Featured Post

AmeriKKKa continues her inevitable (Yep.) slide into Third World madness.

Behold the fleas with which that mangy orange cur has infested conservatism! SUCKERS! Neo-Nazis battling commies in the streets? Welcome...

"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." -- Pope Sixtus III

Friday, April 01, 2011

Enter The Goat Rapists, Part Duh.

Libyan rebels may be tied to al-Qaida

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- An Obama administration debate raged on supplying weapons to Libyan rebels as administration officials planned to brief lawmakers on U.S. involvement there.


Are Libyan rebels al-Qaida sympathizers? - MSNBC

It’s a short YouTube clip from the Libyan war -- a three-minute piece culled from an Al Jazeera report on a group of rebel fighters. The group, dressed in fatigues and carrying AK-47s, are listening to recordings coming from a speaker in the back of a camouflaged pickup.

The recordings playing in the background were produced by al-Qaida and the conversations around the truck suggest that these particular Libyan rebels are driven by a radical agenda and religious fervor rather than a desire for democracy.

How significant was this scene in the Libyan desert? Not very, the commander of NATO forces and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday. There are concerns about the makeup of the rebel forces, they acknowledged, but not significant ones so far. The problem is, very little is known about the rebels.

Gun grabbing pansy in the White House Update.

From The Patriot Post:

Obama's Assault on Weapons By Mark Alexander

Project Gunrunner Backfires on the Left

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." --Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Barack Hussein Obama and his Socialist cadre1, in their enthusiasm to "fundamentally transform2 the United States of America," have redoubled efforts to do what all tyrannical governments must do to establish absolute state supremacy and usurp Rule of Law3 -- disarm the people.

Leftists accomplish this through incremental implementation of gun confiscation measures, most of which are overt political machinations. These include legislation written and promoted by Leftist groups such as the American Bar Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and the Brady Campaign.

Current legislation under consideration includes H.R. 308 to limit rounds in magazines, S. 35 to lock in gun show registrations, S. 436 designed to "fix gun checks," and, most disturbing, the reauthorization of Section 215 of The Patriot Act, which permits the FBI to seize gun sale records (4473's) pursuant to "an authorized investigation." Regarding the latter, the Inspector General estimated that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI exceeded its authority under Section 215 in more than 6,000 instances.

The objective of most of this legislation is centralized registration, which provides the federal government with data on the owner of every gun in the U.S. Then, under the duress of, say, the collapse of our economy4, Leftists will "justify" confiscation by way of such nefarious measures as an Executive Order -- just as they justified weapons confiscations after Hurricane Katrina.

"Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste," right?

The generation that witnessed the adulteration of our Constitution5 by Franklin Roosevelt and his Useful Idiots6 during the Great Depression know exactly what I mean. Fortunately, growing ranks of Patriots7 across our nation are awakening to this very real threat against our Second Amendment rights.

As FDR aptly demonstrated, the primary method in the Left's playbook for advancing its agenda is to convert tragedy into political capital. That is precisely what they did with the shooting of Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords8 and others in Tucson in January of this year, and that is the rallying point for current gun control legislation.

Of course, claiming "gun violence9" is the problem, rather than social entropy10 institutionalized by FDR's policies and those of his Socialist successors, is a better fit with the Left's agenda.

Another case in point, and one that is now backfiring on the Obama administration, is Project Gunrunner, a government program run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). As you may recall, ATF is an agency that exposed itself as a puppet for political agendas in the botched and bloody assaults at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and Waco, Texas, in 1993.

The ATF implemented Project Gunrunner in 2006 as a strategy to track weapon distribution networks between the U.S. and Mexican drug cartels -- a worthy goal on the surface. Problem is, once the guns crossed into Mexico, ATF lost most of its tracking capability, which is to say that efforts to follow the distribution trail and stem the tide ended at the border.

Enter the Obama administration's gun control agenda, which breathed new life into Gunrunner and re-established the ATF leadership's standard ops tempo: SNAFU.

While Project Gunrunner failed in charting weapons distribution channels south of the border, Democrats saw its utility as a means to implement new gun regulations north of the border by asserting that all the violence in the region is the result of gun sales in the U.S.

The Obama administration hoped to make a case that Mexican organized crime syndicates depend on illegal U.S. sales of so-called "assault weapons." In doing so, they hoped to revitalize their political agenda to register and regulate the sale of those weapons -- a major Leftist goal for the last two decades.

With its mission transformed, in 2009 and 2010 the ATF expanded Project Gunrunner offices to McAllen, Texas, El Centro, California, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Sierra Vista, Arizona, and Brownsville, Texas, and added new Gunrunner teams in Tucson and in El Paso, Texas. Project Gunrunner's focus became exposing the illegal sale of guns in the U.S. in support of Obama's political objectives.

But the ATF's Gunrunner is now the subject of a political firefight.

On 28 December 2010, I was contacted by a career federal agent who, like many of his colleagues, honors his oath to "support and defend11" our Constitution, whose support and defense is contingent on the Second Amendment's12 prohibition against government infringement on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The contacting agent, who has a good track record of identifying government agendas designed to thwart 2A13 rights, told me that he suspected the weapon used in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on 14 December was among those lost by the ATF during the Gunrunner operation a few months earlier. Senior career agents in Phoenix and Tucson confirmed that some of the weapons recovered at the scene of the murder of Agent Terry were, indeed, Project Gunrunner weapons, but because the ATF took control of the weapons, it could evade the establishment of any ballistic link between Project Gunrunner and the bullet that killed Terry.

