Thursday, December 31, 2009
In the following article from Human Events, Newt Gingrich, a noted Republican, gives a non biased assessment of the political correctness that is running rampant in the current administration. OK, he's not unbiased, but that does not mean that this is unworthy of the time it takes to read and absorb what he has to say.
His warranted criticism of political correctness, that religion of the left that makes it impossible for those who call for decisive action to defeat the enemies of the North American nations, and who are laughing at our puerile tactics to stop them, should get our blood boiling at the risk we are all put to in North America by those who will not confront evil.
Read your history books about what happened when Hitler was not confronted early in his reign of terror.
On Terrorism it's Time to Know, to Profile, and to Discriminateby Newt Gingrich12/30/2009
After the Christmas Day near disaster in Detroit, it is time for Americans to demand effective anti-terrorist actions.
Over eight years after 9/11 and 30 years after the Iranian illegal seizure of the United States embassy and the 444 day Iranian hostage crisis, Washington is still avoiding being intellectually honest about the war we are in.
Our Politically Correct Government is Making Life More Miserable For the Innocent
America is long overdue for a serious global strategy that includes targeting threats such as the terrorist killer at Fort Hood, the individuals recently arrested in Detroit, Denver and New York, and the five Americans detained in Pakistan.
The scale, persistence and sophistication of the enemy requires an honesty, a clarity, and a scale appropriate to the response.
Once again, instead of targeting the source of the threats, our politically correct government decides to make life more miserable for the travelling public by imposing hopelessly meaningless rules such as not allowing passengers to leave their seats in the last hour of the flight. Bound by cultural sensitivities, the default reaction of the bureaucracy is to review the procedures and wring its hands ineffectively.
Today, because our elites fear politically incorrect honesty, they believe that it is better to harass the innocent, delay the harmless, and risk the lives of every American than to do the obvious, the effective, and the necessary.
It’s Time to Be Honest About What We Know
Before a lot more Americans are killed we must acquire the courage to tell the truth and to act on that truth.
It is time to be honest about what we know.
We know our opponents are radical extremists of the irreconcilable wing of Islam (Islamists, some would call them).
We know they have an ideology which is anti-female, desires to impose fundamentalist Sharia as a form of law, is hostile to other religions and is prepared to kill the innocent to achieve their goals.
We know how to identify these enemies but our elites have refused to do so.
Protecting the Rights of Terrorists Has Been More Important than Protecting the Lives of Americans
In the Obama Administration, protecting the rights of terrorists has been more important than protecting the lives of Americans.
That must now change decisively.
It is time to know more about would-be terrorists, to profile for terrorists and to actively discriminate based on suspicious terrorist information.
The United States should track down the owners of every website that promotes terrorism and systematically root them out. It should be as dangerous to a person promoting terrorism as it is to execute an act of terrorism.
The same should apply to the electronic communications of every known radical (and using these communications to track down every unknown radical).
The United States Must Actively Root Out Every Terrorist Website
The people behind these websites should be barred from getting a U.S. visa if not in the United States (concurrently, we should make it easier -- not harder -- for non-terrorists to get visas because we want to encourage the law abiding while discriminating against the potential terrorist).
An integrated data base for threats should have been expected, we now learn that it does not exist. This must be fixed.
It should be reasonable for the flying public to have expected that when the Nigerian terrorist's father reported he was going to a terrorist training camp he should automatically have been barred from getting a visa and from flying into the United States.
We Need a “Grand National Strategy” That is Bigger Than the Debate Over Afghanistan
The emergence of Yemen as the new planning, equipping, and training center for terrorism should remind us we need a worldwide "grand national strategy" (to use the World War II term) that is far bigger than our current debate over Afghanistan.
Americans should also note that ABC News is reporting that two of the plotters to blow the Amsterdam to Detroit flight out of the air were released from Guantanamo in 2007, attended an “art rehabilitation program” in Saudi Arabia, were released and took up senior leadership positions in al Qaeda in Yemen. Americans should also know that nearly half of the remaining detainees in Guantanamo are from Yemen.
The recent arrest of five Americans in Pakistan and the report there are 25 British citizens training to be bombers in Yemen should remind us this is a global war.
Moreover, the report that 74 Guantanamo detainees who have been released are back in the war trying to kill Americans should stop any further effort to close Guantanamo or to release terrorists.
The New Honesty Should End Any Thought of a Civilian Trial in New York for KSM
This new honesty about the threat should end any thought of a civilian trial in New York for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammad with its dangers for exposing American intelligence information. All terrorists including would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be tried in military tribunals as part of a serious war strategy.
The Attorney General and every Justice Department appointee whose law firms provided pro bono counsel for terrorists should be fired and replaced with lawyers who believe the lives of Americans are more important than the rights of terrorists.
The United States must have a policy of effective interrogation to understand our enemies and disrupt their planned attacks (read Marc Thiessen’s column from yesterday).
We Need a New Homeland Security Secretary Who Knows We Need a New Strategy
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's claim that the Detroit bomber was allowed to board a plan with explosives hidden in his underwear proved the system worked is proof we need a new Homeland Security Secretary who knows we need a new strategy and a new focus.
