Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August, 2010

And From Piece of Work In Progress, we have this disturbing video.

I have no love for the LaRouchies. I generally think of them the same way I think of Progressives and other Statists, but this did not sit well with me…a little too much “SHUT UP!” made manifest, I think.

Read Full Post »

Because an hour and half away from my home, I can get all of this in the same 24 hour period:

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

I give my fellow Hostage Rosetta the Impaler a bad time.  Sometimes, he even deserves it.  And then, in a fit of uncharacteristic sobriety, he manages to bang out something not only worth reading, but linking.  Today is one of those days.

From his new masterpiece, Open Letter to Moderate Muslims:

Assuming that you exist, we are to believe that you are the mainstream of the Muslim community as opposed to your extremist brothers that preach hatred from your houses of worship, kill women and homosexuals as sport, detonate bomb belts at weddings and fly planes into buildings.

This is an open letter appeal to you in regards to what has become known as the “9-11 Mosque”.

If your desire is to live in peace with America, a country that has already welcomed more than 2,000 Islamic houses of worship and over 200 in New York alone, you must find a different location for this planned Islamic center.

If your desire is for war with America, then you should proceed as planned.

Go.  Get over there and read the whole thing.  NOW.

Read Full Post »

The Reaction to This Was Muslim Tolerance In Action

 

The Washington Examiner goes toe-to-toe with TIME and its conclusion that Americans are “Islamophobic”, and drags the accusation kicking and screaming into the brutal light of reality.

But, as the article concedes, there has been no increase in violence against Muslims. In reality, Americans remain fastidiously tolerant of all religions, even one that inspired 19 fanatics to hijack four commercial airliners on 9/11 and kill more than 3,000 Americans in the bloodiest attack in our nation’s history. Time requires a peculiar sort of blindness to see so much imagined intolerance in America — especially based solely on “anecdotal evidence” — while nearly ignoring the religious intolerance in most Islamic countries. A group of triumphalist Muslims seeks to erect an Islamic center near Ground Zero in a city that already has 100 mosques, and they face, at worst, disapproval, stern looks and calls to relocate their project.

Its been a tough year for the Left.

The Race Card? Maxxed Out.

The Bigotry Claim? Rejected.

And the self-loathing Moral Equivalency Play? Over before it starts:

Contrast this with a news report by journalist Mindy Belz in the current issue of World magazine, concerning Afghanistan’s small community of Christian converts. Belz describes how an Afghan television station recently broadcast a video of a baptismal service, sparking riots in the streets of Kabul and leading to the arrest of 25 Christians. Nobody knows at this time the fate of those arrested. Because it is illegal for Muslims to convert in Afghanistan — as it is in most Islamic countries — people who choose any other faith face the death penalty. Adherents of other religions, meanwhile, are subject to official discrimination and persecution, despite guarantees to the contrary in Afghanistan’s constitution. Thus, the plight of Christians is shared in many Islamic countries by Buddhists, Baha’is, Hindus and Zoroastrians.

And one more kick to the crotch, for good measure:

As Time puts it, it is wrong to “conflate Islam with terrorism and savagery.” But the world must be dealt with as it is and not as we wish it were. That requires us to accept the reality that Muslim nations are the most religiously intolerant places on Earth, and that a startling number of Islamic clerics worldwide still refuse to condemn violence against nonbelievers. In contrast, Americans who oppose the mosque are not even demanding that its developers be arrested or harmed in any way for their beliefs. They ask only that the mosque developers voluntarily show common sense, decency and sensitivity for America’s loss on 9/11.

But it isn’t the same muslims who flew the planes into the towers, so it should be hunky dorey, right?

Read Full Post »

Moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity?  Not even close.  King Shamus of Baldilocks eviscerates this silly leftist meme.

Here’s just a taste…

What would it take to make Christianity the moral equivalent to Islam?

There would have to be groups of Christians that call for violent acts in the name of Jesus.  It could not just be the rare lone gunman-type with a Bible stuffed into his drawers and a raging desire to kill people for Christ wilding out.  You’d need to have densely populated structures incorporated for the purpose of fomenting Jesus-inspired terror.  These organizations would be populated by leaders that call for Christians to use terror to spread Christianity.  The power of Christ would compel the members of these religious groups to do violence to other humans.

And for Mayor Bloomie and the rest of the Useful Idiots, no, he isn’t done yet.  He doesn’t care how much it hurts.  Go read the hold thing.

Read Full Post »

David Limbaugh isn’t usually one of my favorite columnists, but he’s put his finger firmly on the flaws of the Prop 8 decision by Judge Walker:

He seeks to deconstruct (and then reconstruct) the definition of traditional marriage by describing its constituent elements and showing how those elements can be applied equally to heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage, thus concluding there is no difference between the concepts. It’s as if he compared my DNA with any of yours and concluded that because 99.9 percent of human DNA is the same in everyone, you and I are the same person.

Walker takes the various principles the courts have enunciated through the years concerning marriage and the right to marry, labors to show there’s no logical reason to differentiate in the application of these principles between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage and, presto chango, concludes that these legal precedents demand that the definition be changed to conform to his worldview.

All the while, he denies he’s changing anything.[Emphasis Added]

He states, for example, that “marriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history of the United States.” It requires that two parties “give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household,” and that “the spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents.”

He cites case law affirming that “the state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace,” and that “the state respects an individual’s choice to build a family with another and protects the relationship because it is so central a part of an individual’s life.”

Because he believes these statements can be applied equally to homosexual unions, such unions, in his opinion, also fit our concept of marriage. The problem with that is that he can’t artificially extend to homosexual unions ideas that were, by their context, intended to apply only to heterosexual marriage.

The fact that two types of unions contain certain similar attributes does not negate the fact that at their core, those unions are fundamentally different. For example, just because heterosexual unions also include the free consent of both parties doesn’t mean the court can be read to have equated those unions to heterosexual marriage.

And the Examiner Editorial Board points out that the good Judge’s objectivity on this topic isn’t above reproach:

Yet, this latest decision marks the third time Walker has been rebuked by appellate courts since he was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan. Earlier this year, after Walker required disclosure of Prop 8 supporters’ internal communications, the Ninth Circuit cut him off by issuing a highly unusual writ of mandamus directing him to stop what would clearly be an excessive and unnecessarily intrusive discovery process. That the higher court used such a writ — defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as indicating a failure to “perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly” — is suggestive of the appeals panel’s opinion of Walker’s jurisprudence. The second instance came shortly thereafter when the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Walker’s plan to televise the proceedings in his courtroom prior to issuing his ruling. Had he been allowed to proceed, the case would have become little more than a circus.
Dude.  DUDE
 
When the Ninth Circus has to tell you to dial it back, in a Writ of freaking Mandamus, you really shouldn’t be hearing the case.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 377 other followers