Further, the agent I spoke with confirmed that the mission of Project Gunrunner was now purely political, an effort to "implement the registration of 'assault-type' rifles purchased anywhere in the United States." Obama's political appointees at ATF rejected numerous objections from field agents, including supervisory agents. Some objections were career terminators, including that of the ATF's attaché in Mexico City, Darren Gil, whose objections resulted in forced retirement on 31 December 2010, just two weeks after the murder of Brian Terry.

Now, in response to the ATF's stonewalling on ballistics related to Agent Terry's murder, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is demanding answers14. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, is leading Senate inquiries15 into the connection between Gunrunner and Terry's murder.

Additionally, Grassley has also inquired about the murder16 of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata on 15 February, which may also involve weapons connected to Project Gunrunner.

For the record, a search of the ATF website, which prominently promotes Project Gunrunner, makes no mention of the murders of CBP Agent Terry or ICE Agent Zapata other than mentioning their names in off-the-shelf condolences.

For his part, Obama says of Gunrunner, "There may be a situation here which a serious mistake was made. If that's the case, then we'll find out and we'll hold someone accountable." He then asserted, "I did not authorize it; Eric Holder, the attorney general, did not authorize it. He's been very clear that our policy is to catch gunrunners and put them into jail."

Obama and Holder may have enough cutouts to provide political insulation from Gunrunner fallout, but their politicization of its mission has not only been responsible for countless deaths in Mexico (more citizens were murdered in the city of Juarez in 2010 than in the nation of Afghanistan), but very likely the murder of two front-line U.S. agents trying to do their job in accordance with their oaths.

The attention focused on Project Gunrunner has been motivated primarily by politics: first, Obama's gun control agenda to politicize the operation, and now the Republicans' agenda to see how far up the chain of command knowledge of the operation went.

Upcoming testimony from Adam Price and Jeffrey Stirling, program managers for Gunrunner at ATF headquarters, may lead to appearances by Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, FBI Director Robert Mueller, DHS Director Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

All the political shenanigans aside, the Left's assault on the Second Amendment is a much bigger contest: Liberty versus Tyranny17.

To that end, it's worth recalling the words of James Madison: "The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."

James Madison's appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Joseph Story, wrote in his 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution," "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic18; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

(Footnote: It is no small irony that as Obama endeavors to disarm the American people, he is contemplating how to arm "freedom fighters" (who are revealed, more each day, to be al-Qa'ida operatives or their useful idiots) in Libya. "I'm not ruling it out," says Obama. "If we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could." Indeed, just call the ATF!)


Read this on the Web at http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/03/31/obamas-assault-on-weapons/

Why Australian immigration laws are so tough: Nicky Whelan.

Ha! The joke is on you antipodeans. Nicky moved to LA to become a movie star.

From the pages of The King Abdullah Gazette:


Photobucket


Photobucket

Photobucket


Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Chicks who fence [or pretend to fence for photoshoots] are soooooo hot.


Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

I'm so bored this afternoon, I've actually considered watching the Pirates play the Cubs.

Photobucket

Photobucket


Photobucket

...ah, if only...

Look at that! John Calipari has made his first Final Four!


Why does Calhoun get a pass and Calipari can't catch a break?

Kentucky's John Calipari is viewed as a cheater. UConn's Jim Calhoun was actually called one by the NCAA. Mike Freeman says that's hypocrisy. Why is Calipari vilified by the basketball establishment while Calhoun is revered?
- CBS Sports

The Cheater Bracket game is getting a lot of press.

Calipari making Kentucky's investment pay off

Hee-hee. For now.

When Kentucky officials met with coach John Calipari two years ago to talk about the program's vacant head coaching position, they came armed with a sales pitch. Turns out, they didn't need one. Instead, it was Calipari who ended up doing the selling. When university President Lee Todd and athletic director Mitch Barnhart outlined their vision for returning the Wildcats to glory, Calipari...
- AP via Yahoo! Sports


March Madness: Four Most Important Players in the Final Four - Bleacher Report

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Battling Big Babykilling one state at a time.

From Roto-Reuters via Yahoo! News:

Arizona enacts ban on abortions based on gender, race

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Tuesday signed into law a controversial bill that makes the state the first in the nation to outlaw abortions performed on the basis of the race or gender of the fetus.

What about sexual orientation??????? When those right-wing homophobes find out they're carrying a queer baby, do you think they'll hesitate to butcher him and throw him in the trash? I mean who wants to put up with a lifetime of depression, drug abuse, disease, and suicide attempts?

The move comes as anti-abortion groups across the nation try to seize on gains made by political conservatives during the November elections, seeking enactment of new state laws to further restrict abortions.

"Seize"!

Oh my stars, I feel faint.

Under the new Arizona statute, doctors and other medical professionals would face felony charges if they could be shown to have performed abortions for the purposes of helping parents select their offspring on the basis of gender or race.

The women having such abortions would not be penalized.

State legislators have said no such law exists anywhere else in the nation.

Backers of the measure said the ban is needed to put an end to sex- and race-related discrimination that exists in Arizona and throughout the nation. They insist the issue is about bias rather than any broader stance on abortion.

"Governor Brewer believes society has a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable -- the unborn -- and this legislation is consistent with her strong pro-life track record," a spokesman said.

