TV News Baby Killers Harass Catholic Pharmacist With a Conscience

(Now there's a headline you won't see anywhere else. How about "Holy Crap! We're Actually Starting to Fight Back"?)


Battling the forces of the Anti-Christ in Milwaukee
(One pharmacy at a time...)



A WISN 12 News investigation has discovered that a Milwaukee-area pharmacist has refused to fill prescriptions for women citing religious reasons.
A Milwaukee mother of six walked into a north side Walgreens with a prescription for the so-called morning after pill.
The woman, who 12 News is not identifying, said it was a difficult decision.
"Financially, I wouldn't be able to afford having another child," Jane Doe said.
She asked 12 News to disguise her identity -- afraid of backlash from those who might judge her.
"I mean, I guess I was desperate," Doe said.

Doctors prescribe the pill to prevent pregnancy. It should be taken within 72 hours of conception.
"It was right after New Year's weekend. I got it as soon as I could," Doe said.
But the pharmacist refused to fill her prescription.
"She just told me that she will not fill it. That she's Catholic, and it's murder," Doe said.

Yippee!

Then, she said, before a crowded waiting area, the pharmacist berated her.
"'You're a murderer. I will not help you kill this baby. I will not have the blood on my hands,'" Doe said. "I tried to explain to her that it's emergency contraceptives, that it's not an abortion pill. She then snatched the form from me, that the prescription was attached to, telling me the paper was full of lies, and she won't be a part of it. I was crying, shaking, upset, so embarrassed. I wanted to run out of the store and hope nobody else could get a good look at me."

Wait for it.

"So, did you ever get your emergency contraceptives?" 12 News Senior Investigative Reporter Colleen Henry asked.
"No, I never received that one," Doe said.
"And you became pregnant?" Henry asked.

Wait for it.

"I did become pregnant, and I had to terminate the pregnancy. It was very hard. And I didn't want to be what she called me. But that's what I ended up being," Doe said.

There you have it. The means may be different, but the end is the same. May God have mercy on her soul and the soul of her child.

Her lawyer said Walgreens failed to ensure its female customers have the same access to reproductive health care as men.
"Condoms are sold there, very easily, very accessible. Viagra ... and I suspect there is no situation where that pharmacist has said to a man, 'I think there's something wrong in you taking Viagra,'" attorney Tricia Knight said.

Huh? Viagra? What the...? Oh, a lawyer is speaking now. Time to unthink. (BTW, princess, Viagra is not a contraceptive. It is designed to help men unfortunate enough to marry harpies like you to do their conjugal duties. And I'll bet if those condoms were behind the counter, our intrepid Catholic heroine would refuse to sell them too.)


WISN 12 News went to Long to ask about the woman's complaint.
"She said that you refused to fill her morning after pill prescription, that you called her a baby-killer, and said you didn't want blood on your hands," Henry stated.
"No, I'm sure I didn't say that. No, I'm quite positive I wouldn't say that," Long responded.
"Do you fill prescriptions for the morning after pill?" Henry asked.
"No," Long said.
"Is that for religious reasons?" Henry asked.
"Yes," Long answered.
Walgreens policy allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs they object to.

Bravo Long! Bravo Walgreens!

"It's like she's trying to play God or something," Doe said.

But the woman believes Walgreens' policy is selling women short.

"What's been the hardest thing for you in all of this?" Henry asked.

"Having to have an abortion. I feel like it didn't have to get to that point. It could have been prevented. That's what I was attempting to do," Doe said.

Cognitive dissonance! If you kill your child a couple of hours or days after conception, everything is cool. But if you wait a while longer before you kill, then it's a painful tragedy, emotional trauma, and fodder for some ambulance chaser.
Somebody needs to invent an incubator that can handle kids who are eight and one-half months premature. That'll fix it.

A state lawmaker has introduced a bill to give pharmacists a so-called conscience clause -- legal protection for refusing to dispense a prescription. It would be the same way the law protects doctors who opt out of procedures they find immoral.

That will do. Temporarily.

