Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Poll: 73% of Catholics in Northen Ireland Want to Remain in UK

The Belfast Telegraph fills us in concerning the results...

"So 73% of Catholics in Northern Ireland want to remain within the United Kingdom. The opinion poll - conducted jointly by Queen's University and the University of Ulster - may raise eyebrows, but it cannot be dismissed lightly.

It is the latest in more than a decade of authoritative Life and Times surveys; this was no Mickey Mouse vox pop. It was professionally organised and covered a representative sample of the public.

It was properly weighted to take account of geographic and social class differences. Even if the results were 10% inaccurate, they would still indicate a radical change in Catholic views.

Previous polls have established benchmarks against which the new findings can be judged. Where once less than 20% of Catholics preferred living within the UK to a united Ireland, that figure is now 52%. The change in attitudes can be traced back to 2007, coinciding with agreement over a new Executive at Stormont dominated by the DUP and Sinn Fein.

The Republic's economy began a nosedive around the same time from which it has not recovered.

The combination of an acceptable Stormont partnership and an unattractive southern state appears to have had significant influence on Catholic opinion here. And why not?"

The first thing I thought of when seeing this headline was akin to the line "The (Irish) Republic's economy began a nosedive around the same time from which it has not recovered." I thought that the basis for Catholics wanting to remain within the UK was rooted in simple economic self-preservation given that the Celtic Tiger appears to be in it's death throes.

That and I think that the conflict between different groups is largely distorted. Especially when one considers the following..

"The conflict in Northern Ireland is primarily ethnic and political, not religious, being a holdover from the British colonial establishment of the Ulster Plantation in 1609. Indicative of this is the fact that more people were killed in the intra-nationalist Irish Civil War of 1922–23, which pitted Catholic against Catholic, than the 3,523 deaths resulting from the thirty-two years of the modern inter-denominational Troubles." Vox Day

Whether it be because of economics or the Good Friday Agreement, here's to hoping for future prosperity for the people of that land.

"We have a contemporary example of this in the fighting in Ireland, which is really mostly political. It is between a Roman Catholic and Protestant group, at least in name. I asked several Irish Protestant ministers, who were in the heart of all this, "How is it that you allow Christians to fight and kill others?

"What do you mean 'Christians'?" they all asked me.

"Well, the Protestants right there in the midst of all that."

"Those people aren't Christians," was the answer they gave me. "They are nominal Christians. They never darken the doors of our churches".
Dr. D. James Kennedy; Skeptics Answered, pg 114

Monday, June 27, 2011

Exposing Hypocrisy in New York's Gay Marriage Law

"New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has compared the fight for gay-marriage rights to the civil-rights battles of the 1960s, visited the state's capital, Albany, twice in the past six weeks to help (Governor, Andrew) Cuomo in his lobbying efforts.

"It really is a historic triumph for equality and freedom," Bloomberg said after the vote.

"This really is a great day for New York and America.
" Link

The complete stupidity of morons who unflinchingly accept the blatant bait and switch of comparing skin color to sexual behavior is laid bare by Michael Medved who writes...

"Advocates for so-called “marriage equality” define their cause as a “civil rights” issue – equivalent to overturning bans on interracial weddings in the 1960’s. Then how could the New York law permit churches and other religious organizations to reject gay unions? Any church that discriminated against interracial marriages would violate civil rights laws. Preventing a white man from marrying a black woman is unacceptable, because there’s no legal difference between races. But saying a man can’t marry another man is a distinction based on gender, and the law allows different treatment –like separate restrooms, or draft status – based on gender. If gay advocates really believed discriminating against gay unions compared to discrimination against inter-racial unions, how could they possibly permit the religious exemption?"

And I doubt that we'll hear anything close to a coherent answer to this question from gay marriage supporters. Unless of course the end result of such legislation causes the state to compel churches to perform marriage ceremonies to whoever asks for it. This is a worry that is already being discussed by New York's Catholic bishops.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Debunking the 'There's Been No Real ID Research' Myth

Casey Luskin schools journalist Lauri Lebo of who appears to be towing the Strictly Materialist party line of the aptly named "zero concession policy" when it comes to reporting on Intelligent Design...

