Friday, June 30, 2006

Mt. Soledad goes to the Supreme Court

“Yesterday evening the City Attorney in San Diego along with Mayor Jerry Sanders decided to take the Mt. Soledad case to the Supreme Court of the United States” (ACLJ).

For those who haven’t been following this, San Diego has a cross that has been there for over 50 years. An atheist wants it removed. Although 76% of the people voted to transfer ownership of the property to save the cross, as superior court judge ruled that to be unconstitutional! In May a U.S. District Court judge gave San Diego until August 1 to remove the cross or face $5,000 per day in fines. Last week, the federal appeals court in San Francisco rejected San Diego’s request to stay that injunction “until a series of cases pending in state and federal courts are heard” (Mercury News). The city has just appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

If the ACLU can succeed in removing this cross, how long before they force the removal of the thousands of crosses at Arlington Cemetery and other similar cemeteries? How long before every vestige of religion is removed from American public life and the United State becomes like the former Soviet Union?

Cut and run

Numerous nationally known personalities are planning a fast to bring our troops home fast, including, Cindy Sheehan, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon, Congressperson Cynthia McKinney and others (Troopshomefast.org). In a clip aired on the “Beltway Boys” last Sunday, congressman Murtha explained that pulling out of Iraq was not ‘cut-and-run’ because, after all, President Reagan had pulled out of Lebanon after the attack our Marines stationed there, and President Clinton had pulled out of Somalia.

Mort Kondracke pointed out that Osama bin Laden had previously cited precisely those two examples of how America was a cut and run country. A much more shameful example could have been cited. Before the Gulf War the elder Bush encouraged and supported Iraqi Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein—and then we cut-and-ran, shamefully standing by while Saddam Hussein retaliated by killing thousands of our Kurdish allies!

I understand those who want out troops home. So do I—the sooner the better. I understand those who think we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place—they may have a valid point. But I don’t understand those who want to drop everything and come home before Iraqis can defend themselves. If we leave Iraq too soon, the message we send to the world will once again be loud and clear, i.e. when the going gets tough, American anti-war activists will began emerging from behind every bush and beneath every rock and will so thoroughly undermine American foreign policy that we cut-and-run just like we’ve done before. In fact, bin Laden is counting on it.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

ACLU fascism strikes again

In their fascist attempts to eliminate all vestiges of religion in public life (reminiscent of the old Soviet Union), the ACLU and Americans United have filed a lawsuit seeking to force the Bridgeport High School in West Virginia to remove a painting of Jesus which has been hanging in the halls for over 30 years. (Chron.com)

The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Can someone explain to me how a picture in a local high school violates this provision of the Constitution? It is absolutely absurd to think that the framers of the Constitution would have regarded this painting in the halls of a public highschool as unconstitutional.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

A tribute to Planned Parenthood

On May 8 the Colorado House of Representatives planned to vote on special legislation honoring one of their community’s businesses. House minority leader, Ted Harvey asked Gianna Jessen if she would sing the national anthem at this session and Ms. Jessen, who has worked to help those with cerebral palsy, agreed.

Ms. Jessen herself has cerebral palsy so when she lost her balance, she leaned on Harvey for support. When she forgot some of the words, the legislators sang along with her. One reporter later said that "her rendition captured the spirit of the national anthem more powerfully than any she had ever heard before."

But there is more to this story. You see, the Colorado legislature was meeting that day to pass legislation honoring the local branch of Planned Parenthood, and Gianna Jessen was a survivor of a botched, legal, abortion which directly caused her disabilities. Ms. Jessen later told a reporter, "If abortion is about women's rights, where were my rights?" (CNSNews.com).

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Scientists support Gore on global warming?

This afternoon the Associated Press released a news story entitled, “Scientists OK Gore movie for accuracy.” The report states that 100 scientists were contacted by AP for their opinion of the Gore movie. As it turns out the AP headline was based on the 19 scientists who had seen the movie or read the book—none of the other 100 had even seen or read Gore’s work.

Then, a little later, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a press release strongly disputing the AP article, quoting one scientist who says Gore's "propaganda campaign" is "junk science." I don't know if global warming is junk science or not but it appears to me that the AP article is junk journalism.

Breaking news

Breaking News: The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Israeli aircraft have just blown up two strategic bridges in the Gaza strip in an attempt "to keep Hamas from taking kidnapped soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit out of the Gaza Strip." Two Israeli tank and infantry divisions are prepared for incursion into the strip.

Breaking News: A constitutional amendment against flag desecration has failed by one vote (as much as flag desecration disgusts me, I don't think we needed an amendment protecting the flag).

