Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Giving and forgiving

Sola-Man (gotta remember that hyphen) provides some links to three aid organizations. On his comments page for that post, I expressed my reservations about donating money that could very well go to people who looted New Orleans stores of essentials like TVs and stereos. In reflection, however, I deeply considered the Bible passage Sola-Man cited:
Matthew 25:34-40

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

Who is the least of the least if not the people who consider this disaster to be a license for them to sin? And how am I any different from them? I've stolen things in my life. I've committed the same sins many of them have. I'm as deserving of damnation to Hell as much as they are. Jesus saw all this, saw all our sins. But he didn't hesitate to offer himself up as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. The lyrics to one of my favorite Ray Boltz songs came to mind:
Long ago, there was a Father and a Son
Who saw the children lost in sin
Can't you see the tears in the Father's eyes
As Jesus said to Him:
"What if I could give all I have?
What would that gift do?"
"My Son, that gift would change the world.
It would free the multitude."

This song also speaks of giving to those in need. They may not deserve it, but we need to give anyway. It's what Christ taught us not just in word, but in deed as well.

Planks and specks

I just find it odd that someone CC would berate me for a week straight as lying and failing to issue a correction in reference to an article I never cited and hadn't read before their accusation, especially when they have never issued corrections for their constant lies.

But then, I'm rational so the irrational tends to escape me.

Monday, August 29, 2005

An anti-war song I actually support

Really! No joke!

No bombs, no guns, no more war, no genocide, no torture
No disease, no affliction, no crippled, no addictions
No prisons, no more poverty, fresh air everyone is free

A place called love
A place called love
A place called love
A place called love
A place called love

No sun, no moon will shine, the Lamb will be our light
No hunger, no more thirsting, water of life we'll all drink
No more death, no more crying, every tear wiped from our eyes

A place called love
A place called love
A place called love
A place called love
A place called love

And the Spirit and the Bride say come
Let him who hears say come
Let him who thirsts say come
Let him who wishes come

To a place called love
A place called love
A place called love
A place called love
A place called love
A place called love

--Fleming & John
"A Place Called Love"

Hat tip to my brother Solaman, who introduced me to the whole grain goodness of Fleming & John.

Sorry, CC, but I'm happily married

You've obviously decided to make me the center of your life, but you're going to have to suffer with your morbid infatuation. My wife and I are in love and very happily dedicated to one another, but even if I weren't married, I still would have to break your heart.

Citizens for Legitimate Gov't and the DUmp* make false claims about President Bush

*The DUmp is a nickname for the hilariously loony left-wing Democratic Underground.

The DUmp dregs are going ga-ga over the latest "breaking news" from the Citizens for Legitimate Government website:
Bush Cut Hurricane, Flood Protection Funding to New Orleans 06 June 2005 In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding. It would be the largest single-year funding loss ever for the New Orleans district, Corps officials said. I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction, said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district... The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now. [Please forward this news item to every media outlet and listserve.]

Yes, please forward it so that people can see how dishonest and dumb you really are. Note the words "fiscal year 2006." The federal fiscal year runs from October 1st to September 30th, which means we're still in fiscal year 2005! Oops. Furthermore, the article the CLG links to states that it is Congress that sets the Corp budget. Oops again. My bet is that this funding issue will be reversed if New Orleans gets hit hard by Hurricane Katrina, which it seems it will be.

Of course, these facts are meaningless to most of the DUmp. Check out the posts in this thread. It's all President Bush's fault, of course, and there's barely a mention of the facts about the federal fiscal year and who sets the Corp budget. They're blinded to the truth by their hatred of President Bush, I think. Par for the course over there.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Chickenhawk, shmickenhawk - the left's worthless retort

Many liberals like to trot out the old "if you support President Bush and the war in Iraq so much, why haven't you enlisted, chickenhawk" line as if it is the end all and be all of comebacks. It actually is lacking in both logic and reason. I think this person on CQ put it well in the first comment to this post:
The whole chickenhawk argument is ludicrous anyway.

I have no intention of joining the fire dept., but when I see a house burning down I expect those that did to handle it. I have no intention of ever becoming a cop, but I think those that did should attempt to stop a bank robbery. In either case, the need for professionals to perform the functions they volunteered for and trained to do is obvious to me, and I don't see why expecting them to perform their function requires me to be willing to perform it as well.

So all you liberals who think the whole "chickenhawk" bit is a slam-dunk, I suggest you think about why you haven't joined the fire and police departments if you support the fighting of fires and crimes. By your own "logic" (such as it is), you're hypocrites.

UPDATE: Hello, Canadian Cynic readers. Please relay this link to CC along with my sincerest apologies.

