Duquette looks to unearth 'value' in offseason
On the heels of a week that included trading closer Jim Johnson and watching two coveted players sign elsewhere, Baltimore general manager Dan Duquette finds himself in a precarious position at the Winter Meetings.
O's hoping to make a splash at Winter Meetings
The Winter Meetings are back at Disney World, but whether the Orioles will have a magical week remains to be seen. Baltimore's only big move in an otherwise busy offseason around baseball has been trading closer Jim Johnson to Oakland. This puts some pressure on executive vice president of baseball operations Dan Duquette & Co. to try to make some major upgrades to keep pace in the American League East.
O's head to Winter Meetings with meaty to-do list
Dan Duquette and the Orioles head to the annual Winter Meetings with extensive needs this offseason. Among those concerns will be finding a new closer, following the recent trade of Jim Johnson to Oakland.
Critics of Gov. Martin O'Malley's administration expressed dismay Sunday at the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in Maryland, charging that he deliberately underplayed the state's problems in setting up its health care insurance exchange.
For a region accustomed to fizzled snow forecasts in recent years, a storm dumping as much as 8 inches of snow across northern Maryland surprised many on Sunday, stalling vehicles, canceling the city's annual holiday parade and blanketing the field at M&T Bank Stadium for the Ravens' first snow game in Baltimore.
Fifty years ago Sunday, mere days before the Christmas holiday, dozens of families from Elkton and north along the northeast corridor to Staten Island, N.Y., were changed in an instant. The mid-air explosion of Pan Am Flight 214 over Elkton became Maryland's largest loss-of-life disaster.
Comments about Baltimore Reporter:
Perhaps the best part of blogging or the internet in general is the occasional discovery of something unexpected.Over on
Baltimore Reporter and Conservative Thoughts is a great and thought provoking article by Robert Farrow.I hope you will follow
this link and read this great post.
I love your blog
Once again - as happens so often - I have been positioned here on the living room couch, immersed in your blog. You are
better than Fox News.
Awards and Rankings:
Voted one of the best local blogs:
Baltimore Examiner: 2006
Voted Top 10 most influential blog in Maryland in 2007.
Blog Net News
In Isaiah 5:20 it says, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” At the time abortion was legalized, opponents of the procedure warned that, if this moral floodgate was opened, there would be no telling what might pour through that would further devalue human life overall and increasingly erode traditional taboos.
Those professing to be enlightened and progressive scoffed that such a claim was an over-exaggeration designed to elicit fear. However, in the thirty-plus years since the legalization of abortion, some of the nation’s most celebrated academics in the most prestigious publications are now advocating that we as a society do away with infants that do not live up to some standard while going out of their way to defend the rights of animals and criminals.
Princeton Professor of Bioethics Peter Singer, who advocates bestiality (giving a whole other connotation to the phrase a boy and his dog) and animals rights as epitomized by the Great Apes Project which argues gorillas and orangutans deserve many of the protections enjoyed by human beings, believes that it is permissible to kill an infant up until 28 days after birth because an infant is not self-aware nor worthy of personhood since the baby has no preferences concerning living or dying. Furthermore, such a course of action might be of benefit to the family.
Interestingly, Singer is not some lone crank that got hold of a bad batch of pot in the faculty lounge. Professor Steven Pinker, director of MIT’s Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, in the November 2, 2000 issue of the New York Times Magazine defended the practice of infanticide by suggesting that the killing of an infant should be treated differently than a person.
Pinker argues that we only have a right not to be killed if we have “an ability to reflect upon ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death, and to express the choice not to die.” Thus, infants do not qualify for protections against murder, and may be disposed of without offense.
The fundamental issue of this debate is perhaps one of the most important of all in this day of unsettled foundations. That of course is the question of what exactly is a human being.
Both Singer and Pinker argue that newborns should not enjoy legal protection from on the part of parents or the medical establishment because they are not fully human since they have not reached a certain level of development. The traditional ethical position contends that the baby is entitled to the same protections from bodily harm as any other member of the human family. Though these two professors have countless accolades and honors heaped upon them for their acclaimed erudition, both science and Biblical teaching affirm the position considered outdated by influential opinion-makers.