STOP HR 810/S 471

Call, write, e-mail, and visit your congressman and senator NOW.


(CNSNews.com) - A pro-life group says a bill expanding research on embryonic stem cells is likely to come up for a vote in the House of Representatives this summer -- and it may pass.

H.R. 810 -- known as the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act -- had 198 co-sponsors as of this week, only 20 shy of an absolute majority, the National Right to Life Committee said in a press release.Introduced by Reps. Mike Castle (R-De.) and Diane DeGette (D-Colo.), the bill would allow federal funding of research on human embryos that were created in fertility clinics. The bill envisions that many of the embryos would be donated by couples who don't plan to use them.

The companion Senate bill (S. 471) was introduced by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

Remembering V-E Day

From Arthur Herman on NRO:


Despite the horrors of the Holocaust, Germany's defeat could hardly be called a victory for justice or humanity. After all, it left Hitler's brutal collaborator, Josef Stalin, in control of eastern Europe. Russian soldiers liberated Auschwitz on April 27, yet the camp was only a clone of Stalin's own gulag. In a few months, Soviet judges would be sitting solemnly at the Nurnberg trials trying German defendants for using slave labor — as odious a twist of irony as history has ever delivered.

So this was not a victory for justice. It was, however, a crucial victory for liberal democracy, the very system that had seemed to be on the brink of destruction four years earlier. It was that system that Hitler and others had blamed for plunging the world into the Great Depression, and which he promised to crush by defeating the liberal democracies and their "Jewish capitalist warmonger" allies. To Hitler, Britain and America represented a way of life that was decadent, corrupt, and grossly self-serving — precisely the same complaints voiced by Osama bin Laden and today's Islamic terrorists. And it was a way of life that in the fall of 1940 seemed about to pass into history.

It is important to remember how many people, especially Europeans, wanted democracy to lose and hoped Hitler would win. They included the world's Communist parties, who followed the directions of their leader Josef Stalin in enthusiastically embracing his alliance with Nazi Germany. They included politicians and intellectuals who, after Hitler's lightning victories in Poland and France, saw a new world order arising and wanted to be part of it. Denmark's elected government enthused in July 1940 that Hitler had "brought about a new era in Europe, which will result in a new order in an economic and political sense..." France's Robert Brasillach saw Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin as the men of the future and Roosevelt and Churchill as "grotesquely antiquated" relics of the past. Catholic mystagogue Teilhard de Chardin proclaimed that "we are watching the birth, more than the death, of a World....the Germans deserve to win..." Holland's Paul de Man, later the darling of the deconstructionist Left at Yale and other universities, announced that Europe's future under Nazi rule was brighter than ever and that "we are entering a mystical era, a period of faith and belief, with all that this entails," with the Third Reich at its center.


Anyone want to argue against a pre-emptive strike on Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin? Or at least standing up to them from the very first?

Do we have to wait for a worldwide war to begin before we take action?

One last thing. Sometimes, some people just have to be killed.

Holocaust Remembrance Day on Israeli TV

From Israelinsider, what most people would consider an ultra-rightwing site. I don't know my left from my right anymore, but if I was a Jew, I would own plenty of guns and be more than proficient in their use. I would also buy plenty of ammunition.


I watched the ceremony broadcast live from Auschwitz on Yom HaZikaron, Holocaust Remembrance Day. I listened to the stories, the voices, the prayers. I watched the audience, felt pride at seeing an Israeli soldier in uniform, Israeli flags and hundreds, even thousands dressed in blue and white.

They lit the large torches in memory of the children, the mothers, the righteous gentiles, the educators, and ultimately for the State of Israel. And then the unthinkable happened. The master of ceremonies thanked the audience, closed the ceremony, and asked that everyone stay in their places until the Prime Ministers had left. When I was in Poland two years ago, every ceremony ended with the singing of 'Hatikva,' the national anthem of Israel. We sang it at Auschwitz and Maidanek, Treblinka and Chelmo. We sang it at the Children's Forest, where 800 children were separated from their parents and murdered, and we sang it in Jedwabne, where 1,600 Poles rose up in 1941 and murdered their 1,500 Jewish neighbors without a German in sight. It all begins and ends with 'The Hope,' Hatikva. Ceremonies in Israel always end with 'Hatikva'.