Friday, August 19, 2005

And I'm sure a "Christian Pride Day" would go over just as well

Pagans to celebrate their beliefs and educate others
A new sense of optimism and tolerance prompted Sherry Lyon to organize the first Pagan Pride Day in Shreveport.

The two-day event will be held this weekend in hopes of educating the public about paganism beyond the stereotypes.

Yep. A "Christian Pride Day" wouldn't be proselytizing. We would only be "celebrating our beliefs and educating others." No one would complain about that. (Yeah, right!)

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Another question for liberals

As Michelle Malkin wonders, why is this not okay (I'm not saying it is):

Crosses vandalized at antiwar mom's Texas camp site

But these are (judging by the lack of outcry from the left and the fact that it happens quite a bit):

Attack on Rhode Island Pro-Life Monument Investigated as Hate Crime

Tearing down the little, white crosses

Pro-life cross display vandalized

Not to mention this "artwork:"

Piss Christ

I'm personally of the mind that the left has no room to complain about "the desecration of crosses" by a mote from our side when they have a whole slew of planks on their side to deal with first.

See my previous question for liberals here.

And it looks like some "open-minded," "reality-based," "tolerant" liberal has gone and posted some nasty things on Michelle's trackback for the post I linked to above.


Click here for an uncensored screenshot.

Explain this one to me, liberals

Why is this okay:

But these are not:

Just for the sake of clarity, picture #1 is the make-shift war memorial set up by Cindy Sheehan and her supporters last week, picture #2 is the 51-year-old Mount Soledad war memorial in San Diego, and picture #3 is the 71-year-old Mojave Cross war memorial.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Solution to the "ID in schools" controversy

TheologyWeb's Mad_Gerbil came up with a solution to the controversy surrounding the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools:
If you don't want your kids taught ID you can send a note to school and have your kids sit out in the hall while it is being taught.

Ya know, the irony of it all just tickles me pink.


NOTE: Just for everyone's information, I'm not "for" ID. I just don't see any legitimate, non-bigotted reason not to teach it in schools. The best ID's opponents have is: "It's not science! It's religion! It's Creationism!" And you know that anything that even hints at God is verboten to these people.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

A *must read* article about the Constitution

Constitutional Myths and Realities

It's a bit long, so I'll just post the part I particularly like. Go and read ALL of it, though. It's absolutely worth it.
Myth or Misconception 5: The Constitution is a document for lawyers and judges.

The Constitution was written for those in whose name it was cast, “we the people.” It is a relatively short document, and it is generally straightforward and clear-cut. With only a few exceptions, there is an absence of legalese or technical terms. While the contemporary constitutional debate has focused overwhelmingly on a few broad phrases of the Constitution such as “due process” and “equal protection,” the overwhelming part of this document specifies, for example, that a member of the House of Representatives must be 25 years of age, seven years a citizen, and an inhabitant of the state from which he is chosen; that a bill becomes a law when approved by both Houses and signed by the president, etc. One willing to invest just a bit more time in understanding the Constitution need only peruse The Federalist Papers to see what Madison, Hamilton or Jay had to say about its provisions to a popular audience in the late-18th century.

One reason I believe that the Constitution, as well as our laws generally, should be interpreted according to the straightforward meaning of their language, is to maintain the law as an institution that belongs to all of the people, and not merely to judges and lawyers. Let me give you an illustration: One creative constitutional scholar has said that the requirement that the president shall be at least 35 years of age really means that a president must have the maturity of a person who was 35 back in 1789 when the Constitution was written. That age today, opines this scholar, might be 30 or 32 or 40 or 42. The problem is that whenever a word or phrase of the Constitution is interpreted in such a “creative” fashion, the Constitution—and the law in general—becomes less accessible and less comprehensible to ordinary citizens, and more the exclusive province of attorneys who are trained in knowing such things as that “35” does not always mean “35.”

One thing, by the way, that is unusual in the constitutional law course that I teach at Hillsdale College is that we actually read the language of the Constitution and discuss its provisions as we do so. What passes for constitutional law study at many colleges and universities is exclusively the study of Supreme Court decisions. While such decisions are obviously important, it is also important to compare what the Supreme Court has said to what the Constitution says. What is also unusual at Hillsdale is that, by the time students take my course, they have been required to study such informing documents as the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, Washington’s First Inaugural Address—and, indeed, the Constitution itself.

[Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College,]

Hat tip to the Muzzinator for finding this.

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Un. Be. Lievable!

