Sunday, May 21, 2006

If the Senate Passes Treasonous CIRA S. 2611...

then I will join the growing number of conservatives who agree with Dr. Jack Wheeler, of "" He not only condemns the current Senate, but Bush senior, and some of Bush junior. I think he's spot on when he declares that our current Senate is the worst Senate in modern times.

Let your Congressman know how you feel about border control, etc. The Senate is too far gone, unless you want to scream, complain and threaten.

Thursday, May 18, 2006

"Gandalf" Happy Jesus Was Married

Sir Ian McKellen, who played Gandalf in "Lord of the Rings" and English aristocrat Sir Leigh Teabing in "Da Vinci Code" read Brown's novel and called it "codswallop." However, the ever politically correct McKellen redirects in the following statement:

Sir Ian said: "When I read the book I believed it entirely. I thought Leigh Teabing had answered his case very convincingly indeed.
"When I put the book down I thought 'What a load of potential codswallop'."That's still going on in my mind. But I'm very happy to believe that Jesus was married.
"I know that the Catholic Church has problems with gay people and I thought that this was absolute truth that Jesus was not gay."

I KNEW there'd be some redeeming value in codswallop. We want people to "be happy" in what they believe--TOP PRIORITY! And we "homophobic Catholics" desperately need to have "proof" that Jesus wasn't gay. Oh, good, Jesus liked women. Phew! Thanks Mr. Brown!

For more ingesting of this swill, click here.

And you anti-Catholics think we're over-reacting to this "fiction?" If Gandalf the White can't resist Mr. Brown's cunning and deception, how can we mere mortals do so?

Amazing Animal Language Discovery!!


Recognize that sentence, kids? Yup, you guessed it! It's the "run like hell" command of the male Nigerian Putty-Nosed Monkey. More "scientists" have found important evolutionary clues from their infallible studies. Here's what they have to say:

The putty-nosed monkeys, Cercopithecus nictitans, of the Gashaka Gumti National Park, have two main alarm call sounds. A sound known onomatopoeically as the “pyow” warns other animals against a lurking leopard, and a cough-like sound that scientists call a “hack” is used when an eagle is hovering near by. --Timesonline, May 18, 2006

For more information of primate grammatical formations and other really important stuff, read:
PYOW HACK!! You People!!

It's one thing when a leopard comes lurking, don't we know. It's another when a leopard and an eagle come at the same time. I'd "Pyow-Hack" too, if I were a monkey!

Notice though, that "Puddy" only uses present tense verbs with the imperitive mood. Sexist simpletons! Don't they know that they may be OFFENDING the female "Puddies?" How undemocratic! You don't command people in this day and age; you inspire them, evoke a response that will encourage intrinsic motivation; you allow for input. Obviously, they need a little more evolution. It will mean something when they start using passive voice verbs to be more PC and avoid offensive commands. The female "Puddies" would appreciate it. Something like "YO! Pyow--HEY!-Hack Doan-cha-no!"--"A leopard was spotted along with an eagle. It is best if an evacuation plan were to be formulated and executed. A board meeting will be set to discuss the subject at 2pm. Your ideas will be appreciated."

Now that would be progress!!!

When Beastiality is a "Good" Thing...

Ever since priests with flowing robs were replaced with scientists with flowing white lab coats, a unique religion has emerged over the last century. With natural selection and survival of the fittest, we have a "scientific" view of the origins of life. We are so smart now, we know things that were impossible to know while religion ruled the day. Check out the latest infallible "study" by "scientists" who have a "new idea" of how human life evolved:

You May Be A Monkey's Uncle

If you understand the moral issues behind this, you'll see that we humans are in essence a hybrid race caused by beastiality. The text tells of the biped humanlike "Toumai" mating with the quadriped not so human Chimpanzees. In this case, beastiality is a good thing! Where would we be as a race if our great, great, great, great (5,840 times removed) uncle Tom Toumai had controled his sordid and abherant sexual desires while a flirtatious mob of sexy female Chimps passed him by. If we are simply animals and evolution is still taking place, who's to say that beastiality will not benefit our progeny millions of years from now. Look at all the marvelous possibilities.

Humans cross breeding with horses could revolutionize track and field; cross-breeding with sheep could literally turn the garment industry upside down: people literally could grow their own clothing! Could you imagine Martha Stewart knitting a sweater with her very own wool? How about this--cross breeding with dogs would make us our own best friend; no more need for therapy! The sky is the limit as to the good beastiality brings!