As long as deep in the heart, The soul of a Jew yearns, And forward to the
East To Zion, an eye looks Our hope will not be lost, The hope of two thousand
years, To be a free nation in our land, The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

A Minor Matter of Maturity: Abortion vs. Murder

People imagine that judges are naturally endowed with special wisdom or that it comes to "rest" on those who don a black robe. Oh, that it were so.

Consider that the state of our laws can result in the following contradiction regarding a minor's maturity:A 13-year-old girl convicted of murdering her newborn infant with premeditation and malice aforethought cannot be sentenced to death because she's too immature to appreciate the consequences of her decision. The same 13-year-old can be mature enough to end the life of her unborn child by abortion, even at the point of birth.

Is U.S. in Slow Motion to Socialism?

This question comes about 100 years too late.

Sobran gets me thinking and typing.

Note: The link above will take you to Joe's current on-line column. The archive is here. Not all of his past columns are available in the archive.


Joe Sobran is reposting some old columns. This one is from 1998.


But there was no inevitable connection between slavery and secession. In fact, the first secessionists were Northern abolitionists who wanted no part of a Union that tolerated slavery. They just didn’t acquire enough influence to persuade their fellow Northerners to declare their independence.

Suppose they had. Suppose New England had pulled out of the Union in indignation over slavery. Suppose the remaining states had declared war in order to save the Union, and after a bitter five-year struggle, costing nearly a million lives, New England had been conquered.

Then what? History might record that the victorious Union took a fierce revenge by occupying, looting, and setting up puppet governments in New England for several years; furthermore, that it also amended the Constitution not only to protect slavery in the South, but to extend the right to own slaves to every state and all U.S. territories.


An interesting "what if?"


A more chilling thought is that the Union victory over New England might not only have saved slavery, but conferred moral legitimacy on it. Abolitionism might be associated with those nasty rebels who tried to destroy the Union, and slavery with the cause of patriotism! To the victor belong the spoils — including, to a great extent, the moral sense of the population.


That seems reasonable.


Both sides in the actual Civil War were engaged in subjugation. The South was protecting chattel slavery; the North was denying the right of secession on which this country was founded.

At the time the Constitution was adopted, several states, including Virginia and New York, ratified it on the express condition that they might withdraw from the Union at any time they deemed it in their interest to do so. This was in keeping with the Declaration of Independence, which says that people have both the “right” and the “duty” to “alter or abolish” a government destructive of their rights.

Nobody at the time challenged these states’ claim to a right of secession. Not only did the Declaration support them; as a practical matter, nothing could stop them. The federal government was too weak.

The Civil War established that the federal government had grown strong enough to prevent and punish any independence movement. From then on, no state could secede for any reason, no matter how tyrannous the federal government might become.


Obviously.


The military ratio has widened enormously: today the states still have rifles, but the federal government has a nuclear arsenal. Nobody talks about secession (at least not very loud).

This is what makes it possible for the federal government to dictate to the states. If the Union were still voluntary, the Supreme Court wouldn’t dare, for example, to strike down the abortion laws of all 50 states, because many of those states would have seceded immediately after such an outrageous usurpation of their power.

Ah, but we no longer speak of federal “usurpation” — and why not? Because the powerful can change even our moral sense, unless we are extremely vigilant. So most of the country has accepted as legitimate the court’s claim to authority over state abortion laws.


Too true.


So, as a practical matter, there is no longer any such thing as a federal “usurpation” of power. Nobody can enforce the Constitution against the federal government, so why bother trying? Which makes the Constitution pretty useless for the purpose of limiting that government.

When you look back on a famous victory in any war of the past, don’t be too sure the right side won.


That is the logical conclusion.