But opponents have maintained that while such abortions may be happening in other countries like China, no clear evidence can found of it occurring in Arizona.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America also said the measure may erode a woman's rights, fearing that doctors for the first time would feel compelled to ask their patients the reasons for seeking an abortion.

A Planned Parenthood official in Arizona condemned the governor's action in a statement to Reuters.

"This law creates a highly unusual requirement that women state publicly their reason for choosing to terminate a pregnancy -- a private decision they already made with their physician, partner and family," said Bryan Howard, the group's chief executive.

Said the racist and sexist guy who makes millions chopping up little black and brown girls.

Oops! What's this coming up, a fact?

The law contains no explicit provision requiring doctors to ask their patients their reasons for seeking an abortion, nor for patients to disclose such reasons. But opponents of the measure feel passage of the new law might make them feel more inclined to do so.

The law would take effect 90 days following the end of the current legislative session.

Enter the goat rapists.

Remember Egypt, kiddies? When the middle class [bourgeois to some of you] Flitter and Bookface hipsters left the public square and went back to class the best organized group moved in and hijacked the "revolution".

See post-WWI Russia to get a glimpse of how it turns out.


From UPI:

CAIRO -- The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic group once banned by Egypt, has become a force as the country undergoes a change in government, observers said.

Because of its organization and network, the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to have an advantage while the post-Hosni Mubarak government takes shape, The New York Times reported Friday. What is surprising to some are the ties the organization has with its adversary, the military.

"There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on," said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. "It makes sense if you are the military -- you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street."

In the early stages of the upheaval in the country earlier this year, the Muslim Brotherhood was reluctant to join the call for demonstrations.

"The Brotherhood didn't want this revolution; it has never been a revolutionary movement," Zarwan told the Times. "Now it has happened; they participated cautiously and they realize they can set their sights higher."

A tangible example of the organization's influence was a recent referendum on constitutional amendments in the nation's first post-Mubarak balloting, the Times reported. Among other things, the amendments call for an accelerated election process so parliamentary contests can be held before September, followed by a presidential race. That expedited calendar is seen as advantageous to the organized and highly networked Brotherhood and the remains of Mubarak's National Democratic Party.

The more secular coalition behind the uprising said more liberal forces must organize quickly.

"I worry about going too fast towards elections, that the parties are still weak," said Nabil Ahmed Helmy, former dean of the Zagazig University law school in Egypt and a member of the National Council for Human Rights. "The only thing left right now is the Muslim Brotherhood. I do think that people are trying to take over the revolution."

Twitter is an incredible waste of time, but...

...if you have time to waste, check these out.

Steve Czaban (czabe) on Twitter


Old Hoss Radbourn (OldHossRadbourn) on Twitter


Bronx Zoo's Cobra (BronxZoosCobra) on Twitter


Mr X (Justcallmemrx) on Twitter


Posted without comment.

Photobucket

This guy doesn't get wood on the ball very often, but when he does...

Photobucket


Call him the Ryan Howard of comics.

Hee-hee. 'Green'. Hee-hee. 'Jobs'.

Photobucket

'Cornered' is quickly moving up my fave list.

It reminds me of 'Herman', one of the all-timers.


Photobucket


Photobucket


Photobucket

Boys will be boys.

Photobucket


Photobucket


Photobucket

Bachelorhood is a viable option.

Photobucket


Photobucket


Photobucket


Photobucket


Photobucket

Pearls Before Swine.

This comic has been picking up steam lately.


Photobucket


Photobucket


Photobucket


Photobucket

It Takes A Village To Staff A Gestapo Unit Update:

They won't even try to kill the Butcher of Lockerbie and they think Assad is reforming Syria one corpse at a time. Mark my words, kiddies, someday Americans will face the guns of their very own "government".

And who you gonna call? The Chinese?


From Israel National News:

Clinton Calls Assad 'Reformer' as Video Shows Massacre

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday that the U.S. would not intervene militarily in Syria as it is doing in Libya, and drew a distinction between Libya's Muammar Qaddafi and Syria's Bashar Assad. The latter, she explained, is seen by congressmen from both parties as “a reformer.”
“What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning," she told CBS's Face the Nation regarding Syria, "but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities," as Qaddafi has done, and the violence by the Assad regime, which merely amounted to "police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”
Clinton said that the circumstances that preceded the intervention in Libya -- international condemnation, and resolutions by the Arab League and United Nations Security Council -- are “not going to happen” regarding Damascus.
Even as Clinton explained the fine differences between Qaddafi and Assad, videos from Al-Sanamayan, near Daraa, appeared to document a massacre of civilians as it occurred.
The first video shows protesters running away from a loud hair of gunfire, the source of which is not clearly visible. The shooting goes on for over a minute as the crowd becomes frenzied and casualties are carried away. The second video shows people grieving over bodies lined up in a makeshift morgue.

Behold the left-fascist definition of reform:



Monday, March 28, 2011

Fyodor catches flak for his comments on mormonism.

A good friend asked me what i have against mormons. Culturally and politically? Nothing at all. If Romney is the guy facing Emperor Haile Unlikely in 2012, I would have no problem voting for him. [Of course, I'd vote for a trained sea scallop over ol' Jug Ears.]

Yes, I recently referred to them as "lizard whisperers". I was being kind. We Catholics tend to look at others who call themselves "Christian" the same way: poor benighted victims of their ancestors and complacency at best and vile heretics at worst.
But mormons are not REPEAT NOT Christians.