"in March 2011, journalist Lauri Lebo, a science writer who covers the debate over evolution for anti-ID outlets like Scientific American, blithely declared that "as we all know, there is no such thing as ID research."1 In the last issue of Salvo, my article provided ample documentation to refute Ms. Lebo's claim. Let's add some more weight to this pile.

Natural Selection Breaks Down

In his Origin of Species, Darwin admitted that if "any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." My previous article discussed work by Douglas Axe and Michael Behe that confirms that many complex structures in biology are beyond the reach of natural selection. These theoretical studies found that Darwinian processes would be unlikely to produce "multi-mutation features" that require multiple mutations to function.

In 2010, research published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin–Superior, and two other biologists provided empirical backing to the claims of Axe and Behe.2 Their team started by breaking a gene in the bacterium Escherichia coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When broken in just one place, random mutations in the bacteria's genome were capable of "fixing" the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job.

Such results show that it is extremely unlikely for blind and unguided Darwinian processes to find rare amino acid sequences that yield functional proteins...

[William] Dembski, [Robert] Marks, and their team have identified sources of active information in programs such as "Avida" and "Ev"—two programs that are widely touted by Darwin theorists as refuting ID. The work of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab shows that these evolutionary algorithms do not model truly blind and unguided Darwinian processes. Instead, the simulations "cheat" in the sense that they were pre-programmed by their designers to achieve their digital evolutionary goals.

Just as the lab's website predicted, research shows that even the best efforts of ID critics cannot escape the fact that intelligence is required to generate new information."

I've posted this before, but should anyone start spouting off that there have been no "peer reviewed ID research papers", then simply refer them to this link and watch as they slink out of the discussion.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Comparing Gay and Traditional Marriage

In today's article by Glenn Stanton, we are reminded of the fundamental differences between gay and traditional marriage that no amount of demonization by leftists is ever going to change. Apparently, one of the more popular tactics favored by those who would reengineer society is to compare old segregation laws that prevented whites and blacks from marrying to the current struggle to redefine marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman...

"Segregation was a profound social evil. Marriage as an exclusive heterosexual union is a necessary social good. It is why all cultures since earliest days, regardless of religion, law, or culture, have marriage as only between men and women.

Loving v. Virginia struck down a legal regime, peculiar to certain parts of the nation that was wholly racist at its core. As the court observed, the Virginia law was about "the absolute prohibition of a 'white person' marrying other than another 'white person.'" It was about nothing more than the racial purity of whites and all the ugliness that implies. If the Loving analogy is exact, we would have to conclude that our current laws on marriage as a male/female union stem from some effort to keep others in their place. Study the anthropological origins of marriage for as long as you want and you will find nothing of the sort.

As David Blankenhorn sagely pointed out in his book, "The Future of Marriage," some Southern racists redefined marriage to make it something it was never supposed to be about -- racial purity -- when race is not any part of marriage. It was about making marriage do something it was never intended to do for the sake of their own narrow social ideals. Likewise, same-sex marriage advocates today are drafting marriage into their own narrow social cause, as a way to elevate the social standing of homosexuality. Like keeping the races apart then, marriage has no place in this special-interest-based re-engineering...

..on the note of mothers and fathers, it is a very different thing for a child to say "I have a white father and black mother" than "I have two moms." There is scant research indicating that interracial parenting is developmentally harmful to children, but literally hundreds -- if not thousands -- of strong published studies showing how negatively children are hindered physically, emotionally, educationally and socially when they are denied being raised by their own mother and father, which is exactly what every same-sex home does by definition."

I'm starting to realize that no amount of logical argumentation will ever persuade an ardent supporter of gay marraige that they are, like the white supremacists of the 1960's, attempting to remake the idea of marriage into "their own narrow social cause". It reminds me of a reporter who visited a madrassa a few years ago in Pakistan. When the reporter spoke to a young boy about Osama Bin Laden, the boy wouldn't hear a single bad word spoken against Bin Laden. When the reporter tried to point out that many Muslims were murdered in the Twin Towers tragedy on 9/11, the boy would simply shout Osama! each time the reporter tried to persuade him, so ingrained was the kid's worldview.