From scripture, it clearly teaches, “Thou shalt not murder.” And though many theologians and Bible scholars grant an exception for the taking of human life in the case of self-defense in the case of war or when confronted by someone intent on doing bodily harm and in the case of capital punishment authorized by the Noahic covenant as spelled out in Genesis 9, in no way does an infant pose the kind of threat presented by these specific exceptions. Inconvenience just does not constitute that manner of bodily harm.
Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” In Psalms 139:13-16 it says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;…My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body.”
If the embryo inside the mother is not a distinct person in his own right, how is the Lord able to know a specific collection of cells apart from the mother? Life as a continuum from conception and gestation on through birth and maturation is further confirmed in Psalms 51:5 which says, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Nonpersons are not capable of existing in a state of sin.
Those with degrees as long as their arms cannot turn around and claim such speculations are ancient Hebrew superstitions. These prophetic revelations are confirmed by the very science the wonders of the modern world are based upon.
Both the fetus and the newborn are as genetically unique at these particular stages as the ethicists and physicians pondering the nuances of this philosophical quandary. Scott Rae writes, “(1) An adult human being is the end result of the continuous growth of the organism from conception. (2) From conception to adulthood, this development has no break that is relevant to the essential nature of the fetus. (3) Therefore, one is a human person from the point of conception onward (142).”
One of the most powerful arguments against both infanticide and abortion is that if you devalue human life at these stages, what is to prevent it from being devalued at other stages by radical utilitarians and the like? This is what happens when the standard suggested by both Peter Singer and Steven Pinker is employed.
For starters, what even is a “continuous locus of consciousness” and even if we knew, how many would even want to reflect upon it? Furthermore, even if one did, shouldn’t human value be based on something more than whether or not the individual is tickled pink at the prospect of his own belly button?
What if the individual does not temporarily possess the ability to reflect upon oneself as a “continuous locus of consciousness”; does this mean the disgruntled spouse has a window of opportunity each night to whack their mate as the sleep and get a get of jail free card? After all, during many stages of sleep one is not even aware of one’s surroundings much less one’s inner emotional workings.
The other criteria used to determine whether or not an infant is worthy of life are no less troubling. Both Pinker and Singer hold to a standard that an individual is not worthy of life unless one has the ability to ask to be kept alive.
If that is the case, if one slips on the ice and knocks themselves out, they had better come to before the ambulance gets there because who knows what organ hungry doctors would do if this criteria is allowed to play itself out. Before you know it, your kidneys and corneas could be on airplanes headed in multiple directions.
All joking aside, Pinker’s comments especially cause one to stop and pause to wonder if these remarks could be used to justify a sliding scale for human life not all that different than the blue books used by insurance companies to assess automobile depreciation. For example, Pinker says, to be worthy of life, one must savor plans for the future and dread death. Since the twenty-year old has more of these than the eighty-year old, doesn’t it then follow that it would be a greater offense to kill the twenty-year old than the eighty year-old? If the Professor has raised his children in light of such values, I trust for his own sake he does not let his guard down around them for fear of what he might find being plunged in his back as he ages.
Furthermore, who at some point in their lives (especially during the moody teenage years) hasn’t gone through a period where they didn’t care one way or the other whether life continued or not? Even if one is no where near jumping off the root of a building or suck fumes out of an exhaust pipe hasn’t gone through times where the thought did not transiently skip across out minds how much easier things would be if we simply didn’t wake up the next day. That did not mean that those around us had the right to do away with us.
It has been said that a society will be judged by how it treats its weakest members. If current academic opinion about how easily the unborn can be discarded is any kind of barometer, America could be in for a tumultuous twenty-first century.
In numerous bioethical debates approached from a secular perspective, many seemingly noble principles such as autonomy, individual choice, dignity, the common good, and the preservation of limited resources are invoked to justify various positions. However, when these complex issues are approached from a Judeo-Christian perspective, many times the implications and morality of these decisions are altered profoundly.
Perhaps the most fundamental concern raised by a standpoint informed by the principles of the Bible is none other than personhood. Though something we each possess, its value varies drastically depending on the worldview each of us brings to the concept.
For example, to the person living out a consistently evolutionary or materialistic perspective, the idea of personhood is not that important since it is merely an arbitrarily contrived social and intellectual construct with no inherent worth other than what we decide to give it. Thus, it is no major concern if the concept is altered to exclude those at the extreme ends of life’s continuum unable to sustain themselves apart from intensive medical intervention.
