Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made

All things DO work together....
How Does Physical Exercise Relate to Holiness?

Monday, July 30, 2012

A new Poll! Plus Interesting news

You'll notice in the right column that I have added a poll about PoultryGate (the Chick-Fil-A controversy). Please take a moment and make your choices.

Also, there is a way to provide input on my posts.  Rate them with the buttons below each post.

A fishing story you probably will believe.
Woman whistles at whale!

From the city that had more murders that weekend than the Aurora Killings...Louis Farrakhan has these values and is welcomed to the city, but not Chick-Fil-A.....
Chicago Values
GM (Government Motors), touted by Dear Leader as proof of the wisdom of the bailouts, is using subprime loans to build their business....while subprime loans were one of the main factors in their bankruptcy....
More sensible Obama economic policy...

Her majesty Michelle tones down her clothing choices while saving us money on her vacation:
Another Obama's economic/vacation policy...

B. Hussein and his team might have accidentally because of the vast right wing conspiracy presented some information that wasn't exactly 30% accurate....
But he got Bin Laden!!! (After NOT getting him 5 times)

Apparently Pfeiffer tripped and bumped his head (or Churchill's) and was making a mistake when he made up a justification for his lie. I mean clarification.
Ooops. WH spokesman accidentally tells lie...

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

First Cup of News

After Aurora, there has been a lot of talk about gun control and the 2nd Amendment. Hear from someone who knows, first hand through personal tragedy, what gun control means.
Clear 2nd Amendment Explanation

This is how liberals/progressives show tolerance and engage in meaningful debate.
Tolerant Liberal Debater

"Free" thinkers, your paradise awaits.  Here is a place that keeps Christians secure concentration camps.
The religious tolerance of atheists.....

For Obamanics, proof of the wisdom of Dear Leader when he said that Reagan's economic policies didn't work.  There are pretty graphs.
Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics

There's free speech, and then there is REALLY free speech. One Marine speaks his mind politically (against the Code) while other Marines speak their minds by marching in a political advocacy parade (against the Code).
Some Marines speak more freely....

For those Believers who think the redistribution of wealth (socialism) is somehow scriptural and "Christian.
Christianity, Socialism, Jefferson

Friday, July 20, 2012

Constitutional Law 101

This is a video of liberal Piers Morgan of CNN, instructing Justice Anthony Scalia on how the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted.

Justice Scalia also helped Morgan expand his vocabulary. Piers now understands the difference between the words "violent" and "adamant".

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Gun control means different things to different people. If a picture is worth a thousand words, video must be worth a million. An example of Effective Gun Control.

Naturally, viewing that video led me to thinking about liberals, logic and physics.

For liberals, gun control means that no one should own a gun, because "guns kill people". As with most liberal mottos, this emotion-invoking statement only makes sense if you don't think about it.

Other things that "kill people!":  knives, automobiles, salt, large trucks, baseball bats, bricks, pianos and safes pushed from windows, pizza, soft drink cups containing more than 16oz of soft drinks (in New York City), butter, golf clubs, salty or sweet snacks, rocks, ballpoint pens, etc. This is not an exhaustive list.  (For liberals, food items--with some notable exceptions--are just as "deadly" as guns.)

The key element for all potentially deadly weapons is that they are only harmful when being handled by people with deadly or irresponsible intentions.

Guns don't kill people. None of those other potentially lethal weapons kill people, either. They are inanimate objects, inert until someone picks them up/drives/pushes toward a window, etc., with the intent or irresponsible handling and does harm.

Loe's Theorem #6 (recently discovered law of physics): You can pick up just about anything and hurt someone with it.

Dropping Fat Man and Little Boy on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to end WWII is an excellent example of picking up an inanimate object and using it with deadly intentions (in that particular case, justified deadly intentions).

That's when objects kill people.  When some other person utilizes them in a deadly way.

I have noticed is that there is never a trial for the inanimate object that kills someone--it's always the person who did the harming/killing. I am not counting the mock public trials that liberals try to use to arbitrarily outlaw something they don't like at that particular moment in history. "Tobacco kills people!"