The following is from Catholic Answers under the topic Mormons:


Q:
My friend, a Mormon, thinks John 10:34 means we will all be gods someday. I know this isn't what it really means, but can you help me explain why?


A:

When Jesus said, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?" he was referring to Psalm 82:6, in which God addressed the very mortal although powerful judges of Israel who, because of their high office, were entitled to be called "gods." The next verse of the psalm keeps this in perspective: "nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince" (Ps. 82:7).


Q:
Why doesn't the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?

A:

The Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid because, although Mormons and Catholics use the same words, those words have completely unrelated meanings for each religion. The Mormon’s very concept of God is infinitely different from that of Christians—even though they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Mormons believe that God is only one of many gods who were once men and that each of us in turn can become what God is now. This process of men becoming gods is said to go back infinitely. But of course none of these gods can be infinite if they are multiple and had a beginning and are actually human beings. In Mormons’ view, both Jesus and the Father are what we would call glorified creatures.

They also believe that Jesus came into existence after the Father, and that the Father and the Son are not one in being. Thus, although they use the phrase "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," in their usage this phrase takes on a meaning that is actually polytheistic and pagan rather than trinitarian.

For an in-depth look at this, see the books Inside Mormonism and When Mormons Call by Isaiah Bennett, available from Catholic Answers. For a shorter but equally incisive take, see Fr. Brian Harrison’s two-part series on Mormonism in the April and May-June 2003 issues of This Rock.



Q:
What does the Catholic Church say about the practices and beliefs of Mormonism?

A:

While individual Mormons may be persons of good conscience, Mormonism itself is a belief system that would reduce the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from being the three Persons of the one, true, and infinite God to being three limited, finite deities among an uncounted multitude of deities, all of whom merely reshaped small parts of a preexisting cosmos.

Mormonism teaches that human beings may, by practicing the tenets of its faith, become gods and goddesses themselves, with their own planets full of people worshiping them.

While the Catholic Church would reject nothing that is true or good in Mormonism or any other world religion, Catholic theology would have to note that there is a tremendous amount in Mormonism that is neither true nor good. Further, because Mormonism presents itself as a form of Christianity yet is incompatible with the historic Christian faith, sound pastoral practice would need to warn the Christian faithful: Mormon theology is blasphemous, polytheistic, and cannot be considered on par with the theology of other Christian groups.



Q:
Your articles on Mormonism frequently mention the book Doctrine and Covenants. What is it?

A:

Doctrine and Covenants, to quote its explanatory introduction, purports to be "a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on earth in the last days."

The introduction goes on to say,

Although most of the sections are directed to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the messages, warnings, and exhortations are for the benefit of all mankind, and contain an invitation to all people everywhere to hear the voice of the Lord . . . speaking to them for their temporal well-being and their everlasting salvation. The book of Doctrine and Covenants is one of the standard works of the Church in company with the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price.

That’s what the Mormon Church claims it is. In reality, Doctrine and Covenants is a compilation of messages from Joseph Smith designed to bolster his image as a prophet. Although he claimed to be receiving direct revelations from God, these "revelations" often contradicted others given in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere. They were simply a convenient way for Smith to get the things he wanted (such as many wives—see Doctrine and Covenants section 132:1–62) without argument or interference. After all, who would want to argue with God?




Q:
I heard that the current Mormon "prophet" gave an interview in which he waffled on the key teaching of Mormonism—that men can become gods. Is this true?

A:

Yes, it is. Shortly after Easter 1997, the San Francisco Chronicle printed an interview with Gordon B. Hinckley, who has been the president and "prophet" of the Mormon church since 1995.

In the interview, he was asked: "[D]on't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"

"I wouldn't say that," the prophet responded. "There's a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.' Now, that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about" ("Musings of the Main Mormon," April 13, 1997, 3/Z1).

There's something wrong here, as even Latter-day Saints admit. Hinckley appeared to dismiss the traditional Mormon belief that God was once a man by using the demeaning terms "little," "couplet," and "coined." What he failed to point out was that the couplet, coined in the late 19th century by previous Mormon president and prophet Lorenzo Snow, was a succinct summary of the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the founding theologians of Mormonism (see Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).

When asked how he receives divine revelation, to which he is supposedly entitled as God's prophet on earth, Hinckley said, "[W]e have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don't need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we've already received."

Discussing abortion, Hinckley said his church permits it in several circumstances, including for the mother's health. This is a change to a more liberal, politically correct position than what Mormonism has held to this point.

When asked about euthanasia, Hinckley declared that "no, at this point at least, we haven't favored that" (emphasis added). Mormons may well wonder if this leaves the door cracked open to future divine permission to kill their sick and elderly.

Ultimately, the past doctrinal transformations of Mormonism give no confidence that there will not be equally drastic revisions to Mormon doctrine in the future. There may be more stages yet to come as Mormonism reinvents itself to fit the culture around it.


Dagger!


Q:
I have a Mormon colleague who does not drink Coke or other soft drinks. He said his religion forbids it. Is this true?

A:

Yes, by a circuitous route Mormonism has ended up forbidding all caffeinated drinks to its members, including the popular soft drinks.

On February 27, 1833, Joseph Smith reported a revelation known as "the Word of Wisdom," which is now enshrined in Mormon scripture as Doctrine and Covenants 89.