Muslims exhorted to hate Christians

Earlier this year on Saudi Arabian TV, Sheikh Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan, a professor of Islamic Law, said:

"Someone who denies Allah, worships Christ, son of Mary, and claims that God is one third of a trinity - do you like these things he says and does? Don’t you hate the faith of such a polytheist who says God is one third of a trinity, or who worships Christ, son of Mary?"

"Someone who permits and commits fornication - as is the case in Western countries, where fornication is permitted and not considered a problem - don't you hate this? Whoever says 'I don't hate him' is not a Muslim, my brother."

The professor demonstrates a profound ignorance of Christianity. Christianity (Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) holds that there is One and only One God, eternally existent in Father, Son and Spirit. Christians would further insist that the Father is not one third God, nor is the Son or Spirit one third God. God is One. While Christians may have difficulty explaining or even fully understanding this, we nonetheless believe it. Muslims may argue that we are not consistent in our beliefs or even that our beliefs are illogical, but to say that we believe in three Gods is factually incorrect. Yet even Muhammad himself made this mistake.

The Saudi professor also appears confused in his proclamation on fornication. He seems to combine those who worship Jesus the son of Mary with those in Western Countries who condone fornication. While some liberals who call themselves Christian may have very tolerant views on fornication, conservative Christians view it as sin. Unfortunately, many Muslims, like this professor, make no distinction between western society in general, which is increasingly becoming a moral cesspool, and conservative Christianity which is increasingly being viewed by that society as intolerant for our stand against the increasing cultural decadence.

Finally, it should be noted that Christians are exhorted to love even our enemies, while this professor of Islamic Law almost defines Islam in terms of those who hate western civilization in general and the worshipers of Jesus in particular. It is almost impossible to overemphasize the significance of this difference.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Just when you think you’ve heard it all…

Recently we learned that millions of dollars in federal relief money for New Orleans was fraudulently spent on such “essentials” as a tropical vacation, season football tickets, divorces, “Girls Gone Wild” videos and even a sex change operation. But just when you think you’ve heard it all another story comes along that makes you shake your head in disbelief.

According to New Orleans City Business, (or was it the Gomorrah City Business?) the city now appears to be plagued by gangs of drug-addicted, transvestite thieves! They are reported to be “fearless in their lust for designer shoes, jackets and jewelry.” This might almost sound humorous except that they are stealing thousands of dollars worth of merchandise and have sometimes been violent.

Bashing Israel

In a recent article, Mona Charen discussed the highly publicized incident on June 9 when an Israeli rocket killed seven Palestinian civilians on a Gaza beach. We all saw the heart-wrenching TV images of the 12 year old girl in anguish over the death of her father.

The liberal news media seemed to spin the story against Israel. Ms. Charen quoted CNN for example, as “explaining that "Hamas' rocket attacks were prompted by a string of Israeli attacks, including an artillery shell blast that killed at least seven Palestinians picnicking on a northern Gaza beach on Friday." In other words, it was all Israel’s fault.

Subsequent investigations indicate that the Gaza beach explosion may not have been from an Israeli shell at all—fragments taken from the bodies may be from landmines placed there by Palestinians, but do not match shells used by Israel. Nevertheless, the Israeli Defense Forces extended an official apology and offered assistance to the families of the victims.

Ms. Charen then concludes, “consider this elemental difference between Israel and the Palestinians: Israel apologizes and tries to make amends if its missiles go astray and kill civilians. The Palestinians, by contrast, aim at civilians and dance in the streets when they are killed.

No one should excuse Israeli injustices, but to compare Israeli injustices to the atrocities committed by Palestinian terrorists is morally perverse.

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Thank Allah for the New York Times



Michelle Malkin's readers have been sending her some great poster parodies about the New York Times. One of them is pasted here. For others, check out Michelle Malkin's blog.

Friday, June 23, 2006

Protecting Property Rights

We've all heard stories about how local, state and federal government agencies have taken over private property recently. The following is the first part of an executive order issued by the White House today:

"Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:


Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken. "

Episcopal Church and Israel

The Episcopal Church wrestled with the issue of Israel at their Conference that just ended. Rev. Edward Little made a proposal that the Episcopal Church apologize to the Jewish people for the Episcopal Church’s “consistently unbalanced approach to the conflict in the Middle East." Rev. Little was then hammered by indignant protests by Episcopalians who apparently think all Middle Eastern problems are Israel’s fault.

