WorldNetDaily: Sheehan: Other moms of slain 'brainwashed'

That's right. She said it on The Daily Kos, and worse yet, said that she was

starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these 'continue the murder and mayhem' moms to see the light.

Nice, Cindy. I am a part of that "rest of America." So you have just insulted me. But this doesn't surprise me at all. Tell me this: had you been around during Operation Overlord, I wonder whether we would be speaking German today? Or Japanese?

Evidently, other people were as outraged as am I. But the Kos must have scrubbed their site after WorldNetDaily caught their comments. I found Sheehan's original comment on the Kos, but not any of the comments that WND quoted. Now anyone running any kind of web site or other publication has the absolute right to decide what goes on it, and what doesn't. But the Kos cannot claim to be the voice of the people if they censor the comments of those who disagree. Long-time readers of this blog will recall that someone called me a crazy man and even threatened me with death after I stood up for Terri Schindler Schiavo. While I said that if I got another such threatening comment I would call the FBI, I did not scrub the comment. If someone wants to make a jackass of himself (or jenny-ass of herself, as the case may be) in a comment on anything I've said, they're welcome to do it, so long as their messages aren't obscene, or their continued presence might compromise national security in some way. So how about it, Kos? As one blogger to another: what are you hiding, and do you really think that, in the age of unlimited eidetic Internet alternative media memory, you could get away with such hiding?

And as for you, Cindy Sheehan--your continued objections to the protection of the security of the rest of us has been duly noted and logged. As a radioman would say, "Out!"

WorldNetDaily: The case against Chavez

Joseph L. Farah comes to the defense of Pat Robertson, who said earlier this week that Hugo Chavez deserves targeted assassination for the position he has put himself in. Put simply, Farah builds the case that Hugo Chavez is guilty of acts of war already, or at least of taking a warlike posture.

And--this is important to note--Farah and Robertson are not alone. Several key CIA and military men agree with them. Not only that, but George Stephanopoulos once made the case for killing Saddam Hussein, and the media never batted an eyelash. Talk about double standards...!

WorldNetDaily: Casey in heaven 'calls Bush idiot'

Let me get this straight: now Cindy Sheehan is "channeling" her son, who is looking down from heaven and says that Bush is an idiot.

She is at least twice a fool for saying such a thing. To begin with, such trance-channeling is witchcraft, something that God would never permit. And when she presumes to speak for God, and says that legions of angels are on her side--sportsfans, that is blasphemy, plain and simple. She doesn't even have her angelology straight--because angels are not the departed souls of dead human beings! The very word angel means messenger--and these Messengers of the Living God have been around since before Creation.

Frankly, if she's channeling anyone, then she's playing with fire--because it would have to be a demon, a fallen angel. I'm not saying that she's doing anything but perpetrating yet another cruel hoax on the body politic. But neither would I put it past a demon to impersonate Casey Sheehan, either to his mother or to anyone else as interested in the occult as she now claims to be.

WorldNetDaily: Human beings: "Plague species"

This is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard of. Eight volunteers are actually appearing in an exhibit in the zoo, clad in nothing but imitation fig leaves. The notion of the exhibit is that human beings are a "plague species" that doesn't know its "place in the ecosystem."

I don't know what is more absurd: that anyone on earth would be caught dead in such a display (much less volunteering for it!), or that an institution like the London Zoo would be party to such a travesty. And after all: if that's how the London Zoo feels about mankind, then why aren't the zoo's curators participating? Then again, such absurdity is always fine with liberals--so long as someone else is being absurd and letting other people have fun at his expense.

This comment, taken from an application by one of the volunteers, is instructive:

I actually think the fig leaves will be enough to cover us up[;] it's no worse than a swimming pool.

The unstated conclusion, that "it's not so bad," assumes that what passes for attire in most public swimming pools is up to God's standards. Indeed it is not. The only difference between typical swimwear and underwear today is that the former is waterproof. For a hundred years the standards of dress have continued to decline--and now behold the endpoint. Eight people volunteer to be treated no better than animals, and as it turns out, no one who bathes in a public swimming pool looks any better than they. What, then, is the difference between the behavior of the two groups?