The exercise of power almost always has evil consequences. The Church itself was corrupted by temporal power and has suffered many schisms and heresies because of the will to power in man. (This is not Nietzchean. It is an apt phrase.) Of course, these rebellions are always cloaked in the rhetoric of some kind of freedom: freedom of conscience, national freedom, sexual freedom, etc.

No one should be surprised, then, when those pursuing and exercising power cost their fellow men their lives and their souls in untold numbers.

So, was the American Civil War immoral? Was it a just war? Most involved undoubtedly believed they were doing their duty as Christians. We know the numbers of dead and wounded. But how many souls were lost? Even a cursory reading of history tells you war changes the rules by which even the most civilized of peoples live. Souls are corrupted one at a time, but war tears men from their homes, families, communities, and puts them face to face with imminent death. Frankly, stories of atrocities do not surprise me.


Is the only true Catholic option disengagement from the world and unconditional pacifism? Our socialist brethren will say no to the former and yes to the latter, thinking that the avoidance of violent death is the supreme earthly good and "militarism" is what corrupts men's souls.

Let's consider the Quakers. There are many inspiring stories of these principled pacifists serving in medical and other non-combatant roles in defense of this country. Today, however, the Quakers are just another deracinated and squishy-left sect barely clinging to the name Christian. The last "principled" public stand I remember any Quakers taking was their effort to drive pregnant Pennsylvania teenagers to other states for abortions. You see, the charitable pacifists saw the Commonwealth's parental notification law as...well, it couldn't be satanic. No, I doubt they believe in the foolish one.

They must have thought the law evil (or at least wrong) to justify violating it. Remember, these are the descendants of those Quakers who disobeyed earlier laws in the name of civil rights for blacks. So murdering children is morally equivalent to voting rights for all regardless of skin color?

How can a group founded on and dedicated to charity to neighbor and unconditional pacifism descend to the level they have reached?

As a Catholic, the answer is plain to me. People who separate themselves from God, His Church, His Word, and His Sacraments are bound to get lost. And worse. Losing your own soul is bad enough. Dragging others along with you reserves you a place in a particularly nasty circle of Hell.

It is difficult enough for those of us who are Catholic to resist the siren song of temptation, whether in great things or small. I thank God I do not have the added burden of being outside His Church. I cannot imagine how much greater a sinner I would be.

I know. You think I have digressed too far from Mr. Sobran's column. But the main question he inspired me to ask was this: How to live in the fallen world? The implications of this admittedly unoriginal question are profound. We must save our immortal souls and help to save as many others as possible, while burdened with the responsibilities of family, work, and citizenship, along with many, many others.

A more tantalizing way of asking the question (get ready for the big finish folks) would be: What would Abraham Lincoln have done differently if he
had been Catholic?

Sunday is V-E Day + 60 years

Tomorrow is the 60th anniversary of the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany's armed forces.

Thanks to my Dad, uncle Tony, my two uncle Joes and all the boys of 1941-1945.

I pray we never forget.

Saint of the Day

Today we honor two early martyrs of the Church, Saints Marian and James. All you angels and saints, pray for us.

Today's reading is Acts 18:9-18
Today's Gospel reading is John 16:20-23

Today is the First Friday of May.

Everyday links: The Blessed Virgin Mary
The Rosary
Our Mother of Perpetual Help

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Scott Ritter, Super Genius

Normally, I wouldn't go near Al Jazeera (it's much less melodius than Al Martino), but Major K. spotted Scott Ritter vomiting hate, lies, and hate-filled lies to the network that now has to worry about shoring-up its South American commie demographic. So, naturally, I took a peek.



In the months that have passed since Iraq's much-hyped democratic elections, one word keeps creeping into my mind as I assess the tragic events unfolding in Mesopotamia today: Vietnam.

Betcha $20 Scott can't spell Mesopotamia.

The American press and punditry, intimidated and compensated into slavishly reporting on Iraq solely along lines that will not overly alienate them from the powers that be inside the administration of George Bush, have long ago foregone drawing comparisons between the ongoing conflict in Iraq and the one America lost in Southeast Asia some three decades in the past.