These are the first steps toward defeating the extremists.
We should take them before there is a tragic attack that kills a lot of people.
We have been warned. Again.
Will we now act?
H/t Fr. James Farfaglia
Senator (not Ma'am) Barbara Boxer recently upbraided a Brigadier General for calling her Ma'am instead of Senator, since she had worked so hard to get that title. She made a fool of herself for all to see on Youtube.
Not everyone kept their mouths shut about this idiotic outburst from the erstwhile senator. A Guard Aviator and Captain for Alaska Air Lines hit the nail directly on the head with the following response to her.
You were so right on when you scolded the General on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator." After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The General was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks(one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs.How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two?
Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.
Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.
What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44 cents to buy the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize
politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is.
Lord Acton (1834 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, Mr. Power has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.
Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"?
I guess that puts a little rubber to the pavement, doesn't it.
Me and the Mrs. are not too big on New Year's Eve, but I do like the Song.
Here is Karen Carpenter doing the Carpenter's version of the song. This song was released on the second Carpenters Christmas album, "An Old-Fashioned Christmas," a year after Karen's death in 1983.
Here's what Diana Krall does with it. Not your father's version, unless I'm your father. And she doesn't tickle the ivories in it. How unusual is that.
Let's take it away with the O'jays along with Auld Lang Syne. You gotta have some soul, brothers and sisters.
Happy New Year 2010 to you all.
This article appeared in Mercator.net on March 22, 2009, and is one of their own 10 most popular articles of the year. In case you missed it then, here it is reproduced:
Benedict XVI’s recent comment on the African AIDS crisis -- "the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem" – provoked an international sensation all out of proportion to its half-sentence length.
"Impeach the Pope!" wrote a Catholic columnist in the Washington Post. This Pope is "a disaster", a Vatican official told the London Telegraph. These bouquets came from his friends. His foes were sulphurous. "Grievously wrong!" thundered the New York Times. "There is no evidence that condom use is aggravating the epidemic and considerable evidence that condoms, though no panacea, can be helpful in many circumstances."
No evidence, eh? None at all? Not even just a teensy-weensy bit? Had the Gray Lady and the thousands of other politicians and journalists who rained abuse on the Pope queried any AIDS experts about this? Apparently not. Had they done so, they would have discovered that many African AIDS strategists are having serious misgivings about an obsession with condoms.
In fact, a Harvard expert on AIDS prevention, Dr Edward C. Green, told MercatorNet bluntly: "the Pope is actually correct". Dr Green is no lightweight in the field of AIDS research. He is the author of five books and over 250 peer-reviewed articles -- and, he added, he is an agnostic, not a Catholic.
The not-enough-condoms explanation of the global HIV/AIDS epidemic is driven "not by evidence, but by ideology, stereotypes, and false assumptions," Dr Green wrote last year in the journal First Things. And myths kill: "they result in efforts that are at best ineffective and at worst harmful, while the AIDS epidemic continues to spread and exact a devastating toll in human lives".(1)
Experts with doubts
Dr Green is not a maverick voice. Similar views are being expressed in the world’s leading scientific journals. In an article in The Lancet, for instance, James Shelton, of the US Agency for International Development, stated flatly that one of the ten damaging myths about the fight against AIDS is that condoms are the answer. "Condoms alone have limited impact in generalised epidemics [as in Africa]," Shelton wrote.(2)
As long ago as 2004, an article in the journal Studies in Family Planning conceded that "no clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom promotion". In fact, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS can actually rise with increased distribution of condoms. Take Cameroon, for instance, the country to which the Pope was flying when he made his notorious remarks. Between 1992 and 2001 condom sales there increased from 6 million to 15 million -- while HIV prevalence tripled, from 3 percent to 9 per cent.(3)
Benedict’s critics blithely assume that the solution is more condoms because AIDS in Soweto is like AIDS in San Francisco. It’s not. In the West, AIDS is confined to high-risk groups, like sex workers, homosexuals, and injecting drug users. Within these groups, studies do show that condoms are effective to some extent. But AIDS in Africa is a generalised, heterosexual epidemic which affects ordinary people.
For years, researchers have desperately sought to understand why AIDS there has been so devastating. Sub-Saharan Africa is most heavily affected region in the world. It accounts for 67 percent of all people living with HIV and for 72 percent of AIDS deaths in 2007.(4) But now the answer is crystal clear. The reason is the widespread practice of "multiple concurrent partnerships".
What does this mean? In Africa, it is not uncommon for an individual to have more than one long-term partner at a time. In the West, we might use the terms "mistress" or "boyfriend". Relationships like these are more than just casual hook-ups; to some extent they are based on intimacy, trust and friendship. In these circumstances, it is very difficult to persuade men to use condoms consistently. Concurrency, as the scholars term it, is a deadly recipe.
This is the theme of a highly-praised 2007 book by the medical journalist Helen Epstein, The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS (warmly reviewed by the New York Times, by the way). For a long time she attributed the epidemic to commercial sex, poverty, discrimination against women and low condom use. But after observing that HIV rates were increasing despite higher condom use, she grasped that concurrency is the key to the problem. She describes these multiple long-term partnerships as the "super highway of infections" with casual sex operating as "on ramps".