Bear this in mind when you ask yourself: What kind of fashion statement do you want to make? Indeed, tell me what sort of fashion statement any man or woman makes, and I will tell you that person's opinion of himself (or herself). But don't just take my word for it. Ask Rebecca Hegelin, who addressed this issue a scant (pardon the pun) two days ago.

OpinionJournal - Stars, Stripes, Crescent

The Wall Street Journal seems to think that American Muslims do not pose the problem that, for example, their British counterparts do. To support their thesis, they point out that not all Arabs are Muslim, not all Muslims are Arab, and by some estimates, Muslims do not form more than one percent of the US population, and certainly not six million people as some of them like to claim. The Journal also cites evidence of "upward mobility" and a high rate (75%) of intermarriage to suggest that Arabs and Muslims alike are assimilating well into American society.

But I cannot share this optimism--and certainly not from an organ that has consistently called for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration. And not when the vast majority of Muslim expansion has occurred in prison, among the most hardened of criminals--just the type not only willing but also trained to be saboteurs and mass murderers.

Nor does that intermarriage statistic sway me. A Muslim's wife is property, nothing more. A favorite Muslim tactic is to sweep a woman off her feet, right up to the time he tells her to put on an abbayah, shut up, and start acting like a good Muslim wife--which is to say, a slave. Worse than a slave, in fact: Muslim women are no better than chattel--a word that, of course, means human cattle.

Open your eyes, you of the Journal. If you can. Muslims like to say that your god folds in your wallets. Maybe that's your problem.

WorldNetDaily: Robertson: Time to assassinate Chavez

WorldNetDaily quotes Robertson: "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination. But if he [Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."

Five years ago, I would have said that Pat Robertson was crazy to talk that way. But that was before the Manhattan Incident of 2001. Indeed, also from WorldNetDaily, we now learn that Hugo Chavez gave the Muslim terrorist organization known as "The Base" a cool million US dollars after that Incident. We have that on the word of a former officer in the Venezuelan Air Force.

Robertson is still wrong on one count: you don't send a sniper in to kill the leader of a foreign power unless you first declare war against that power--or that power has first declared war against you, or worse, sneak-attacked you. This hasn't happened yet--or has it? A million dollars in cash to an organization at war with this country is arguably an act of war.

But the biggest argument against Robertson's plan is that Chavez might have created a successor already, and no viable opposition would be prepared to sweep Chavez' hangers-on out of power. If Chavez has a ready-picked successor, then killing him will do no good, and war would be inevitable.

That said, the US ought to do something about a man who gives a million dollars to a terrorist organization and starts building a Communist bloc in Latin America, after we thought that Communism in the Americas was limited to Castro's Cuba.

WorldNetDaily: 9/11 panel hammered for ignoring Atta intel

When John Ashcroft revealed that the chief architect of the deliberate disconnect between the FBI and the CIA and military intelligence services was in fact a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States ("The 9/11 Commission"), the mainstream media had but two words for the revelation: "pooh!" and "pooh!" Indeed, Jamie Gorelick, the implicated Commissioner, brazenly refused to step down. Furthermore, the entire exercise struck many, including me, as an exercise in Democratic Party electioneering.

And now a Republican congressman, Curt Weldon (R-PA), is busy developing evidence of the full magnitude of Gorelick's negligence and of the Commission's error in not summarily dismissing her from its membership.

Curt Weldon, whom the WorldNetDaily article describes as "vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees," is my kind of guy. When he sees an elephant in the room, he grabs his four-bore rifle and blasts away. And when people protest about the mess he made, he simply thanks them not to interfere, if they don't want to get hurt themselves.

Already Representative Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chairman of the commission, is sputtering, glubbering, gulping, and basically trying to deny his own negligence and dissemblance even in the face of overwhelming evidence. But, since we now have alternative media in this country, this problem simply won't go away, however much the Democrats wish they can ignore it.