(Now, before anyone's head explodes, I want you to know I am a non-cigarette smoker and always have been.  Both my parents and three of my grandparents died as a result of smoking cigarettes for years, in my opinion. But I am not blaming their illnesses and resulting deaths on anything other than the fact that they voluntarily chose to use a product that could cause harm for some people if used properly. Hundreds of millions of people smoke cigarettes and don't get cancer or lung disease and die.)

And look at how many tobacco companies changed their ways after all the lawsuits and hysteria. Most went out of business, and the ones who stayed in business now only produce health-conscious/safe products. (Explanation for liberals: Tobacco companies didn't really go out of business or change their products very much. I was attempting to be humorous by using irony. Liberals, go here to find out what irony means.)

Where is the liberal outrage at the steak/butcher knife manufacturers for making such lethal weapons? And where is the outrage at the auto manufacturer who made the car the drunk driver used after consuming the deadly weapon made by the alcohol industry to kill an innocent family?

Since logic dictates that one standard be applied for inanimate objects used for mayhem, it naturally follows that if we are going to control guns, we should also "control" all other inanimate objects commonly used to harm/kill people.

Liberals try to use emotion to trump truth, logic and the rule of law.  They want to blame society/culture/environment/child-rearing/low self-esteem/Republicans for many prosecutable offenses. It's not that person's fault, after all.  Let's not hold people accountable and responsible for their actions--let's share the blame.

Thankfully, our law enforcement officers never arrest guns or knives or golf clubs or falling pianos.  They arrest killers.

But who knows? In 1969, if liberals in Chappaquiddick had pursued the alcohol and auto industries because of drunk driving accidents that killed innocent people, perhaps Ted Kennedy could have been President instead of Senator-for-Life.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Didn't Make the Evening News......

Islamists Burn 50 Christians in Pastor's Home

Mississippi Burning Pt. 2--New Legal Concept Continues to Unfold

(Note: In reviewing this piece, I noticed that I might have inadvertently expressed a few thoughts that border on irony, and perhaps, in rare instances, almost imperceptibly cross into the realm of sarcasm. In the interest of maintaining my standards of political correctness, I promise I will never do it again.)

Last week, a GOP-appointed federal judge in Mississippi issued a temporary restraining order on July 1 to protect the last surviving (admitted) abortion facility in the state from being shut down for noncompliance with an amendment to Mississippi's existing abortion law.

Judge Daniel P. Jordan III issued the restraining order to delay implementation of the new law until July 11, when he would hold a hearing to determine whether he would block the law for a longer period. Last week, he wrote in his order halting enforcement of the law:
Though the debate over abortion continues, there exists legal precedent the court must follow[.] ... [The Jackson Women's Health Organization is] the only regular provider of abortions in Mississippi, and as of the Act's effective date, JWHO cannot comply with its requirements.
The "legal precedent" to which Judge Jordan referred? He continued:
Plaintiffs have offered evidence -- including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers -- that the Act's purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi. They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted. (Emphasis mine.)
So, to recap: there is a legal case somewhere stating that comments made by legislators who pass a law supersede the text of the law. Especially when "significant legislative and executive officers" make those comments. I suppose the insignificant legislators and executive officers have all been mute on the subject.

This is the text of HB1390 -- the heinous, Taliban-like, draconian law passed by the pickup-driving, racist buffoons elected by the great unwashed masses in Mississippi, who clearly want all women to die:
An Act to Amend Section 41-75-1, Mississippi Code Of 1972, to require that all Physicians who perform abortions in abortion facilities must have admitting privileges at a local hospital and must be Board Certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology. (Emphasis mine).
Judge Jordan III, who, in his intense study of the Constitution, women's health, and the legal precedent to which he referred (reportedly located in the United Nations' Code of Justice, Telepathy, and Just Making Things Seem Right), was incommunicado when another of our nation's leading legal thinkers, President Barack Hussein Obama II issued another edict recently:
Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.
On July 11, again in direct violation of the president's clear and present wisdom, Judge Jordan III took an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" by determining that the restraining order would be extended until he can review how the Mississippi Department of Health will enforce the new laws.