The elders of the early Mormon Church used to meet in a room over Joseph and Emma Smith's house in Kirtland, Ohio. After a good deal of pipe-smoking, they would take large chews of tobacco and spit all over the floor. Smith's wife was none too pleased with having to clean up the mess, and Smith quieted her by "inquiring of the Lord" (see Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses 12:157-158).

The resulting "revelation" allegedly was given "not by commandment or constraint," but as advice or counsel that henceforth members should not use tobacco, alcohol, or "hot drinks," interpreted as coffee and tea. Later prophets deemed this to refer also to cold coffee or tea and eventually extended to cover caffeinated colas as well.

Grains and vegetables were especially commended. According to the Word of Wisdom, meat was to be eaten sparingly, and then only in winter and times of famine. The "revelation" promised that those who followed it would "find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge."

Mormons tout the Word of Wisdom as a case of God protecting them from health problems stemming from alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine (all of which were already under attack for health reasons in 19th-century America). Yet the Mormon God was apparently not farsighted enough to inform his followers of the dangers of salt, fat, and cholesterol.

At first the "Word of Wisdom" was presented only as advice, not as having the force of law. But the "advice" from God soon took on the status of a commandment.

Observance of the Word of Wisdom was sporadic, even by Smith and other early leaders. By 1930, however, it had become more rigorously enforced. It is now enjoined "by . . . constraint" and not merely as advice. Prior to a candidate's baptism, he is interviewed by a senior missionary who asks him questions, including about his compliance with the Word of Wisdom. For example, has he refrained from all alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea? For decades now members have been asked in their yearly interviews with church authorities if they keep the Word of Wisdom. Failure to do so--except for the meat prohibition, which has silently fallen through the cracks--bars one from attending the temple and from church leadership positions.

In the Mormon view, this has grave consequences, for unless a Mormon does his "temple work" he is unable in the next life to achieve godhood. Joseph Smith may have been able to use alcohol, tobacco, and coffee, even after the "giving" of the Word of Wisdom, but no Mormon today can, on pain of becoming a second-class citizen in theafterlife.

Of course, the Mormon prohibition on certain foods is in marked contrast to the biblical and Christian view. While Paul does urge moderation (Phil 4:5), and while periodic abstinence from foods can be a healthy spiritual discipline (Dn 10:2-3), the Bible stands fast in maintaining that all foods are to be received with thanksgiving: "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (1 Tm 4:4). Specifically, as a matter of Christian liberty, Paul commands us not to have food laws imposed on us on religious grounds: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink" (Col 2:16). This includes even alcohol, so long as moderation is observed. Rather than condemn the consumption of alcohol, for example, the Bible clearly permits and even advises it (1 Tm 3:8, 5:23; Ti 2:3; 1 Pt 4:3; also Dt 14:24-26; Prv 31:6-7).


Amen to that, Brother.


Q:
A Mormon missionary has been trying to argue for the Book of Mormon by discussing "the stick of Joseph" and "the stick of Judah." What on earth is he talking about?

A:

He's referring to a verse in Ezekiel. The passage reads:

The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: Then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. (Ez 37:15-17, KJV)

This is one of several passages Mormons try to conscript to prove the Bible spoke of another inspired work of scripture that was to be brought forth in the "latter days."

Mormons rely greatly on the Ezekiel passage as a proof text to demonstrate not only the possibility of divine scripture aside from the Bible, but also the Book of Mormon's doctrinal equality with it. They assume that the "stick of Judah" is the Bible, while the "stick of Joseph" is the Book of Mormon. In these, the latter days, the two have been joined together, forming the bulk of Mormon scripture.

Mormonism's professed literal interpretation of Scripture does not extend to hundreds of passages it rejects as corrupted or that it skews to suit its own purposes. In the case of Ezekiel 37, Mormons not only neglect the plain sense of the words but also ignore their true interpretation, given by God--in the very same chapter.

First, the Hebrew term translated as "stick" (aits) is never used anywhere in the Old Testament to mean "book," "scroll," "writing" or anything similar. It is variously translated as "wood" or "branch," "timber," or "tree." Needless to say, the Book of Mormon was allegedly written on metal plates, not scrolls or sticks.

Second, the correct interpretation of this symbolic action of the prophet is given just a few verses later. Ezekiel is to take the two sticks, put them end to end and hold the joined ends in his hand. He thus displays to the people a "single" stick, once again united. This is to show that the scattered remnants of the Southern kingdom ("Judah") and Northern kingdom of Israel ("Joseph") will be returned from exile, restored to their land, and made one nation again. "They shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all" (Ez 37:22).

With divine impetus, Ezekiel first spoke this parable of redemption then enacted it. Only Mormonism can manage to mistake "timber" for "scrolls" and "nations" for "metal plates."

Take a look at the passage in a more modern translation:

The word of the Lord came to me: "Son of man, take a stick and write on it, 'For Judah, and the children of Israel associated with him,' then take another stick and write upon it, 'For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel associated with him,' and join them together into one stick. . . . Behold, I am about to take the stick of Joseph (which is in the hand of Ephraim) and the tribes of Israel associated with him; and I will join with it the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, that they may be one in my hand. . . . I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all sides, and bring them to their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms." (Ez 37:15-22, RSV)

As the text makes clear, this is a prophecy of national reunification, not about the appearance of hidden scriptures.