Planned Parenthood Affiliate Quietly Removes Cartoon Advocating Violence Against Pro-lifers - Christianity Today Magazine

Here's a follow-up to the earlier story about yet another flashy underwear-clad "super-hero(ine)" committing murder in aid of Planned Parenthood. We now learn that the San Francisco chapter of Planned Parenthood has taken the video off their site. But they won't talk about why they put that disgusting video up in the first place, and the national Planned Parenthood Federation isn't saying a word.

Neither am I holding my breath.

WorldNetDaily: Planned Parenthood superhero terminates Christian protesters

That's terminate as in "with extreme prejudice." And I warn you: follow that link with caution. I don't usually have to say this about an article in WorldNetDaily, but I'll say it now: Parental judgment and discretion are advised.

Comic-book costumed mutant or otherwise enhanced one-man (or in this case, one-woman) vigilance committees are all the rage in motion pictures, as any cursory check of the local movie ads will show. You've seen them: Spider-Man, Batman, Electra...the list is endless. (All three are registered trademarks of their respective comic-book publisher-owners.)

Planned Parenthood's entry in the costumed vigilante sweepstakes is named Dianisis. This sounds like a hybrid of the names of two goddesses. The first is Diana, the Latin name for Artemis, the goddess of the hunt and, in a supreme irony, generally regarded as not only virginal but fiercely and violently protective of her virginity against any male assault, divine or otherwise. The second is Isis, the queen of the ancient Egyptian pantheon, whose cult enjoyed a revival of sorts during the period of the Flavian dynasty in the Roman Empire. I also suspect that the name Dianisis is a play on the name Dionysus (literally meaning "Born of Zeus," since Dios is the genitive and ablative form of the name Zeus). This god, son of Zeus by the Theban princess Semele, was the god of the vine, and as such was the patron of drunks. (Ironically, he was torn to pieces every winter, by some accounts on the orders of Hera, Zeus' wife, who was, of course, jealous of all of Zeus' bastards.)

So the name "Dianisis" is baggage enough. She also happens to be black--and I imagine that Walter E. Williams would be spitting mad at this caricature, except that Walter E. Williams' usually roars with laughter at that kind of insult--laughter at the perpetrators for missing the obvious irony. I'm sure that he and I would agree that making Dianisis black is especially ironic, since Planned Parenthood, under Margaret Sanger, began as an organization dedicated to the extermination of the black race by encouraging black women to abort and contraceive!

Not-so-subtle racism aside, Dianisis is a murderess, plain and simple. Anyone who suggests that teen-agers ought to wait until they are adults--and married adults, at that--before being intimate with one another is subject to summary execution. I won't belabor the details here. If not for the outrageous message she propounds, I'd tell her to go pick on somebody her own size--like Osama bin Laden and those three brazen clerics in London who openly say that they are at war with non-adherents.

As others have said: if anyone created a costumed vigilante and had him (or her) retaliate against abortion providers, that person might be subject to arrest for incitement to murder. What, then, shall we say about Dianisis?

And for that matter, what shall we say about the whole Planned Parenthood organization, when they encourage teen-agers to have sex out-of-wedlock? I thought we made the tobacco companies pay dearly for getting kids hooked on cigarettes. Did I miss something?

Telegraph | News | Preachers of hate could be charged with treason

That's right: Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service are considering measures to draw a clear line between free speech and treason.

At issue are three particularly brazen Muslim clerics who variously have exhorted their followers to refuse to lay information with the Yard about the London Incidents and even declared that they owed no allegiance to Her Majesty's Government. "I am a Muslim first, second, and last!" cried one. Another said, "We are not afraid of you any more. The banner of jihad has now been raised inside the UK!"