One thing may be problematic though: hybrids are sterile and cannot reproduce. DOH!!

Ah, a minor technicality!!! Our priests in white lab coats will certainly figure that out. Until then, let the de-evolution continue!

Monday, May 15, 2006

How Would YOU "Prove the Negative?"

Can you prove the "negative of something?"

Place yourself in the following scenario:

Someone who is a minority at your work accuses you of using racial slurrs towards her. No one besides this person heard you say it. She is the only one who heard it. You are dragged before your boss who believes the allegation and is visibly irritated with you. You plead with your boss stating that you made no such remark. With his glasses at the end of his nose, he looks up at you from his desk and says, "Prove it."

How do you prove the negative of something? You can appeal to your spotless record for the past fifteen years, your charitable giving to minority non-profit organizations. You can bring people in that know you explicitly to testify to your character and yet, you still wouldn't have proof. Who's to say that in a moment of irritation in a room by yourself, you would never resort to one racial slurr, the first one in your life? All human beings are weak and fall; even the best of them. Here's what's stacked up against you: 1) You are assumed guilty; 2) You are human and therefore a potential racist; 3) You have failed to account for every second while alone with this person; 4) therefore you are guilty (notice the circle?). As a result, your boss suspends you from work without pay and requires you to take sensitivity training at your expense, which will be deducted from your paycheck. Is this fair and just? I'd think not.

Proving the negative shifts the burden of proof from the person making the charge to the one receiving it. It also creates circular reasoning which is no proof. In other words, it is impossible to "prove the negative."

In the criminal justice system, this fallacy is to be roundly condemned since the assumption of guilt is almost impossible to disprove; any allegation could be brought against the accused with certain condemnation. Also, just punishment is the exception only to be assessed against a positive act committed beyhond the shadow of a doubt. Third, proof is a demonstration of the existence of something; you cannot demonstrate something with nothing. It's totally absurd. The absence of evidence of something is nothing more than the absence of that something.

Subsequently, this method will never protect the innocent where the evidence is the word of the accuser and the accused. Justice is best insured when an assumption of innocence is first granted to the accused. If the accuser can logically demonstrate enough positive evidence of the criminal act, then whatever punishment is just. Punishing those who cannot "prove the negative" almost guarantees injustice. How many death penalty cases have been decided by this method?

In the court of public opinion, this unjust rule applies. Why? Because slick rhetoricians and their lackies try to sway public opinion by placing on politicians and public figures an impossible task of "proving the negative." Each one of you are the judge and you haven't the capacity to see through their tactics. Take the following examples:

1. Ted Kennedy stated that Robert Borke's America will revert back to the days of back-alley abortions and deaths to pregnant women who cannot get proper prenatal healthcare. This was the assumption by Kennedy; Robert Borke couldn't defend it. How do you prove the negative of something that hasn't occurred yet? Kennedy won in public opinion and Borke suffered a travesty of justice.

2. Senator Joe Biden tried to push Clarence Thomas during Supreme Court hearings to try to prove that he didn't put a pubic hair on Anita Hill's can of Coke or invite her to see "Long Dong Silver." Thomas of course couldn't produce the proof because he'd be in a position to "prove the negative of something," which is impossible. This didn't stop Biden, who "saw" Thomas' refusal to "prove the negative" as an obstruction. The one who truly had the burden of proof was Anita Hill, who could only give her word, which is no proof. Another travesty of justice.

3. Currently, this is happening in the court of public opinion with President Bush. When we got into Iraq, we found no WMD stockpiles. What did leftists assert? Bush lied. It's obvious, right? If not, the burden of proof rested on Bush to prove that he was not lying, which is impossible. There was NO evidence that he DID lie. With this slick sophistry, the American people were lead by the nose to believe this impossible expectation and the assumption of guilt prevailed, even to this day.

This is why I defend Bush. Not because he's "my hero." It's because a huge injustice occurs every day in the media and blogworld who continuously use this fallacy. However, this is not just a liberal tactic. Both sides of the aisle commit the same injustice. Remember the movement to nail Clinton on "these mysterious murders" or the "Mena Connection?" Nothing was accomplished (thank God!) for it assumed the guilt of Clinton, whereby he was left to prove the negative. This is wrong, no matter what political brand you bear.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

A Trip to the Woodshed for Repubs

A great wake up call for Conservatives by Anne Coulter:

Conservatives Need 12-Step Program for Manhood

Liberals, don't read this at home. You won't be able to handle it. Conservatives sometimes need a kick in the slats. I don't know why they resort to this naive optimism that if they just be nice, everyone will like them and they'll be able to govern so much better. Repubs, WAKE UP!!
We got border problems, we got Chi-com problems, we got weak immigration policies, WE DON'T EVEN ENFORCE THE IMMIGRATION LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE!!

