Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Social Autism of Atheists Growing in Intensity as Holidays Approach

It's been reported that the above billboard now appears in New Jersey just in time for the Christmas shopping rush.

"A group called the American Atheists has paid for a huge billboard on Route 495 outside the Lincoln Tunnel in North Bergen, N.J., that is raising some eyebrows.

The billboard shows a silhouette of the Three Wise Men approaching the Nativity, with the words: “You KNOW it’s a Myth / This Season, Celebrate REASON!”

The group says the billboard is not designed to convert Christians to atheism. Rather, Dave Silverman, a spokesman for the American Atheists, says the sign is designed to encourage existing atheists who are going through the motions of celebrating Christmas to stop."

One wonders if the group intentionally wanted to appear snarky and catty during The Most Wonderful Time of the Year. If they were, they are doing a magnoificent job at it.

People might wonder how members of this group can rationalize having such a billboard at Christmas time when a poll released yesterday by Rasmussen conveys the following...

"As Americans crowd stores nationwide, most still prefer being greeted by signs that say “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays.”

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports survey, just one-out-of-four Adults (24%) like “Happy Holidays” instead. Sixty-nine percent (69%) prefer that stores use signs that say “Merry Christmas.”

These figures are consistent with surveys during the holiday season for the past few years."

If I were to wager a guess, I would speculate that people find the term "Merry Christmas" preferable to the more generic "Happy Holidays" greeting because Christianity offers hope to people during the time of the year in which the announcement "Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord" is celebrated and Happy Holidays offers little in the way of this type of hope.

Atheism does not offer hope. Perhaps that is why this particular group appear so sour at this time of year.

Perhaps some atheists might like to comment on this. I am of the opinion that such a group would be much better off scheduling debates with Christian historians concerning the actual birth of Jesus of Nazereth and then taking it from there, than starting off with the statement, "You KNOW it's a Myth." Your thoughts, please.

UPDATE: Catholic League counters atheist billboard

"Take that, atheists.

New York Catholics, furious about an atheist-sponsored billboard calling Christmas "a myth," lashed out with a counter-attack today — a billboard of their own that defends the celebration of the birth of Christ.

The billboard erected by the Catholic League went up near the New York side of the Lincoln Tunnel, at Dyer Avenue and 31st Street, in a bid to offset the anti-Christmas billboard at the tunnel’s New Jersey entrance.

"We decided to counterpunch after a donor came forward seeking to challenge the anti-Christmas statement by American Atheists," said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League." Link

Monday, November 29, 2010

Ireland Should Default

Columnist Vox Day has provided a very precise assessment of the economic crisis in Ireland and the bailout option offered by the European Union...

"According to figures published by the Bank of International Settlements, the Irish government now owes $146 billion to German banks, $134 billion to British banks and $54 billion to French banks that have invested in Irish banks and Irish bonds. This means that if the Irish government refuses to default on the debts incurred by its failed banks, it will put every single man, woman and child in Ireland on the hook for $76,781.61 for the benefit of the European bankers to whom the Irish bankers owed that money.

Fear that the Irish will follow the example of the Icelandic people and refuse to pay loans they never took out are why the International Monetary Fund and the European Union are so insistent upon the Irish government accepting what is described as "a bailout package" but is actually a loan of around $112 billion with many insidious strings attached. This loan will take the European banks and the Irish banks safely out of the picture, while the people of Ireland will be forced to pay the Irish bankers' debts to the people of the various European countries who have been forced to take the risk that previously belonged to the German, British and French bankers who originally made the loans.

It isn't necessary for the Irish people to be impoverished for multiple generations in this way. After the failure of the biggest bank in Iceland, Dutch and British banks tried to force the Icelandic people to pay them $16,400 apiece to settle bad debts incurred by the owners of Landsbanki. Fortunately for Iceland, some of the politicians in Reykjavik were made of less corrupt stuff than Brian Cowen and his Fianna Fáil government and they took the matter to a referendum in which only 1.5 percent of the electorate voted for the "bailout." And contrary to the dire predictions of the furious banking elite, the island nation did not sink into the Atlantic as a result."

Agreed. Indeed a majority of the Irish people would rather default, but I don't think their leadership is listening. As we see the Fianna Fáil government becoming synonymous with "Epic Fail" one harkens to the cry of Scottish independence fighter, William Wallace.... Freedom!

Saturday, November 27, 2010

The War That Never Ended

Columnist Austin Bay writes in today's Washington Examiner concerning the increasing tensions on the Korean peninsula. After laying down what an abysmal failure appeasement has been over the years when negotiating with the Stalinist regime of the north, Bay then proposes an interesting solution to how to deal with North Korea...

"A terrible day of decision is approaching -- the day North Korea deploys its nuclear warheads. The dangerous game then becomes more dangerous, and South Korea may no longer enjoy the luxury of avoiding war. Until that day arrives, North Korea's continued belligerence demonstrates that the allies' economic incentives are little more than acts of cyclical ineptitude. Rewards for murderous behavior must end. Let wealthy China pay all of North Korea's bills. Who knows, investment-savvy Beijing may finally tell Kim to quit wasting money on nukes."

