Stock Up and Save Everything for Baby at!

Sunday, March 28, 2010

The Beatles' tax-man prophecy

Who would have thought of this?

The Beatles' tax-man prophecy


Tuesday, March 23, 2010

The day the republic came to an end

Obamacare has been passed.

This is an article, mourning the loss of our unique way of life, which was written along the lines of FDR's famous Pearl Harbor speech

The day the republic came to an end


Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Jihad Me at Hello

With the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, it's no surprise that jihad has also come to be of serious attention.

The PC hacks say that jihad is a holy war that is fought internally, but informed individuals who do not follow the creed of political correctness know that the real meaning of jihad is far more sinister. After all, if jihad was really an internal struggle against the forces of good and evil, why do terrorist groups like Al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood exist?

Terrorist organizations responsible for waging jihad on the West will stop at nothing until Islam rules the world, no matter how high the casualties are. That said, they need manpower to carry out their deadly missions. A great many of the jihadis captured are young men, and indeed, they seem to be viewed as expendible.

But there's more to the jihad story than just young men wanting a shot at 72 virgins. A recent raid of a jihadi camp in Yemen turned up not just Arabs, but Americans and Europeans who were training to become terrorists.

Inquiring minds would ask:

What causes such men [John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid, etc], born and raised in the West, often from Christian backgrounds, to abandon their heritage, embrace Islam, and become radicalized to the point that they conspire to kill their fellow countrymen?

At first glance, theology may be a factor.

As for Islam's intrinsic appeal, it has long been argued that, unlike Christianity, which can be "heavy" on theology, Islam is relatively simple and straightforward. Thus while Christianity may revolve around the metaphysical -- the Trinity, Christology, even the notion of grace -- Islam, in black-and-white terms, commands its adherents to do this and not do that. In fact, the Arabic word "Sharia," that comprehensive body of laws Muslims are to obey, is etymologically related to the word for "pathway" -- as in, "the pathway to paradise."

"The pathway to paradise"? Must the path to heaven be a river of innocent blood, tears, and clogged with rubble left behind from the blast?

But what if this is not a good-enough justification for turning Islamic?

Their Christian background in which they were raised, which demands sacrifice and hard work, service to others, is abandoned with the desperate hopes and sick dreams of becoming the masters off all. But in fact, what they succeed in their conversions to primitive Islam is they are slaves of masters, who themselves are slaves of higher masters, slavery all on up; all of whom are the "slaves of Allah" power structure; all in the name of an Arabian pagan moon-god Al-Ylah, worshipped by Mohammad's uncle's family, which their prophet raised to the One. It is all sick, a renewal of slavery in Europe, a tyranny we had fought wars to banish, from the American Civil War to banish slavery of American Blacks, to World War II to banish slavery under Nazism, including the long Cold War to banish slavery of Communism. There is no 'manliness' in conversion to Islam, no compassion, no tolerance, no freedom - no redemption of any kind. It is slavery again, as it had ever been for 1400 years.

Indeed, power corrupts. But the part that really stood out to me was "no redemption of any kind" in regards to Islam. I have read in more than one place that Islam's more violent aspects make it an appealing religion to criminals because it doesn't require them to change their violent habits-just change who they're doing it for. Unlike Christianity, which combines repentance with intrasocial accountability (let the punishment fit the crime), Islam has no such thing as this because you are accountable only to Allah and no one else-not even your peers. You don't have to stop killing people just cuz you hate them-just say you're doing it in the name of Allah and that damned PC will make the police go easy on you. Just ask the Panty-bomber himself.

But what if there's something else involved? Something more than just satisfying someone's cravings to kill and dominate?

Yet there is another, more subtle, factor that may entice men to Islam: traditional male roles are highlighted in the religion. This may appeal to non-Muslim men who want to assert their "masculinity" in what they perceive to be gender-free Western societies. Harvey Mansfield's book, Manliness, defines that term as "a quality both bad and good, mostly male, often intolerant, irrational, and ambitious. Our gender-neutral society does not like it but cannot get rid of it."