Q:
On those Mormon TV commercials, they say Jesus spoke of having "other sheep" and that this somehow supports the Mormon church. What are they talking about and what is the real story?

A:

They’re quoting from John 10:16, where Jesus says, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

Mormons claim that these words of Christ were fulfilled when, after his death and resurrection, he visited the Americas to establish a church among the "Nephites." These "lost sheep" were supposedly the descendants of Hebrews who had fled Jerusalem and journeyed to America at the time of Jeremiah. The Book of Mormon purports to be the religious and historical records of these ancient "Christians" (as the Book of Mormon records they called themselves, even before the coming of Jesus), written and preserved by American counterparts of Hebrew prophets.

Under the rubric, "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34), the Mormon church finds its rationale for the above interpretation and argues that God deals fairly with all his children. Since Christ was sent to Palestine to teach and establish a church among the Jews there, it was only right that he come also to the Americas and establish a church there as well. As so often is the case with Mormon arguments, if they prove anything, they prove too much. The "God is no respecter of persons" principle, both in Acts 10 and elsewhere (Rom 2:11), is applied in a specifically Jewish-Gentile context, showing that God treats all groups fairly. Thus a Mormon could not limit the "no respecter of persons" principle to just those who are members of the house of Israel (Old World or New World Israel). It includes all men, everywhere. If, because of this principle, he had to come to North America and start a church to be fair to the people there, then he would have to visit every continent, and all the peoples on those continents, and start new, independent churches everywhere, in order to show that he is no respecter of persons.

The logical alternative is to say that God shows his grace by starting a single, unified church—somewhere—and that this church is to receive all men, Jew and Gentile. By having a single church, when it expands, men will have no doubt about which one they are to join. Until the time that this church reaches them, they will be judged based on whatever knowledge of God they have—however much or little that may be—and their willingness to follow his truth if they had known what it was.

In reality, the "other sheep" Jesus mentions are the righteous Gentiles, who did not belong to the "fold" of God’s chosen people, Israel, but who would respond to the gospel when preached to them. While Christ’s earthly ministry served the Jewish people almost exclusively, his great commission to the apostles before his ascension sent them into all the world to preach, baptize and thus unite his believers in one fold (Mt 27:19). Because "he that heareth you heareth me" (Lk 10:16), to hear the gospel from the lips of his disciples is to hear Jesus himself.

The understanding of the "other sheep" as the Gentiles who would come to believe in Christ is the natural understanding of the passage. Mormons sometimes ask Christians, "If the ‘other sheep’ weren’t in the New World then who were they?"

A Christian often will be perplexed at the fact the question was asked at all and respond, "Well, they’re the Gentile Christians, of course. How could anyone think the text suggests otherwise?" The New Testament has a running theme of how salvation comes from the Jews to the Gentiles. It appears across multiple books, in all of the gospels and most of the epistles. Jesus’ statement about gathering other sheep in the future is simply one more instance of the gospels dealing with this theme.

The fact that Mormons often do not spot the obvious, face-value interpretation of the text reveals how little Mormons have been exposed to the historic understanding of the passage and how little they have been encouraged to think through its rationale. They have not tried to understand the New Testament as a whole, integrating and understanding its individual passages with other passages and with the general historical backdrop. Instead, they have had the interpretations of certain alleged proof texts force-fed to them in a way that keeps them from knowing of the existence of other, more plausible interpretations.



Q:
Mormon missionaries have been bugging me to read their Book of Mormon. I don't plan to do so since it is false scripture, but I would like to know what the book is about when I talk to them. Can you give me an overview?

A:

The Book of Mormon comprises 15 books, each allegedly written by an ancient American prophet. It professes to be a religious and secular history of Hebrews who fled Jerusalem and certain persecution in 600 B.C. Lehi, an alleged prophet and contemporary of Jeremiah, led his wife, children, and their spouses through the Arabian wilderness to the shores of "the large waters."

After much hardship and contention, the righteous son Nephi built a ship and the company sailed to a new "promised land," but not before having obtained a collection of brass plates on which was recorded not only the Pentateuch (or first five books of the Old Testament) but also a record of the Jews from the beginning down to that day. All the while, Nephi had been making metal plates of his own and engraving on them a record of his family’s labors.

Upon arriving in the Western Hemisphere, and after the death of Lehi, Nephi’s brothers Laman and Lemuel rebelled against Nephi, forcing him and his followers to separate from them. Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites (as the followers of Laman andLemuel were called) were cursed with a "skin of blackness"—which here means a darker, American Indian skin tone, not a Negro complexion—and became persecutors of the Nephites. At Nephi’s death in the mid-sixth century B.C., his younger brother Jacob took up the story and the plates. Several other alleged prophets followed Jacob, maintaining written records of the Nephites or "American Hebrews."

Throughout these centuries, and reflecting the same theme sketched for Israel by Old Testament authors, the Nephites enjoyed periods of material prosperity when they followed the Lord’s voice and languished in misery when they didn’t. Much of the book is a dull, repetitive recording of bloody battles waged between Nephites and Lamanites.

Evil kings, corrupt judges, "secret combinations" (or "gangs" of robbers), persecution of the righteous, their subsequent apostasy and restoration, massive genocide—this is the stuff of the Book of Mormon. There are occasional discourses on religion, most of which remind the reader of the words of Old Testament prophets, the Sermon on the Mount, or the teachings of St. Paul, despite the chronological problems this poses.