I am totally confused. He originally halted the state's enforcement of the law because some people (not just regular people, mind you, but significant legislators) made some comments revealing their true, ultra-secret purpose for passing the law. But now the state cannot enforce the law until he reviews how they are going to enforce the law?

What happened to that first legal precedent? Is there now another one? I grew up in Mississippi, so as a typical ignorant Southerner, I suppose I am not capable of understanding complex legal logic even when it slaps me in the face.

Confirming the sound legal judgment exhibited in issuance of the restraining order and subsequent extension, another freedom-loving, woman-protecting Constitution-adherent (Amelia McGowan, staff attorney with the ACLU) chimed in:
It's unconstitutional, frankly.
Overwhelming. It is as though we have heard utterances of the legal gods.

After reading Roe v. Wade again, it is clear from Justice Blackmun's opinion that the new Mississippi amendment is unconstitutional, frankly. It is diametrically opposed to the core issue of the ruling -- namely, that Roe believed that her constitutional rights were violated because she could not have an abortion in a safe environment, performed by a competent physician:
Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions.
The inherent brutality of Mississippi's antiquated, oppressive law requiring abortionists to be competent physicians if they perform this procedure -- even to the point of being Board Certified OB/GYNs- is clearly in violation of any reading of Roe v. Wade, as evidenced above.   Adding further indignities to all women everywhere is the legislature's hare-brained idea that abortionists who commit this "safe, legal, and rare" invasive procedure to dismember or chemically burn the baby while inside the mother's womb should be able to provide follow-up care if hospitalization is necessary.  How could there ever be complications?

An additional shocking revelation was made that day, though not by the judge, the attorneys, or anyone considered a constitutional or legal expert. W. Martin "Marty" Wiseman, Ph.D., a political science professor at Mississippi State University, said this regarding the new law:
All of that is wrapped in that cloak of conservative religion. When you are in this state, you cannot separate an issue from religion. The normal rationale used in other states doesn't fly here. You'll find very few legislators -- regardless of whether they are white, black, Democrat or Republican -- who will say "I'm pro-abortion."
W. Marty, applying innovative code-breaking skills, revealed that religion is really, really, really the ultra-secret motive behind this new law passed by this most backward of states that does not use a "normal rationale" like all the other states. Only seven other states require hospital-admitting privileges for physicians who commit infanticide, and not one of them requires that the abortionists be Board Certified OB/GYNs. 

How fortunate for us that Professor Wiseman (surely that name is not a coincidence?) recognizes these warning signs of encroaching theocracy. Most assuredly, this could not possibly be some wild conspiracy theory, because he is a Political Science Professor -- and his picture reveals no Ron Paul buttons or tinfoil hats.

After all, how could requiring abortionists to be Board Certified as OB/GYNs--experts in "women's reproductive issues"-- and have admitting privileges at a local hospital be anything but a religiously motivated expression of hatred toward women?

According to CNN.com, Diane Derzis (owner of the Jackson Women's Health Organization) said she believes that the real intent of the newly elected Republican majority was to end abortion in the state, not to improve women's health care:
I love that it's white old men making those statements. This is not about safety. This is about politics, and politics do not need to be in our uterus.
She must be forgetting that the only reason her infanticide center is open at all is because seven "white old men" put the politics "in her uterus" in January of 1973.

Perhaps Dr. W. Marty can help her with sentence structure, because even though she is much more enlightened, her advocates probably want to ensure she cannot be mistaken for a typical Mississippian -- ignorant, slow-talking, Constitution-shredding racist homophobe women-hating religious fanatic.

No worries, though. The new law does not apply to abortionists who commit fewer than ten abortions per month and fewer than a hundred per year.

These particular infanticidists, who unfortunately do not get to practice their skills very often, are not required by the state to be certified as women's health specialists or to have hospital admitting privileges.  

But do not be concerned by the potential damage to their self-esteem, which inevitably results by not being certified experts in "women's reproductive health" -- they are not required to report any information about their abortions to the state.  I guess they are on the honor system to keep an accurate account of the infanticides they commit.