Indeed, with an ethical code that coalesced in the seventh century -- when the Muslim prophet and "perfect example" walked the earth, enforced his will, and conquered his "infidel" neighbors -- Islamic culture can hardly be deemed "gender-neutral." Even philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who despised Christianity as "effeminate" and preached the need for man to be transformed into an amoral "hyper-man," professed admiration for Islam, describing it as "noble and manly" (The Antichrist).

Of course, traditional masculine roles are not the sole domain of Islam; most civilizations have lived in accordance to such norms; so-called "gender-neutral societies" are, from a historical perspective, aberrant. James Bowman, author of Honor: A History, points out that, when it comes to the West's disregard for notions of honor and masculinity, "we are, in global terms, the odd ones out"; he further asserts that, up until the Victorian era, in the West, "honor was rather closer to the Arab and Muslim idea of it today."

It is in this context, then, that disaffected young men -- who, like Nietzsche, despise what they perceive to be a "gender-neutral" society -- may find a religion which emphasizes "masculinity" appealing.

John Walker Lindh especially seems to fit this paradigm. Precipitating his conversion to Islam was his teenage discovery that his father was homosexual -- an event that appears to have traumatized and alienated Lindh. Islam's masculine ideals and unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality may have lured young Lindh, who, soon after his father left his mother and moved in with another man, converted to Islam at age 16. Shortly thereafter, he went a-jihading.

This is all further exasperated by Muslims mocking Western masculinity -- such as Osama bin Laden, who has ridiculed Western acceptance of homosexuality and characterized the American soldier as "a paper tiger" who is "too cowardly and too fearful to meet the young people of Islam face-to-face" (The Al Qaeda Reader).

Whatever position one may hold regarding these issues, one thing is clear: If traditional masculine virtues are upheld in Islamic culture, so too do traditional masculine vices abound -- for it is often a very fine line that separates hyper-virtue from hyper-vice. Honor, courage, and patriarchic ethics can -- and, in Islamic culture, regularly do -- morph into destructive pride (e.g., "honor killings"), disdain for life (e.g., suicide bombings), and brutal misogyny....

Not a pretty picture. It's no surprise that modern Europe has sunk so low that even characterizing what is male and what is female is ripe for a lawsuit.

But who knows-maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Maybe violent Islam is enough to make the West "Man-up" once and for all.

**Many thanks to Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch for providing the bolded quotes. The italicized quote was from a commenter named "Battle_of_Tours"**


Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Response to Tim Tebow Ad

Like over 100 million people in America, I watched the Super Bowl this past Sunday.

Like those 100 million people, I saw the most hotly-anticipated ad in Super Bowl history: the one with the most beloved college QB in America, Tim Tebow.

About 2 weeks prior to Sunday, the feminazi groups like NOW and NARAL got wind that a conservative group called Focus on the Family had paid money for a pro-life ad that would play during the Super Bowl. Naturally, the feminazis went COMPLETELY berserk!! Everyone from NOW to the NY Times was screaming for CBS, the station that aired the Super Bowl this year, to pull the ad in favor of one that was "pro-choice". Fortunately, CBS found their balls said no to the feminazis.

When the ad finally came on, it featured Pam Tebow, Tim's mom, talking about her difficult pregnancy with Tim. Mrs. Tebow had contracted amoebic dysentry in the Phillipines while on a missionary trip, and while on powerful drugs for the disease, she became pregnant with her famous son. The doctors told her that she should abort her child, since the drugs had affected the pregnancy, but Mrs. Tebow refused. She said that many times, she nearly miscarried. But fortunately, she carried Tim to term, and he was born healthy. The ad then showed Tim playfully tackling his mom, and she playfully scolds him for tackling her. The two then hug. It was really a sweet ad-not once was the word "abortion" mentioned! You can see for yourself below.