One speaker who took Rev. Little’s side, however, was Rev. Thomas Wray. Rev. Wray recounted that not long before he visited a kibbutz in Israel, “a Palestinian suicide bomber had entered the kibbutz school, shouted "Allah akbar," and blown himself up in the middle of a kindergarten class. ‘Do you know what happens when kindergarteners are detonated by plastic explosives?’ Wray questioned, searching the uneasy faces of the National and International Concerns Committee members. ‘They are beheaded,’ he answered for them. ‘Eighteen little heads rolled down that hall,’ mercilessly he persisted. ‘Why does the Episcopal Church talk so one-dimensionally and therefore unreasonably, about Israel's right to exist? Why don't we talk about Islamic terrorism?" he demanded. On that note the committee chairman announced it was time for the morning Eucharist" (Institute on Religon and Democracy: Episcopal News)

Thursday, June 22, 2006

WMD’s found in Iraq?

In the news this morning are reports by Senator Rick Santorum and Pete Hoekstra of a recently partially de-classified document saying that WMD’s were discovered in Iraq. The WMD’s consist of 500 shells of Sarin or Mustard gas. The shells dated from before the Gulf war in 1991 and at the time of their discovery were no longer active.

According to the report, however, while chemical agents degrade over time, “chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.” Senator Santorum contends that “they couldn’t be maybe fired efficiently but they certainly could be used in a terrorist incident."

No one disputes that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s prior to the 1991 truce. Before the 2003 Iraq War, however, some questions were 1) whether Saddam had destroyed all of these weapons in accordance with the truce, and 2) whether he still had an active WMD program after the 1991 truce. Whether he had an active WMD program after the truce has not been verified, but it now appears to be a fact that he did not destroy all the WMD’s after the truce as promised.

This was precisely one of the issues before the 2003 Iraq War. Since

1) we knew Saddam had WMD’s prior to 1991,
2) since he had used them on Iranians and even his own people,
3) since terrorists had just killed 3,000 people in New York,
4) since the weapons were not all accounted for after the 1991 truce, and
5) since Saddam was seemingly doing everything he could to obstruct inspections

We had to conclude that Saddam may have been hiding these weapons and that he could potentially use them against the west, either directly or through terrorist contacts. Frankly, to conclude otherwise would have been gullible and irresponsible—which is one reason both Republicans and Democrats supported the war (though I still don’t understand why we couldn’t have just taken out the suspected WMD and military sites rather than invading the entire country, but that’s a different issue).

Some blogs are now contending that Saddam just “lost” track of these weapons. I suppose anything is possible, but I fail to understand why so many Americans would give the benefit of doubt to Saddam Hussein rather than to our own government—we all remember Saddam spokesman “Bagdad Bob,” with his lies that were so demonstrably false that they were funnier than Saturday Night Live! Of course, our government has been known to lie too, but at least we have a free press to investigate such lies whereas Iraq had no free press. So why would Americans believe anything Saddam’s government said?

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 how could any reasonable person just gullibly assume that Saddam Hussein would freely give up his chemical weapons—especially in light of the fact that they could not all be accounted for? How could any reasonable person assume, after 911, that terrorists would never approach Saddam Hussein for help? How could any reasonable person just assume that after ten years of fruitless negotiations, just a little more negotiating would solve the problem?

As Americans we may disagree about which course of action was the best way to deal with Iraq—whether continued negotiation, continued bombing, or invasion—but I just can’t understand the hysterically rabid anti-Bush (e.g. “Bush lied, Americans died”), anti-Republican, hatred by the far Left —anger which now seems to be vented even at Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman who supported the war. I just don’t get it.

Click here to read the de-classified memo.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Boycotting Israel

A recent New York Sun article reports:

“It's Thursday (or Friday or any other day) and another boycott against Israel is being declared - by a union in Ontario, university teachers in Britain, and church organizations everywhere. Not a word about Iran, whose president denies the Holocaust but seeks to complete it by ‘erasing’ Israel from the map; not a whisper about the genocide in Darfur; no mention of Tibet or of beheadings in front of cameras in Iraq - only one spot on earth deserves to be boycotted or divested by ‘progressive’ bodies.”

The article points out that while even some liberal ‘Christian’ bodies condemn Israel, they never seem to take notice of the fact that Christians are being persecuted in Muslim lands at an alarming rate and that, according to the article, the number of Catholics in Iran has ‘decreased tenfold within 30 years’ and that similar decreases have occurred in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian authority.

So why is it that we regularly hear of calls for boycotts of Israel by various liberal groups but we rarely (if ever) hear such groups calling for boycotts of Muslim countries?