Kelly Boggs sheds some further light on the differences between the two types of "marriage".

"A study by University of Vermont researchers showed that only half of male couples who had entered into civil unions in 2000-2001 believed monogamy was important."

.. The EdgeBoston.com website, popular among homosexuals in Massachusetts, commented on the findings with its editor in chief writing, "Some may put this into the category of 'studies that confirm the painfully obvious.'" The story ran under the headline "Surprise! Lots of Gay Marriages Are 'Open."

I wonder why these points are never trotted out by those who support gay marriage and instead there is the prejudiced notion that any reservations one might have to gay marriage are rooted in bigotry and hate. I suppose that its because it's much easier to demonize an opponent for temporary political gain than engage in meaningful dialogue.

Monday, June 20, 2011

The Subtle Racism of Certain Latin Immigrants

Last week, Antolin Aguirre (above) was giving testimony in a hearing before the Texas state senate concerning immigration reform. Barbara Simpson relates for us what transpired when Aguirre began to speak..

"Aguirre, a pleasant looking middle-aged man, was seated before the committee at a table with a couple of supporters and another man.

He began his presentation – in Spanish. Sentence by sentence, pausing and then the other man at the table translated his words into English.

A minute or so into the statement, one of the committee members interrupted the interpreter, asking for clarification.

"Did I understand him correctly that he has been here since 1988?

That was acknowledged – which meant the man had been in this country for 23 years.

"Why aren't you speaking English then?"

Hallelujah for State Sen. Chris Harris, a man of real courage in this day and age!

Aguirre started to speak in English but then reverted to Spanish, saying through the translator that "Spanish is his first language, and since it is his first time giving testimony he would rather do it in Spanish."

Sen. Harris didn't give in to that – saying firmly, "It is insulting to us. It is very insulting. And if he knows English, he needs to be speaking in English."

I would be willing to concede that Aguirre's decision not to speak English during the proceedings mights not actually be deemed "insulting". Perhaps "highly ignorant" would have been a better description. In any case, this exchange between Sen. Harris and Aguirre reminds me of numerous exchanges that I have had with the Latino community here in sunny Florida.

Usually, I give them the benefit of the doubt and first try to communicate in English. Many fine immigrants here actually do have the ability to speak English. However a VERY large percentage do not and upon hearing English, they give me a sort of confused look and don't reply.

Then I speak I speak Spanish with them. One would automatically think that this would be helpful, but in countless cases, this only exacerbates the situation and makes them even more confused. Why? This is important because this is where their (apparent) latent racism kicks in. It would seem that when a blue-eyed, light-complected gringo with an Anglo last name begins communicating with them in their own language, it just doesnt register and it flies completely over their heads. There seems to be this prevailing attitude that los Norte Americanos just don't speak Spanish, period. Thus they are puzzled over what I am saying because their own set of prejudices right away eliminates the possibility that I might have the ability to speak to them in their native language.

I would only add that when I have been in environments that are 100% Spanish speaking such as Bogota (6X), Caracas (6X) or Lima (3X), where almost nobody speaks English, I don't have these types of problems being understood at all.

Of course one of the biggest enablers of immigrants that don't wish to learn English are politicians that cater to distinct groups and lobby to allow them to vote in their own language. This only leads to the further balkanization of the United States of America.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

The Islamic Lynching of Herman Cain

At last Monday's debate in New Hampshire among Republican presidential hopefuls, journalist Josh McElveen asked candidate Herman Cain about his stance on having a Muslim serve in his administration if he were elected president. One can watch the exchange by clicking here. Cain basically said...

"You have peaceful Muslims and you have militant Muslims – those that are trying to kill us. And so when I said I wouldn't be comfortable I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us," the former Godfather's Pizza CEO said during the first major GOP primary debate in New Hampshire

He added, "I do not believe in Sharia (Islamic) law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period."