After the ad was finished, I thought to myself "Is that what all the fuss was about?"

But now the feminazis have been left with egg on their faces. They were spewing their angry rhetoric BEFORE the ad was ever aired. Now that the ad has been aired, they have been exposed for the anti-family, anti-baby, death-cult fanatics that they are, to paraphrase an open letter by Dr. Gerald Nadal. Even some liberals were appalled by the behavior of the feminazis. The scandalously liberal Washington Post wrote an article IN FAVOR of Tim Tebow's ad!

But believe it or not, Tim Tebow is not the first football player to express views in favor of life. In 1989, the American Life League produced a video featuring 6 players from the 1987 NY Giants Super Bowl team. These players, ranging from the devoutly Catholic Mark Bavaro, to the unlikely Phil Simms, all spoke in favor of life in the womb. The athletes condemned the abortion industry for the huge number of casualties it created, and this was in 1989-over 20 years ago!

Here's the video featuring the 1987 NY Giants. It's called "Champions for Life".

If only there were more people like Tim and the '87 Giants to stand up for what they believe.



Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Rules for Immigrants

If the leftist commies can have "Rules for Radicals" as their owners' manuel, then maybe Immigration and Customs should have "Rules for Immigrants" as their standard operating procedure.

What's in "Rules for Immigrants"? Well, just like its title implies, it contains some rules every immigrant coming into the United States must adhere to, should they choose to live here.

On culture:

First, the United States of America was founded, although not directly on the Bible itself, at least on biblical values. You do not have to believe as I believe to live here in my good graces, but you do have to abide by the biblical worldview governing ethical behavior, upon which all Western civilization, ultimately, is based.

The primary biblical value underlying all others is telling the truth. I don't know you personally or even which part of the world you are from, but if you think some sort of "holy deception" is permissible when filling out your paperwork, forget it.

As we see it, lying is lying, and frankly we don't care what your culture thinks. If you get caught breaking our laws or betraying our country, you're out of here. Period.

On social behaviors:

You cannot own people here. This includes domestic servants and family members. You cannot beat or mutilate your children. You cannot force, threaten, or sell them into arranged marriages. You cannot keep adult relatives from marrying the people they choose, getting jobs, or moving out of your house. You cannot hold your employees captive, beat or rape them, or refuse to pay agreed-upon wages. It took us 200 years to get rid of institutionalized slavery, and we are not about to reinstate it because one of your holy men thinks it's acceptable behavior.

You get only one wife. If that's not enough, it's called bigamy – and you would be subject to state laws regarding that particular felony. Some states also have laws against cohabitation, which is the legal definition of what you would be doing. Also, please note that the rest of us do not intend to support any surplus "spouses" with our tax money through entitlement programs.

On crime:

You cannot kill people here. Not your wife. Not your children. Not your grandchildren. Not people who question your honor or hurt your feelings. Not people who quit your religion. Not people of other faiths or ethnicities whom you regard as apes, pigs, monkeys, or dogs.

You alone are responsible for your actions. The devil does not "make" you do anything. If you get in trouble for punching your neighbor, it's because you're violent, not because you're poor. If you get caught cheating on your taxes, it's because you're a crook, not because the auditor hates you.

A woman's outfit or hairstyle does not "make" you rape her. Maybe your mommy never told you this, but keep your hands off other people. The vast majority of men in most cultures – America's included – manage this successfully all the time. So if you find yourself standing in front of a judge someday explaining that you just "couldn't" control yourself, don't be too surprised if he doesn't buy your story.

On politics:

You cannot take over our lawful institutions and subvert them to you own purposes. If you are a communist and want to overthrow our government, we don't want you. We have enough of our own, so try Cuba or China. If you are a Nazi sympathizer we don't want you either; a Middle Eastern country may be more to your liking anyway. If you are coming here to convert us to any ideology that abrogates our dignity or freedom, don't even get off the plane. We don't care what it says in your holy book; we are not here for you to colonize.