Oh, BTW, it seems Scottie has a thing for little girls. Here's a truism for you: A defective will is not just defective in one way. (Notice how this doesn't seem to bother serial adulterer Rush Limbaugh in the article.)

Colonel David Hackworth, Requiescat in pace

Whether you agreed with him or not is beside the point. Right or wrong, he worked tirelessly for the troops. May God have mercy on his brave soul.

The reign of the Stalinistas afflicts the poor people of Venezuela

South America set for Al Jazeera-style Chavez-backed TV


BUENOS AIRES -- A Venezuelan-backed TV network modeled after Al Jazeera is set to begin broadcasts throughout South America.
Critics fear it could become a pulpit for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Telesur, short for "Television of the South," is billed as a commercial-free, hemispherewide counterbalance to North American media. It is slated to begin broadcasts within a few weeks.
"Soon we will have Telesur, a channel with information for South American countries, because is not possible that Venezuela and the other southern countries depend only on information from CNN," Mr. Chavez said ...


How in the world does he expect the masses to distingush between a Marxist-Stalinist propaganda tool of the invincibly ignorant and Telesur?


And then there is this pile of steamy profundity from the pinhead with a Che complex:


Capitalism and democracy are incompatible, leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said while espousing the benefits of socialism.

"The truth is democracy is impossible with capitalism because (with capitalism) there are only a few powerful while the majority of people are weak," said Chavez, El Universal newspaper reported Thursday.
"The course of socialism is the only true democracy."



Our Lady of Coromoto, patroness of Venezuela, please pray for the conversion of all souls.

Our attempt to establish a racist theocracy suffers a setback

...or, Andrew Sullivan bravely foils another papist plot.



Voters reject white separatist


Bozeman, Montana - A white separatist who stunned members of this community when he gathered enough signatures to run for the school board was defeated by a wide margin. Kevin McGuire received 157 votes Tuesday, compared with 4,039 votes and 4,031 votes for the two candidates who beat him and were elected to seats. Election officials said it was the highest turnout in 21 years. Mr. McGuire, 23, a member of the separatist group National Alliance, issued a statement late Tuesday saying he planned to stay in the city of about 57,000.
(Thanks to The Washington Times)

Humans for sale

From The Weekly Standard (via The Washington Times):


Crossing a line


"If there were ever any doubts that the National Academy of Sciences is pursuing an 'anything' goes approach to biotechnological research, they were erased by the organization's recently published tome, 'Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.' " Wesley J. Smith writes at the Weekly Standard Web site (www.weeklystandard.com).
"The purported purpose of 'Guidelines' is to create voluntary ethical protocols to govern human embryonic stem cell and therapeutic cloning research -- 'to assure the public that such research is being conducted in an ethical manner.' Setting aside for the moment whether human cloning and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) can ever be ethical -- a matter that remains heatedly controversial -- the NAS Guidelines clearly don't deliver the goods." said Mr. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture.
"Remember when, in 2001, proponents of federally funded embryonic stem cell research repeatedly told us that all they wanted was access to embryos left over from in vitro fertilization treatments (IVF) that were due to be destroyed anyway? Remember when ESCR advocates repeatedly asserted that they would never countenance the making of human embryos solely for use in research? These warm assurances were intended to convince a wary public that scientists deeply respected human life in all its stages and to soothingly assure us that biotechnologists would limit their investigations to embryos that were already doomed.
"Many of us suspected that restricting scientists to leftover IVF embryos was a temporary measure, a cynical political tactic intended to push the proverbial camel's nose of unlimited human biotechnological research under the flap of the public opinion tent. And that is exactly the way things have turned out.
"With most polls now friendly to ESCR, 'Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research' completely drops the leftover-IVF-embryos-only pretense. Indeed, in a major expansion of policy that was either ignored or dramatically downplayed in media reports and editorials about the guidelines, the NAS explicitly opens the door to using embryos 'made specifically for research' both through fertilization and nuclear transfer cloning.
"This is big news: The most respected science organization in the country is now formally on record as supporting the creation of new human lives explicitly as harvestable and, perhaps, patentable commodities."


