Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
While Barack Obama has released his birth certificate, there still seems to be unanswered questions. Jerome Corsi (the man who added the verb "swiftboated" to the American lexicon) shares his thoughts the day after the release of this document.
As WND reported, the long-form birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins have certificate numbers lower than the number given Obama, even though the president purportedly was born at the same hospital a day earlier than the Nordykes.
Note, Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth displayed by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form birth certificate the White House released today – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordykes.
Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961."
"Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.
First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.
Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .
The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . ."
It will be interesting to see if enough people in this country are sufficiently interested in pressing the issue. Maybe, or maybe not. We'll see.
I would only like to add that in my opinion, it wasn't really so much Donald Trump that forced Obama's hand in this situation as it was the Oklahoma legislature and Jerome Corsi's upcoming book set to be released in a couple of weeks.
I would like to throw out a question for discussion? Why didnt Obama release this document any sooner? If I had to venture a guess I would say elitism and a sense of entitlement. What are your thoughts?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Reporter Liz Robbins was at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan on Sunday morning to hear Archbishop Timothy Dolan delivers his Easter homily to nearly 3,000. St. Patrick’s also marked the “finish line” of the Easter Day parade. But her story Monday, “A Sermon Of Rebirth, And a Rally For Rights,” was pre-occupied by a tiny band of protesters in support of gay marriage, “A small group of about 25 people stood while temperatures soared near 80 degrees.” For Robbins, two dozen people standing outside in “near 80 degree” heat (was it really that onerous?) was worth both special mention and 364 of the story’s 634 words."
This segues neatly into an earlier, unanswered objection raised by GS.....
Secondly, what benefit would endorsing such lesbian "marriages" have on a society? One could argue that such a lesbian coule could raise a child, through artificial semination or adoption. However this author slaps down that idea as something much less than favorable...
"One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female...
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos."
So you'll have to pardon me if I give pause to the notion and I consider it's eventual effects on society rather than succumbing to full support for it out of blind emotionalism to do what I at first may think would help the group in question and society in general. I would rather approach such wholesale change with careful thought.
While your "Ohio lesbian" couple may get along fine, statistics paint a very different picture...
"Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners. A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.
The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation." Link
I'll let Ann Coulter have the last word on this one...
"Liberals don't care. Their approach is to rip out society's foundations without asking if they serve any purpose. Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards -- why not make heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!"
Monday, April 25, 2011
First, Vox day weighs in with his thoughts on the matter...
The problem with this reasoning is that it is fundamentally at odds with the very heart of Christianity. Christianity does not postulate that the world is a good place. Jesus repeatedly declared that the world hated him and it would hate those who loved him. Christianity does not claim that God is presently in control of events; when Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, Jesus rejected the offer but did not claim that it was spurious. And, indeed, Jesus twice spoke of "the prince of this world" as a being who was coming to kill him but would ultimately be driven out by Jesus' death.
Christianity does not have a problem of evil because it requires evil for the great historical event celebrated yesterday to have any meaning at all. Just as I wrote last week that the Crucifixion and Resurrection make no sense if man is not at risk of hell, they make no sense in a world that is not given over to evil. But if Christianity has no problem of evil, Christians most certainly have a problem with evil."
I would posit "the perils of free will" are part of the problem of understanding evil. Evil is typically an act that is committed. When one has free will over a wide variety of actions that one can perform, then the fallen state of man can easily be seen by some of the heinous acts that our fellow human beings commit.
Father Dwight Longenecker (who I link to on the right side of the page), had this to say recently about suffering...
"Suffering--as terrible as it is--therefore validates our existence. My suffering affirms my eternal destiny. "This is so bad that it must point me to the good. My pain screams out to me and defines the joy I am lacking." How do I know I exist? How do I know my humanity? Because of my pain. The pleasures of this life are ephemeral, and may be produced within me through all sorts of illusory and self-induced phenomena. They are therefore untrustworthy as validation of my existence. But I do not bring pain onto myself. I avoid pain. Therefore, pain is the sensation that not only makes me believe in the existence of pleasure, but it also makes me believe in the existence of me. Pain validates me. Not "I think therefore I am" but "I scream therefore I am."
The cynical nihilist may still turn around and say, "That pleasure and reasonable answer you dream of is an illusion. It is wishful thinking. There is no such thing. Pleasure, like pain, is simply an animal sensation.--a primitive instinct of survival." To which we reply, "Then why do I rage against the unreasonableness of it all? Why not simply whimper and crouch down and lick my wounds and run from the pain like a beast? Instead I rage against God for allowing this suffering and I demand an answer."
There would be no such thing as thirst unless there were such a thing as water. Man could not reason unless there was such a thing as Reason. We could not ask questions if there were no such thing as answers. This is why Christianity puts suffering right at the heart of our faith. We do not avoid it. We do not come up with philosophical or theological theories. We do not say that suffering is an illusion and that we must simply rise above it. Instead we behold the cross. We preach Christ crucified."
So maybe there is a deeper meaning to pain and suffering and we are provided with only a brief glimpse on the overall historical timeline that accentuates the negative. With Christ's victory over death at the cross, we have the example of the empty tomb that there will be comfort and greater understanding in the end for those who seek Him.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
This will sting. The Lilliputians have invested great emotional equity in what Obama-friendly biographer David Remnick calls his "signature appeal: the use of the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal." From the beginning, Team Obama has worked hard to protect the investment. This has meant shielding the world from all salient documentation about Obama's life, his long-form birth certificate included. In the last few years, Obama's nativity story has been told almost as often as Jesus' but with nowhere near the accuracy."