On jobs:

If your belief system requires a special place to bathe your feet or time off to pray at work, tell your employer before you hire on. If you are going to refuse to work next to a person of the opposite sex or refuse to perform some required function of the job, your interview is the time to make this plain. Come to think of it, before you leave your country of origin would be even better. It would also give you more time to find an employer willing to make special accommodations, not an easy sell in these times of strong competition and 10 percent unemployment. Just remember that U.S. companies are under no obligation to adapt to your newfound needs after hiring has taken place.

On language:

When you are here in America, you must learn to speak English. For most Americans, English is their primary language. It is also the primary language of government and business. Failure to learn English in the United States will result in confusion and cultural isolation. While it's ok to be fluent in languages other than English, remember that Americans are not obligated to learn to speak your language-especially if this is so that you don't have to speak theirs.

Pass this out to every immigrant that sets foot on these shores, and if they agree to these terms as specified above, they will be put on a waiting list for a visa. If they refuse to abide by these terms, then they won't be granted access to the United States.

Original article found on World Net Daily, "Rules for Living in my Country"


Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Religion of Denial

Joel Richardson writes a fascinating commentary about why Moslems never seem to admit that their religion is to blame for terrorism.

Here come the Muslim denials. I suppose that this was to be expected in light of the many denials of the past, but it doesn't sting any less when prominent Muslim leaders, against all rationality, logic or evidence, claim that the latest episode of Islamic terrorism was not carried out by a Muslim or Muslims, but by the American or Israeli government. But despite the absurdity of the idea that an American CIA agent would light his crotch on fire for the sake of making Muslims look bad, this is exactly what is being claimed by Abdul Alim Musa, imam of the Islam Mosque in Washington, D.C. This latest case of denial occurred during a recent debate with Jack Goldstone of George Mason University and is featured on the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute.

During the debate, the imam was quite clear as to whom he blames for most global terrorism:

I am just going to go straight to the point. If you go back for the last 20 years, from the first World Trade Center bombing in '93 … We said it then, and we say it now, and this is the belief in the Muslim world: 90 percent of the bombing plots … we believe is done by and with the help and the aid of Mossad and the United States government. … We believe that whoever this guy is from Nigeria, we don't believe he has any ties with Islam.

Notice the imam didn't say, "I believe," but "we." What is so disturbing about this absurd worldview is that, according to a Pew Research Center poll, roughly 60 percent of the world Muslim community shares his attitudes of denial and blame-shifting.

There are some important observations that need to be made here. Most know well that Western culture has been significantly formed by its Judeo-Christian roots. One of the rarely discussed elements of this tradition is the practice of confession. Because of the historical influence of confession on our culture, today we are a people that has openly and repeatedly admitted its own collective sinfulness, not only presently, but also historically. Now, as an aside, it must be qualified that our admission of guilt has been exploited and over-emphasized by many who embrace various revolutionary philosophies that are in conflict with our free and capitalistic society. The current president comes to mind. But I am getting off-track.

Contrary to Western culture, the Islamic world, having been formed almost exclusively by the religion of Islam, is not a culture of confession. Quite the opposite really. While Muslims confess their sins to Allah, they do not believe in confessing to one another. The Judeo-Christian biblical tradition holds that we are all accountable not only to God, but also to each other. Muslims do not believe that they are accountable to anyone other than Allah. And they especially do not believe that they are accountable to non-Muslims.

Not only is Islam not confessional, but it is also a religion that bloats the egos of its followers. Islam's sacred traditions repeatedly tell Muslims that they are the best people in every way.

Ye (Muslims) are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book (Jews and Christian) had faith, it would be best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.
– Quran 3:110

Muslims are told that they have the best prophet; that they have the best holy book; that they are the best of peoples, etc. The result is a corporate culture of denial, an entire culture that refuses to take responsibility for its actions and sins. It is a child-like world of blame-shifting and conspiracy theories. Not surprisingly, then, in recent days we have seen numerous examples of Muslim denial from various Muslim leaders.