I think Bay is correct when he asserts that appeasement just doesn't work insofar as tin-pot dictators are concerned and his approach to "let wealthy China pay all of N. Korea's bills" just might be workable. However the only problem I could see in all of this are he poor, North Korean peasents that would lose out on the deal. I really don't think that the Chinese regime is sympathetic to their plight to the point of providing food shipments to them. It's been said that N. Koreans are on average 3 inches shorter than their counterparts in the south due to the lack of nutrition. China wasn't much of a help when that generation was growing up and I don't see them having the good grace to start embracing charitable giving and philanthropy now either.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation

Dr. Peter Lillback of The Providence Forum sent this out to those on the group's mailing list. If you are interested in history and are selctive about it, then consider joining their mailing list to receive informative emails on the topic of early American history.

"WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine."

Ralf Augstroze of the Providence Forum posted this more in-depth article on the topic and you make click here to read it in it's entirety.

Enjoy your Thanksgiving!

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

A Response From Jill D.

"He (JD Curtis) seems to think bigotry is using racist names or categorizing any entire group (Entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole for him) .
He's not racist because he married a black woman and has links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense."

Jill D., Nov. 14th

I stand by each sentence of it.

Jill D., Nov. 25th

Outstanding Jill, welcome to the party. Better late than never. It's nice that you "stand by" your statements, now please defend them. In case it somehow escaped your notice, I posted my rebuttal to your remarks immediately below yours, yet curiously, you don't address a single point that I raised. I guess if I were a maleducated intellectually vapid fool, I wouldnt try to defend such slop either. In case you have forgotten, I will repost that which I wrote...

#1. Did I ever say that an "entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole for me" or even remotely try and argue as such? If the answer is absolutely never, then why is this not an complete and outright lie? I'm sure that you meant to answer this earlier, so please post your response here. As it stands now, you are accused of lying.

#2. I will go on record and state that it is an absolute, 1000% fact that my wife is black. The above writer (Jill D.) mentions this but then fails to square this with the alleged, yet factually bankrupt notion that I am in any way, a bigot, (or a racist). Please explain why this is so.

#3. "..links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense". As if I use this as mere cover for my latent racism. Jill D. fails to take into consideration that the sidebar of columnists on my blog serves as a resource for me. In a blog that is about a year and a half old I have cited columns and created threads for writers like Larry Elder, Walter E. Williams, Ellis Washington (at least 3X), Mychal Massie (at least 5X),Deroy Murdock (at least 5X), and from Thomas Sowell a minimum of SEVENTEEN TIMES. Can you cite any other blog on the internet that you frequent that cites more black columnists then this one? If not, then perhaps you can provide a link to the blog that you comment on in which black columnists are featured at all. If you comment on no such blog at all, then why are you so closed minded to exploring the writings of black columnists? Youre not a racist, are you?

Please answer the above in order that we can get to the bottom of this. Happy Thanksgiving BTW.

On Race and American Exceptionalism

Mark Tooley reports on a recent survey conducted to assess American's religious attitudes toward the concept of American Exeptionalism which broke down the results into categories which including race of the respondents...

"The left-of-center Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and Brookings Institution have released a post-election survey showing nearly 60 percent of Americans believe God has assigned America a "special role" in human history. Over 80 percent of white evangelicals believe in this special role for America, as do two thirds of minority Christians. Majorities of white Mainline Protestants and Catholics also agree. Two thirds of the religiously unaffiliated disbelieve in any special role for America.

Probably the surveyors were discomfited by the results, especially that the devotees of American exceptionalism were not confined to white evangelicals but were nearly as numerous among minority Christians, which presumably mostly means blacks and Hispanics. American exceptionalism essentially originated with the ancestors of Mainline Protestantism, who were America's earliest European settlers and America's primary religious pillars for most of our history. A half century of leftward drift by Mainline church elites unsurprisingly has dampened their confidence in exceptionalism, but most still adhere. Likewise for most Catholics. The survey frustratingly does not provide a detailed break-down, but almost certainly most religiously active Mainline Protestants and Catholics are more prone to American exceptionalism than the nominally affiliated.

Much and perhaps most of American exceptionalism originated with the Calvinist English religious dissenters who settled New England, the first wave of whom landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620. With Thanksgiving, America celebrates those dissenters' founding holiday. Later waves of Puritan immigrants conceived of their American adventure as an "errand in the wilderness." And some metaphorically likened their new civilization to the Chosen People of the Old Testament, with special blessings but also special obligations, always under both God's gracious care and sometimes severe judgment. Subsequent immigrants were not always as religiously devout. But the Puritan conception of America on a special mission from God that would benefit not just Americans but all peoples was reinforced by the heroic and spiritually animated struggle for American independence. Later immigrants, though far removed from the British Protestant tradition, still often comfortably embraced the notion of America as a sort of Promised Land, especially when compared to the travails of the old country. The Calvinist conception of American exceptionalism expanded to include other Protestants, Catholics and Jews."