Towards the end of the Nephite-Lamanite record we find inserted, out of chronological sequence, the "Book of Ether." These 15 chapters are said to be the record of yet another group of Hebrew émigrés, these dispersed at the Tower of Babel. Following the "brother of Jared," who had had a vision of the "spirit body" of Jesus Christ, these righteous ones built barges and sailed for the promised land of America.

The "Jaredites" soon split into factions, warring with one another throughout a succession of kings, prophets, murder, and intrigue. Some of their prophets predicted the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the establishing in America of the New Jerusalem.

The forces of good and evil ultimately arrayed themselves in a final battle. Millions were killed; indeed, every single Jaredite but one was slain. The prophet Ether recorded the devastation on twenty-four metal plates that were later discovered by Nephites and appended to their own writings.

Without doubt, the high point of the Book of Mormon is recorded in Third Nephi. This book allegedly covers the period from A.D. 1-35. Raids, murders, government upheavals, tempests, earthquakes, and fires allegedly preceded the appearance of Jesus Christ on the American continent. According to Mormonism, Jesus Christ showed himself to the people of America in the year 34 and established a second church, paralleling the one in the Old World.

The Book of Mormon story ends early in the fifth century. By the fourth century war and carnage had consumed both the faithful Nephites and the reprobate Lamanites. After gathering hundreds of thousands of warriors to the Hill Cumorah (located in New York state), the Nephites were utterly massacred by the sword by an even greater army of "dark and filthy" Lamanites (Mormon 5:15; Mormons frequently identify contemporary Native Americans as descendants of these Lamanites).

The only survivor was Moroni, the son of the Nephite prophet Mormon, from whom the book takes its name. To him his father had entrusted the centuries-old records of God’s American prophets, to which Moroni himself added a few concluding chapters. Before dying in 421, Moroni allegedly placed the gold plates in a stone and cement box and buried it in a hillside near present-day Palmyra, east of Rochester, New York.

In Joseph Smith’s day, several burning theological issues occupied the attention of scholar and layman alike: the nature of religious authority and priesthood; the necessity of baptism; the validity of infant baptism; the administration of the flesh and blood of Christ. Smith found the 13 pages of the book of Moroni that just "happened" to resolve the theological disputes of the day.


Hee-hee.


Q:
I heard that the Mormon church teaches racist views, but a Mormon I know told me that this isn't true. What's the story?

A:

Like many people of his period, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, harbored racist views. New York, where he grew up, was still a slave state at that time. In an environment where Negro slavery was tolerated, it was easy for Smith to look down on black people, and his disdain for them was incorporated as doctrine into the Mormon scriptures he allegedly translated.

For example, many passages in the Book of Mormon speak of dark skin as a curse for sins, as opposed to the "white and delightsome" appearance of the righteous (2 Nephi 30:6, cf. 1 Nephi 12:23, 13:15, 2 Nephi 5:21, Jacob 3:8-9, 3 Nephi 2:14-15, Moses 7:8, 12, 22). A passage in the "Book of Abraham" (1:26–27), that spoke of the Egyptian pharaohs as having Negro ancestry, thereby disqualifying them from God’s priesthood, was used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to deny the Mormon priesthood and temple privileges to anyone with any amount of Negro ancestry.

These passages in Mormon scripture served as the basis for every Mormon prophet since Smith to teach that blacks were cursed for their supposed sins before earthly birth. Brigham Young, Smith’s successor, also underscored the racist stand of Mormonism: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses 10:109).

Throughout the civil rights movement in the 1950s and’60s, Mormon apostles continued to teach the LDS doctrine on people with African ancestry and other persons of color. Mark E. Petersen asserted that people are born black because of their inadequate performance in the pre-existence.

Bruce R. McConkie maintained "Negroes are not equal with other races" in spiritual matters and that this is God’s law, not man’s. The future prophet Spencer W. Kimball claimed that in just 15 years from the time of their conversion he had seen Indian people who accepted the Mormon gospel become "white and delightsome."

But the civil rights movement had its effect the LDS Church. Black leaders urged boycotts of the state of Utah and all Mormon Tabernacle Choir products. The NAACP brought discrimination charges against the Utah Boy Scouts for prohibiting a black member from assuming a senior patrol position. College athletes refused to play Brigham Young University teams. Groups protested at the church’s twice-yearly general conferences in Salt Lake City.

Mormon leadership finally acknowledged that many, perhaps most, of the converts to the Church in Brazil had some degree of black ancestry. While their donations helped build the São Paulo Temple, they were not permitted to attend it.

By 1978, increased social repudiation of racism, coupled with Mormon evangelization in areas with large populations of racially mixed ancestry, led to one of the most drastic reversals in Mormon belief and practice: Those with Negro blood were allowed to attend the temple, and worthy black men could also hold the priesthood.

Dated June 8, 1978, and released the following day, President Kimball’s "Official Declaration—2" (as it is now called in the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants) came after "extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple." He presented the changed doctrine to his counselors, the Twelve Apostles, and other leaders, who approved it unanimously. The day has come, he said, when the Lord now grants to "every faithful, worthy man in the Church . . . the holy priesthood . . . [and] the blessings of the temple." The declaration was presented to the general membership and ratified pro forma on September 30, 1978.

Though this opening of the priesthood to all races moved the Mormon Church into a less racist position regarding its practice, Mormon teaching remained unaltered. The new "revelation" did not change the previous Mormon teaching that people are born black because of their sins in the pre-existence.