However, if one approaches the matter from the Judeo-Christian perspective, the concept of personhood impacts dramatically the techniques and procedures one finds morally justifiable. Since man is made in the image of God, the life and spirit of man (his personhood if you will) is unique in all of creation. As such, it is due a respect placing it just below the reverence due God Himself.
Since the human being holds a special place in the heart of God, it is God Himself that establishes the guidelines regarding how we are permitted to relate to and treat other human beings. In Genesis 9:6, where God establishes His covenant with Noah it says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man”. Later in the Ten Commandments this decree is reiterated in the command “Thou shalt not commit murder”.
From this, it is established that it is morally incorrect to take an innocent human life not having itself taken another human life. Therefore, it is improper to deliberately take a human life that does not threaten yours or has not violated the law.
Since the minds of men dwell continually on evil, a number of wily thinkers attempt to skirt around the issue by redefining personhood to make it distinct from the humanity of these individuals facing the prospects of having these procedures inflicted upon them. However, even these attempts prove inadequate as they endeavor to describe things how some would like them to be rather than how God created them.
For humanity/personhood is something one possesses inherently rather than bestowed upon you as a result of having reached some developmental milestone. The individual remains a distinct biological entity throughout the continuum of existence.
If anything, by limiting personhood to those having reached some arbitrary standard such as viability, quickening, or sentience speaks more to the limitations of medical science than an actual state of ontology. And with advances, these frontiers are being pushed back further all the time.
Things are now to the point where doctors are able to do surgery inside the mother’s womb. A photo of one such procedure where a tiny hand reached out of the mother’s abdomen got Matt Drudge fired from the Fox News Network. It was feared such an image might unsettle or disturb the consciences of viewers regarding the issue of abortion.
Scott Rae in “Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics” concludes his examination of the abortion issue with the following argument advocating for personhood of the unborn: “(1) An adult human being is the end result of the continuous growth of the organism from conception… (2) From conception to adulthood this development has no break that is relevant to the essential nature of the fetus… (3) Therefore, one is a human person from the point of conception onward (142).”
In a speech in Buffalo, New York, Hillary Clinton let slip a startling degree of insight into her political ideology and philosophy of government.
Responding to a heckler carted off by security, the former Senator and Secretary of State admonished that citizenship does not involve yelling but rather coming together to sit down and talk about the kind of future that we want as a nation.
Hecklers should be removed from such settings and not allowed to disrupt the message those gathered have assembled to hear.
However, the incident raises a number of questions.
Does this prohibition against raucous and uncontrolled vocalization of a disturbing volume also apply to those the former First Lady and presidential-aspirant would consider her allies or simply her opponents?
Back during the Bush Presidency in her role as Senator during debate surrounding the Patriot Act, Hillary Clinton reminded (in a rather loud voice it should be pointed out) reminded dissent was itself the highest form of patriotism.
Even more disturbing was how Hillary categorized the heckler.
Instead of simply calling for the removal of this disruptive nuisance refusing to exercise the First Amendment in an orderly manner, Hillary suggested that this individual typified any that would dare challenge or disagree with her publicly.
Thus, in a Hillary regime, would those in Congress refusing to go along with her and more importantly the citizens daring to speak out against her be similarly manhandled by the federal security establishment?
We do indeed need to talk about the kind of future we want for America.
However, the kind of future advocated by Hillary will simply bring additional ruination upon this once great country.
At Liberty University, Senator Rand Paul warned of the temptations and dangers inherent to genetic experimentation and manipulation.
But instead of confronting one of the most profound issues that an advanced technological society will face in the years and decades ahead, smaller minds and those of limited imagination are focusing on whether or not the legislator’s remarks were rhetorically footnoted with all of the punctuation put in the right place.
Those with too much time on their hands unable to substantially refute the Senator’s remarks, such as Rachel Maddow, are claiming that he plagiarized his summary of the film Gattica from Wikipedia.
If truck drivers and hog farmers rather than academics and journalists were the ones that got all worked up over plagiarism, would this linguistic oversight be considered all that much of an outrage?
Snobs siding with Maddow flippantly query what does Gattica have to do with a political campaign stop.