Oh boo-hoo. The idea that all cultures and regions of the world don't carry the same weight when it comes to a broad spectrum of metrics of comparison and are decidedly NOT all of equal value still hasn't percolated through the tough veneer of the religiously affiliated. I was quite pleased to see that this idea isn't anywhere near dead but indeed prevelant in minority churches.

It's curious that the rumblings of artillery of the world's most recent crisis are currently aimed at the largest percentage of Christians in East Asia (S. Korea). May we take a moment to remember them this Thanksgiving as we sit in relative comfort and security here in the West. Me? I gotta work tomorrow, but I just started marinating a seven pound butt roast to pop into the slow-cooker tonight to have ready for Thursday. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Thankful, Conservative Mindset

Not to make this place "Dennis Prager Central" or anything, but when someone knocks several articles out of the park in succession, then my hat's off to them. Today's article by Prager explains why it's more than just a generalization to think of Leftists as whiney, complaining types who do little to improve things...

"According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal Americans.

Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves."

But common sense and data suggest other explanations.

For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals. And as regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century, conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.

Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others explanation for liberal unhappiness."

This is nothing new and the same can apply to the atheistic mindset. Indeed, as far back as 1855, for all of their complaints about Christianity, according to an article in The New York Observer, "Infidelity makes a great outcry about it's philanthropy, but religion does the work". It is as true today as it was back then.

Prager goes on to note some other differences in the opposing views that can affect one's happiness...

"Utopians will always be less happy than those who know that suffering is inherent to human existence. The utopian compares America to utopia and finds it terribly wanting. The conservative compares America to the every other civilization that has ever existed and walks around wondering how he got so lucky to be born or naturalized an American.

..imagine two Americans living in essentially identical socioeconomic conditions. Both earn $45,000 a year, both have the same amount of debt on their homes and both have the same number of dependents. One seeks governmental assistance wherever possible; the other eschews any governmental help. Which one is likely to be the liberal and which one is likely to be the happier individual?

This is not a question only an oracle can answer. The one who yearns for governmental help is the one who is likely to be both liberal and less happy. Conservatism, which demands self-reliance, makes one happier. The more one feels that he is captain of his or her ship (as poor as that ship may be), the happier he or she will be."

All of this paints a picture of insecure, inward-directed people who feel that Big Government should be taking care of them. I personally despise governmental tyranny and want to deal with it/rely on it as little as possible. Perhaps if the current (US) congress does what it was elected to do, there will be less intrusion into people's lives and self-reliance might be seen as the virtue that it can be and not some odd sort of anamoly that it is more commonly being viewed as these days.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Questions posed by an atheist..

Jay D. Homnick writes about a recent phone conversation he had with a young man who states that he is an atheist but still has some doubts concerning the validity of his position. It's an interesting article and I highly encourage you to check it out on your own time. In the meantime, I will highlight a few of the points raised in order to pique your interest in it. For instance, right off the bat, the young man states...

"I was brought up Jewish but I rejected that and became an atheist," he begins. "This friend of mine is very positive about her religion and now I am beginning to wonder who is right."

"Well, were your parents knowledgeable about religion?" I (Homnick) asked.

"No, not at all."

"Did you attend religious school?"


"So you never really rebelled against Judaism. You rebelled against your parents' attempt to saddle you with a religion without an explanation."

"I guess you're right."

"What it amounts to is that you need to get enough information about the claims of the religion so you can make an informed judgment. The problem is that it's hard for you to find the time to essentially go back to college and study a new discipline."

Religiosity is in decline in the West and as the old adage goes, 'If you don't believe in something, you're liable to fall for anything', in this case, the lie of atheism. Dr. Norman Wise once said, "It doesn't matter to the devil what lie you believe in. You can believe in Hinduism with it's plethora of gods, or you can believe in atheism with it's idea that there is no God. Both are a lie. The only thing that he doesn't want you to explore and more fully understand is the Christian gospel". I wholeheartedly agree that there are many Christian theists out there who have no idea how to defend their beliefs when asked hard questions about it. Of course, that in and of itself does not make their belief in the Christian God invalid, it just means that there are very many out there that seldom engage those who have points of view that are in opposition to theirs. Unfortunately for the state of discourse, certain (yet not all of course) atheists seize upon the lack of a profoud answer and this in some way reinforces their worldview. The young man goes on to ask Homnick, "How can you prove to me that God exists in the first place?", to which Homnick replies...

"In a way the Bible itself proves God. Once you accept the Jews could not have made up the story of what happened at Sinai, then you have to believe it was true revelation. Either that or a genius theatrical production which not only fooled a few million very sharp cookies in the audience, it also left behind a book of such superior literary quality that it still moves people to live nobly thousands of years later."