I'm not a happy camper with my party. The Repubs are getting stuck on stupid!!

Friday, May 12, 2006

In Case Someone Needs Your Phone Records

Everyone who listens to the news these days thinks that their phone records are private. Think again. Your phone records are not your own property. You might think that you have a right to confidentiality, but you don't. What if someone needed your phone records? Do you think they could find them and pay for them? YES THEY CAN!!

Check out this Google ad!

This NSA 'scandal' is nothing but a trumped up brouhaha. Phooey!

Is this how the Dems are going to get their power back? If I were a liberal, I'd wear a paper bag over my head. What a joke.

What the Dems Don't Want You to Remember

Please read this article and allow it to sink in.

Dialing and the Democrats

I've said this before, I'll say it again until I'm blue in the face, the root meaning of knowledge is NOT FORGETTING. A democratically controled House and Senate overwhelmingly passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It's not a bad law, given what the U.S. was facing then, you know, Osama binLadin, the Trade Center bombing, stuff like that.

Well now, since 9/11, you'd think the stakes are greater, right? Who's complaining about the phone survellance program now? Democrats. Gee, did they forget why they voted for the CALEA? A great majority of Americans didn't. They have knowledge.

So What's in an Idol?

We Get the 'Idols' We Deserve

All in all, I've watched 38 minutes total of American Idol this season. I'm sorry, but I can't handle watching mediocre singers flop, and a few really good singers get voted off, left with the cuties to make it. Such is the case this week. I surfed through the channels and found a Chris Daughtry ending the program with a song. My wife quipped, "I bet he was voted off." I said, "No Way! He's too good!" She said, "The loseres usually have their swan song before they leave."

Well, she was right and I was shocked and then, reality hit me. 'American Idol' is not a talent contest; it's a business that uses the "Democratic system" of phone voting to choose "America's Choice." The criteria: Look good, look good, and sing well enough to sell CD's. What a money making farce.

Last year's Bo Bice, my choice, didn't win because, one, he's a rocker, two, he wasn't a cutie, and three, he wasn't a cutie and four, he's a rocker. This year I predict Katharine McPhee will win. Taylor Hicks (Joe Cocker) and Elliott Yamin (Andy Williams in a blazer) are not going to make it. McPhee is sexy, female and could be naughty, but isn't...yet. Wait until she meets her competition.

I have no worries though, as long as I have "24" and "Deal or No Deal" for my television fix. I do know one thing, if Jack Bauer entered "American Idol," he'd win...and reduce Simon to wimpy, whiney little boy, begging Jack to keep him alive. I'm sure Jack will do the right thing for America!

The Liberal Way of Combatting Terror

I know this NSA "scandal" has about 34% of Americans reeling in fear for their civil liberties. I think it's time for the ever knowledgable left to clue us in as to how THEY would do this "war against terror" thing. Tell you what, we'll look at how the left has "helped" in this deadly war and how some now enlightened Rupublicans feel we should do it. I'll let the rest of you fill in as you see fit. I, as host of this blog, will take the liberty to challenge what you put in.

1. When your party is in power, it's okay to say how bad our enemy is while Commander-in-Chief gets much needed sexual release for the sake of National Security. When the opposition party is in power, make sure you make more noise about the lying, corruption, innanities and lack of any plan the current administration has than the despicable nature of our enemy.

2. Make sure you don't keep ANY espionage efforts secret. Hold press conferences to let the American people know just exactly how you intend to catch the terrorists. Offer blue prints, show who and what you will be looking for. Be specific. Thus, the American people will be assured of their civil liberties along with the civil liberties of the terrorists.

3. When leaders of hostile countries tells America to repent, we should. The liberal president should lead us all in a national day of Islamic prayer, and to show good faith, make measures to have Islam be our national religion. Christian prayer doesn't count. A'llah alone is God.

4. When you have to fight a war against a hostile country, make sure you have a plan for zero casualties, and it must take 24 hours to complete. If it can't be done, then scrap the plan.

