2001. The administration also invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. After initial victories, Bush initiated democracy projects in both countries, losing far more soldiers in these endeavors than in the earlier fighting. Ten years after the attacks, American troops remain stationed in both nations, in deteriorating conditions. The Iraqi Christian community is under seige, and our Afghani "allies" regularly betray U.S. soldiers and even murder them. Both countries have sharia-based Constitutions.
-- Bush and Obama spent years telling the American people that Pakistan was an ally in the "War on Terror." When the U.S. discovered Osama bin Laden's location, he was living in a compound in the middle of a major city in Pakistan, just down the street from the Pakistan Military Academy, Pakistan's version of Westpoint.
-- In a speech in Cairo, Obama made the statement that "I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
-- Our military -- the finest in the world -- has become infested with welfare cases, thugs, and foreigners.
-- Obama went on record in 2007, saying that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." That same year, Obama recited from memory a portion of the Muslim call to prayer and profession of faith in perfect Arabic in an interview with Nicholas Kristof. Here are the words:
Allah is Most Great. Allah is Most Great.
Allah is Most Great. Allah is Most Great.
I bear witness that there is none worthy of being worshipped except Allah.
I bear witness that there is none worthy of being worshipped except Allah.
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah.
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah.
Come to prayer. Come to prayer.
Come to Success. Come to Success.
Allah is Most Great. Allah is Most Great.
There is none worthy of being worshipped except Allah.
The Islamic call to prayer sounds just like something a Christian would recite in an interview, doesn't it?
-- The U.S. government continues allowing Muslim immigrants into our land and even rewards them with citizenship. The number of Muslim immigrants to the U.S. increased after 2001.
-- The Bush and Obama administrations have enacted security measures that make Americans less free than they were before 2001, such as warrantless wiretapping, and intrusive TSA procedures in airports. The federal government's practical policy is that no indignity or inconvenience endured by American citizens is too great, if such intrusions succeed in protecting Muslims from "discrimination" -- i.e., minimal observance and recognition of their threat potential.
-- Muslims continue building mosques across the U.S., backed by virulent Saudi Wahabbism and funding. These mosques serve as bastions of the Dar-al-Islam in the midst of the Dar-al-Harb (Islamic outposts in a sea of infidels). Evangelical Muslims preach hate from their sanctuaries, spreading Islam within the U.S. -- even in the Bible-belt.
-- Cordoba House, an Islamic development group named after a Muslim victory over the Spaniards, plans to construct a lavish mosque at ground-zero in New York City -- with the blessings of the mayor, most of the mainstream media, and the president.
-- Muslims continue serving as prison chaplains, despite using their positions as proselytization platforms for fundamentalist Islam.
-- Muslims continue as members of our military, despite strong evidence that their religious beliefs pose conflicts of interest.
-- A Muslim soldier murdered fourteen people at Ft. Hood, Texas, and wounded thirty-one. He shouted "Allahu Akbar!" just before opening fire. In the aftermath, Chief of Staff of the United States Army George W. Casey, Jr had this bit of enlightenment for America: "I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers ... Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse."
-- Between 2002 and 2010, Muslims or Muslim sympathizers committed twenty-five other small-scale acts of terrorism or honor killings in the U.S.
-- Muslims in America demand the installation of footbaths for ritual washing in airports, demand that butchers and restaurants prepare food according to Islamic dictates, and call for the institution of sharia. Prior to 2001, such clamoring happened at a much lower level, if at all.
-- The mainstream media has embraced Islamic agitation groups with ties to terrorism and happily indulges their self-mischaracterizations as groups that want peace and interreligious harmony. An example of this media whitewashing is the front-group, CAIR.
-- The U.S. military burns Holy Bibles sent by Americans to Afghanistan, while teaching soldiers to revere the Koran.
-- The mainstream media and most politicians refuse to admit that Islam is a warlike religion chiefly spread by the sword, that this state of being has existed for 1,400 years, and that the violence endemic to the religion may be found in its founder's actions and Islam's "holiest" writings. They also ignore the important fact that one of Islam's tenets, taqiyyah, is a concept that endorses Muslims lying to non-Muslims, if the purpose of their lies is the enlargement of Islam. Deception is a built-in facet of Islam.