"Condoms alone won’t stop the virus, because so much transmission is taking place in longer term relationships in which condoms are seldom used," she told an interviewer last year. "Therefore, a collective shift in sexual norms, especially partner reduction, is crucial."(5)
And it turns out that condoms can be worse than just ineffective in a generalised epidemic. Dr Green explained to MercatorNet that they "may even exacerbate HIV infection levels due to a phenomenon called risk compensation, or behavioral disinhibition. People take more sexual risks because they feel safer than is actually justified when using condoms."
If showering condoms over Africa can’t stop the epidemic, what will? According to a recent article in Science by researchers from the University of California at Berkeley, Harvard, the University of California at San Francisco, and the San Francisco Department of Public Health, only two interventions definitely work: male circumcision and reducing multiple partnerships.(6)
Male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV infection and has even been called a "surgical vaccine". It may explain why HIV rates in West Africa are relatively low. The UN is promoting it vigorously in southern Africa. But the challenge is huge – about 2.5 million circumcisions by the year 2010.
The other effective strategy, say these experts, is "partner reduction", which -- surprise! surprise! -- sounds remarkably like what the Pope recommends. In Uganda, HIV prevalence reduced dramatically after an intensive "zero grazing" campaign in the 1990s. A recent decline in Kenya’s HIV rate seems to be due to partner reduction and marital fidelity. Furthermore, despite scepticism by Westerners, it is possible to change sexual behaviour. A 2006 campaign in Swaziland about the danger of having a "secret lover" resulted in fewer partners.
If the standard HIV-prevention toolbox has "failed utterly to reduce HIV transmission", as Dr Green and other researchers contend in the current issue of Studies in Family Planning (7), how much is being spent on the treatment that works? Very little, complain the authors of the article in Science. The biggest chunk of the US$3.2 billion UNAIDS budget has been allocated to interventions which are "unsupported by rigorous evidence". Only 20 percent goes to generalised epidemics in Africa and elsewhere, even though these account for two-thirds of all HIV infections. Only 5 percent goes towards male circumcision -- and a negligible amount to changing sexual behaviour.
An editorial in the Seattle Times derided Pope Benedict for living in an "alternate universe".(8) But it isn’t the Pope who has take up residence there. It’s his critics. As Dr Green wrote last year, "Christian churches -- indeed, most faith communities -- have a comparative advantage in promoting the needed types of behavior change, since these behaviors conform to their moral, ethical, and scriptural teachings. What the churches are inclined to do anyway turns out to be what works best in AIDS prevention." (9)
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.
(1) Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark. "AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right". First Things. April 2008.
(2) James D. Shelton. "Ten myths and one truth about generalised HIV epidemics." The Lancet. December 1, 2007. pp 1809-1811.
(3) Norman Hearts and Sanny Chen. "Condom promotion for AIDS prevention in the developing world: is it working?" Studies in Family Planning. March 2004. pp 39-47.
(4) "2008 Report on the global AIDS epidemic". UNAIDS. July 2008.
(5) "AIDS Journalist Helen Epstein on The Invisible Cure". Philanthropy Action. May 20, 2008.
(6) Malcolm Potts et al. "Reassessing HIV Prevention". Science, May 9, 2008. pp 749-750.
(7) Edward C. Green et al. "A Framework of Sexual Partnerships: Risks and Implications for HIV Prevention in Africa." Studies in Family Planning. March 2009, pp 63-70.
(8) "Pope Benedict's alternate universe". Seattle Times. March 19, 2009.
(9) Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark. "AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right". First Things. April 2008.This article is published by Michael Cook, and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
So, if Lord Monckton knows of where he speaks, then the draft treaty, that to the best of my knowledge remains as such after the recent meetings (though only time will tell), calls for a form of One World government, all based on faulty science. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Watch very closely.
This also appeared in the National Post on December 30, 2009:
The lawsuit of David Brown and Dana Chatwell against Ontario and its provincial police has highlighted in dramatic fashion how quickly violence can follow the withdrawal of law enforcement. Similar problems exist on several Mohawk reserves in Ontario and Quebec, where an absence of strong policing along portions of the Canada-U.S. border has resulted in the expansion of smuggling, violence and organized crime using aboriginal reserves as safe havens.Now that that's all cleared up, we can move on to something else??
In spite of these developments, Canada’s federal government continues to recognize an “inherent right of aboriginal self-government.” While undoubtedly motivated by good intentions, this federal policy, in place since 1995, is not compatible with Canada’s Constitution.
For more than a century, the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly and consistently declared that the Constitution distributes all legislative power between the federal and provincial governments. Aside from these two levels of government, there are no sovereign powers outside of the Constitution. The only “inherent” government power in Canada is that which flows from Canadian sovereignty, referred to in law as Crown sovereignty.
No reasonable person would disagree with the goal of seeing aboriginal people manage their own affairs without being controlled by Ottawa’s politicians and bureaucrats. Fortunately, this can be achieved within Canada’s Constitution.