As a literary work alone, the Bible is unlike anything else we know of. It is almost beyind comprehension how 66 books written over the millenia in three different languages could be so harmonious.

I think the key thing here is that Homnick stated that the guy approached him with "an open mind". Is your mind at least open to the possibility that God exists? I believe that stating with certainty that God does not exist is folly and I don't see how one could ever prove this universal negative. Vox Day has said that he always found agnosticism to be a much more reasonable position than atheism and for the afore mentioned reason, I agree.

Feel free to leave your thoughts on the article or any legitimate questions one might have concerning today's topic here on this thread. I'll check back in later.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Dembski-Hitchens Debate

Just a quick heads up to the atheist/Christian debaters out there. Last Thursday's debate between arch-atheist Christopher Hitchens (above) and William Dembski should be viewable online by Monday, November 22nd. Here is the link to the debate which was entitled Does a Good God Exist?. Did anyone have a chance to see the debate? I haven't heard anything about it yet. Anyone wishing to opine concerning their impressions toward it are welcome to leave their thoughts here.

Better Late Than Never

The American Spectator arrives at the same conclusion that I did in 2008.

"A Gallup poll released this week showed a wide-open Republican field. Romney led the pack at 19 percent, with Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee at 16 percent, Newt Gingrich at 13 percent, and all other candidates in the single digits.

While Palin remains the biggest GOP star and has a passionate following, when you get beyond her core supporters, voters are deeply skeptical of her ability to be president. An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken last month found that even conservatives are divided -- with just 45 percent saying she's qualified to be the nation's top executive and 48 percent saying she isn't. Tea Party supporters are split 48 percent to 48 percent on the question. Meanwhile, among the public at large, just 27 percent view her as qualified compared with 67 percent who say she isn't. Were Palin to run, she'd have to prove that she could build a functioning national political operation and translate her celebrity into actual votes beyond her fan base.

When Huckabee ran the last time around, he built a strong campaign on a shoestring budget with little name recognition, but he had trouble competing in states that did not have a critical mass of evangelical voters. And national security and economic conservatives distrusted him. Were he to make a second bid for president, in addition to these obstacles, Huckabee's penchant for pardoning criminals as governor of Arkansas would come under added scrutiny given that he commuted the sentence of Maurice Clemmons, who in 2009 was suspected of killing four cops in Washington state.

Gingrich, who in the past has exploited speculation about his presidential ambitions to promote himself and his books, may actually decide to run this time. But while he's respected in some quarters for being a one man idea factory, he's rankled many grassroots conservatives for such decisions as recording a television ad with Nancy Pelosi demanding action on climate change and endorsing liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava over conservative Doug Hoffman in a well-publicized special election, allying himself with the GOP establishment. Should he run for president, he'll also carry a ton of personal baggage that he'll be seriously questioned about for the first time since the late 1990s.

The list goes on and on. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty will enter the race with lower name recognition than his rivals and a sense that he's too boring to be president. His rightward shift over the past few years will also open him up to charges of being a flip flopper. Over the past several months, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has managed to anger key constituencies of the conservative movement by calling for a "truce" on social issues, saying that defense cuts had to be on the table, and flirting with a value added tax. At a time of unprecedented anti-Washington sentiment, it's hard to see Republicans rally around a lobbyist in Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour."

Back in 2008, I forced myself to become quite pragmatic over what was then the current crop of presidential nominees and I concluded that on net balance, Romney was probably the best candidate out of all of them. Of both parties. Although far from being anywhere near the perfect candidate, at least Romney had accomplished something in life and helped turn around failing, money-losing businesses for a living before being elected governor of Massachusetts. Guiliani? Too much personal baggage and his type of so-called conservatism doesn't play well west of the Hudson River. Fred Thompson? Good, but uninspiring. One commntator noted that it seemed he was walking for the nomination rather than running for it. Mike Huckabee? Too many pardons of hardened criminals while governor of Arkansas. McCain? Wrong on immigration, cap and trade and a whole host of other issues as well. We all see what a disaster his campaign turned out to be.

Yet Romney, despite some baggage of his own, seemed to be the best out of the entire lot. Although he had some dalliances with policies that skewed to the left, I do not question his patriotism or that he would throw the US under the bus. I cannot say the same for our Kenyan-American president.

Who do you think is presidential material for 2012? Post your thoughts here.

P.S. I just realized something. If I were to follow the patented Whateverman System of Logical Argumentation, I would have to conclude that the reason that Romney didn't get the nomination in '08 was due to bigotry because of his non-traditonal religion (Mormonism) and it couldn't possibly have anything to do with policy differences. B-b-b-b-bigots!

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Left and les faits de la vie

Dennis Prager's recent column examines the inherent problem that the left has in effectively presenting it's idealized worldview and trying to conform it to fit reality. Les faits de la vie, or "the facts of life" seem to be unimportant when presenting a worldview that is not grounded in anything resembling the state of affairs as they actually exist.