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Americans tortured

Terrorists charged that their Qur’an’s were mistreated at Guantanamo and the Left is outraged at Americans. A few soldiers humiliate some terrorists at Abu Ghraib and the Left absolutely goes ballistic! Rumors come out about fatal shootings in Haditha and the Left rushes to judgment completely ignoring the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

By now everyone knows that the bodies of the bodies of two kidnapped American soldiers have been found. They were reportedly tortured in a way that one general described as “brutal” and “unnatural.” We’re still waiting for any sign of outrage by those on the Left.

Censorship and the American left

According to FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) the administration at Johns Hopkins University banned the distribution of a conservative student newspaper while allowing papers expressing other viewpoints to be distributed. The University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire prohibited resident assistants from leading Bible studies in their own dormitories, Indian River Community College prohibited a Christian student group from screening Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, Princeton University required religious student groups to gain special approval from the dean of religious life before being permitted to apply for recognition when secular student groups faced no such barriers, and Washington University in St. Louis refused to recognize a pro-life group.

Recliner Commentaries reported on the attempt by some at Ohio State University to suppress the book, The Marketing of Evil and just recently, Foothills High School in Nevada not only censored the valedictorian’s speech for being to Christian, they actually shut of the microphone when she deviated from their severely edited version.

The threat of censorship is not just in education, however. In New Jersey, two politicians (both Democrats) are trying to ban Ann Coulter’s book, “Godless” from New Jersey bookstores.

When I was younger, America was a much more conservative country and it was the liberals who were the staunch opponents of censorship, and champions of free speech. Now that the liberals are firmly in control in education we are seeing more and more left-wing censorship. This should actually be of just as much concern to those who are genuinely “liberal” as it is to conservatives. Unfortunately many American liberals are actually beginning to look more and more like fascists.

Monday, June 19, 2006

Same-sex marriage and polygamy

The following are excerpts from a much longer article by Stanley Kurtz entitled "Polygamy Verses Democracy; you can’t have both" published in June 5th 2006 edition of he Weekly Standard. When you have time, the article is well worth reading. In the mean time, some excerpts appear below:

"The growing legal literature advocating the decriminalization of traditional polygamy was encapsulated by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley in a widely noticed October 2004 op-ed for USA Today. Turley argued that, as a simple matter of equal treatment under law, polygamy ought to be legal."

"Of course, liberal law professors…goal is to establish the principle that individuals have the right to create and define their families as they see fit. Ultimately, that would put same-sex marriage, polyamory, nonsexual group partnerships, and even singlehood on a par with traditional marriage, resulting in the effective abolition of marriage itself as a legal status."

"So there is increasing recognition among legal professionals that, along the way to achieving the full-fledged deconstruction of marriage promised by free-form polyamory, it is necessary to make a case for "patriarchal" polygamy as well. Big Love is a product of this line of thinking. As long as traditional polygamy is illegal, the way is also barred to postmodern polyamory."

"Post-World War II France was not about to imitate nineteenth-century America's outrage at polygamy. Intentionally turning a blind eye to the practice, the French assumed that any social implications would be trivial. Yet France's most respected leaders now find it difficult even to speak openly about what has obviously become a serious social problem…With a critical mass of practitioners on French soil and able to vote (or riot), and with the left seizing on polygamy as a civil rights issue, enforcement of the ban is in doubt, no matter how it's strengthened on paper."

"Far from offering a democratic solution to the problem of multipartner unions, egalitarian polyamory simply reveals another face of the polygamy dilemma. It is inherently difficult to keep multipartner unions together…"

"Polyamory is a cover-all term for a bewildering variety of relationship forms--everything from open marriage, to bisexual triads, to a man with multiple women, to a woman with multiple men, to large sexual groups, and many more. The "rules" governing these arrangements are entirely flexible. There might be three "primary" partners who actually live together, and several additional "secondary" partners (collectively shared or not) to whom the three "primaries" are less committed. The levels of commitment, and the range of partnership and mutual involvement, are subject to continual change and renegotiation….Polyamorists emphasize that multipartner unions take intense and constant work. Yet this need for a higher level of monitoring and negotiation only highlights the forces pushing against stability."

"The free love experiments nearly all collapsed after a few short months or years, although new experiments were generated continually for decades. That record of instability was repeated when the hippie communes of the 1960s and 70s fell apart."

"This might not matter were it not for the problem of children. Family stability is highly desirable for children. Not only would legally recognized polyamory be unstable, but the legitimization of polyamory would also be incompatible with one of our core reasons for giving marriage the backing of law at all: to reinforce monogamy as a cultural value."