I'll stop right there. I easily could write three or four lengthy posts, perhaps even a book, listing the asinine attitudes, utterances, and policies of our leadership post-2001. My readers may feel free to add to this list in the comments section, if they wish.
In summation, I do not believe that we're better off, now. I do not believe that we're more secure, or stronger. It pains me to say that the three thousand people murdered on September 11, 2001 died in vain. And every American who has died a Muslim-related death since then also has died in vain. We did not take this lemon of a scenario and make lemonade. We did not erect a golden monument to liberty out of the ashes of 2001. We did not find lasting unity, greater resolve, or more clarity of purpose in the wake of those deaths. And an unsung victim of that woeful day was the Truth -- only the jihadists did not slam jets into the Truth. They did not kill it or tuck it away, because the presidential administrations and the Congress and media did that for them. They have spent every single day doing it for them, renewing the lies and distortions and wishful thinking. The Truth fell under friendly fire, as it were.
The one bright spot in all this darkness is that the problem has a solution. It's a hard fix, but a real remedy, nevertheless. Later today or tomorrow, I'll post on how I think we can pull ourselves back from the brink.
Paeans to multiculturalism and platitudes about strength through diversity cannot erase this indelible image. No matter what those who rule over us say -- I dare not suggest that they govern -- multiculturalism and diversity were the unreasoning juggernauts that brought the victims low.
It saddens me to say that we are no better off today, ten years later, then we were on that day in September when Musim jihadists struck in Pennsylvania, at the Pentagon, and brought the World Trade Center towers crumbling into rubble. Indeed, the situation is worse than ever.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, it is said that Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said, in effect, that "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." Subsequent events proved him correct. The American people retaliated, declaring war on Japan and defeating the nation in a long, bitter conflict.
Fast-forward to 2001. The evil acts committed in New York City and elsewhere roused the "Sleeping Giant" once again; but this time, the giant's handlers steered its ire in the wrong direction, and dissipated its resolve in fruitless democracy-building projects and assaults on people who had nothing to do with the attacks, while leaving our worst enemies in peace. All the while, people in positions of power assured America's citizenry that the problem was not Islam or Muslims or jihad, but rather "extremism," "terrorism," and the "hijacking" of religion for nefarious purposes. Islam was a religion of peace and goodness and light, and its followers were not that different from Americans. And so after going on an unfocused tear like a drunken sailor on shore leave, the giant settled back down into placidity and sleep.
Today, the "Sleeping Giant" is in a coma. It is an artificially induced coma, brought about by people with motivations as lofty and honorable as those of the man who drags a young woman off the street and chloroforms her into oblivion in the backseat of his car. It is a state of lassitude born in the honied lullabyes of a liar.
Since 2001, the powers-that-be have subjected the U.S. to a daily regimen of pablum regarding the identity of our enemy. We're in a "War on Terror," as if a tactic is an enemy. Listening to the mouthings of liberals and neo-cons like Obama and Bush and their cronies, one would think that the terrorists have no ideology, no over-arching philosophical worldview. They just exercise terror and mayhem for the sheer joy that terror and mayhem bring. They believe nothing. Religion is a tool in their hands, used cynically in the art of destruction. It means nothing to them on a metaphysical level.
Here is a partial post-September 11 list of policies, statements, and positions taken or made by our "leaders":
-- George W. Bush promoted unfettered immigration from the Third World, upping the ante in his second term by supporting amnesty, while lying about his intentions. He did not support true immigration reform, which would entail changes for the better to our chaotic system. He also refused to construct and complete a border security fence of any lasting significance.
-- The Bush Administration launched a war against Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the atrocities on September 11, 2001. The administration also invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. After initial victories, Bush initiated democracy projects in both countries, losing far more soldiers in these endeavors than in the earlier fighting. Ten years after the attacks, American troops remain stationed in both nations, in deteriorating conditions. The Iraqi Christian community is under seige, and our Afghani "allies" regularly betray U.S. soldiers and even murder them. Both countries have sharia-based Constitutions.
-- Bush and Obama spent years telling the American people that Pakistan was an ally in the "War on Terror." When the U.S. discovered Osama bin Laden's location, he was living in a compound in the middle of a major city in Pakistan, just down the street from the Pakistan Military Academy, Pakistan's version of Westpoint.