I really don't see a problem with what Cain said. Perhaps the mainstream media can turn their nose up at Cain in this instance for not properly genuflecting before the Alter of Political Correctness three times and saying.. Islam is a religion of peace..Islam is a religion of peace..Islam is a religion of peace..

The whole exchange reminded me of an article by Bert Prelutsky from a couple of months ago in which he detailed the monumental error of discussiing conservative principals to a heavily democratic (read: Liberal) Rotary Club luncheon in Los Angeles. After finishing his opening remarks, Prelutsky then...

"... asked for questions. Therein, I made my biggest mistake. First off, instead of posing a query, the lady who had delivered the invocation took me to task for not pointing out that most Muslims are good people, and that some of her best friends are followers of Islam. I opined that most Germans were not Nazis and most Russians were not Communists, but Americans hadn't constantly been called upon to make that distinction. And just because most Muslims weren't blowing up Israeli school buses and pizza parlors, and weren't murdering American soldiers and pregnant women at Fort Hood and elsewhere, didn't mean a heck of a lot of them didn't favor bringing Shariah law to America or that they hadn't been contributing to terrorist organizations through Islamic charities until the FBI shut them down.

At that point, she stormed out."

As it usually is when liberals are confronted with inconvenient little things known as FACTS. And it's not like certain individuals arent trying to introduce Sharia Law in American courts either. And this is in addition, of course, to Harvard University's Islamic Finance project which seeks which seeks "to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector". This in spite of complaints that Shariah Compliant Finance increases the risk of "securities fraud, consumer fraud, racketeering, antitrust violations, material support for terrorism and aiding and abetting sedition."

On a related note, earlier today while at Pamela Geller's blog Atlas Shrugs, I noticed the neat badge that one can install on their blog from the nice people ovar at thereligionofpeace.com. You can see it on the right as it tallies the number of attacks committed in the name of Islam just since 9/11. I defy anyone to show me a single religion that comes even close to these numbers, and if one visits their site, the following facts become clear...

  • "More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.

  • More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.

  • Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.

  • 19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years."

But rather than the media trumpeting these facts, isnt it so much more fun to point out to Mr. Cain just how backward his way of thinking is? For an encore, perhaps the complicit media in this country could write a hard-hitting piece about how rearranging the deck chairs on the H.M.S. Titanic would have bought those folks considerably more time. Or they could ask Obama such penetrating questions like what his favorite color is and then speak at length about what it reveals concerning his personality. It would only be par for the course for such eager serving lapdogs.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Evolutionists promoting 'junk science' in Texas

While the blind followers of Darwinian evolutionary theory claim to be on the side of 'Science', their actions seem to indicate otherwise. A recent analysis of textbooks offered for study in the curriculum of the state of Texas revealed the following, glaring errors. Evolution and Views informs us of the discredited instances of macroevolutionary 'support' being offered up as fact...

  • "Erroneous statements that the 1950s Miller-Urey origin of life experiment produced amino acids under conditions that accurately simulated the early earth.

  • Long-discredited claims that the appendix, tonsils, and other organs are non-functional "vestigial" organs left over from a blind evolutionary process. In fact, these organs are now recognized by scientists to serve important biological functions.

  • Fraudulent embryo drawings originating with nineteenth-century German racist Ernst Haeckel that are used to claim that vertebrate embryos are the same at the earliest stages of development (not true).

  • Some curricula claim that the prevalence of dark moths over light moths is due to moths naturally resting on tree trunks in the wild where they are eaten by birds, failing to report the empirical data questioning this claim.

  • Some curricula promote the Galápagos finches as if they provide evidence for adaptive radiation, failing to mention that the finches are highly similar and can even interbreed.

And on it goes. When will the science-fetishists ever pause for a moment and consider the so-called evidence that they would have children learn? For a more complete explanation on why the Miller-Urey experiment was incomplete and did not work, just click here. In the meantime, I find it quite amusing that the evolutionists don't even bother to police themselves in the propogation of such embarrasing, junk science.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Obama - Fund abortion or we cut off low-income healthcare

In the tradition of open-mindedness, civility and caring for their citizens that characterizes other leftist leaders like Mao and Lenin, Obama is letting Indiana know what he thinks about initiatives to reduce the number of abortions in that state.