"The new wave of Big Love-inspired talk about polygamy is directly attributable to the campaign for same-sex marriage. Big Love was created by a pair of gay-marriage advocates, who use the show to highlight the analogy between same-sex unions and polygamy. And Big Love is merely a hint of things to come. Radicals have long seen same-sex marriage as a lever with which to break the grip of monogamy. Should gay marriage be safely legalized, the radicals will emerge in force. Mainstream liberals like Sanford Levinson (who has a soft spot for experiments in multipartner marriage) openly advise the gay marriage movement to distance itself from marriage radicalism until after gay marriage is legalized. Big Love notwithstanding, that advice is largely heeded."

"More important, by training us to see marriage as a civil rights issue, gay marriage advocates have largely defanged all of these structural arguments. Redefining the family is increasingly seen as a fundamental right. And the courts are beginning to agree."

"The solution is to treat marriage as a social institution whose fundamental purpose is to encourage mothers and fathers to build stable families for the children they create. Same-sex marriage breaks this understanding, thus encouraging the sort of unstable parental cohabitation we see in Europe, where cohabiting parents break up at two to three times the rate of married parents."

"A few same-sex marriage advocates pretend that by simply offering rational reasons to oppose polygamy, they can neutralize the dangers of the slippery-slope."

"Jonathan Turley's latest opinion piece for USA Today signals an all-too-plausible scenario for the final slide down the slippery slope. In 2004, Turley defended the right to polygamy. Now, in 2006, Turley is calling for the abolition of marriage as a legal status and its replacement by a system of infinitely flexible "civil union" contracts. This general disestablishment of marriage may be the most likely route from here to polygamy."

"Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive."

Sunday, June 18, 2006

North Korean missile test?

About an hour ago, the CNN website reported that North Korea has loaded booster rockets and fuel tanks unto a Taepodong-2 missile capable of reaching Alaska. It is not known whether the missile has been fueled, but once fueled, the missile must be launched within 48 hours or the fuel will began to damage the missile.

If the missile is tested, both Washington and Japan threaten to (gasp!) take the matter to the U.N. North Korean leaders are undoubtedly shaking in their boots.

Friday, June 16, 2006

A Saddam – terrorist link?

One of the endless attacks hurled at the Bush administration by anti-war activists is that the entire war in Iraq is diverting our attention away from the war on terror because there was no link between Saddam and the terrorists. Newly released documents captured in Iraq may demonstrate that there was in fact such a link between Saddam’s government, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Those interested can click part one or part two (of an anticipated three-part series) for the articles, analysis and translation of the documents.

Global Warming, Al Gore and junk science

In recent years activists and the media have made a big deal out of global warming-- sometimes suggesting almost apocalyptic, end-of-the-world scenarios. While this may fit well with my theology, I really have no idea whether such scare campaigns are accurate. In my own field of historical Jesus studies, I know for a fact that most of the recent TV specials and documentaries on Jesus, Judas, Mary Magdalene, etc are filled with so much distortion and outright nonsense as to be laughable, so when scientists claim that the global warming scare by Al Gore and the media is all junk science, my ears perk up because I know how much misinformation a few activists and the media can generate.

I really don’t have a position on this debate but since Mr. Gore is getting most of the attention, I thought I’d post some excerpts from the other side: The following are from a recent article “The Inconvenient Truth is indeed inconvenient to alarmists,” by Tom Harris:

"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: ‘Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." [Recliner Commentaries note: I have precisely the same gut reaction when I see most TV documentaries about Jesus, etc.]

"…Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. ‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field."

"Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. ‘These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,’ asserts Ball."

"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, 'There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.'

"Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, 'The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Homosexual movies

A lesbian activist in Virginia is using legal strong-arm tactics in an attempt to force a Christian “film-and-video lab owner” to reproduce her pro-homosexual movies, in violation of the owner's religious convictions. When asked to reproduce the films, the owner said that “his company does not duplicate material that is obscene, could embarrass employees, hurt the company's reputation or runs counter to the company's core values and to Christian ethics.”

Rather than simply finding another company to reproduce the films, the lesbian activist filed a complaint with the Arlington Human Rights Commission. The commission ordered the company to reproduce the films. The order is being challenged. This case is similar to that of Scott Brockie, “who was penalized $5,000 in 2001 for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group” (WorldNetDaily) .

When homosexuality becomes part of official U.S. public policy through the legalization of same-sex marriage, you can expect the number of cases like this to multiply exponentially. Although gay rights activists want their views and behaviors to be tolerated and respected, many of them show no tolerance or respect whatsoever for the religious convictions of others. Dealing with similar tyranny in Scottland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien warned, "democracy which separates itself from truth, taking the path of moral relativism, can soon become thinly veiled totalitarianism".