What a relief!

Originally Published: American Thinker, July 14, 2012

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Will Mississippi Become an Abortion-Free State?

July 7, 2012

Much like the announcement of a last-minute stay of execution for a convicted murderer/rapist/pedophile, a terrorist who did not have his rights read to him, or any Republican gaffe, the news flashed rapidly across the country this week that the last remaining abortion facility in the State of Mississippi was saved. Saved from ignorant, anti-choice crusaders who enacted an anti-constitution, woman-hostile new statute, which, if implemented, would set back the cause of women's reproductive health by at least a couple of millennia.  

The loving, tolerant, pro-choice, pro-woman crowd breathed a collective sigh of relief as the enforcement of the draconian measure drafted and passed by those stupid Southerners was delayed.

The hero of this scenario, U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III, in an innovative Roberts-like display of jurisprudence, ruled that the public comments of supporters of the bill outweigh the actual text of the law. Judge Jordan, apparently, is unfamiliar with the recent admonishment by the president to unelected federal judges that they should not take the unprecedented step of setting aside laws passed by a duly elected legislature.

The new requirement under this "inhumane" law:

... that all physicians who perform abortions in an abortion facility must have admitting privileges at a local hospital and must be Board Certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

According to Nancy Northrup, CEO of The Center for Reproductive Rights in New York, who helped sponsor the legal challenge to Mississippi's new amendment to their existing law:

Today's decision reaffirms the fundamental constitutional rights of women in Mississippi and ensures the Jackson Women's Health Organization can continue providing the critical reproductive health care that they have offered to women for the last 17 years. The opponents of reproductive rights in the Mississippi legislature have made no secret of their intent to make legal abortion virtually disappear in the state of Mississippi," Northup said. "Their hostility toward women, reproductive health care providers, and the rights of both would unquestionably put the lives and health of countless women at risk of grave harm.

It would seem to me -- remember, I am just an ignorant Southern layman and not a medical professional -- that there would be inherently more danger in a woman's reproductive health procedure that is not performed by someone who is Board Certified in women's reproductive health. Having a doctor with admitting privileges at local hospitals might be an additional safety feature in the event that one of those "safe, legal, and rare" procedures ends with complications.

In 2010, according to the latest information available from the State Health Department, there were 2,297 infanticides committed by these reproductive health care providers at the Jackson Women's Health Clinic.

According to their posted business hours (and assuming they are closed on national holidays), they are open for business about 2,400 hours per year. That means that in 2010, every 62 minutes they were open, another baby was dismembered and then killed.

These figures do not include facilities where fewer than ten abortions per month, or fewer than 100 per year, are carried out -- those are not considered by the state to be abortion facilities, and their infanticides are not required to be reported. The new law does not apply to them -- only to those "who perform abortions in abortion facilities." These figures also do not include abortions committed in neighboring states -- which are geographically closer to 51% of the population.
The clinic says if it closes, most women would have to go out of state to terminate a pregnancy - something that could create financial problems for people in one of the poorest states in the nation. From Jackson, it is about a 200-mile drive to clinics in New Orleans; Mobile, Ala.; or Memphis, Tenn.
While it is true that Jackson is about 200 miles from each of these cities, only 14% of the state's 2,978,512 population lives in Jackson. Fifty-one percent of the population lives closer to these other cities than to Jackson. As it turns out, Mississippi women -- or the majority of them -- will not be burdened if the Jackson clinic closes. Most women desiring to terminate their unexpected or otherwise inconvenient children should not be too inconvenienced, hopefully.

It took only about 15 minutes to research the census information for Mississippi, which I referenced in the previous paragraph. I was shocked, shocked to see that these demographics and simple geography were omitted in every story I read about this event. The vast right-wing conspiracy must have used The Force to cloud the minds of all those "journalists."

To summarize Mississippi's new law: The State requires that only abortionists committing more than ten child terminations per month, or 100+  per year, actually be board certified as women's reproductive health experts.   In addition, if there are complications from abortions committed in abortion facilities which require subsequent hospitalization, those abortionists must have admitting privileges to local hospitals.    