After all, that distracts from much more important work such as the legalization of gay marriage and the distribution of subsidized birth control.
However, will these libertines keep singing the same tune when a test is developed possibly determining whether or not someone might be inclined towards the particular variety of temptation of which Rachel Maddow is herself afflicted as evidenced by her mannish appearance?
Perhaps Senator Paul should have been more careful in observing the protocols of scholastic attribution.
But isn’t this response to his remarks akin to dismissing someone warning against the dangers of the looming Final Solution because the analyst in question forget to mention what review of Mein Kampf was being quoted from?
I am going to write a few things that many in this country will not like about immigration. Before anyone tells me that I am anti-immigrant let me inform you that my spouse is an immigrant. I have two other relatives by marriage that are from other countries. They all came to our country legally and became citizens the right way.
Right now we have a problem. There are people on both sides of the aisle in government that are claiming the immigration system is broken. I submit that the only thing seriously wrong is that the immigration folks are not being permitted to enforce the law. I have a solution and that is if someone is here in our country illegally they get deported. End of story and end of problem.
There are illegal aliens that are convicted felons and when they get out of jail instead of being deported they are going to be turned loose in the USA. This is because the current trend is not to deport illegals. I feel for the illegals that were brought to our country as small children but we need to be firm.
Also, make no mistake illegals are voting right now in this country. Thousands have voted in Florida and other states. Gee, I wonder which party they are voting for.
Obama and crew want to literally do away with borders and let everyone in. We have seen in the last few weeks illegals protesting and demanding special status to include being put on the dole. We are rewarding law breakers. You can probably surmise by my pen name which alternate culture I was associated with. I was minding my own business when two illegals came up and started cursing me in Spanish. When I answered in their own language that kind of cooled their jets, however, one of them said that the USA will not remain and Anglo country. He also commented that what is mine will be theirs.
The businesses that hire illegals gain a distinct financial advantage. They can pay illegals under the table and pay them without having to go to the expense of paying for workman’s compensation insurance. They will not have to crunch numbers. If they are paid $10.00 an hour that is what they get and no taxes taken out at all. Also, consider they will not have to buy health insurance because they are not on paper so they are not here. If an employer hires a load of illegals think of all the money that employer will save. Also, consider the consequences and how many entry level positions will be sucked up by people who are not here. Some say that if they become citizens they will be taxpayers. Ask yourself this, why would they want to pay taxes just because they have become a citizen? They will not have to engage in Obamacare because they are not really here. How much money in taxes do we lose to with this illegal labor?
We should also be well aware that when illegals come into this country predators from their native lands will follow them. These predators will prey on the illegals and anyone that might be around them.
One tired argument is that the USA is a country of immigrants and this is a true statement. We can remain a country of immigrants without illegal immigration.
I will repeat that one solution is to deport all of the illegals. If you say this cannot be accomplished I say that as a goal it will save us a lot of money in law enforcement activities, increase tax revenues, and lower crime rate. We need to ramp up enforcement. Also, I would like to see the employers of illegal aliens taken into custody, prosecuted, and have them do time.
It has been surmised that illegal aliens unlawfully take three lives a day in this country. This is done through murder and crimes like drunk driving.
After writing a recent rant regarding an attack on the 4th Amendment I came up with another real gem. A journalist named Audrey Hudson writes for the Washington Times which in and of itself is enough to make one a target. This woman wrote some exposes and one in particular that criticized the Air Marshal Program.
This writer’s husband, Paul Flanagan, who is an employee of the US Coast Guard allegedly had a felony arrest for resisting arrest about 1985 or 1986 time frame. This arrest, being a felony, eliminated Paul’s right to possess firearms. From what I could glean and surmise Audrey became a target. I suspect in researching her husband the authorities determined that it was likely that Paul had firearms in the home. You see a while back there was a complaint that he engaged in celebratory gun fire from the pier on his shore home. The cops apparently responded to a complaint and gave him a warning. Then recently the infamous Mr Anonymous called the police to report he had guns.