A constitutionally valid form of aboriginal self-government may be created through federal legislation that delegates government powers and authority to an aboriginal community. This has been done successfully with the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, the Yukon First Nation Self-Government Act and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The delegation of federal and provincial powers enables aboriginals to run their own affairs, exercise their aboriginal rights and use aboriginal title lands.
Delegating provincial and federal powers is fundamentally different from recognizing “inherent” aboriginal self-government power that is not derived from Crown sovereignty. “Inherent” means self-originating and not dependent on Canada’s Constitution, or on either of the two orders of government created by it.
The central characteristic of government is the capacity to exercise coercive power. This means the power to interfere with the physical integrity and freedom of persons, to seize or determine ownership of their property and assets, to create rights and liabilities, to determine entitlements to benefits and advantages, to impose burdens and to determine who can vote and be part of government itself. Recognizing an entity as “government” has very serious implications.
In 1992, prime minister Brian Mulroney and the premiers attempted to insert an “inherent aboriginal right of self-government” into the Constitution through the Charlottetown Accord. They correctly understood that a new order of aboriginal government could be achieved only by amending the Constitution. But after Canadians rejected this proposal in a national referendum, the federal government nevertheless proceeded to recognize “inherent aboriginal self-government” as if it already existed in the Constitution.
Since 1995, the federal government’s policy has resulted in the Nisga’a Final Agreement, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement, all of which purport to create a “third order” of government that is outside of the Constitution, and not accountable to Canada’s federal or provincial orders of government.
There are numerous practical problems which result from a policy that doesn’t comply with the Constitution.
The recognition of a “third order” of constitutionalized aboriginal government on par with the federal and provincial governments creates an uncertain legal environment for business, and for all citizens. Even if clear rules could be enacted for reconciling conflicting laws and authorities, the unwieldy complexity would spell the end of functional government in Canada. The creation and imposition of new taxes and royalties on top of existing federal, provincial and municipal taxes will undoubtedly deter investment. Moreover, the federal and provincial capacity to enforce the law is necessarily reduced.
A “third order” of government hinders the federal and provincial governments’ ability to amend legislation for the purpose of accommodating changing circumstances and solving new problems which may arise. The legislation creating the “third order” of government found in the Nisga’a and Tsawwassen Agreements cannot be amended by Ottawa or Victoria like other legislation.
Most significantly, the recognition of “inherent” aboriginal government over Canadian territory constitutes withdrawal of Canadian government authority and law from that territory, an act known in constitutional law — and strictly prohibited by it – as abdication. The longer this federal policy remains in place, the more frequently Canadians will experience the violence and lawlessness which took place at Oka, Que., and Caledonia, Ont., and is currently taking place on Mohawk reserves along the border.
Lawyers John Carpay and Jeffrey Rustand are, respectively, executive director and in-house counsel with the Canadian Constitution Foundation
Back on May 14, 2009, I started this blog. My first real posting was about my friend, a now retired grade school principal who was the real victim in an Ontario Human Rights Commission/Tribunal case, actually two of them.
After 3 1/2 years, this case was finally going to come to the Kangaroo Court on December 18, 2009. Part of the delay, and only a part of it was that the Complainant had gotten counsel beyond what was available to her from the HRC last summer. She was determined to right some self defined egregious discrimination that only she could see. The HRC was not inclined to pursue the case, but could not stop it.
The Complainant hired a black civil rights lawyer to ensure that she got her pound of flesh. However, after he listened to her screed for some time, he didn't figure that the black/white shtick would play well, since his client had anger management and authority issues. He kicked her to the curb somewhere along the way, further delaying the 'Roo session.
With her nose out of joint, she then found another lawyer to appear to buy in to her story, but he did not really buy in, and so the matter was settled quietly just before Kangaroo Court was to convene.
A big problem in the case was that it depended largely on my friend the principal's secretary for its testimony. This secretary had been disciplined by my friend for failing to do her work at the school, and not taking it too well, she filed her own HRC Complaint. She had turned her delusions into invented stories to support her own case, and was planning to use them to support the case here, in her testimony. The lawyer for the Complainant in this case did not like his chances with her testimony, even in Kangaroo Court, where truth is merely a potential obstacle to get at the desired outcome.
He approached the lawyers for the school board and my friend before court, and asked to settle the matter. So, now officially, the case does not exist, the matters are sealed and confidential, and there is of course the HRC standard non disclosure form in place to prevent the truth from leaking out.
The reality is though that the Complainant got a few shekels for her noise, maybe enough to pay for her new lawyer, if he is really cheap, I mean really cheap. This paltry amount will be paid by the school board, so my friend is not out of pocket, and does not have a black mark against her for having allegedly discriminated against this Complainant's son.
Implying that it cost my friend nothing to go on this HRC imposed journey is false. She has spent well over $20,000 in legal fees to date on this case and on the one still pending from her secretary. She has retired from a job she loved, and her health has been seriously compromised by the stress of these two matters. She lost big time. Her students lost big time. Her family lost big time. As Ezra Levant says, the process is the punishment.
Blazing Cat Fur put a pic of his real live kitty up the other day, and Wamo, not to be outdone put up a pic of his.