After the government of Scotland released the Lockerbie bomber, President Moammar Gadhafi openly spit in their face by denying that the Lockerbie bomber had any responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of innocent lives.

During five public appearances in Washington – at PBS, the Willard Hotel, the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced and International Studies, SETA-DC (a Turkish think tank) and the German Marshall Fund – Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan made a series of brazenly outrageous remarks and denialist statements concerning the well-documented Armenian Genocide. During an interview with Charlie Rose, Erdogan fumed when asked about the Armenian Genocide: "I can say very clearly that we do not accept genocide. This is completely a lie. I invite people to prove it. ... Something like this is really not possible, and there is no truth to it." During his appearance at the Johns Hopkins University, Erdogan proudly proclaimed that his "ancestors have never committed genocide."

Responding to criticism for welcoming to Turkey Sudanese President Al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court, Erdogan also denied the most public genocide of modern times. The genocide in Darfur has claimed over 400,000 lives and displaced over 2,500,000 people. More than 100 people continue to die each day; 5,000 die every month. Yet when asked about this, Erdogan simply shrugged it away, claiming simply that "no Muslim could perpetrate a genocide." Case closed.

Even Turkish Muslim leader Adnan Oktar, whom I consider a personal friend, in a recent interview with Hisham Tillawi on the Republic Broadcasting Network, made the outlandish claim that Osama bin Laden doesn't exist. Instead, Oktar claims:

[Osama] is one of the fantasy actors in this film. I do not believe there is any such person. They organize people who have undergone such Darwinist materialist education and get them to perform various acts of terror in order to depict Muslims as terrorists and anarchists. These activities are under the control of foreign intelligence agencies. I think they used Osama bin Ladin. I do not think any such person exists. …

And, of course, we have seen Iranian President Ahmadinejad make repeated denials of the Holocaust.

Now we have a popular Muslim imam from Washington, D.C., openly claiming that the recent Nigerian bomber was yet another set-up by the Israeli Mossad and / or the U.S. government. Again, we are subjected to the nonsensical claims that no Muslim is capable of acts of terrorism. And again, the imam mirrors the claims of Mr. Oktar and much of the Muslim world by claiming that al-Qaida is simply a creation of the U.S. government.

What should concern us all with regard to this systemic spiritual disease within the Muslim world is that blame-shifting and denial are always the tools of enablers. Let's be very clear here: One cannot claim to be against terrorism but deny it when it occurs in its worst forms. This is a pure contradiction. When a Muslim leader denies blatant acts of terrorism, when one refuses to acknowledge guilt, sin and wrongdoing, they only enable it to happen again and again. The act of terrorism is a process, a community event. The enabler-denialist leaders and the terrorists are equally responsible. Their relationship is symbiotic. Muslims who are truly against terrorism must repudiate such nonsense and begin taking responsibility for the sins of their community. Healing cannot come without confession and repentance. This is why Christianity has the ability to heal the human condition and Islam does not. And it is also why I do not believe terrorism will cease until the Messiah returns.

Here's something to think about: If the Islamic culture was responsible for bringing about algebra and astronomy, why couldn't it put a man on the moon? I believe the reason for this is because at 1 point, I think it was in the 1400s, Islamic scholars closed the book on innovation. Of course, not all innovative Moslems were stifled, but alot of potential advances in technology, science, and art went out the window and into the West. And think about it-Iran didn't know how to build a reactor until we took their students into our school's engineering programs, and showed them how to do it. There is an astounding lack of curiousity in the Moslem world about a variety of topics. And I think their religion has alot to do with that.

Take care of yourselves out there. This is a dangerous world we live in...


Private Speech and Public Opinion

Recently, Harry Reid made headlines with some controversial remarks, concerning what kind of Blacks would make the best candidate.

Personally, for all the resentment I harbor at Dingy Harry for the backdoor and sweetheart votebuying that he's done for the healthcare debaucle, I don't give a crap about what he said! Private comments are what they are-private.