"In my original article, I offered one explanation: Since the Enlightenment, the secular world has had to believe in man (or "humanity") because if you don't believe in God and you don't believe in humanity, you will despair.

But one critic opened my eyes to an even deeper reason most liberals do not acknowledge that people are not basically good.

This is what he wrote:

"What a sad world it would be if we all believed as Dennis Prager that mankind is inherently evil."

And this is what I responded:

"I did not write that man is inherently evil. I wrote that he is not basically good. And, yes, that does make the world sad. So do disease, earthquakes, death and all the unjust suffering in the world. But sad facts remain facts."

...the left lives by theories and dogmas into which the facts of life must fit. That is why left-wing ideas are usually wishful thinking...

Here are four descriptive statements rejected by the left for these two mutually reinforcing reasons.

1. People are not basically good.

Leftists tend to reject this because a) It is too painful to accept, and b) it undermines the leftist dogma that people do bad because of outside forces -- poverty, capitalism, racism, etc.

2. Men and women are inherently different.

Leftists have rejected this idea because some of the differences are too emotionally upsetting to accept. Men are variety-driven by nature? Too upsetting. Women may have less yearning for, and ability in, math and engineering? Only a sexist like former Harvard president Lawrence Summers would say such a thing. Moreover, the belief that men and women are inherently different violates the left's foundational principle of equality. Many liberals admit that they reject talk of male-female differences because it can easily lead to gender inequality.

3. Black males disproportionately commit violent crime in America.

Leftist reactions to this truly painful fact are to label one who notes it a racist and to decry American society as racist because there are more black males in prison than in college.

4. The United Nations is a moral wasteland.

Since before the U.N.'s founding in 1945, liberals placed much of their hope for a peaceful world in the United Nations. That the U.N. has turned out to be an abettor more than a preventer of violence is a fact that the left finds too painful to acknowledge. And it violates the left-wing belief that nationalism is evil and internationalism is the solution.

It is generally believed that as people grow older, they reject much of the liberalism they believed in when they were young. This is true, and one reason is relevant here: As we get older, we tend to make peace with painful faits de la vie."

I tend to agree with all of Prager's points except for perhaps one. Gregory Kane points out in today's column that "There are more black men in prison and jail than in college, some black talking heads like to point out. The claim is false: For the 18-to-24 age group, the ages when black men should be in college, the numbers of black males in institutions of higher learning outnumber those in prison by 4 to 1." However this is a talking point that is widely accepted after being repeated ad naseum and it tends to be believed by a lot of people.

Star Parker reports on something I touched upon the other day which involves some painful facts as well...

"Almost two years ago, a new Democrat administration and congress took control of Washington.
They immediately sent out invitations to the American people.

“You are cordially invited onto the government plantation. P.S. We’re in charge but you pick up the tab. RSVP by November 2, 2010.”

The RSVP’s have poured in and the majority of Americans have replied “Sorry, we’ve got other plans.”

But it was mostly white voters who turned down this invitation.

Why are blacks, who know life on the government plantation better than whites, and who are proportionately being hit much harder in this difficult economy, still buying what working class whites have rejected hands down? That, as Karl Rove put it, “…we can spend our way to prosperity?”

The problem is broader and deeper. Blacks still by and large see government dependence as the remedy rather than the disease, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They still choose to listen to left wing black political leadership and media who have careers in keeping it all going."

Of course when I criticize left wing black political leadership for keeping it all going, it's suggested in ominous tones that I just might be "a racist prick" or a "bigot". Is Star Parker a racist for holding such views? Of course not, to argue as so would be an exercise in abject stupidity. The important thing in the mindset of the left is to appeal to emotion, make the accusation of intolerance and move the discussion away from the issues at hand and try to paint those with opposing viewpoints as racists because they cannot win in the court of ideas with arguments on their own merits.

EDIT: It turns out that a certain internet cesspool has taken up the topic of whether or not I am bigot. Wow! My own thread. I HAVE arrived people! The comment that made me literally laugh out loud the hardest was this one...

"He (JD Curtis) seems to think bigotry is using racist names or categorizing any entire group (Entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole for him) .
He's not racist because he married a black woman and has links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense."

I would like to see this person come over here and argue such nonsense.

#1. Where did I ever say that an "entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole" for me or even remotely try and argue as such? If the answer is absolutely never, then why is this not an complete and outright lie?

#2. "He's not racist because he married a black woman". I will go on record and state that it is an absolute, 1000% fact that my wife is black. The above writer mentions this but then fails to square this with the alleged, yet factually bankrupt notion that I am in any way, a bigot.

#3. "..links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense". As if I use this as mere cover for my latent racism. Ha ha ha ha! The above writer fails to take into consideration that the sidebar of columnists on my blog serves as a resource for me. In a blog that is about a year and a half old I have cited columns and created threads for writers like Larry Elder, Walter E. Williams, Ellis Washington (at least 3X), Mychal Massie (at least 5X),Deroy Murdock (at least 5X), and from Thomas Sowell a minimum of SEVENTEEN TIMES. Can the above writer cite any other blog on the internet that they frequent that cites more black columnists then this one?