Friends, the hardest thing for a free society to determine is what constitutes treason. My favorite definition is that contained in the Constitution of the United States: committing an act of war against your country, or adhering to, aiding, and comforting its enemies. By that definition, any declaration that you owe no allegiance to your country of citizenship, subjecthood, or lawful residency, constitutes treason. And surely anything that comes out of your mouth or pen, that would differ little from the steady stream of insults that came from Lord Haw-haw or Tokyo Rose during World War Two would also be tantamount to treason. Evidently the British are finally concluding that such a strict demarcation between permissible dissent and treason is necessary.

Neither are the British the only ones to consider this. The French recently deported 12 Muslim clerics for just such offenses, and even stripped some of them of their French citizenship. (The French official who ordered this action is French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. Some have suggested that he might be the best hope for a salvage of Franco-American relations.)

Some will no doubt suggest that the French and the British are specifically outlawing the practice of Islam. This is not correct. Any country could go that far, after holding a series of hearings into the nature of Islam and why serious devotion to that faith is incompatible with being a good citizen or lawful resident in any country other than a Muslim one. No country has ever held such hearings. Instead they have declared that certain types of speech, specifically incitements to sabotage, mass murder, or treason, will be prosecuted either as treason or under the admittedly nebulous category of "hate speech." It's easier to legislate that sort of measure, even in the United States, where Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once famously said that the First Amendment literally does not allow you to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

In any event, I'll put the Bible against the Koran any day. The worst that anyone claiming--and I emphasize claiming--to be a Christian has ever done was to blow up an abortion mill and kill the night watchman in the process. (He also apparently lit off a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics, and I still haven't figured out his motive for that outrage.) Scripture gives absolutely no warrant for any such action. Instead, Scripture says, "Let every soul be subject to the powers-that-be that govern, for no power [Greek exousia, from ek out of and eimi I am] exist that God did not put in place." [Romans 13:1-2ff.] St. Paul said that during the Julio-Claudian dynasty, when Roman law was often very harsh against Christians. So that's our example of martyrdom (literally, "testimony"). The Muslim example is to take other people with you to the next life, and to fight against any government that does not work the way Muhammad said it should. So, no--I'm not afraid of any of these new laws. Nor do I mean that anyone ought to be, unless, again paraphrasing Paul, one wishes ill toward his fellow citizen or lawful resident.

King David's fabled palace: Is this it? - Africa & Middle East - International Herald Tribune

Now isn't this a pretty sight: someone has found what might be David's "house of cedar"! Naturally, not a Muslim alive dares admit that. Their whole notion is that the Jews never had any title to Jerusalem at all. But what can you expect of a religion based on fraud?

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE :: Weak Grades for Ward Churchill by Christopher Flickinger

"Student evaluations" are one of the minor banes of a university professor's existence. They are the only opportunity that students have to express freely their approbation--or reprobation--of their professor, the department, and the school, and to do it anonymously and as a group rather than in an identifable voice against whom the professor could easily retaliate. Good schools understand this and sometimes use the student evaluations to decide whether to turn the professor loose on another class in another year. I have personally witnessed the same course change instructors three times in as many years, because the original instructor got unfavorable evaluations, and his successor blew the students away with the excellence of his presentation. And as a teacher myself (albeit a part-time one), I can readily understand that. Teaching is a performance art, and not many institutions bother to train a teacher in that art. In short, being a teacher is about a lot more than being an expert in the subject matter. A teacher must also be a mentor, an end-of-the-process administrator, and a representative of his department and school.

And evidently Ward Churchill has let his grades slide in these critical areas: accessibility (a cardinal requirement in any teacher), fairness in grading, relative excellence as an instructor, and the relative excellence of the course he teaches. This last is more important than you might think, because any teacher is responsible for how he presents his material, even if that material is fixed from above--and in this case, Ward Churchill is completely responsible for selecting that material, either as an instructor teaching an elective or--worse yet--as his own department chairman! (Actually, he was a chairman; he had to step down from that role last year.)

And, as usual, he blames other people for his troubles, in this case reporters--this although he has received zero coverage for anything for at least half a year!

I suspect that what's really happening is that students are now feeling bold enough to use the student evaluation as an instrument of accountability, and no longer as a suck-up tool.