-- In a speech in Cairo, Obama made the statement that "I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
-- Our military -- the finest in the world -- has become infested with welfare cases, thugs, and foreigners.
-- Obama went on record in 2007, saying that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." That same year, Obama recited from memory a portion of the Muslim call to prayer and profession of faith in perfect Arabic in an interview with Nicholas Kristof. Here are the words:
Allah is Most Great. Allah is Most Great.
Allah is Most Great. Allah is Most Great.
I bear witness that there is none worthy of being worshipped except Allah.
I bear witness that there is none worthy of being worshipped except Allah.
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah.
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah.
Come to prayer. Come to prayer.
Come to Success. Come to Success.
Allah is Most Great. Allah is Most Great.
There is none worthy of being worshipped except Allah.
The Islamic call to prayer sounds just like something a Christian would recite in an interview, doesn't it?
-- The U.S. government continues allowing Muslim immigrants into our land and even rewards them with citizenship. The number of Muslim immigrants to the U.S. increased after 2001.
-- The Bush and Obama administrations have enacted security measures that make Americans less free than they were before 2001, such as warrantless wiretapping, and intrusive TSA procedures in airports. The federal government's practical policy is that no indignity or inconvenience endured by American citizens is too great, if such intrusions succeed in protecting Muslims from "discrimination" -- i.e., minimal observance and recognition of their threat potential.
-- Muslims continue building mosques across the U.S., backed by virulent Saudi Wahabbism and funding. These mosques serve as bastions of the Dar-al-Islam in the midst of the Dar-al-Harb (Islamic outposts in a sea of infidels). Evangelical Muslims preach hate from their sanctuaries, spreading Islam within the U.S. -- even in the Bible-belt.
-- Cordoba House, an Islamic development group named after a Muslim victory over the Spaniards, plans to construct a lavish mosque at ground-zero in New York City -- with the blessings of the mayor, most of the mainstream media, and the president.
-- Muslims continue serving as prison chaplains, despite using their positions as proselytization platforms for fundamentalist Islam.
-- Muslims continue as members of our military, despite strong evidence that their religious beliefs pose conflicts of interest.
-- A Muslim soldier murdered fourteen people at Ft. Hood, Texas, and wounded thirty-one. He shouted "Allahu Akbar!" just before opening fire. In the aftermath, Chief of Staff of the United States Army George W. Casey, Jr had this bit of enlightenment for America: "I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers ... Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse."
-- Between 2002 and 2010, Muslims or Muslim sympathizers committed twenty-five other small-scale acts of terrorism or honor killings in the U.S.
-- Muslims in America demand the installation of footbaths for ritual washing in airports, demand that butchers and restaurants prepare food according to Islamic dictates, and call for the institution of sharia. Prior to 2001, such clamoring happened at a much lower level, if at all.
-- The mainstream media has embraced Islamic agitation groups with ties to terrorism and happily indulges their self-mischaracterizations as groups that want peace and interreligious harmony. An example of this media whitewashing is the front-group, CAIR.
-- The U.S. military burns Holy Bibles sent by Americans to Afghanistan, while teaching soldiers to revere the Koran.
-- The mainstream media and most politicians refuse to admit that Islam is a warlike religion chiefly spread by the sword, that this state of being has existed for 1,400 years, and that the violence endemic to the religion may be found in its founder's actions and Islam's "holiest" writings. They also ignore the important fact that one of Islam's tenets, taqiyyah, is a concept that endorses Muslims lying to non-Muslims, if the purpose of their lies is the enlargement of Islam. Deception is a built-in facet of Islam.
I'll stop right there. I easily could write three or four lengthy posts, perhaps even a book, listing the asinine attitudes, utterances, and policies of our leadership post-2001. My readers may feel free to add to this list in the comments section, if they wish.
In summation, I do not believe that we're better off, now. I do not believe that we're more secure, or stronger. It pains me to say that the three thousand people murdered on September 11, 2001 died in vain. And every American who has died a Muslim-related death since then also has died in vain. We did not take this lemon of a scenario and make lemonade. We did not erect a golden monument to liberty out of the ashes of 2001. We did not find lasting unity, greater resolve, or more clarity of purpose in the wake of those deaths. And an unsung victim of that woeful day was the Truth -- only the jihadists did not slam jets into the Truth. They did not kill it or tuck it away, because the presidential administrations and the Congress and media did that for them. They have spent every single day doing it for them, renewing the lies and distortions and wishful thinking. The Truth fell under friendly fire, as it were.