B-b-b-b-but don't let that fool you folks! It's all just an intricate scam that he devotes alot of time and effort to just to throw you off! Bigot! Bigot! Bigot! Racist! Racist! Racist! or something like that.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Reasons Greetings

Of course we just can't have those silly Christian theists enjoying themselves around the holiday season. What could these morons from these organizations have been thinking? Something like "Let's rain on their parade and show them how silly their beliefs are at a time of the year reserved for hope and renewal". It's social autism run amok as Jeff Jacoby tells us in his most recent article which mentions that this year, the American Humanist Association is "taking a more combative tone. It is spending $200,000 to “directly challenge biblical morality’’ in advertisements appearing on network and cable TV, as well as in newspapers, magazines, and on public transit". But is all of this vitriol toward Christianity in particular to be considered, well, reasonable?

"Can people be decent and moral without believing in a God who commands us to be good? Sure. There have always been kind and ethical nonbelievers. But how many of them reason their way to kindness and ethics, and how many simply reflect the moral expectations of the society in which they were raised?..

It may seem obvious to us today that human life is precious and that the weakest among us deserve special protection. Would we think so absent a moral tradition stretching back to Sinai? It seemed obvious in classical antiquity that sickly babies should be killed. “We drown even children who at birth are weakly and abnormal,’’ wrote the Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger 2,000 years ago, stressing that “it is not anger but reason’’ that justifies the murder of handicapped children.

Reason is not enough. Only if there is a God who forbids murder is murder definitively evil. Otherwise its wrongfulness is a matter of opinion. Mao and Seneca approved of murder; we disapprove. What makes us think we’re right?

The God who created us created us to be good. Atheists may believe — and spend a small fortune advertising — that we can all be “good without God.’’ History tells a very different story."

Had the gospel not penetrated the hearts of mankind, I shudder to think what the world would be like. It would probably be like the China that Adam Smith described
in The Wealth of Nations...

"Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence."

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Whatever Happened to Flight 800?

I've cited author Jack Cashill a couple of times in the past. I enjoy a conspiracy theory story as much as the next person and one of Cashill's interests lies in the crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island New York on July 17th, 1996 (wreckage pictured above). Cashill's article this week mentions that he and others are working on a documentary on the subject and he details what they now know about the incident, especially concernining the claimed existance of a video of the explosion showing a missle streaking toward the jetliner which was shown in several media markets around the world immediately after the crash but has since quietly disappeared....

"Reportedly, in the hours after the crash, there was a bidding war for the video in question. When the bid reached $50,000, Fox was eliminated from the process.

The high bidder seems to have been NBC and/or its new sister network, MSNBC. This makes market sense in that MSNBC had been launched just two days prior, and the publicity would have been well worth the cost.

Still, I say "seems" because my sources will not speak on record, nor will MSNBC follow up on queries. Here is exactly what I know, no more, no less.

In the summer of 2001, my partner James Sanders, and I were negotiating with Broadcast Network News (BNN) – then the world's largest independent news producer – to distribute our documentary on the subject of TWA Flight 800, "Silenced."

These were serious negotiations. The person with whom we were communicating was BNN's chief executive officer, Steve Rosenbaum.

One day that summer, Rosenbaum called me in a state of high excitement. "Jack," he said, "you will not believe the conversation I just had."

Although Rosenbaum thought our video had market potential, he was not at all convinced of our thesis, namely that missiles had been fired at TWA Flight 800. The conversation in question eliminated just about all doubt.

As Rosenbaum explained, he had been interviewing a candidate for a position as BNN's technical director at a rooftop cafe when an airplane passed overhead.

The conversation moved naturally to airplanes and then, with Rosenbaum taking the lead, to TWA Flight 800. "I've seen the video," said the candidate, who had until recently been working at MSNBC.

"You mean 'Silenced'?" said Rosenbaum, a little surprised.

"No," the candidate answered, "the video, the actual video of the plane being shot down."

As the candidate told Rosenbaum, late on the night of the crash, editors at MSNBC had the tape on their monitors when "three men in suits" came to their editing suites, removed the tape and threatened the editors with serious consequences if they ever revealed its contents."

The cited article contains some other interesting points as well. I doubt that we will ever know what happened on that night any more than we will finally untangle the Kennedy assasination, whatever became of Judge Crater, or whatever happened to Ron Brown. But it doesn't hurt to have a healthy dose of skepticism when examining the official sory of how something transpired. Especially if certain questions aren't answered properly as they tend not to go away so easily.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

'Arizona Style' Immigration Law Proposed in Texas

And who could blame them?

"Less than an hour after the period began for filing bills for consideration in the 2011 Legislative session, State Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Tomball), a leader of the newly muscular conservatives in the Legislature, filed an 'Arizona style' measure that would crack down on illegal immigration, 1200 WOAI news reports.