5. The person to fit the job as President of the United States needs to have the ability to control the American economy, control weather, remove all barriers to immigration and embrace our foreign maids and pool cleaners with open arms. We don't like doing the work they do for us anyway; make everyone in the world like us again, and completely dismantle our nuclear and WMD arsenal as good faith to our enemies that we mean business about peace.

6. Make sure you get 100% approval from all the countries in the world, including China, North Korea and countries involved in graft and corruption with the hostile country in question. It also bodes well if the hostile country approves the use of force too.

7. If you take any prisoners in the conflict, make sure they stay at a Sheriton or Hyatt Regency Hotel. Give them clear access to CNN and MSNBC to voice their displeasure towards their 'incarceration.'

8. If, heaven forbid, any casualties occur, blame America first.

9. Since Liberals believe America started the War on Terror, allow for a regime change here in America by nominating a Mullah and suggesting we allow him dictatorial powers. Sorry, women cannot be Mullahs. In Islam, women are male sex toys.

10. Other suggestions?

The Press Finally Gets Religion?

Mahmoud Calls for Religious Bond

The WaPo article above shows a favorable view to the letter sent to President Bush by the evile dictator, murderer and Islamic teacher Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who upbraids the U.S. and calls for repentance.

Did the WaPo get some a dat old time 7th century religion? Have they been moved by this obviously touching letter? Gee, I guess now the Prez knows, thanks to Dr. Mahmoud, that he will meet God someday. Maybe Bush will have a change of heart and resign for all the evil and lying that he did. The religious MSM can only pray.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

What does Mahmoud Mean?

In, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told a crowd of Idonesian students that Israel has an evil regime and "the Jewish state "cannot continue and one day will vanish." For more, read the full article here.

I wonder what Mahmoud means by vanish. Is he thinking UFO's? Bird Flu? A plague sent by A'llah? And, why would sanctions inspire Iran's nuclear scientists? More electric power? Less dependance on foreign technology?

Just War Doctrine allows for countries to defend themselves against aggression that is underway. Iran better watch out that it's puffed-up verbal aggression doesn't turn physical. And the U.S. has to remain vigilant or else we may have to deal with more than Iran (i.e. China, Russia, and North Korea). This is dangerous stuff!

Da Vinci Code: Truth in Fiction?

From Dan Brown's Official Website:
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

For more, go to his website for more information.

Some in our blog neighborhood depict Catholics who are repulsed by "The DaVinci Code" as those who are over-reacting to a work of fiction. To those "sophists" who are so wise, you need to be aware of the purpose book and movie, as shown above. And the so called "truth" of "DaVinci" is getting America, no the WORLD, talking about issues that have no merit. Dan Brown does a great job attaching falsehood to emotion to create a stir. For that he should be paid. Dan Brown is successful placing fiction within a pretense of truth. The effect is terrible and for this, his works should be categorically CONDEMNED.


Friday, May 05, 2006

Moussaoui Got What He Deserved

In watching the Moussaoui trial from amidst my term papers, I am not surprised that the tactics of the prosecution shifted to a method of blood chill though I am disappointed. The tapes of Flight 93 and the sad stories of loved ones lost on 9/11 excite the emotions, but do not give any substance to Moussaoui's proximate involvement. The link is William F. Buckley's article that puts it all in perspective.

Fitting the Crime

My thought all along is that the proximate cause of 9/11 wasn't Moussaoui, it was Mohammed Atta and co. with Al Qaida who helped plan the attack. Any governments or individuals who knowingly helped fund the attack were remotely involved. Where does Moussaoui fit in?

He had malice, for he initially engaged in the plan, but he never carried it out and now is alive to receive our wrath. He had knowledge and could have averted this attack by giving information to the authorities to stop it from happening. However, in his hatred of the United States, he kept silent. He was the remote negative cause for the deaths of 3,000 Americans.

To put him to death for 9/11 would have been a travesty in justice from a Catholic perspective. He had no proximate involvement with the killings. He didn't actively kill anyone. But he could have prevented it. That is why I think he deserves life in prison without a shred of hope of the possibility of parole. He should remain in solitary left to think of all the virgins he could have had and seeing how in his stupidity, missed the chance to become an Islamic hero. Oh...and no television either.

My appeal to anyone who reads this is we need to maintain sound principles of justice and NOT allow the emotions of a despicable act cloud our judgment. Moussaoui is a low-life scoundrel who hates Americans and acted despicably in court. Let's beware of falling into a vengeful blood lust lest we become like the highjackers themselves.