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

They ripped you off!

According to news reports, the GAO just found that 1.4 billion dollars in FEMA aid money for Hurricane Katrina was spent for such “necessities” of life as a sex change operation, pornography, a Caribbean vacation, a Hawaiian vacation, a divorce lawyer, season tickets to pro-football games and alcohol! That’s 1.4 billion dollars of your tax money! (Bloomberg, Clarionledger).

I’m sure many will immediately slam the Bush administration for handing out so much money without investigating the recipients adequately, but we need to remember that people were in dire straights back then and couldn’t wait for months of government paperwork. Unfortunately, the narcissistic greed of some people will just make it harder for future victims to get emergency aid when they really need it.

I would suggest that those found guilty of this fraud be sentenced to one hour of hard labor for every dollar they swindled from the public. Dress them in bright pink jump-suits, put them on chain gangs, and use them to clean up New Orleans or other cities hit by Katrina.

Aborting imperfect babies

An article in Britain’s Daily Mail recently revealed that babies in Britain are being aborted over such minor birth defects as club feet, webbed fingers, extra digits, or cleft palate.

I guess a woman’s “right to choose” knows no bounds. If she can choose to kill an unborn baby with birth defects, how long before she insists on her “right” kill a newborn baby with birth defects as well? After all, women could argue that their body is at risk and it is much safer for them to have the baby killed immediately on delivery than to cut the baby out of her body with a scalpel.

Unfortunately, in pro-abortion circles, the baby’s rights don’t count.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Bush can’t swim

The morning after al-Zarqawi was killed, a headline in the Washington Post read: “After Zarqawi, No Clear Path in Weary Iraq. Difficult questions surround the legacy of insurgent leader.”

This is not news! Of course there's no clear path--President Bush doesn't have a working crystal ball! And "legacy of insurgent leader." Are you kidding me? They make it sound like Zarqawi was George Washington or something! The real news was that the world was now rid of a mass murderering terrorist, and this is the best headline they could come up with?

I can’t help thinking that if President Bush walked on the top of a lake to save a drowning man, the Washington Post headline might read, “Bush can’t swim.”

Monday, June 12, 2006

Sex and the female teacher

Most people who watch the news regularly are familiar with the high profile cases of Debra LaFave, who had sex with a 14 year old boy, and Mary Kay Letourneau who had sex with a sixth-grade student. While most pedophiles are men, female sex-offenders are more prevalent in our society than most people realize. Summarizing a list from World Net Daily:

School teachers, Christiana (26), Gwen (33), Heather (30), Katherine (30), Kelly (30), Robin (29) and Nicole (29) were all accused, charged, and/or arrested for having sex with 17 year-old students. Donna, a married mother of two, was caught naked with a 17 year old student and Cameo (29) was arrested for oral sex with a 17 year old.

Teachers Amber (31), Kristi (32), Nicole (31), Rachelle (32), Rebecca (33), Nicola (22), Margaret (30), Sandra (42), Joan (28), Christine (39) and Erica (29) were accused, charged, or arrested for having sex with 16 year old students. Most of the victims were male, though volleyball coach, Stephanie’s victim was a 16 year old female student. Adrianne would drink beer, smoke pot and have sex with a 16 year old special needs student.

Amy (36) was charged with having lesbian sex with a 15 year old girl. Bethany (24) was charged with having oral sex with a 15 year old boy. Emily (28) and Laura-Anne (26) had sex with 15 year old students. Janelle (24), Michelle (29) and Iaymee (28) had extended sexual relationships with 15 year old students—over 50 times for Iaymee (28). Media services director, Pamela (22), not only had sex with her 15 year old lover, she convinced him to murder her husband.

Maria (28), Lakina (40), Elizabeth (36), Tara (29), Susan (35) and Angela are all teachers or school employees who were charged with having sex with 14 year olds. Most of the victims were boys, but, middle school teacher, Elizabeth (36) was charged with sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl. Deanna (37), a special-ed teacher, denied having sex with a 14 year old boy, but was later charged with assaulting another boy. Middle-school band teacher, Laura Lynn (30) was charged with having sex with a 14 year old and at least four other students.

Some of the perpetrators violated victims who were even younger. School psychologist, Diane (45) was accused of having intercourse and oral sex several times with her 13 year old daughter’s boyfriend. Elementary school teacher, Kelly (28) was charged with having sex with a 13 year old, and over 50 sexually explicit e-mails and pornographic pictures, sent from the teacher, were found on his computer. Middle school teacher, Melissa (32) had oral sex with a 13 year old student and Pamela (27) an elementary school teacher, was arrested for having sex with a 13 year old boy over a period of three months. Middle-school teacher, Sherry (41) and Gym teacher, Lynn (38) were arrested for molesting 12 year olds. Carol (50), a music teacher, was alleged to have slept with an 11 year old and Elementary school teacher, Georgianne (24) was charged with performing oral sex on a 9 year old boy.