Since we don't have a cat or a dog either for that matter, I chose to reprise a picture from an earlier post, that showed how dogs are less sedentary than cats.
I mean their kitty's are cute and all that, but if you want some real love and affection, and possibly some home wrecking for good measure, you need a dog.
There is a site that the Flaming Kitty, BCF pointed his readers to called rabble.ca, which has a section called Babble, making it Rabble Babble what one might expect in the subsection. It is in fact true to the definitions below, and members were pontificating the other day on systemic white supremacist racism in Canada.
Here is the definition of Rabble:
- A tumultuous crowd; a mob.
- The lowest or coarsest class of people. Often used with the.
- A group of persons regarded with contempt: "After subsisting on the invisible margins of the art scene ... he was 'discovered' in the mid-80's, along with a crowd of like-minded rabble from the East Village" (Richard B. Woodward).
- Inarticulate or meaningless talk or sounds.
- Idle or foolish talk; chatter.
- A continuous low, murmuring sound, as of flowing water.
Anyway, one free speech oriented individual Viking 77, who shares meaningful opinions from time to time over at the Kitty's Blog, had attempted to raise the convo over at Babble above the banal. He wandered off after being harangued by the Babblers. I visited the particular page linked above on 3 occasions, to see if I read what I thought I read, and whether it got any better with time.
In response, I can confirm that I read what I thought that I had read, and it did not improve with age, or additional commentary.
Meanwhile, over at Blazing Cat Fur's site, we engaged in a little fun and foolery amongst ourselves until Blaze chilled us with the use of big, though cool words. In response to Viking's valiant attempts to bring sanity to the Rabble who were babbling, he said the following:
Its Marxist twaddle designed to instill guilt among gullible liberals, a tactic of cultural Marxism employing elements of cultural and moral relativism to undermine society Viking.Well, that ups the ante considerably. After I had interjected a meaningless, but fun response to the use of big words, with a suggestion that he pop over and insert them into the babble that was going on at Rabble, a reader called The Phantom took it up another notch saying:
Structural racism" is an unprovable rhetorical construct designed to beat up Conservatives and white people generally. Its what you have to resort to in a culture like ours that has decided racism is damn foolishness and moved to eliminate it in all walks of life.I agree with what both of these erudite guys had to say, though I am not sure what it means. Fortunately, The Phantom had brought things back to a level that I could get totally, when he called the Babblers "weenies."
When confronted with a culture that actually -is- racist, these weenies can't encompass it. They think its all politics or something.
But, this I get. Since the Babblers are probably in general a bunch of white guys and gals, with too much time on their hands, and probably supported by Mommy and Daddy's money, their racist remarks against white people, of which I am one, probably would get a free pass, if one of us were to complain to the Barbara Hall thought police about it. This is undoubtedly true, even though reading the "twaddle" did hurt my feelings, such that I am beside myself. In fact the two of us are fighting over the keyboard at this very moment, making it challenging to write this posting.
Now, if we could only get them to use the word "Nazi" in there somewhere, we could go to J Ly, and have them investigated into submission. These clowns do remind me of the now infamous Canadian Nazis, that have been writing screed from their basements, and are more a threat to themselves than to any real personages, but have gained the ire of the Ceej and the CHRC.
The twaddle these clowns are spouting sounds so much like extreme Socialism, that they would give Nazi's a bad name. But, in the end it is just a form of sex by oneself, with equal abilities to bear fruit.
We have all had in our lives, defining moments. We like to think of those that have spurred us on to bigger and better things, because they make us feel part of something bigger than ourselves, but also because they mask the pain from the ones that stopped us in our tracks for a moment, or have negatively altered our life journey.
Defining moments can include the "day I first believed" like in Amazing Grace, or the moment you encountered the man or woman of your dreams.
But, often our defining moments are traumatic events that occurred at some time and played a part in the life we have lived to this point. There does not have to be loss of blood, or physical pain for an event to be traumatic. Most traumas are mental or spiritual in our society, though that does not diminish the physical trauma that many of us have felt from some kind of abuse or accident.
The problem with most non physical trauma, and even some physical trauma is that our brains hide these memories from us. In the case of physical trauma, we might have actual visible scars to remind us or recurrent pain that serves as a reminder of the event, though not always. In the case of the mental or spiritual trauma, it may remain hidden for a time, or forever in a pure memory sense, while it wreaks havoc on our lives.
I remember a friend of mine many years ago, who as we talked one time, recalled from his childhood recurring incidents, with his impatient and irritable father. His father, would often walk into a room he was in, doing something, and shout at him: "Jesus Christ, Gary," and then berate him for some kind of failure in what he had been doing. As Gary told it to me at the time, for the longest time he thought his full given name was 'Jesus Christ Gary." What I did not realise at the time was that he was using humour to mask the effects of trauma on his life. To the best of my knowledge, my friend has never been able to fully accept the love of Jesus Christ for him, or to forgive his own "failures" to be the son his long deceased father wanted him to be.
Things that happen to us or involve us in our lives come in two categories, events or anecdotes. An event is formative in that it impacts our lives and creates an attachment. An anecdote is a story of something told from a detachment. Typically the traumatic things that happen in our lives remain as traumatic events, not as anecdotes, and I will explain my meaning in a bit.