"A looming showdown over Indiana's new law that cuts funding for the Planned Parenthood organization may test how far Republican-led states are willing to go in pressing their tough new anti-abortion agendas. The stakes are high. The future of health care for more than 1 million poor and elderly Indiana residents hangs in the balance.

Indiana became the first state this year to cut off all government funds to Planned Parenthood, fulfilling conservatives' goal of financially weakening organizations that provide abortions. Other conservative states have considered such action in recent years but backed away under the threat of loss of all federal money for their Medicaid programs.

The willingness of Indiana, led by a Republican governor and GOP-controlled Legislature, to challenge the federal government and risk a huge financial penalty could take the issue into uncharted legal and political territory. Conservative leaders in other states will be watching the confrontation as they plan their own action on abortion and other social issues.

"I think this is an instance in which a state is really trying to overturn national policy and in so doing is likely to forego federal funding," said Christopher Arterton, professor of political management at George Washington University and an expert on federal-state issues."

Of course, we can't encourage responsible behavior. It's completely out of the question and the public is incapable of it. As always with the left, the violent option is first and foremost. The option that punishes the only completely innocent party in an unplanned pregnancy is the one who has to pay with their life. Way to go Chairman Zero. What else could we expect from someone who as a state senator condoned infanticide?

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Who Lost Peru?

It is the question that anyone with even a whiff of interest of what happens in the Western Hemisphere is asking these days, not the circus sideshow about some congressman named Weiner. Of two recent articles I came across concerning the recent presidential election there, The Guardian was, I believe, unrealistically optimistic...

"With almost all votes from Sunday's poll counted, [Leftist, Ollanta] Humala had won 7,182,788 and his rival Keiko Fujimori 6,807,933, translating into 51.3% and 48.7% respectively after a bitter campaign that polarised the country....

Big business and media groups backed the 36-year-old senator despite the fact that her [Keiko Fujimori's], father, Alberto, is in jail for corruption and human rights abuses committed while he was president in the 1990s. Humala, who led an unsuccessful coup against Fujimori in 2000, pulled ahead in the final days of the campaign after reminding voters of forced sterilisations and rampant corruption during Fujimori's rule. His victory sent the stock exchange plunging 12%, prompting temporary suspension of trading and fears of capital flight. Investors fear the former lieutenant colonel may follow radical economic policies of his one-time mentor, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.

Humala renounced Chávez during the campaign, swapped red T-shirts for dark suits and promised to rule like a Lula-style social democrat. But doubts remain.

"We believe there is still a significant amount of uncertainty regarding who is the 'real' Humala," said a research note from RBC Capital Markets.

Humala and Fujimori are reviled by many Peruvians as dangerous demagogues but centrist rivals cancelled each other in the first round in April, putting the two populists from opposite ends of the political spectrum into the runoff."

And that's the more optimistic of the two articles. Talk about a couple of 'Real Winners' to choose from. They make a couple of flim-flam artists like Obama-McCain look like Lincoln-Douglas in comparison. From Red State, we read....

"The tremendous flow of money ,introduced into the coffers of Humala by Hugo Chávez enabled him to outspend Keiko by at least 4 to 1. This was known to the CIA and neither was denounced ,nor competing funds distributed to the pro-USA Keiko Fujimori.Three days before the election it took Roger Noriega,ex assistant secretary of state in the Bush administration , and long out of govertnment to publish the news that at least 12 million dollars were channeled through the Venezuelan Naval attache´s office in Bolivia to the naval attache´s office in Perú in the closing weeks of the campaign. A considerable amount of this money was used in vote buying in rural areas of southern Perú. During the years between elections, Chávez built up a treasure chest of petro-dollars in Perú to enable Humala to structure a formidable political party organization. He paid for key Brazilian operatives from Lula´s Brazilian labor party to organize Humala´s campaign.This was known in the state department and the CIA. No action was taken to help our friends.