Dawn makes yet another astonishing, disgusting Planned Parenthood find: the cartoon adventures of Dianysis: "a Superhero for CHOICE." She fights the abstinence message personified in a Snidley Whiplash clone character, who is ultimately drown in a garbage can full of sex lubricant by Dianysis. She then goes on to shoot a gun at anti-abortion protesters, who become encased in condoms and blow up. With victory over the evil conservatives, the credits run. However, the show isn't over. Oh, no. The creators of this trash throw in a "protester's decapitation by condom" sequence into the credits just for good measure.

Now consider if a cartoon like this had been created by some anti-abortion group. PP and other similar groups (NARAL et al) would be screaming bloody murder (pun intended)! They'd condemn it as "promoting violence against advocates for choice and family planning clinics."

I expect this cartoon to vanish from the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate website very soon. These things have a habit of disappearing once we evil, Snidley Whiplash-ish abstinence promoters find them.

UPDATE: And it's gone! For my next feat of prescience, I shall predict tomorrow's winning lottery numbers! (Just kidding.)

Friday, August 05, 2005

Three great letters to the editor about homosexuality

Read them here and take great hope in the knowledge that there are still a lot of decent preachers and teachers of God's Word out there who are willing to take an unwavering stand against sin while never giving up love and compassion.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

For the clueless: Susan Torres ≠ Terri Shiavo

I knew it would eventually happen. I'm actually surprised it took this long, though. A liberal has tried to make a direct comparison between Susan Torres and Terri Schiavo. From the comments:
Wait a minute. Her mother was allowed to die because she was in a coma. What gives?

No congressional investigation? No praying for an act of God? No "glasses of water"?

Frist? No diagnosis? No clean bill of health?

No Faux Nobel Prize Nominees on Fox?

Dude, her brain had not deteriorated to the point of blindness and functional death, yet you said nothing while THOSE PEOPLE MURDERED HER!!! WWTSD? What Would Terri Shiavo Do, Jinx?
Brandon Snark

No, Brandon, Mrs. Torres wasn't in a coma. She wasn't even in a PVS. She was brain dead and on life support. Terri Schiavo was not on life support. Unlike Michael Schiavo, Mr. Torres allowed doctors to thoroughly examine her and determine her condition before she died and didn't pick and choose doctors favorable to an anti-life position. Mr. Torres was not fighting tooth and nail for his wife's death without her condition being determined without question.
Alright, Jinx. You have posted several times without letting me know why I am apparently "stupid" for daring to compare Shiavo to this woman. It's obvious that you were entirely full of it.

Oh, gosh. I'm SOOOOOOOOO sorry, Brandon. I'm obviously in the wrong in working in my own time and in my own way instead of yours. Please, please, PLEASE forgive me!
The only time you reply to anything I say is when you think you have a point. The overwhelming majority of the time, you are wrong. This case is no different.

Oh, do shut up, would you? Your pompous displays of ego are sickening.
Both of the woman were declared brain dead with no chance of recovering. Both were allowed to die.

Terri was not braindead. PVS is not the same as brain death. I'm honestly not surprised you don't know the difference.

Also, Terri's condition was not determined until after she was "allowed to die." It's always cute when you liberals put the cart before the horse.
Everything that right wingers claimed regarding Shiavo turned out to be false. Frist declared, on the Senate floor no less, that Shiavo responded to visual stimuli. Wrong, she was blind.

She was blind at the time of her death. The ME who did the autopsy could not say what the condition of her brain and its functioning were like 15 years ago.
Some doctor claimed to be a Nobel nominee who could save her, but he was lying on both accounts.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything here.
It was claimed that Michael Shiavo was an abusive husband when, in reality, he took care of her for five years without letting her get a single bed sore (do you know how difficult that is?). Bruises were from her accident. The right was wrong.

Wow. Bedsores. What compassion! I mean, that's so much better than following through on promises to provide her with rehabilitative therapy - promises Michael made until he was handed a large cash award by the court.
The only conceivable difference is that some of Shiavo's primitive brain still functioned, allowing her body to stay alive. Some people used this fact to compare her to a quadriplegic. I'll give you a hint: People with non-functioning spinal cords are handicapped; people with non-functioning brains are dead.

Indeed. So you finally admit that Susan Torres - brain dead - and Terri Schiavo - PVS - are completely dissimilar. Well, no, you didn't outright admit that, but if you ever bother to critically examine your position and the facts of both cases, you'd see I'm right.

Now, Brandon, you *will* let this matter drop here. I will not stand for your or anyone else's disgusting usage of the memory of these two women for political purposes. I mean, Mrs. Torres hasn't even been buried yet. Man, you liberals are ghouls!