The one bright spot in all this darkness is that the problem has a solution. It's a hard fix, but a real remedy, nevertheless. Later today or tomorrow, I'll post on how I think we can pull ourselves back from the brink.
Friday, September 2, 2011
How Like a Plague
A LIBYAN father killed his three daughters after pro-Gaddafi soldiers raped them, in an attempt to rid the family of the shame, a human rights group says.
Soldiers raped the sisters aged 15, 17 and 18 , in the town of Tomina, east Libya, US-based Physicians for Human Rights said.
When they returned home, their father slit their throats in what the rights group said was most likely an honour killing.
Our government tells us that Muslims are just like us -- that they value the same things, long for freedom just as we do, love their children, and want to live their lives in peace with the rest of the world. Then we read stories such as the above putridity, wherein a man murders his own daughters because they had the audacity to let men rape them. What kind of sick, twisted, devil-inspired mind would support bringing down the hammer of vengeance not on the perpetrators of the crime, but on the victims? If the word "satanic" describes any real-world scenario, this is it.
The worst part is that murder of the innocent isn't even unusual in the Islamic world. It happens all the time. Violence is as commonplace as fruit in an orchard. Everywhere on Earth that Muslims rub shoulders with non-Muslims violence erupts, usually initiated by Muhammed's Maniacs. Yet our leaders keep letting them into our country by the tens of thousands. They assure us that these demons in the flesh can be democratized -- as if democracy is an end unto itself, not just a means to an end. They throw our young men and women at this insoluble problem and waste their lives, in hellholes like Afghanistan and Iraq.
I'm tired of the seeming invincible idiocy of those in charge. I'm fed up with the lies and the refusal to learn from history, current events, or Islamic "scripture." We should bar the Religion of Hate and War and Death from our shores. We should close our borders and send them packing back to the hives of insanity whence they came. Let the savages fend for themselves.The plague of Islam has offered the human race nothing of note beyond violence and misery for 1,400 years. Pray for them. Send missionaries amongst them. But keep them away from our people and our lands. You may pray for the killer. You may even visit him in his domain and strive to help him see the errors of his ways. But only a madman invites him into his home and calls him family.
Therein lies self-destruction.
Soldiers raped the sisters aged 15, 17 and 18 , in the town of Tomina, east Libya, US-based Physicians for Human Rights said.
When they returned home, their father slit their throats in what the rights group said was most likely an honour killing.
Our government tells us that Muslims are just like us -- that they value the same things, long for freedom just as we do, love their children, and want to live their lives in peace with the rest of the world. Then we read stories such as the above putridity, wherein a man murders his own daughters because they had the audacity to let men rape them. What kind of sick, twisted, devil-inspired mind would support bringing down the hammer of vengeance not on the perpetrators of the crime, but on the victims? If the word "satanic" describes any real-world scenario, this is it.
The worst part is that murder of the innocent isn't even unusual in the Islamic world. It happens all the time. Violence is as commonplace as fruit in an orchard. Everywhere on Earth that Muslims rub shoulders with non-Muslims violence erupts, usually initiated by Muhammed's Maniacs. Yet our leaders keep letting them into our country by the tens of thousands. They assure us that these demons in the flesh can be democratized -- as if democracy is an end unto itself, not just a means to an end. They throw our young men and women at this insoluble problem and waste their lives, in hellholes like Afghanistan and Iraq.
I'm tired of the seeming invincible idiocy of those in charge. I'm fed up with the lies and the refusal to learn from history, current events, or Islamic "scripture." We should bar the Religion of Hate and War and Death from our shores. We should close our borders and send them packing back to the hives of insanity whence they came. Let the savages fend for themselves.The plague of Islam has offered the human race nothing of note beyond violence and misery for 1,400 years. Pray for them. Send missionaries amongst them. But keep them away from our people and our lands. You may pray for the killer. You may even visit him in his domain and strive to help him see the errors of his ways. But only a madman invites him into his home and calls him family.
Therein lies self-destruction.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)