As a result of this information the following agencies went to the residence with a search warrant for guns and reportedly guns only: US Coast Guard, Maryland State Police, and Department of Homeland Security Air Marshal’s Service. Upon arrival Audrey was asked by the marshal if she was the one that wrote the article on the Air Marshal Service. Among the items taken were documents. These documents consisted of notes and research regarding government whistle blowers. There were also documents that had been obtained via Freedom of Information Act Requests. Also, there were some documents that her husband had which were marked For Official Use Only.
There is a classic rule in law enforcement that if you have a warrant to search for an elephant at someone’s house you do not search desk drawers, bath tubs, and small cubby holes for that elephant. You only search those areas which could accommodate an elephant. This warrant, according to Audrey, said nothing about documents. Nothing at all. They should only have searched for guns and not gone through reading documents. I suspect that if what Audrey said was true this search for guns may have been a mere subterfuge to read and seize private documents. Also, from my perspective the feds should not have been involved in this search as such. If the warrant is issued to the State Police they should have been the only agency making the search. This also may have been a Federal Violation regarding the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Let me make something clear. If this guy is a convicted felon and he in fact had guns I have no problem with him being taken down. I do have a problem with a search warrant for guns being used as a subterfuge to look for documents. I believe this is not the last that we will hear about this.
It was also published that the case is being reviewed by the Anne Arundel County State’s Attorney and the US Attorney. Considering that they have federal and state prosecutors involved did they know beforehand that this was a raid to obtain the reporter’s documents and files and the search for the guns was subterfuge.
Let us read the 4th Amendment in total before we go on:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Note that in this amendment the warrant is to describe “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The comment about the place to be searched is a no problem because it only entails and address. However, “persons or things to be seized” sheds a different light. Note that the information thus far indicates that they were there to search for guns. Also, note that the different agencies involved. It is likely, as I have indicated before, that the search for guns was ploy to get at the records.
If you are going to be subjected to a bogus search the police are going to get into your house. Do yourself a favor and do not resist. You can talk but do not resist because if you do you may get tagged for resisting arrest or hindering an investigation. Do not raise your voice and remain in control of your emotions. They are supposed to leave a copy of the warrant with you. If they do not ask them for it. If they fail to provide a copy of the warrant that may be important information later in the process. Sometimes when cops are searching a house they may ask if they can look into an area not covered by the warrant. I suggest that you be polite and tell them no. Also, they are not supposed to make an unnecessary mess or damage property without reason. If your house is searched and the cops leave I suggest that you immediately photograph the damage if there are any. It is probably legal in Maryland to video tape but this may inflame the cops and entice them to do things you do not want done. Also, it is not clear that these officers can be video taped.
I have real concerns to the Bill of Rights. We should all be concerned.
On the National Geographic network reality series “Snake Salvation”, an ongoing storyline dealt with one of the pastor’s daughter whose unemployed husband left her.
It is pointed out that, according to the belief’s of the sect, if the she remarries, she will go to Hell.
However, that punishment is not necessarily connected with that particular sin if forgiveness is not asked for., especially on the part of the wronged party.
What about the young man in this situation?
It says in I Timothy 5:18 that the one that does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel.
Seems there would be a greater chance of him being tossed into everlasting damnation for taking a wife while having no means or intentions of providing for her.
And if we are to be hyper-Biblical to the point where the true believer must handle serpents and there seems to be little lasting forgiveness, shouldn’t this pastor now resign his pulpit if he can’t even prevent his own daughter’s marriage from falling apart?
After all, according to I Timothy 3:4, one of the qualifications for holding the pastorate is to rule over his family well.
Most Christians living in the twenty-first century realize that there are limitations to that particular passage of Scripture.
However, we aren’t the ones running up and down the pews with a snake in one hand and a Molotov cocktail in the other
By Frederick Meekins
Before I go on this rant I would like for the readers to go over the 4th Amendment and this is a quote:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
To anyone with any common sense this is really a straightforward right. The police cannot, by law, conduct evidentiary searches without probable cause and generally a search warrant. Of course search warrants are not always required. The circumstances may dictate a search without a warrant. One example is an item, such as marihuana, laying in plain view of the officer. Another is an officer witnessing a criminal offense can make an arrest.