So now the keystone, Perú is gone leaving Chile and Colombia without a key ally in their democratic front against Hugo Chávez. When Humala takes office on the 28th of July to the applause of Chávez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa and the Castro brothers , he should issue a special thank you to the firm of Obama & Clinton Inc. for standing idly bye while Perú was lost."

It's not like we couldnt use friends in that part of the world when Iran is actively setting up missle batteries in Venezuela, pointed at the US and Colombia.

If only we had someone in the White House who knew how to counteract against such threats instead of the "community organizer" that currently occupies the Oval Office.

(Pictured; The Tomb of San Martin de Porres, Convent of Santo Domingo, Lima, Peru

Monday, June 6, 2011

When Homocritics charge in

"Let me get this straight JD. You want to allow discrimination against a group of people. Some of the reasons you post on your blog are that this group is -

-more likely to suffer from depression
-more likely to abuse substances to hide depression
-more likely to abuse substances
-more likely to contract STD's

than the group you belong to.

Let's see what other groups you can put into your discrimination model.

African Americans. African Americans are more likely to suffer depression, more likely to abuse substances, more likely to contract STD's than white Americans. Hell, I think they might even be more likely to smoke cigarettes but I couldn't find the data for that.

It's institutional intolerance of gays. If a religious group said that they were withdrawing from providing adoptions because they might have to place children with black families, I hope you'd have no problem roundly condemning that.

You are a foul person, Jd. There's a reason why everyone thinks you are a homophobic bigot. And I want you to know that the word 'bigot' means something. It's not just an insult that you seem to like to carelessly throw around.

Reasonable people do not disagree about gays and lesbians. Reasonable people may differ on whether there is a God or not or several. But reasonable people cannot disagree that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights in society, even if it contravenes their religious beliefs.

I pretty much see it as them saying they have roughly the same respect for equality as the KKK. They are *explicitly* withdrawing to avoid having to accept treating citizens with equal respect. That is done at the cost of the services provided to children who more often than not have no adult guardians at all.
Quoted from No Longer Catholic

The above is a prime example of what can occur when a well-meaning, yet completely ill-informed supporter of gay adoption charges in to a conversation without first switching their brain to the 'ON' position and checking emotionalism at the door.

Not only is the above completely filled with errors but almost comically so. Let's desconstruct the comments by NLC and analyze them in the light of reason, shall we?

Let me get this straight JD. You want to allow discrimination against a group of people

More precisely here, the issue here is that Catholic Charities would like to defer to other adoption agencies when it comes to placing children with couples that are co-habitating, whether straight or GBLTQ. They just don't want to get involved with that themselves and apparently it's Gay Adoption uber alles and dissent is apparently not allowed.

Notice how NLC uses the word 'discrimination' as if it is a bad thing in and of itself. Could an agency 'discriminate' if the parents were philanderers? Could they discriminate if there was a history of abuse? Or alcoholism or drug use? Of course they could, and with good reason.

Some of the reasons you post on your blog are that this group is -

-more likely to suffer from depression
-more likely to abuse substances to hide depression
-more likely to abuse substances
-more likely to contract STD's

than the group you belong to

Observe how NLC conveniently focuses on less serious factors such as STD's and glosses over much more serious issues like.."In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, a recent study by the Canadian government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples". Also, according the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies, "Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples." Link

But such evasion is to be expected when your overall goal is Gay Adoption uber alles. The kids don't matter a wit in these instances.

Let's see what other groups you can put into your discrimination model.

African Americans. African Americans are more likely to suffer depression, more likely to abuse substances, more likely to contract STD's than white Americans

Yet another clumsy attempt to equate gay civil rights with black civil rights. I'll tell you what NLC, simply point me to the support group that assists African Americans cope with the struggles associated with being formely black and have left the black lifestyle behind and I concede the point. Not even Martin Luther King's niece is falling for such nonsense.