I realise now, many years later, that my friend was attached to that story he told me, because he told it to others as well, but the emotion in it, as I think on it, told me that it was a story of the current moment in his life, from an impact standpoint.
We are designed by our creator such that our brains become programmed, particularly by the traumatic, so that we avoid further similar traumas, or develop coping mechanisms for them.
Let me give a personal example, and a resolution of it much later in life. When I was 2 years old, I developed a hernia. Actually by the time I was 4 I had had two of them, sort of a matching his and hernia. Anyway, when I was 2, in 1952, my mother took me to the hospital to have it operated on. I recall, (at 2 years old mind you) that I was placed in a crib in a hospital room by myself, where the walls of the crib were much higher than I was tall. I recall that my mother left me there, by myself with strange people, and that the next day, they hurt me. That is the memory of a 2 year old, incomplete, but sufficient to impact my future life.
So, leaving that as I understood it from my childhood, my brain became programmed by that recall of the event, just as it was designed to be. Let me digress for a minute about this training, programming component.
When I was a young teenager, my parents took us to Alberta on a motor vacation. There we rented a cabin at Banff. While there, my sister and I noticed some very cute brown bears outside our cabin rooting around in the garbage for food. We were intrigued and went outside to see them. Though we were about 20 yards away from them, we were not afraid in the least. Suddenly, our mother opened the door, screamed at the bears, and yelled at us to come inside, where she lectured us about the dangers of bears. That event traumatised us towards wild animals. We then became aware that the bears had been looking at me and my sister like lunch meat. That left an impression on us.
So, coming forward to about 10 years ago, I was in BC, and walking by myself on a nature trail. When I exited the trail by the highway, I saw a cougar up the way, about a quarter of a mile. My programming from my childhood, that was reinforced a number of times later in life, told me that this was not a cute kitty cat, that I should go and see if I could befriend, but a wild animal looking for a tasty meal. Accordingly, I ran to my car, and beat a hasty retreat. What I also realised was that I had been an idiot to have been walking on the trail alone in the first place.
The programming that I had received earlier in this case was not inappropriate. I had developed a healthy fear of wild animals, and me in their habitat, and the latter event refined that fear with some better boundaries for my own actions. That is pretty much the way that our brain programming capability through trauma was designed to operate. By the way, I tell you this story of anecdotes in my life, not events.
Back to the little boy at 2. So, since that day, I feared being abandoned by my parents, by friends, by my wives. More than any single "event" in my life, that fear of abandonment that was programmed into me from that trauma, lived inside me and grew as other later events helped formulate it into a full blown life strategy. It made me emotionally unavailable to the people who came into my life. I could communicate, work, play sports, but not get close to another person really. So, big surprise I had two failed marriages, many failed friendships and other relationships, and jumped around from job to job a lot in my earlier years.
But, the biggest problem with this whole thing, is that I never knew I feared abandonment. I just acted that way, and it was "normal" for me, though really not normal, whatever that means. I did realise along the way that there was something incomplete in my life and I did a fair amount of therapy with some limited success.
So, when I married my dear wife, as opposed to those to whom I was not so dear, I wanted to be different. I did not know how to be different, and certainly did not know I had to break with my own training in order to be different. Then 6 years ago, I was in an auto accident, and my life as I knew it, got stopped in its tracks. When my head started to clear somewhat about 3 years after my accident, I knew that I had to find a way to get better use out of that portion of my brain that was still reasonably functional, since my total capacity was diminished.
That led me to a different kind of therapy, called EMDR, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing. In EMDR therapy, you basically re-examine the traumatic events of your life, those that have formed you into the human doing that you are (as opposed to the human being you were created to be), and through a set process reprogram the brain such that the traumatic events of your past, become anecdotes in the stories of your life. From having an emotional hold on you, such that it molds your behaviour and feeds your emotions, a trauma becomes merely a story from which you are detached, and which you view as an observer, realising that you are a part of the story, but no longer traumatized by it.
As I discussed this article with my dear wife yesterday, we both were aware that our life since I have been able to put away the traumatic events of my life, and turn them into anecdotes that open me up to other possibilities in my life, has been much gentler, and free of my anxiety highjacking it along the way.
I had not really revisited how my life had been shaped by trauma before, but when I was communicating with a friend the other day about something that happened when he was 10 years old, that has impacted him since, I was reminded of how hard it had been for me to put the past of my life, in the past where it belongs, and that I was not the only one on the planet carrying this extra baggage.
This is Christian Music from Hillsong, a Christian church in Sydney Australia. They have produced some of the best worship music over the last 20 years. This is from a Live performance of the song "I Will Exalt You" from Hillsong Live's newest project FAITH + HOPE + LOVE.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Lord Christopher Monckton is the former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher, and as such has every bit as much right as Al Gore to have theories on Global Warming, if there is such a thing. It is very hard to get to hear what he has to say, since it is contrary to "accepted science", even though the accepted science is unproven, and in fact erroneous in many areas.