People are not things. It's almost time to crack open those Soylent Green cookbooks.

SAT death rattle

From the NYT (via Best of the Web Today) comes the most idiotic and sick-making (hat tip: Evelyn Waugh) pile of offal since...well, since the last one:


Long Passes
Not long ago the College Board revamped the SAT, adding an essay section along with the traditional multiple-choice aptitude tests; the essay counts for 25% of the total SAT verbal score. The New York Times reports that Les Perelman, "one of the directors of undergraduate writing at Massachusetts Institute of Technology," analyzed all the graded sample tests the board has made public, and concluded, in the Times' words, that the test "is actually teaching high school students terrible writing habits"--namely, the longer the better:
[Perelman] was stunned by how complete the correlation was between length and score. "I have never found a quantifiable predictor in 25 years of grading that was anywhere near as strong as this one," he said. "If you just graded them based on length without ever reading them, you'd be right over 90 percent of the time." The shortest essays, typically 100 words, got the lowest grade of one. The longest, about 400 words, got the top grade of six. In between, there was virtually a direct match between length and grade.
He was also struck by all the factual errors in even the top essays. An essay on the Civil War, given a perfect six, describes the nation being changed forever by the "firing of two shots at Fort Sumter in late 1862." (Actually, it was in early 1861, and, according to "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James M. McPherson, it was "33 hours of bombardment by 4,000 shot and shells.")
Dr. Perelman contacted the College Board and was surprised to learn that on the new SAT essay, students are not penalized for incorrect facts. The official guide for scorers explains: "Writers may make errors in facts or information that do not affect the quality of their essays. For example, a writer may state 'The American Revolution began in 1842' or ' "Anna Karenina," a play by the French author Joseph Conrad, was a very upbeat literary work.' " (Actually, that's 1775; a novel by the Russian Leo Tolstoy; and poor Anna hurls herself under a train.) No matter. "You are scoring the writing, and not the correctness of facts." . . .
SAT graders are told to read an essay just once and spend two to three minutes per essay, and Dr. Perelman is now adept at rapid-fire SAT grading. This reporter held up a sample essay far enough away so it could not be read, and [Perelman] was still able to guess the correct grade by its bulk and shape. "That's a 4," he said. "It looks like a 4."
Perelman's recommendation for students preparing for the SAT: "I would advise writing as long as possible, and include lots of facts, even if they're made up." That's also good advice for those who want to go to work for Dan Rather at CBS's "120 Minutes."


Send your kids to Japanese schools!

Scathing report on IRS finally may see daylight

Will the kleptocrats of the Clinton administration finally face justice? Stay tuned, but don't hold your breath.


A Senate rider inserted in an emergency appropriations bill in the dead of the night which would close a rare window into political foul play at the Internal Revenue Service was quietly removed Tuesday in Senate-House negotiations. That offers full disclosure of a major scandal that has been percolating for a decade.
The rider would have de-funded the investigation begun in 1995 of then-Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros by Independent Counsel David Barrett. The amendment was sponsored by three highly influential Democrats, purportedly to stop leakage of federal money in a run-on program and end persecution of a no-longer-prominent Democratic politician. In fact, Barrett's investigation is the first independent probe, with subpoena power, of the IRS.

On the Future of the Jews

From Barbara Lerner at NRO:


It's Holocaust Remembrance Day, and secular Europe is sick of it. Certain that they have long since been cleansed of any guilt for the sins of their fathers, Eurosecs see themselves as the very incarnation of postmodern virtue. Naturally, they reject the grotesque racist stereotypes their fathers embraced. They know today's Jews are their moral inferiors for an entirely different, entirely factual, reason: that Israel is a poisonous foreign element in the Middle East — a racist, colonial state whose 5 million Jews are oppressing the Palestinians, occupying their land, and preventing peace and progress in the 22 failed Arab states that surround them.

That's leftist anti-semitism.