Riddle says her measure is a response to what she says is the escalating violence caused by Mexican and Latin American gangs in Texas.

"It is absolutely out of control with the gang related crime, which is going through the roof, so, yes, we are addressing this, and quite frankly, I am not worried about political correctness," Riddle told 1200 WOAI news.

The measure would be similar to Arizona's controversial SB 1070, in that it would require that local police work with federal immigration officials in determining the legal status of a person who is in their custody.

"If that individual is already being detained, because of another crime, then that officer can inquire as to one's immigration status," Riddle said."

Unfortunately, while some of those entering the US illegally through our porous southern border are merely looking for a better way of life, a lot of riff-raff estan cruzado la frontera as well, and with less than noble intentions. Columnist and author Vox Day had this to say yesterday following the announcement of a Somali, underage sex trafficking ring spanning three states being broken up by the Feds...

"If you are still clinging to the notion that a mere change of geographic location is sufficient to erase thousands of years of genetic and cultural influence, you are being willfully stupid. Immigration is a disaster for every country; it's no better for the modern inhabitants of the USA than it was for the Indian tribes."

I agree. Just where did this foolish notion come from in which it is presumed that if someone is removed from a highly dysfunctional society and placed in one of the more prosperous Western Democracies that they will somehow magically transform their entire way of thinking just by being immersed in a different culture?

Monday, November 8, 2010

To a More Colorful Republican Party

Fresh on the heels of observing that gays are gravitating to the Right, Rob Schwarzwalder writes that...

"The Republican Party is no longer near-monochromatic. For strictly political reasons alone, this is good news for the GOP. By about 2040, whites will be outnumbered by the aggregate number of African-, Latino- and Asian-Americans.

For Democrats, this demographic shift once would have been welcome political news, since minorities – especially African-Americans – were considered among their most reliable voters.

No longer: This week, roughly twice as many blacks voted Republican as in 2008. Latino Republican voters also increased, albeit more modestly. Slowly but with deliberate intentionality, the Grand Old Party is succeeding in breaking the hold of the Democratic Left on persons of color."

Schwarzwalder goes on to quote African-American scholar Shelby Steele who explained why certain inroads were not made sooner by the GOP into minority communities, quote, "Precisely because Republicans cannot easily pander to black grievance, they have no need to value blacks only for their sense of grievance. Unlike Democrats, they can celebrate what is positive and constructive in minority life without losing power." In other words, why vote for the other guys when the democrat party promises such goodies and handouts to minority communities that they unfortunately became dependent upon and in the end created a dysfunctional system of interdependence between the two. To minority communities for handouts and the democrat party for their votes. It didn't hurt the democrat cause that liberals would then paint such conservative principles as self-reliance and personal accountability as cold-hearted whenever the subject of getting people off of welfare rolls came up.

It is intersting to note that two African-Americans that are fast climbing the ladder of success in this country are being largely ignored by the black political establishment in this country. I refer to Representatives-elect Allen West (R-FL) and Tim Scott (above, R-SC). Why do I get the feeling that the Congressional Black Caucus won't be waiting for them in DC with gift baskets upon their arrival? Because they don't fit the mold of the "blame everybody else and seek out federal dollars that will be misspent in their communities" that have been sent to Washington in the past. Why upset the apple cart? During the campaign, those affiliated with the Tea Party movemet in the US were inaccurately portrayed as racists. However on Friday, Allen West explained that such mischaracterizations rang hollow stating, "So I think that the -- the liberal progressives saw the strength of the grass-roots movement that we call the Tea Party which stands for 'taxed enough already' and they tried to turn against it..And the number one thing that you always try to do to silence an opponent in the United States of America is to call someone a racist..And we see that that did not work whatsoever..Well, I think the most important thing with our race is that we ran on honor, integrity and character,".

Star Parker expounds upon the race hustling of the NAACP in this last campaign, explaining...

"We have arrived in post-racial America but establishment blacks – lodged in the political left – refuse to accept it and are doing all they can to get black citizens to refuse to accept it.

The sobering reality is that the black political establishment doesn’t want Dr. King’s dream. They don’t want an America where people are judged by the content of their character. They want an America that is Democrat and left wing and this is what they promote today under the banner of civil rights.

The campaign by the NAACP and leading black journalists – all liberals – to paint the Tea Party movement, the push back against government growth and intrusiveness over the last two years, as motivated by racism is shameful.

Shortly before the elections, the NAACP produced a tome called “Tea Party Nationalism,” alleging racist connections to the Tea Party movement.

The day before the elections, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote a column suggesting that the Tea Party movement was a well funded racist pushback against President Obama which started the day of his inauguration.

Tim Scott and Allen West, our new black Republican congressmen, are both aggressive and unapologetic voices for everything the Tea Party movement stands for."

Also mentioned in Parker's article is that there were a total of 14 black Republicans running for congress in the last election. That such a tsunami may continue and that people of color may now realize the benefits of conservatism and end the reliance upon government largess for their existance.