Teachers Toni (37), Traci (28), Amber (23), Angela (26), Cathy (46), and Elizabeth (26), all had sexual relations with multiple students.

This summary is not exhaustive. Those who want to read about the rest can see the WorldNetDaily article. Some people may rightly point out that this is only a small percentage compared to the number of male offenders. When teen-age boys are molested by older women, some boys may view it as their wildest fantasy-come-true—which means that boys are not nearly as likely to report such crimes as are female victims. In fact, if a teenage boy were to report sex with an older woman, the female perpetrator need only accuse him of rape, and the police, the media, the school and virtually everyone else in the country will immediately assume the boy is guilty. Unfortunately, that’s very good incentive for boys who have been molested by older women to keep quiet. The number of actual cases of female on male sexual abuse, therefore, is likely to be much higher than what is reported.

Most of the pedophiles described above were barely given a slap on the wrist by the criminal justice system. Why is that? In Texas, a male high school student charges that his teacher, Kathy (39) “just started grabbing me and hormones were on and it just happened.” Not to excuse the guy, but virtually any attractive female teacher who knows how to be seductive, could short-circuit almost any boy’s brain and get her way. Granted, this is not a violent act like forcible rape, but it is no less overpowering and should not be tolerated by society. So why are these female pedophiles not taken seriously by our criminal justice system?

Friday, June 09, 2006

U.S. Secret Service--Spreading the Gospel


The Secret Service is helping to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s right. The sale of gospel tracts have skyrocket since the U.S. Secret Service got involved.

I’m sure that was not their intention when they showed up at the offices of the Great News Network, a Christian evangelistic ministry in Denton Texas, confiscated 8,300 gospel tracts, and threatened a staff member with arrest. The tracts look like million dollar bills on one side and had a gospel message on the other side.

The Great News Network has determined to fight the harassment legally. There is no such thing as a million dollar bill. The Great News Network contends that it is impossible to counterfeit something that does not exist. Besides, the gospel message on the back makes it very clear that they are not in any way trying to pass this off as genuine U.S. currency.

Since the Secret Service raid, the Great News Network’s supply of 500,000 gospels tracts has nearly been depleted. See AssistNews and WorldNetDaily for more information.

I have great respect for the U.S. Secret Service but this harassment is unworthy of their great organization. Sadly, it makes them look like the old KGB of the Soviet Union.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

al-Zarqawi is dead

al-Zarqawi is dead
Bombs dropped on his head
For a list of atrocities he led
Check out what the Washington Post said

(I'll keep my day job)

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Breaking News: MPA rejected

CBS News is reporting that the Senate has just rejected the Marriage Protection Amendment

A vote for choice

Monday afternoon on Fox News, someone named Rich Masters (?) argued that that Republicans who support states rights should be appalled by the fact that the President wants a Marriage Protection Amendment rather than leaving the issue up to the states. I don’t know who Mr. Masters is, but his comments seem to imply that he either doesn’t understand the issue or he is deliberately trying to mislead the American public.

If Congress passes the Marriage Protection Amendment, it goes to the states for ratification by the voters (It takes 3/4ths of the states to approve a new constitutional amendment—what is the left so afraid of?). So contrary to Mr. Masters’ spin, if Congress were to vote for the Amendment, the people get to decide. If Congress votes against the Amendment, activist judges get to decide, and of course, that is precisely what most of those on the left want. Remember that next time they talk about being “pro-choice.”

If you'd like to see a summary of Tuesday's debate, see BP News. Please ask your Senator to vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Gay marriage and the media

For an excellent analysis of the media and the gay marriage issue seen the most recent Townhall column by Dennis Prager.

Marriage Protection Amendment, polygamy and polyamory

"The Advocate bills itself as ‘the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine.’ Its June 6 cover story…depicts three identical male dolls wearing tuxes over the caption ‘Polygamy & Gay Men.’ The story features oh-so-sympathetic portraits of several groups of men who are living in arrangements it calls polyamorous. ‘We're as married as we could be,’ says one homosexual member of a San Diego trio, ‘we all have rings and have a day we celebrate [as] our anniversary.’ …Every argument, every emotional appeal for same-sex ‘marriage’ is recapped in this air-brushed version of marital bliss for what the magazine editors call ‘Big Gay Love.” (Tony Perkins, Family Research Council e-mail).