Now the 4th Amendment in New York City for people just walking down the street can be stopped, questioned, and searched base on mere suspicion. When they do these searches they may claim that they had reason to believe that a crime was committed or was about to be committed. The program in NYC is called stop and frisk. It is actually a bastardization of a case called Terry vs Ohio. An officer can pat a person down for weapons for the officer’s protection or the protection of those around him. What it amounts to is in NYC they are not doing stop and frisk they are doing stop and search. They are looking for evidence and I mean all evidence. This policy has been knocked down by the courts but NYC is not going to stop. It also works out that most of the searches are of minorities. People in this liberal city apparently believe that it is OK to give up freedom for safety. Of course many of the people that say such things do not reside in minority neighborhoods. In fact some people have been recording these searches and at times the person being searched is being threatened. It is my contention that if one is allowed to blatantly break one rule violations of other rules are to follow.
If for some reason you are a victim of this type of search remember that the cops are doing something illegal and it is being tolerated. If they will violate your rights they will lie to cover it up. If you resist in some jurisdictions they charge you with interfering with government administration which is a broad cover all statute. You may also get arrested for resisting arrest. I have seen cases wherein an individual is charged with resisting arrest only. Logically when one breaks a law and the cops attempt and arrest and there is resistence it means that there has to be another law violated other than resisting. If you are caught stealing and you resist the charge is good. If you are arrested for resisting and there is no articulation of an offense that was committed then there is a problem.
There is another thing to keep in mind. I have noted that more and more the sanctity of the home is being breached. If an officer comes to your home in some jurisdictions they will attempt to get into your house to search it without a warrant. I have known of situations where the home owner comes to the door and the cops simply step in and say, “You don’t mind if I come in do you?” Some consider it to be a mute point in that the cop is already in. The way to handle this is not to position yourself so the officer cannot breach the door. If you slam it in his face he may claim he had for force his way in to make certain you do not go to another place in the home and retrieve a weapon. Another good defense is the short chain so that the door can only be opened slightly allowing you to talk through the partially opened door. Also, do not be a rude wise guy. It is also important to know that you do not have to allow a search of your home.
When one is driving there may come a time wherein the police stop you for some reason. It seems a typical question is, “Do you know why I pulled you over?” After you answer that question they usually tell you why they pulled you over. Then the engage you in a conversation and ask you where you are coming from, what you were doing there, and where you are going to, and what you are going to do when you get there. Now the big one they may ask you to step out of your car. Then they ask you if there is anything in the car that they should know about. Then they may even just get behind the wheel of your car and ask if it is OK if they search your car. The way to combat this is when asked to get out of your car roll the window up and lock the door with your remote when you get out of the car. This may piss the cop off and he will order you do unlock the door. Now the police have forced you to do something you did not want to do which can be made an issue of if you end up in court. Now again do not be a wise guy and end up getting charged with disorderly conduct or some lame charge. One thing one should always keep in mind one may not be aware of every single item in one’s car. How about the scenario of someone having left contraband it your car that is discovered by the cops? How about the scenario of a police officer leaving some type of contraband in your car. I recall an old retired cop telling me now he and his partner used a “drop bag” to make arrests. A drop bag is like a bag of dope. The way the bag is used is one officer talks to the driver and when doing so the other cop goes to the other window and drops the bag of dope on the passenger seat. Now the officer on the driver’s side asks the driver what the bag is. The driver claims no knowledge and may really be puzzles as to how the dope got there. This retired cop thought that was good police work. I call it lying.
Now we have something else that is starting to pop up. That is the advent of the TSA agents from the airports doing their business outside the airport at train stations, bus stations, and truck stops. There have been instances wherein they set up check points and conduct “inspections” when in essence are warrantless searches. If one goes to an airport to travel one expects to get checked by TSA and it is basically an inspection. However, when they are functioning anywhere else they are conducting searches. It is apparent that TSA is performing their duties at other events such as sporting events. I believe they are testing to see how far they can go.
In my opinion one should ask things like what one was stopped for. Also, if one is being detained. Sometimes the police will say you are not be detained but then they will not let you go. I have had many attorneys tell me not to consent to a search. I had a family member that allowed a search of his vehicle and the cops threw his property over an embankment and would not stop the search when asked to do so. He had the attitude that he would consent to the search because he was not doing anything wrong and therefore had nothing to hide.