Friday, November 5, 2010

The Double-Standard of the Homosexual Left

Irish Independent columnist Ian O'Doherty raises the following in an article titled "Stephen -- a gay homophobe?".

"it'll be interesting to see how the thought police react to Stephen Fry's remarks that: "If women liked sex as much as men there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking, 'God, I've got to get rocks off' or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush."

Reducing the perception of gay men to that of them being simply rapacious horn dogs with permanent priapism and no morals is exactly the kind of misperception the gay community struggles against, so expect to hear a loud chorus of condemnation levelled at Fry (opens window, listens for half an hour, only audible noise is the chirping of crickets and the occasional tumbleweed).

Ah well, he's gay so he gets a free pass, eh lads?"

It would appear that a double-standard exists here in this case. If nobody from the gay community is offended, then what's the problem, right? Columnist Mike Adams encountered some members of the organization PRIDE recently when he spoke at the University of North Carolina's (Charlotte) campus who might have been inclined to think they have a right not to be offended, however it would seem that Adams won them over to his point of view in the end.

"The day I came to speak at UNCC, several concerned (read: offended) gay rights activists called in the local media to help them publicize their objections to my appearance. The president of PRIDE went on camera and told the local news station that my appearance was an example of “bullying.”

Did you hear that one? Speech equals bullying and bullying must be stopped. It’s just another self-proclaimed liberal asking the free press to help him destroy the First Amendment.

When I gave my speech at UNCC, a news camera was there. So were about 25 members of PRIDE. They were very attentive and very polite. They nodded in agreement with many of my arguments and they applauded sincerely at the end of my speech.

During that speech I pleaded with the members of PRIDE to avoid embracing the notion that they somehow have a right to be unoffended. I told them that if they confront offensive speech they should not censor it. They should instead use it in an effort to show that they have an important agenda that proposes real solutions to real problems.

It is reasonable to impose time, place, and manner restrictions to keep Fred Phelps away from military funerals. But it is not reasonable to ban his speech altogether. In fact, groups like PRIDE should do the exact opposite. They should record his speech, post it on their websites, and promote it as a way of showing that hatred is real and that they, the members of PRIDE, have a better way.

The members of PRIDE understood what I was saying even though people like Neal Boortz do not. Boortz would prefer to use the long arm of the government to threaten university students with expulsion for refusing to agree with politically correct views on sexuality."

It's amazing that gays would embrace the left-side of the political spectrum when the right is much more concerned with free speech and trying to make it more open, not restrictive. Although the Left might be more open to uncritical acceptance of such a lifestyle, conservatives struggle against the soft tyranny that would prevent all opposing viewpoints to be heard and not just certain politically correct ideals that are fashionable at the time.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Election 2010

Lt. Col. (RET) Allen West is not in my district but in a neighboring one. His congressional race against Ron Klein will be the one I'm most closely watching as well as Christine O'Donnell's in Delaware and Sharron Angle's in Nevada.

Today I will vote for Marco Rubio for US Senate. In the hotly contested governor's race here in Florida, I will leave that one blank and let the chips fall where they may. I don't particularly care for either candidate. We do have some interesting ballot initiatives here to vote on so that will bring out people to the polls as well.

What races around the country are you passionate about or keeping a close eye on?

Monday, November 1, 2010

William Dembski a YEC'er?

A certain writer over at Panda's Thumb, Jack Krebs, has made the common error of trying to equate Intelligent Design theorists and William Dembski (above) in particular, with those that advocate Young Earth Creationism (YEC). Dembski has come out with his rebuttal.

"As a matter of literary genre, I continue to think that the book of Genesis is not a science textbook. But I do think that the events referred to in the opening chapters of Genesis describe real events that took place in history (though God’s initial creation from nothing is, in a sense, the very initiation of history itself rather than “in” history). I am of the opinion that the days of Genesis 1 refer to God’s workweek rather than to six twenty-four hour days. I also know that orthodox Christians disagree on this question. That disagreement is not, however, a disagreement over the trustworthiness of Scripture, but rather, over its best interpretation.

Krebs seems to think that by saying that the creation events are historical I must be saying that God’s creation days are each twenty four hours long and took place sometime in the last few thousand years. I assume that more careful readers of my comments will not make the same mistake.

More importantly, and contrary to Krebs’ insinuation, nothing in my view of Scripture contradicts my belief that nature provides strong empirical evidence of intelligent design. As I have explained many times before, the design inference is not based on the Bible or any other sacred text. It is based on what can be logically ascertained from nature’s own data."

Strictly speaking, Dr Dembski is right. Although there are examples of Biblical scientific foreknowledge that could be discussed, the Bible isn't a science textbook.

EDIT: It would appear that Mr. Krebs changed his wording in his article but only slightly so.

P.S. Tune into tomorrow, I'll start an election day thread where we can discuss the most interesting and hotly contested races.