Here's a commentary piece I found on my favorite news site, WND. It's written by Dennis Prager.

I think that Harry Reid is a left-wing ideologue who is doing serious harm to a great country.

I think that Harry Reid would charge any Republican colleague with racism and ask for that person's resignation if he or she said what Reid is reported to have said about Barack Obama's color and accent.

I think that every liberal Democrat deserves to be hoisted on his own petard and stung by the race card that liberals invented and have used for decades against Republican conservatives. Given what Democrats and their allies in the media did to Sens. Trent Lott and George Allen – taking innocuous comments and declaring them racist – Republicans have every right to demand that Mr. Reid resign as Senate majority leader.

But to the extent that truth still matters in America, what Reid is reputed to have said is not racist, let alone renders him a racist. It seems to be nothing more than a private opinion about what type of black American had the best chance to be elected president.

But all this is not the issue. Here are the issues that matter:
  • the belief that the public has a right to know what people say privately;
  • the belief that one knows the "true nature" of people if one knows what they said in private;
  • the utter inability of Americans to speak with any honesty about anything to do with race.

Let's deal with each.

The unearthing of the private lives and thoughts of public figures has become so normal as to be expected. What the media have done, however, is to render private conversations of anyone in public life almost as guarded as those of citizens in Communist countries. The news media have become a nonviolent form of the East German Stasi or the Soviet KGB. Just as citizens in those former totalitarian states needed to guard their speech in private, lest secret police informers snitch on them and ruin their lives, so, too, American public figures – from politics to entertainment – now need to guard their most private moments, lest a member of the media snitch on them and ruin their lives.

As Rhett Butler finally said to Scarlett O'Hara, I say to the media about the private speech of public figures, "Frankly, I don't give a damn."

Which brings us to the second point – the belief among many Americans that one knows "the real person" (public or private) if one knows what the person says in private, and therefore, we should know as much as possible about the private conversations of public figures.

This is as dangerous as it is nonsensical.

There is no truth to this belief.

We all say all sorts of things in private that reveal nothing about our true selves. The very nature of private speech is that it enables us to be free to say anything. It is what we do that tells the world who we are. And as regards the speech of public figures, it is what public figures say of significance in public that matters.

It is, to my mind, another of the many examples of the lack of wisdom in the liberal world that liberals think that private speech reveals who people are, and that we therefore have a right, even a duty, to know as much about it as possible. Thus, liberals repeatedly speak of Richard Nixon's private anti-Jewish remarks to make their case that the former president was an anti-Semite. Of course, this "anti-Semite" appointed the first Jewish secretary of state and saved Israel's life during the Yom Kippur War. But to the foolish who believe that private speech is the real thing, little of that matters in assessing Nixon's character insofar as it related to Jews.

To sharpen this point, contrast Nixon with another recent president, Jimmy Carter. I would be willing to wager that Mr. Carter has never said anything in private as derogatory about Jews as Nixon did. But to the vast majority of Jews and non-Jews who understand that the security of the Jewish state is the most pressing Jewish issue, Mr. Carter has been the Jews' problem, not Mr. Nixon. Likewise, Harry Truman sometimes used the term "kike" in private conversation, but it was he who went against the advice of his entire State Department and recognized Israel's existence as soon as Israel was declared a state.

Finally, we again come to the falsehood that Democrats and liberals regularly offer when they ask Americans to have honest dialogue on the race issue. Thanks to liberals, one can sooner swear in public or declare the world is flat than say the most innocuously valid things about racial matters. One cannot even oppose race-based affirmative action without liberals labeling the person "racist."

Because I prize private speech and truth more than I prize humiliating Harry Reid – who, again, would not be nearly so decent to any Republican – I find the revelation of his private speech and especially the attention paid to it as if it signifies anything important about him to reflect only one more example of a downward moral spiral in my beloved country.

What do you think about Harry Reid's comments?