I am a fan of using resources wisely. I am not a fan of Global Warming as a religion, nor as an end times prediction. Anyway, here is what Lord Monckton had to say when given an hour on the Michael Coren show to discuss his thoughts.
By the way, Al Gore has never agreed to debate Lord Monckton, though he has been invited often. But, let Lord Monckton explain that to you as well. Listen to all 5 parts and hear another viewpoint, if you dare.
One of the interesting areas that Lord Monckton disputes is that of the computer models. Anyone worth their salt has followed the Hockey Stick model kafuffle, and discovered that figures don't lie, liars figure, and have done so here. Lord Monckton disputes the computer models that most earthlings are taking as gospel. Having spent much of my professional career building computer models for business purposes, I can attest to the fact that when I produced a model, because it came from a computer, it was believed, as though from the hand of God. I certainly never modeled the earth and global warming, either successfully or unsuccessfully. That makes the only difference between me and the global warming scientists the fact that I have never gotten it wrong, only because I have not done it.
Anyway, on to Lord Monckton.
H/t Fr. James Farfaglia
This day in history is a day of glorious demarcation. Through a birth in the backwaters of the Middle East, God became man. And on the day that we celebrate the birth of the most important Baby, it is useful -- nay, essential -- to reflect on the deaths of so many other babies (about ten in the five minutes it’ll take you to read this column) made in the image and likeness of the Christ-child.
At this time of year, Christians are filled with hope and the knowledge that our existence is made possible by the mystery of the love of God. Pro-lifers similarly feel the deep joy that comes with knowing that no matter how bleak the battle against the abortion culture gets, a victory is achieved every time a child is born who might have been aborted. Pro-lifers have had much to celebrate, and their victories can even be seen in the current struggles.
In Baltimore recently, the city council passed the first legislation in the country that requires crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) to post signs outside their buildings that state that they do not provide or refer for abortions. Failure to do so will result in a fine of $150 a day.
The law seems to be a response to CPC’s success in counseling women with crisis pregnancies not to abort their children. CPC’s have been aided by ultrasound imaging, which has been instrumental in revealing the unborn child as a living and sensing person. By giving mothers and fathers an enhanced picture of what -- of who -- is being destroyed during an abortion, such technology has been perhaps the pro-life cause’s most valuable tool to impede the ever encroaching culture of death.
Studies show that 80 to 90 percent of women who see an ultrasound of their unborn child choose not to abort. The widespread use of ultrasound has been a major reason why abortions have decreased by 25 percent, to 1.2 million in 2005, from an all-time high of 1.6 million in 1990, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
Ultrasound is changing hearts and minds, including those of people with deep roots in the abortion culture. Recently, the director of a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Texas had a change of heart and mind after watching an ultrasound video of a child being killed by abortion. “I just thought ‘I can’t do this anymore,’” said Abby Johnson in an interview with a local news network in which she was asked to explain her sudden resignation from her post after eight years. She continued, “It was just like a flash that hit me and I thought ‘that’s it.’”
As more pregnant women turn to CPCs, abortion centers are closing. A new report by Operation Rescue found that 1,500 abortion centers have closed since 1991. And a recently released Harvard study found that the number of Planned Parenthood affiliates has plummeted, from 163 in 1994 to 91 in late 2009.
As the number of abortion facilities has dropped, so has the number of abortionists. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the number of abortion providers decreased from 2,908 in 1982 to 1,787 in 2005. And 87 percent of U.S. counties, including 31 percent of its metropolitan areas, have no abortion availability.
A report last year in the journal Contraception found that 66 percent of physicians performing second-trimester abortions are more than 50 years old. As Susan Hill, president of the National Women’s Health Foundation, told the Washington Post last fall. “Our doctors are graying and are not being replaced. . . . The situation is grave.”
The worst news for the abortion industry are the numerous polls that reveal a significant drop in the share of Americans who consider themselves pro-choice, while a majority of Americans now consider themselves “pro-life.”
Of course, though the number of abortions, abortionists, abortion facilities and abortion supporters has dropped, the abortion rights movement remains undeterred.
As I write, it appears 60 U.S. senators will vote to pass a health care bill that will force all taxpaying Americans to pay for millions of abortions. Polls show that most people, even self-described pro-choice people, do not want to pay for abortions. But on the eve of the celebration of the birth of the most important Baby in history, a majority of members of “the world’s greatest deliberative body” voted to advance the death of countless innocent unborn babies.
Following the birth of Christ, agents of the greatest government the world had ever known tried to kill all the babies of Bethlehem, and we remember the sorrow of “Rachel weeping for her children.” It is not the highest act of government to kill children, or to compel others to do it. Truly great governments make a way for their citizens to live and prosper.
But let’s not end on a sour note. Because America has a history of expanding rights, all but the most radical abortion advocates should acknowledge that history is against them. Most strikingly, America’s youth, the “survivors” of the post-Roe era, are its most pro-life generation.
No matter what happens with the health care bill, the abortion movement is failing because it conflicts with the eternal truth of the value of all human life and with the founding ideas of the American Republic, recorded in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.
As some readers may know, my dear wife and I have our motor home in Arizona, and are eagerly planning our jaunt to the sunny south, commencing soon.