When one gets into a situation wherein one believes that rights are being violated remember to stay in control of the situation. In fact you do not have to answer any questions and you do not have to submit to a search. The police can pat you down for weapons. It is also a good idea to know what the laws are to some extent. I know of one guy that consented to a search in Maryland and was arrested for illegal knives found in his tool box. One was a razor knife and the other was a fileting knife in a sheath. Neither of these knives are illegal. The razor knife folded into the handle. The fileting knife would only be illegal if carried concealed. A good example as to what can happen when one consents to a search.
With all these police actions happening the way that they are perhaps the left is testing incrementally to see to what extent the public will tolerate their rights being abridged. Also, it is apparent that government is attempting to truncate our rights by writing regulations.
The US Constitution is the primary law for the USA. As such it should be enforced and not ignored. It is apparent to me that the left will incrementally do away with our rights.
I was just surfing the web and came up with a story to the effect that 300,000 people have lost their healthcare coverage in Florida. I believe it is likely that this story will pop up over and over in our country. This story from Florida can mean the financial destruction of families. All they need is to have a medical tragedy and they will have to pay out of pocket. This would mean people that had coverage will now be in danger of losing everything.
I have a serious question, “Is Obamacare about healthcare or something else?” I believe it is about power and redistribution of wealth except for the wealth of the elites of this country. Not only will the elites have to use or participate in Obamacare they will not have their wealth redistributed. The middle class, however, will be paying big time bucks and losing out.
Sarah Palin alluded to the death panels and she ended up being correct. It is likely that the very sick, old, and handicapped may be thrown out like the trash.
Things that should never go wrong are going wrong. The first fish story Obama talked about was that if we liked the healthcare that we have we can keep it. This is not true at all. When I hear Obama talk about this subject he sounds like a man that is very angry.
I read about people spending hours online and on the telephone not being able to sign up. No doubt somehow the left will spin this into a success story. There are many on both sides of the aisle that believed this would be a trail wreck and they were correct.
Will the supporters of this fiasco somehow come to their senses and understand that this Obamacare is actually “Obama I Don’t Care”
During an appearance on the 10/8/13 Tonight Show, has-been comedian D.L. Hughley condescendingly quipped how ignorant it was to compare Hitler and Obama.
After all, Obama only wants to provide everyone with health insurance.
Hitler, on the other hand, intended to obliterate and destroy those deemed unworthy of continued existence by the standard of his pernicious worldview while controlling in nearly every last detail those permitted to remain alive.
Since D.L. Hughley is now being promoted as an expert on historical and political affairs, perhaps he might care to enlighten us on the comprehensive array of tactics and strategies Hitler used to rise to power.
Granted, there were always a cadre of followers attracted by the violence and brutality inherent to the National Socialist ideology.
However, an even a greater number of Germans were lured into this deception in large part through promises of lavish social programs encompassing nearly every facet of existence.
One might think of the approach taken back then similar to that of the Life Of Julia propaganda utilized today.
Seldom do tyrants announce their intended deprivations of fundamental liberties upfront.
It must be admitted that Barack Obama is likely not as deliberately bloodthirsty as the infamous German Chancellor.
But that said, one of his goals is nonetheless a thinning of the population of those he views as detrimental to the Volk or rather the COMMUNITY.
As the strictures of the Obamacare system tighten their grip around the neck of the American people, increasingly those having surpassed specific plateaus of existential chronology in all likelihood will be denied certain varieties of treatment.
When asked at a campaign forum, Obama himself suggested that a 90 year old still possessing a zest for life might just have to be denied those resources that would enable continued temporal existence.
The thing with those aspiring to exert near total control over the lives of targeted populations, as is the case with the spiritual father of such despots (the devil), you often don’t realize what has been stolen from you until it is too late.
Regarding the Syrian problem my foremost problem with this situation is that the President of the United States obviously started moving the military to hit targets in Syria without the approval or advice of Congress. Now he is apparently having second thoughts. The Islamic regimes that have identified themselves as enemies of the USA have stated that if the USA hits Syria that they will retaliate against Israel. These countries have demonstrated a habit of doing a first strike with weapons of mass destruction. This is their protocol for waging war.
Another problem is who actually used the chemical weapons in this case. Was it Assad or was it the Muslim Brotherhood or other like groups. No one really knows. Also, who is really the bad guy in this fight. Who indeed! It is apparent that both the government forces and the anti-government forces are bad guys.