The $100,000 Republican "ad"

Now this is pretty cool. A 74-year-old California man paid over $100,000 to have a full-page "ad" printed in the Washington Post for the purpose of explaining what it is to be a Republican. (Hint: it ain't what liberals like Howie "the Screaming Blue Weenie" Dean say it is.) Here it is: You’re a Republican??? Read it all. It's worth it.

(Verified by

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

al-Reuters loves those bombers in Iraq!

Here is a vomit-inducing excerpt from a recent Reuters story:
The blast, which highlighted the effectiveness of makeshift bombs against the most powerful military in the world, was the second major attack against Marines in the Haditha area in the past three days.

What the "fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudge?" (Fans of "A Christmas Story" will hopefully get that.) Um, yeah. Nothing like encouraging the enemy. Except, of course, that the reporter probably doesn't consider the bombers to be the enemy...

The sick, sad world of abortion

Dawn's got a couple of great (as usual) posts about abortion. First, the bizarre and disgusting practice of baptizing aborted babies. Gee, could we be any more blasphemous? Second, if you're in search of medical care for a serious pregnancy complication, don't bother looking to Planned Parenthood. Yeah, they really are concerned with the health of the mother...

UPDATE: Regular reader and commentator Brandon decided to chime in:
I'm [sic] don't understand why it's so awful that they don't do prenatal care.

Well, let's see... You're (speaking in general terms and not about you specifically, Brandon) a woman who is reproducing... and PP's mission is to promote reproductive health... Hrm... I just don't know what I was thinking in criticizing them.
It's not part of their core mission, which is to help someone "manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence." Managing fertility does not include prenatal care.

Cute. As if that's all their mission statement says. Here's the entire first section of their mission statement. I've highlighted (with larger, bolded text) the relevent part.
Planned Parenthood's mission statement

Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual's right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life, strong family relationships, and population stability.

Based on these beliefs, and reflecting the diverse communities within which we operate, the mission of Planned Parenthood is:

* to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual;

* to advocate public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure access to such services;

* to provide educational programs which enhance understanding of individual and societal implications of human sexuality;

* to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications.

"[T]o provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services." Read that again. "[T]o provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services." Wouldn't prenatal care fall under that? If not, why not?
Other thing not included in their mission: optometry, preventative care for obesity management, pediatrics, etc.

Don't be obtuse, Brandon. It's unflattering.
Things that are included in their mission: birth control, disease prevention, disease testing, pregnancy testing, adoption, etc.

Obviously, if you are going to keep your baby, they don't give a flying fig about your health.
In other words, they are not Walmart; there are some things that they don't offer.

There you go being obtuse again. They don't have to be Walmart. They just have to show that they truly care about the health of women.

Now, the best for last. This is the coup de grâce, Brandon. Both PP and you are completely and utterly discredited by this. Take a look: Health Services

What health services do Planned Parenthood health centers offer?

Each Planned Parenthood affiliate is a unique, locally governed health service organization that reflects the diverse needs of its community. Planned Parenthood health centers offer a wide range of services that may include

* family planning counseling and birth control

* pregnancy testing and counseling

* gynecological care, Pap tests, breast exams

* emergency contraception

* HIV testing and counseling

* medically accurate sexuality education

* screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections

* infertility screening and counseling

* voluntary sterilization for women and men

* reproductive medical exams for men

* safer sex counseling

* midlife services

* abortions or abortion referrals

* prenatal care

* adoption referrals

* primary care

* referrals for specialized care

Now, this woman is in Bryn Mawr, PA, which is just outside of Philadelphia. Here's a map of Planned Parenthoods in that area:

Google Maps: Planned Parenthood locations around Philadelphia

There's a lot of them. Are we to believe that not one of them provides pre-natal care in that major metropolitan area? Or perhaps she went to one PP clinic and they failed to refer her to another PP clinic in the area that does provide prenatal care? I find myself with an extreme lack of credulity regarding either of those possibilities and I cannot see any others.

Susan Anne Catherine Torres born

In contrast to the last entry, a bittersweet moment of love for life from conception onward has come to pass. The daughter of Susan Torres, the 26-year-old woman who has been braindead and on life support since a stroke on May 7th, has been born and is doing well. Read more here (where you can donate, too) and here.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Ah, imitation. The sincerest form of flattery.

Someone decided to be cute and set up a really lame liberal blog using the domain name "" Looks like it's been around since April (or March) of this year. (I've been around since September of last year.) I'm honestly flattered that someone apparently thinks that I'm so much of a threat that they have to set up a similarly named (I use an ampersand instead of the word "and") and URLed liberal blog. Maybe I am.

Hrm... I feel a sneeze coming on...

Ah... Ahhh. AHHHH! *RIPOFF!!*

Web Pages referring to this page
Link to this page and get a link back!