Abortionists terminating fewer than ten children per month or fewer than 100 per year are not required to be Board Certified as OB/GYNs -- women's health experts -- nor must they have hospital-admitting privileges. Moreover, those abortionists do not have to report the terminations they carry out.

I suppose that by this weird logic, the less one performs a procedure, the greater his/her skills? And less expertise translates into the need for less supervision and reporting requirements?

Please pardon my layman's ignorance, but if that is logical, I just cannot my simple mind around it.

With the impending full implementation of Obamacare, our tax dollars will continue to increasingly provide aid and comfort for this growing genocide. The engineers of this monstrous movement care little for the health of women, especially poor minority women. 

Mississippi's legislature passed a law that, as written, would guarantee increased patient safety for a dangerous elective surgical procedure. How can women "choose" to trust a movement that actively tries to restrict quality control and accountability for providers?

In spite of what the intentions of its supporters may have been, what matters is what the law actually says.

When I consider this and other recent rulings by some of our judges, I am reminded of the words of an aristocrat who lived from about 720 to 702 B.C. in what was once called Edom, now part of Jordan. His name was Isaiah. He was widely known for his oratory, and for speaking truth to power. This is what he said about elitist legislators and judges who took advantage of the poor and oppressed in his time:

Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice and rob the poor of my people of their rights, so that widows may be their spoil and that they may plunder the orphans.

Fifty-three million abortions since 1972.   Josef Mengele and Margaret Sanger, whose ardent belief in the existence of a master race led to their pioneering work in "reproductive health services," are dancing a jig in Hell over the prevented abortion of their lovechild by this GOP-appointed Judge in Mississippi.

(Originally published July 7, 2012, The American Thinker)

Why is the Ground Hallowed?

May 28, 2012

Today is Memorial Day, formerly known as Decoration Day, a holiday that is believed to have originated in my hometown of Columbus, Mississippi, to commemorate the fallen soldiers of the Civil War and decorate their graves at Friendship Cemetery. It is the final rest for veterans of the American Revolution, War of 1812, the Civil War, Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Memorial Day is one of our uniquely American holidays, along with Veterans' Day and Thanksgiving. While each has a different emphasis, they are all grounded in the central idea that we should be thankful to our Creator for individual freedom and to those who were -- and are -- willing to sacrifice everything to maintain and protect that freedom on our behalf.

Other countries memorialize their heroes, but America is exceptional in that regard due to the history of our missions from 1776 until today. In every war in which we have ever fought, our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen have served on the front lines to protect our liberty, make others free, or defend the helpless. Or, in the case of the Civil War, to maintain the ideals of independence and freedom in our second full generation as a country -- the primary mission of both the Blue and the Gray in that most tragic of all our wars.

Regardless of the political motivations of those with the power to send or command our military in harm's way, our individual soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen have always gone to do their duty of helping the helpless and defending freedom. We are the only nation in history who can make that unique claim.

The reason they have done it is simple: we are the only nation founded on the singular idea -- America's founding principle -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

That seed of that idea was planted, not in Philadelphia in 1776, but in Europe a century before, when people of faith left their homes behind, fleeing religious persecution, to find a land where they could worship in freedom. This root of faith in the liberty provided only by Christ is the genesis of the founding idea of America.  It prepared the ground to grow our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and was the spark that fired the Shot Heard Round the World. Moreover, it is the reason that even those who do not believe in Him can be free not to believe. That particular liberty, the epitome of freedom of religion, has also been ferociously protected.

Therefore, on this most American holiday, we remember those who gave the last full measure of valor in commitment to the idea that every individual person on earth has the undeniable right to be free.

The touchstones of this celebration and remembrance are seen in the pictures and visits to the graves of those who have fallen. But the living heartbeat of our memorial is their valor, and the fruit of their sacrifice: our recognition of the truth expressed in the phrase, "America, America, God shed His Grace on Thee."

That is why those sacred grounds, here in America and around the world where our exceptional warriors fell, are venerated and treated with loving care, ferocious devotion, and tearful remembrance.


(Originally published May 28, 2012, The American Thinker Blog)