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
On the question of the Commandment 'Thou Shalt do no Murder', it is so rendered by Christ himself (Gospel according to St Matthew, Chapter 19, 18th verse, Authorised or 'King James' version). This is why it is also so rendered in the service of The Lord's Supper in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
Now, as this dispute is supposed to be about what Christians believe the Commandment to mean, and Christians believe that Christ is God himself, or they would not be Christians, this rather closes the debate. If God himself in his most recent appearance among us (as believed by Christians) says 'Thou shalt do no murder', then that is what the Commandment is, superseding and overriding any previous version, or clarifying it if you prefer.
Atheists can believe what they like. I cannot see why they should care one way or the other. But they really need to be better-informed before trying to tell Christians how to interpret their own scriptures, don't you think?
I might add that Christ himself was subject to the death penalty, and his sayings were recorded when sentence was passed on him and while it was being carried out, and He did not take the opportunities offered to condemn it in principle. I agree that arguments from silence are not always reliable. But in this case, the silence is pretty eloquent. He did say much on other subjects during this event. What is more, one of the two thieves stated from his cross that they were justly punished for their crimes, and Christ did not contradict him.
I might add that both the 39 Articles of the Church of England (Article 37) , and the Roman Catholic Catechism, both conclude that the death penalty is justified in certain circumstances. Those who compile these documents do not do so without much study of scriptural texts, or without much thought. Non-religious persons trying to make trouble will just have to accept that mainstream Christianity somehow manages to distinguish between lawless murder and lawful execution - even if Atheists appear to be unable to do so.
Likewise it manages to observe that the destruction of a baby in the womb is the wrongful taking of life, which atheists also seem unable to perceive."
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Robert Knight's recent article mentions a couple of reasons that may suggest to the average reader, that a case could be made that gay marraige could be viewed as "immoral".
The key case was Murphy v. Ramsey (1885), in which the Supreme Court upheld Congress' right to make polygamy and bigamy illegal in U.S. territories and a requirement for statehood. The court said:
"For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
WORLD magazine culture critic Gene Edward Veith notes that the homosexual drive to gain marital benefits is destroying marriage itself as people abandon commitment and embrace the "gay" notion of serial monogamy with "sex partners": "This sort of reductionism -- a spouse is nothing more than a sex partner, so a sex partner is the same as a spouse -- misses the point of what marriage is and what its role in society amounts to....Marriage is being defined down..."
Hoover Institute research fellow Stanley Kurtz has chronicled the acceleration of societal uncoupling from marriage in Sweden:
"Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock....Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood."
Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year."
And please, I don't want this discussion to devolve into an accusation that those who are not supportive of the idea of gay marraige are trying to keep people who love each other apart from one another. We're talking about the effects of such a sweeping change as it relates to society. For example, what are some of the benefits to a society that redefines monogamous marraige to that of the "notion of serial monogamy "?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
•A tax policy that rewards savings, investment, entrepreneurial risk-taking and exports.
•Free, open and fair access to foreign markets, with a focus on constructive trade reform with China.
•Elimination of the federal bureaucratic and regulatory stranglehold on business.
•A market-driven energy policy that encourages investment in America and reduces our dependence on foreign oil.
•A commitment to fiscal responsibility through budget restraints and entitlement reform."
All of these above steps are needed if we are to stave off the upcoming economic disaster. You know things are getting pretty bad when fairly non-partisan Congressional Budget Office tells you that they "can’t conceive of any way in which the economy can continue past the year 2037 because of debt burdens" Link
It's shaping up to be an interesting election season folks.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Although not rightfully defined as "Creationism" there are Intelligent Design theorists who are having papers reviewed all the time. Such as the "work of Douglas Axe who published articles in 2000 and 2004 in the Journal of Molecular Biology, Michael Behe and David Snoke who published in 2004 in Protein Science, and Axe again in 2010 in BIO-Complexity, a peer reviewed journal for testing ID claims. From my reading, all these papers cast doubt on natural selection acting on random mutations as a source of new information." Link
Monday, April 4, 2011
It seems that the debate over whether Obama is actually eligible for the office he currently holds is beginning to heat up. One well known blogger put it thusly...
For the second, Linkins cited the argument of Carole Glibert, in the Yahoo-related "Associated Content." Said Gilbert, presumably with a straight face, "In fact, Barack Obama's dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider that he might have checked out his father's alma mater?"
Last time I checked, Harvard was in Massachusetts. The closest town to Harvard in Connecticut is about 90 minutes away, and there is no record that Obama Sr. lived there, let alone that Obama visited his imaginary alma mater and just happened to apply for a Social Security card while visiting."
UPDATE: If there is anyone who doubts even for the slightest moment that the MSM is completely in the tank for Obama, then click here to read a recent article from the Daily Mail asserting in the strongest terms possible that Obama has already released hi birth certificate when the document that they cite is the certification of live birth and either they don't know the difference between the two documents in which they shouldnt be commenting on the matter, or they are only mere lackeys who wrote this article and they are just taking their orders from other, more well positioned liberals who are above them.