This piece below was sent to MDW from a friend. It deals with a concept with which we feel some affinity, that of being trailer trash, at least a part of the year. The RV pictured in this piece resembles ours in as much as it has 6 wheels. After that, not so much:
I want to be trailer trash. They did not cause any of the problems that our country faces today. They did not get mortgages they couldn't afford. They did not run banks to the ground with greed. They did not use investors for their personal benefit. They don't even belong to the unions that ask too much of their companies.
I'm tired of paying mortgage bills, utility bills, property taxes.I want to live more simply, pack up the dog and move into a travel-trailer.I don't mind being called 'trailer trash', but I want to get your opinion.
Here's some pics of the trashy trailer her friend had in mind.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Why do liars lie? Liars lie, because they can and because they think that they can get away with it.
The following was on David Horowitz's Newreal here today. It is too important to be missed, so here goes with the bulk of it.
The biggest problem with trying to lie all the time is that at some point the truth just may accidentally slip out. How many times have we heard the White House or Democrats tell us that abortion will not be covered in the new health care bill? Well, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have unwittingly let the cat of truth slip out of their bag of lies.
President Barack Obama has tried to keep health care reform from being about abortion. He told ABC News recently that “this is a healthcare bill, not an abortion bill.” Democrats have continually cited the Hyde Amendment (a law banning government funded abortions) as proof there will be no abortion coverage in any new health bills (even though those same Democrats have repeatedly tried to get rid of the Hyde Amendment.) Many on the Left have consistently used talking points on major media outlets to argue that people are lying when they say abortion will be covered. Obama set the model for that argument when he told the religious Left in August that people were distorting the facts on abortion.
“You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion,” said Obama. “Not true. These are all fabrications.”
The House version of a health care bill had one amendment added to it – the Stupak Amendment. That amendment used strong language to make sure abortion would not be paid for by American tax dollars. Pelosi tried to make a deal to soften the Stupak language but lost out. However, the Senate version that passed on Christmas Eve has no language similar to the Stupak Amendment. And some have let it slip how happy they are about it. Pelosi forgot to censor herself when she said that the Senate bill that passed has,Obviously Pelosi wants to make sure the hard-earned money of the American people is going to pay for abortions.
“abortion language that is completely different from the House — thank God.”
Leftists argue that the Senate version doesn’t allow money to directly pay for abortions. That’s sort of true. However, abortions will still be funded through the trickery of accounting. And guess what? HHS Secretary Sebelius inadvertently let that bit of truth leak out while talking to a feminist blog show. This ignored news story has briefly been covered already on Newsreal here.“The Senate language which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak Amendment. And I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options…There will be an accounting procedure but everybody in the exchange.. will set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund and not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone would pay…It is bit confusing, but it’s really just an accounting measure…not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage.” -Sebelius
Did you get that? The plan is to get around the Hyde Amendment by using an accounting trick. All participants in the new government plan will be required to pay into a special fund that isn’t earmarked for anything, but will exist to fund abortion premiums for those who choose abortion but cannot afford it.
The only thing more shocking than this news is that the story has only been picked up by a handful of folks like us, Rush Limbaugh, and a couple of blogs. The lie has been uncovered but ignored.
The abortion issue is a big one. Moderate Blue Dog Democrats can stop the version of the Senate bill from becoming law. Many of them are people of faith and conservative socially on issues like abortion. They would be wise to remember these words of Jesus:Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. John 8:32We need to be set free from this health care bill. The best way to do that is to make sure people know the truth that Sebelius and others have inadvertently revealed.
The biggest problem with this is of course the lies to the American people, and that the blood of the murders of the unborn will be on the hands of all the taxpaying American people, by the use of an accounting trick.
Is it only a lie if you get caught, or is it a lie because it is a lie? This is an attempt not at Freedom Through Truth, but at Freedom FROM Truth. I read the last chapter of THE BOOK. It does not go well for liars who are not repentent.
So, DOH (H/t Blazing Cat Fur) reported an Ontario HRC complaint in the making as follows, with the original found here:
Kookie Pieceman isn't a man. She isn't sweet. She isn't even brown. But she did not allow any of those facts to stop her from launching a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding Mark Steyn's latest musical offering, "Sweet Gingerbread Man"."I was shocked by Mr. Steyn's tone," Ms Pieceman stated during a weekend interview. "His fans are apparently eating this up, but any right thinking person would certainly pan it. What benefit can there be in allowing him to sing?"Ms Pieceman declined to repeat the harmful words contained in the controversial song, but maintains that in general, "it is likely to expose anthropomorphic baked goods to hatred and contempt."Mr. M. Man of Drury Lane, Ottawa, has spent his entire adult life in the baking industry, and concurs with Ms Pieceman's assessment. "This song exposes me to contempt, all right," he asserts. "That, in turn, breeds familiarity. Ever since songs of this genre became popular, everyone seems to think they know me."Mr. Steyn could not be reached for comment.
If, of course this claim makes it to the Supreme Court, you can expect the Supreme's to reprise their famous hit "You Keep Me Hangin' On". with the memorable lyrical line: "Get outta my life, why don't you, Steyn? You just keep me hangin' on."