"I have met many ex-homosexuals just as I have met many ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-drug addicts and ex-lawyers. Yet I have never met an ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American" Alveda C. King

You are a foul person, Jd. There's a reason why everyone thinks you are a homophobic bigot. And I want you to know that the word 'bigot' means something. It's not just an insult that you seem to like to carelessly throw around"

Yes, it is a bad word that nobody wants associated with their name. Now, since I have been called as such multiple times by more than one person on the thread you are quoted from..,

And since I have asked that "one single, solitary shred of evidence whatsoever" be presented to substantiate the claim that I am a bigot or homophobe,..

And since there has been absolutely none, zippo, zero, nada forthcoming in the way of any evidence whatsoever, then do you feel like calling out the free speech bigots at Justin's blog for the intolerant little hate-filled zealots that they so evidently are? I would be pleased that you show some backbone and actually do so but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Reasonable people do not disagree about gays and lesbians

Demonstrably incorrect. In the matter of causation alone there is a great deal of disagreement, even within the homosexual community itself.

Reasonable people may differ on whether there is a God or not or several

I guess. Whatever.

But reasonable people cannot disagree that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights in society, even if it contravenes their religious beliefs

Are you talking about voting rights, free speech rights, freedom to assemble peacefully rights, freedom of religion rights or freedom of the press rights? I support all of these and I hope youre not trying to conjure up rights out of thin air that were never debated or ratified.

I pretty much see it as them saying they have roughly the same respect for equality as the KKK. They are *explicitly* withdrawing to avoid having to accept treating citizens with equal respect

This is the most unbelievably stupid remark that I have seen in quite some time, and I'm on the internet alot. Just for starters, let us examine the civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama in 1965.

From Racial Justice and the People of God: The Second Vatican Council, the Civil Rights Movement and American Catholics, we read...

"One participant observed that many speakers at the headquarters of the Selma campaign "pointed out with happiness and gratitude that this was the first time that so many Catholic priests, acting with their bishops permission, had joined them on the frontlines of the movement. Ralph Abernathy congratulated one priest on the Catholic turnout, jocularly adding " the only ones they hate more than Negroes down here are Roman Catholics, especially Monsignors."

Newspapers across the country including the New York Times and the Washington Post, carried front-page photos of nuns in full-habit striding down Dallas county roads. One editorial concluded that "For a great many Catholics the pictures of demonstrating clergymen and religious flashed on TV screens or bannered on front pages, spoke more more clearly and directly than any other conciar degree could ever do about the effective presense of the Church in the world today." A nun marching down Selma's Highway 80 made the same point emphatically: "We are the Church", she declared."

Now compare this to the actions of the Ku Klux Klan in Selma of 1965. If one were to ask family members of Viola Liuzzo if the Catholic Church and the KKK deserve to be on equal footing, what do you think their response would be?

Of course, all of this is before we get into other measurable metrics between the two groups such as lynchings since the Reconstruction, number of universities founded, number of orphanages founded, food pantrys for the poor started and other examples then your comprison begins to become apparent as the complete canard that it truly is.

I await your reply NLC, however I'm about 100% positive that you will fade to black and disappear, failing to support the statements that you have made. But who knows? I might wind up being suprised.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Gay adoption uber alles

Over at Justin Vacula's blog, they are wringing their collective hands over the fact that Catholic Charities of Illinois is giving up the adoption business altogether rather than be bullied into placing children with same-sex couples. Why the state of Illinois is pressuring Illinois Catholic Charities into doing so rather than just leaving them alone is a mystery to me. It seems that the charitable organization wanted an amendment to the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that would "have allowed Catholic Charities to refer unmarried, cohabitating couples, whether same-sex or opposite sex, to other agencies so as to not violate the teachings of the Catholic faith". But the amendment failed to pass and you know the story, it's gay adoption uber alles and the possibility of opting out is apparently off the table.

I am quite sure that the charity in this case objected due to religious reasons along with others. However, I am not convinced that objections to young kids having to be canaries in a coal mine in a grand social experiment due to the lobbying efforts of radical gay activists necessarily need to be grounded upon religious reasons. After all, doesnt a charity that places these kids owe the childen they are dealing with the most optimal environment possible in which to live? Please consider the following...

First, " Sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University has done extensive research on the different functions that mothers and fathers play in their children's lives. His studies show that while fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative and risk-taking, mothers stress emotional security and personal safety. When disciplining, mothers provide important flexibility and sympathy, while fathers provide predictability and consistency. By nature, same-sex couples are unable to provide one-half of this equation." Someone once stated that gender does not equal role playing, and I agree.

To argue that homosexual and heterosexual couples are quite similar to one another flies in the face of empirical evidence. It seems that the right-wing, religious zealots over at the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association seem to agree on the following facts...

  • "Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger communities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate ("poppers"), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines

  • Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population

  • Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis

  • it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men

  • Recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several studies

  • gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa"

In addition to these facts eminating from the gay community, those homophobes over at the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence state that "23% of men reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male intimate partner." Exactly how do these numbers stack up against married, heterosexual couples?

Of course all of this is before we get into the fact that..

"Dr Sotirios Sarantakos from Charles Stuart University, Australia did research comparing primary school children in married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples. Children in normal marriages faired the best, and children in homosexual homes the worst. Children of homosexual couples scored the lowest in language ability, mathematics and sport. They were more timid, reserved, unwilling to work in a team or talk about home lives and holidays. They felt "uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from the parent they lived with" and were the least sociable. Although homosexual couples gave their children "more freedom", married couples cared for and directed their children most. Children of married parents had clear future plans, while the children of homosexuals and cohabiters wanted to leave school and get a job as soon as possible. Children of homosexuals were "more confused about their gender" and more effeminate (irrespective of their gender)."

And all of this is just off the top of my head. I'm just some putz sitting in his undershirt in Florida, laughing at the leftist nonsense trotted out as legitimate commentary because none of this information was that hard to find. I can hardly wait to hear the rebuttals. Can we at least hope for, "B-b-b-but a stable home environment isn't everything JD!"

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Happy Thor's Day

I rarely go to the movies anymore being that I find so much of what Hollywood has on offer these days to be complete crap. Nonetheless, me and the Mrs. went to check out Thor this past weekend. It was quite entertaining actually and we both enjoyed it. One little snippet from the film portrays how we supposedly got the name for our fifth day of the week....

"Thor was usually portrayed as a large, powerful man with a red beard, flowing hair, a hearty enjoyment of food and drink and eyes of lightning. Despite his ferocious appearance, he was quite popular as the protector of both gods and humans from the forces of evil. He even surpassed his father Odin in popularity because, contrary to Odin, he did not require human sacrifices. At his temple in Uppsala he is shown standing with Odin at his right side. The 11th century Christian missionary, Adam of Bremen, on noting the great temple of the gods in Uppsala, Sweden, wrote, "Thor, they say, presides over the air, he governs the thunder and lightening, the wind and rains, fair weather and crops... If plague and famine threaten, a libation is poured to the idol Thor." This temple was replaced by a Christian church in 1080.

Thor was the foremost of the gods to the common man, who could call upon him to ensure fertility, and widely worshipped. Hammer shaped amulets, a symbol of Thor because it was his weapon, were worn around the neck well into the Christianization of Scandinavia. There are molds from that time that contain both the cross and hammer shapes, side by side. His name occurs in numerous place names and it was his statue which was central in the great temple at Uppsala. He was associated by the Romans with Jupiter. Donar was an early version of Thor among the Germans. the Anglo-Saxons worshipped a thunder god named Thunor.

Thor has lived on, not as a part of any religion, but on our weekly calender. Thursday (Thor's Day) was derived from this mighty god."

I guess there is truth to this because this information is found at other sites as well. Upon reading this, I was reminded of an earlier entry that I posted which contained the following...

"In A.D. 1020, the Norwegians had their first national assembly in their history. At this gathering, presided over by King Olav, Christianity became law. "At the same time," writes Norwegian historian Sverre Steen, "old practices became illegal, such as blood sacrifice, black magic, the 'setting out' of infants', slavery and polygamy."

So it took the penetrating power of the gospel of Jesus Christ to turn the hearts of the most feirce, warrior like people that Europe has ever known.