Left-fascist pseudo-science is dying.

Ann Coulter easily puts the America Lasters in their place.

Liberals: They Blinded Us With Science


In response to my column last week about hormesis -- the theory that some radiation can be beneficial to humans -- liberals reacted with their usual open-minded examination of the facts.

According to Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters, MSNBC's Ed Schultz devoted an entire segment to denouncing me. He called me toxic, accused me of spreading misinformation and said I didn't care about science.

One thing Schultz did not do, however, was cite a single physicist or scientific study.

I cited three physicists by name as well as four studies supporting hormesis in my column. For the benefit of liberals scared of science, I even cited The New York Times.

It tells you something that the most powerful repudiation of hormesis Schultz could produce was the fact that a series of government agencies have concluded -- I quote -- that "insufficient human data on hormesis exists."

Well, in that case, I take it all ba -– wait, no. That contradicts nothing I said in my column.

Liberals should take up their quarrel with the physicists cited by both me and the Times. I'm sure the Harvard physics department will be fascinated to discover that the left's idea of the scientific method is to cling to their fears while hurling invective at anyone who proposes a novel thesis.

The fact that liberals are so terrified of science that they chronically wet themselves wouldn't be half as annoying if they didn't go around boasting about their deep respect for science, especially compared to conservatives.

Apparently this criticism is based on conservatives' skepticism about global warming -- despite the studies of distinguished research scientists Dr. Alicia Silverstone and Dr. Woody Harrelson. (In my case, it's only because I'm still waiting for liberals' global cooling theory from the '70s to come true.)

The left's idea of "science" is that we should all be riding bicycles and using the Clivus Multrum composting latrines instead of flush toilets. Anyone who dissents, they say -- while adjusting their healing crystals for emphasis -- is "afraid of science."

A review of the record, however, shows that time and again liberals have been willing to corrupt public policy and allow people to die in order to enforce the Luddite views of groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists (original name, "Union of Concerned Activist Lawyers Who Took a Science Course in High School").

As I described in my book "Godless," both the government and the entire mainstream media lied about AIDS in the '80s by scaring Americans into believing that heterosexuals were as much at risk for acquiring AIDS as gays and intravenous drug users. The science had to be lied about so no one's feelings got hurt.

In 1985, Life magazine's cover proclaimed: "NOW, NO ONE IS SAFE FROM AIDS." In 1987, U.S. News & World Report reported that AIDS was "finding fertile growth among heterosexuals." Also in 1987, Dr. Oprah Winfrey said that "research studies" predicted that "one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years."

In 1988, ABC's "20/20" claimed the CDC had discovered a shocking upsurge of heterosexual infections on college campuses. It struck no one as odd that 28 of the 30 infections had occurred in men (with alphabetized spice racks and at least three cats, one named Blanche).

Two years later, CNN broadcast that same 1988 study, proclaiming: "A new report from CDC indicates that AIDS is on the rise on college campuses."

A quarter-century later, and we're still waiting for the big heterosexual AIDS outbreak.

But at least science achieved its primary purpose: AIDS was not stigmatized as a "gay disease." Scientific facts were ignored so that science would be nonjudgmental. That was more important than the truth.

Liberal activists also gave us the alar scare in the late '80S based on the studies of world renowned chemist and national treasure Meryl Streep.

Alar is a perfectly safe substance that had been used on apples since 1968 both to ripen and preserve the fruit. It made fresh fruit more accessible by allowing fruit pickers to make one sweep through the apple grove, producing ripe, fresh fruit to be distributed widely and cheaply.

But after hearing the blood-chilling testimony of Streep, hysterical soccer moms across America hopped in their Volvos, dashed to their children's schools and ripped the apples from the little ones' lunch boxes. "Delicious, McIntosh and Granny Smith" were added to "Hitler, Stalin and Mao" as names that will live in infamy.

The EPA proposed banning alar based on a study that involved pumping tens of thousands times more alar into rats than any human could possibly consume, and observing the results. The rats died -- of poisoning, not tumors – but the EPA banned it anyway. Poor people went back to eating Twinkies instead of healthy fresh fruit.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization advised against an alar ban and Europeans continued to eat fruit with alar in their nice warm houses powered by nuclear energy (halted in the U.S. thanks to the important work of Dr. Jackson Browne and Dr. Bonnie Raitt).

Other scientific theories developed in the laboratories of personal injury lawyers and TV networks included the left's "cancer cluster" claim in the '80s. The Centers for Disease Control investigated 108 alleged "cancer clusters" that had occurred between 1961 to 1983 and found no explanation for them other than coincidence -- and a demonstrable proximity to someone with deep pockets.

As Yale epidemiologist Michael Bracken explained: "Diseases don't fall evenly on every town like snow." Random chance will lead some areas to have higher, sometimes oddly higher, numbers of cancer.

But just to be safe, we all better stop driving cars, eating off of clean dishes and using aerosol sprays.

Some of the other scientific studies and innovations that make liberals cry are: vaccines, IQ studies, breast implants and DDT.

After decades of this nonsense, The New York Times' Paul Krugman has the audacity to brag that liberals believe the "truth should be determined by research, not revelation." Yes -- provided the "research" is conducted by trial lawyers and Hollywood actresses rather than actual scientists.

About Me

My photo
First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct. "My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up. What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.

Labels

Blog Archive