Catholic Europe sees Jews differently. Even though the Holocaust was a product of secular Europe, the Church is not sick of it; it's sick about it. From the end of World War II to the present, a succession of remarkable European popes have struggled to come to grips with the Church's responsibility. Men like Giovanni Roncalli of Italy, Karol Wojtyla of Poland, and Josef Ratzinger of Germany zeroed in on the old Christian idea that, in refusing to accept Christ, Jews defy God's will and become God's enemies. These popes faced up to the fact that this idea makes Jews seem wicked and hatred of them righteous, and makes it easy for secular forces to single them out for persecution whenever secular failures call for a scapegoat. The post-war popes decided that this idea isn't just destructive, it's false. The truth, as Pope Benedict XVI proclaims it today, is that God has a purpose for the Jews, and by maintaining their fidelity to the 3,700-year-old religion of Abraham, they are not defying God's will but fulfilling it.


And now, rightist semitophilia?


Evangelical Christians share the Catholic understanding that God has a purpose for the Jews, and take it one step further by focusing on the role of the state of Israel in fulfilling that purpose. They know God promised the sliver of sacred land between the River Jordan and the sea to the Jewish people because the Bible tells them so, and millions believe He has chosen the Jews to see that His promise — not the U.N.'s or the EU's — is fulfilled.
If you are growing uncomfortable at this point, dear reader, it may be because the Biblical claim to the Holy Land is the great unmentionable in American foreign policy. Amerisecs join with Eurosecs, the U.N., and the Arab League in insisting with lockstep unanimity that religious claims have no legitimate place in our Middle East policy, and in demonizing and dismissing any Christian or Jew who dares suggest otherwise as a dangerous fanatic, hell-bent on undermining our secular Republic and turning it into a medieval theocracy.


Now, Francis, we are talking about the real end of history, for the Jews are a key part of Christian eschatology, whether they want to admit it or not. (And whether or not certain Christians want to admit it.) Will the chosen people recognize Him when He returns? I hope so, but only time will tell.

21st century international power politics

...or Francis Fukuyama, call your office.


Ilan Berman of NRO wonders about an anti-US triple entente:


During his visit to New Delhi last month, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao took pains to stress the similarities between Russia, China, and India, and to urge “coordination and cooperation” between the three countries as a means of promoting international “peace and security.” Jiabao’s comments were notable, insofar as they represent the first public endorsement by a Chinese official of a trilateral alliance between Beijing, Moscow, and New Delhi. But is such a construct possible? Many observers remain deeply skeptical. Earlier this year, Moscow’s Nezavisimaya Gazeta ridiculed the idea. “China, Russia and India are not forming and will not be able to form such a conglomerate,” the opposition paper insisted in a January editorial, stressing the historically-rocky ties between Beijing and New Delhi and Moscow’s wariness over China’s expanding energy ambitions. Some Chinese scholars are likewise incredulous, citing competing priorities between China and India and the long-standing premium placed by the PRC on independent foreign policy decision-making.

Kerouac Doll Joins Baseball Hall of Fame

...and its writings are just as meaningful as the original.


He was at one time a Catholic, and he was a writer, but by no stretch of the imagination can he be regarded as a Catholic writer. May God have mercy on his black, bloody soul.

Neo-Darwinist chickens run and hide

From The Washington Times Op-Ed page:


Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day debate on the state's science standards, specifically the teaching of Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen skeptics of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution known as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial lawyer, Pedro irreconcilable, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.
If this seems one-sided, that's because the Darwinian scientists have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since Darwinian theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific community. Their reason for doing so, at least according to Mr. Irreconcilable, is that "[t]o debate evolution is similar to debating whether the earth is round. It is an absurd proposition."


p implies q, therefore, p implies q! Brilliant!
Pay no attention to the non-existent transitional forms behind the curtain!


Read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. He lays waste to "Darwinism". (which does not even exist anymore. What afflicts us today is neo-Darwinism, which is merely a political agenda masquerading as science.) If Darwin himself were still alive, he would have abandoned his theory decades ago because the evidence he deemed necessary does not exist.