Make no mistake about it, those who say the gay marriage issue is only about the union of a loving same-sex couple, are either terribly misinformed, are deluding themselves, or are blowing smoke in your face. Far fewer people would even care if that was the only issue.
The real problem is that when gay marriage is imposed on America by activist judges, eventually every other kind of alternative lifestyle will become legal as well, because the same emotional arguments being used to justify gay marriage are already being used to justify polygamy and polyamory.

When these alternative lifestyles are legalized and become part of national public policy, any institution—any businesses, churches, charities, colleges etc.—that oppose this public policy will eventually start facing economic sanctions and even legal consequences for their opposition.

The Marriage Protection Amendment being debated in the Senate this week. Please ask your Senators to vote FOR this Amendment.

Monday, June 05, 2006

Gay marriage as slippery slope

In the Journal of Law and Politics, Professor George W. Dent Jr., wrote, “once same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalized, other forms of marriage, such as polygamy, endogamy (the marriage of blood relatives), polyamory, bestiality, and child marriage will soon be legalized as well.”

In the April 20, 2004, edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, Jasmine Walston, president of Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness, said, ‘We’re where the gay rights movement was 30 years ago.’ Polyamorists even sent a letter to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom after he directed the city clerk to start issuing same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses, which asked, ‘What possible reason could you find for discriminating against or denying equal access to threesomes, foursomes, etc.?”

“Peter Singer, chair of Princeton University’s Center for Human Values, wrote an article titled Heavy Petting, which defends bestiality (sexual relations between humans and animals). He wrote, ‘We are all animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it dies imply that it ceases to be an offense to our status and dignity as human beings.” (The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, 2005, 46-47).

The Netherlands already permits prostitution and was the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. Apparently that isn’t enough for some. The Netherlands’ new “Charity, Freedom and Diversity Party” wants to allow child pornography, bestiality and sexual relations between adults and twelve year olds! Eventually, they want to eliminate all age limits on sexual relations (WorldNetDaily).

Its not just about gay marriage. Legalizing same-sex marriage opens the door to every other kind of “alternative lifestyle” imaginable—and the victims will be the children raised in these new arrangements. Please, ask your senator to vote yes for the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Get out the illegal vote

Check out Michelle Malkin's blog for June 2. She charges that a Democratic candidate has been caught on tape telling a Spanish speaking audience that they "don't need papers for voting." Why do I suspect that for many Democrats, the illegial immigrant issue is not about compassion, it is about their own political power.

Friday, June 02, 2006

Marriage Protection Amendment

The Marriage Protection Amendment is scheduled to be debated in the U.S. Senate in less than two weeks. Some people once argued that we don’t need a “Marriage Protection Amendment” because the issue should be decided at the state level. It has become very clear, however, that radical, activist judges won’t let the states decide. If we don't act, same-sex marriage will eventually be imposed on America by activist judges whether the people want it or not.

According to Senator Wayne Allard, “As the core social institution of our society, marriage in the United States should be defined as it has been in every civilization around the world for thousands of years: marriage is the union between a man and a woman. The definition of marriage is far too important to leave open to interpretation by unelected activist courts.”

The “Marriage Protection Amendment” is very simple. It says:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Please contact your U.S. Senators soon to ask them to vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Worldwide devastation and destruction

Last night I was watching a program by National Geographic in which scientists hypothesize about the catastrophic, civilization-ending consequences of a super-volcano at Yellowstone National Park. Also last night, PBS Frontline showed a documentary on the world-ravishing effects of AIDS—8,000 people dying per day! The Weather Channel has a series called “It Could Happen Tomorrow” which “takes a close look at unbelievable acts of nature that, if they occur, could spell disaster in cities across America.”

Other programs have discussed the possibility of an asteroid striking the earth, forever changing, or even destroying, life on this planet. Such programs often say it is not a matter of whether an asteroid will hit, but when. Still other programs sometimes say the same things about mega-earthquakes and nuclear terrorism. Of course there have also been numerous movies and docudramas on the worldwide spread of horrendous diseases through biological terrorism.

And then there’s Al Gore. One reviewer of Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, writes, “Extreme poverty, intractable wars, virulent disease, hatred of all stripes–these are a few of the scourges we live with today. And yet global climate change trumps them all; for if it's not addressed, all life on the planet will be devastated…”

If I didn’t know better I’d think this was all some kind of a vast right-wing Christian conspiracy to convince people that the prophecies in the biblical Book of Revelation could be true :-)