CBS News | Woman Details Her 20-Year Coma | August 4, 2005�10:30:18

We heard about this shortly before the family of Terri Schindler-Schiavo lost their last court battle: a woman in a coma for twenty years still retained her hearing, and from that has a remarkable memory of the events of the last twenty years--or at least what people were saying about those events in her presence, never suspecting that she was taking down every word spoken. She even had a working knowledge of the meaning of the Manhattan Incident!

And now CBS chooses to broadcast an interview with her on their Early Show. A lot of good that does, now that the murder of Terri Schindler-Schiavo is complete. (Yes, I said murder.)

Are you paying attention, Jodi One-eleven Centonze? This could be you...!

NewsMax.com: Americans Didn't Run to Canada After Bush Election Victory

In fact, immigration levels to Canada actually fell. Not to say that no one went north to Canada. But it is to say that, if anything, fewer people overall thought about moving to Canada after the election.

Long-time readers will remember that this blog began with my observation of the initially increased Internet traffic at the Canada Ministry of Immigration. You'll also remember that, however much I would have liked to see such ex-migration, liberals had threatened to leave the country en masse the first time Bush was elected, and they didn't do it then. And they haven't done it this time.

In other words, they're all talk and no do. But frankly their idle threats are getting very tiresome.

Edward Everett Hale (The Man Without a Country) wouldn't be much happier about this than I am, I suspect. Here you have a bunch of habitual malcontents who will probably threaten to move to Canada every four years for as long as Republicans continue to win elections. Hale's stories, and much else in American fiction and literature, were once required reading in school, or at least suggested summer reading. Maybe it's time they became so again.

WorldNetDaily: Congress asked to probe ACLU

At issue: the ACLU's persistent policy of filing lawsuits that seem to defy common sense. Their latest: suing the City of New York over their policy of random searches of NYC subway passengers.

Now I don't know whether Congress even has the authority to investigate any organization that files frivolous lawsuits. I'm not even sure that anyone but the courts themselves have the authority to sanction anyone for frivolous filings. I do know that the courts could stop frivolous lawsuits any time they made up their minds to. A few summary dismissals--and, where necessary, fines--should do the trick.

But the issue of the ACLU's conduct deserves special attention. They cannot claim to be consistent defenders of people's liberties--not while they routinely sue any school district where anything other than evolutionary biology is taught. (Hat tip: David Limbaugh writing in WorldNetDaily.) I don't pretend to know their motives in this case, but at the very least I can, and do, find their judgment execrably bad. Indeed, I wonder whether they might themselves be subject to a countersuit if anything did happen on the subway that authorities might have prevented but for the ACLU's intervention.

I wonder whether anyone quite realizes the following:

• No law-enforcement agency has any enforceable duty to protect the citizens in its charge. That is why you can't sue the cops if something happens to you--not unless you can prove that the cops didn't follow proper procedure.
• The perpetrators of the London Incidents (both of them) had, in the main, given no cause, probable or otherwise, for suspicion. So the notion of "searching only on probable cause" won't cut it here--not so long as the ACLU insists on defining "probable cause" as "reason to suspect a particular person or persons."
• Finally--and this is the point that the ACLU consistently misses--when you are outside your home, you are subject to the rules and regulations of the owner of any venue you are in--whether that be the property of a private individual, company, or other organization, or those common elements that the government owns. When you walk down the stairs leading to an NYC subway station, you are a guest of the New York City Transportation Authority and are thus subject to their rules. So if they want you to stand while a German shepherd sniffs your briefcase or bookbag or purse or whatever for explosives, you can either submit or leave the premises. It's that simple. After all, no one forces you to ride the subway--but those who operate the subway have the right to protect their assets and personnel--and also to protect you and everyone else who uses the services they provide.

So once again: I'm not sure that Congress has the authority to investigate the ACLU, but I do suggest that we ignore the ACLU and stop accepting arguments that have no basis in the philosophy of law.