My other concern is that if we fire these missiles we may end up fighting China and Russia at the same time. Modern weapons have no problems reaching out and hitting slow moving war vessels on the open sea.
Some might say that I have no regard for the loss of innocent life. I say what will the Islamists do if we shoot first? My answer is that they will go for high innocent civilian casualties and blame it on the USA.
If you check out the identified link in this article I direct your attention to John McCain. He is standing with Obama on this.
We cannot afford another war. Our economy and entire country is in the toilet. McCain needs to stand up like a true Republican and true American and oppose the reckless us of force. McCain suffered greatly as a POW and it appears as though that experience taught him nothing. Going along to get along is generally part of a recipe for disaster. If we hit them they will hit back and I would expect the “enemy” to select a soft target.
I have read article after article and I really do not see a US interest in this fight. In fact I would tend to allow these two opposing forces to keep damaging each other in that neither is our friend. I do not trust the President of the USA to do the right thing. He is doing the wrong thing right now and he is showing a total lack of common sense. The Brits have done the right thing in rejecting involvement in another war.
GOD BLESS THE USA
McCain: Congress’ Rejecting Use of Force in Syria Would be Catastrophic
Monday, 02 Sep 2013 03:32 PM
The gassing of Syrians by their fellow countrymen will rank among the great atrocities of the 21st century.
However, beyond a stern verbal condemnation, is it all that wise for the United States to get involved at this point?
Do we really know for certain who is the responsible party?
This conflict is not Star Wars or Lord of The Rings with clearly discernible protagonists and adversaries.
Either side could be capable of doing such a thing.
On the one hand, you have a brutal dictatorship. On the other side, the so-called “freedom fighters” have been accused of cannibalism and granting of a religious dispensation allowing for the raping of women caught up in the conflict.
Most importantly, if the Obama Administration decides to get involved militarily, does the President have the resolve to do what must be done?
For example, what if a campaign to eliminate Syrian weapons of mass destruction is conducted half-heartedly in the manner in which the President undertakes so many of his policy initiatives and America returns home before the task is completed?
Since whoever is responsible has no qualms about about killing their own people systematically and in the most horrible manners imaginable, what would prevent them from doing so to the people of the United States?
The border is pretty much a siv and, if Assad is indeed responsible as Obama is insisting to the civilized world, the President has already announced his intentions to allow that particular Middle Eastern tyrant to remain in power where the ensconced despot can plot revenge at leisure.
OBAMACARE AND HOME INSPECTIONS
By Brujo Blanco
I read an article in Freedoms Outpost regarding Obamacare and home inspections. Now these home inspections are allegedly done for the children in the home. This Obamacare is going to be a financial and imposing problem unless it is stopped. Check out the standards that will be used for which homes are to be inspected:
“Families where mom is not yet 21. “
“Families where someone is a tobacco user.”
“Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities. “
“Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. “
Regarding the standard with the mom that is under 21. Is this age discrimination? Sounds like it to me.
Regarding the crap about the tobacco user. I am not a smoker but smoking is not an illegal activity.
The one that I really take issue with is the standard regarding current or former military members. There have been Obama type comments about the dangers of military and former military. We are not living in a society in which the military is a group to be watched with suspicion. I guess the concept is that these people can strike at any time.
I really believe that Obamacare is not about healthcare but about control. Obamacare will make firearms a medical issue. Also, in the subject matter of this article Obamacare will also be used to access the home. I believe it is an excuse to get into the home and snoop. Perhaps they will make note of religious items, publications, patriotic decorations, and the presence and/or absence of guns. This will be an intrusion. There is a tendency for government to want to have regulatory authority to do an end run around the Bill of Rights. I believe that there is a place for safety inspections but not inspections used as a subterfuge to search a house. I am also a fiscal conservative and I am interested in what this program will cost. There will be a requirement for many government inspectors to be hired, trained, and deployed. I take the Bill of Rights seriously and I take them as restrictions placed on government and not on the people.
Check out this link for the entire article]
LIBERALS TELL US TO RUN AND HIDE FROM GUNFIRE: NO KIDDING
By Brujo Blanco
I read the proposed plan liberals came up with for school shootings. They actually propose that one should run and hide. Did they really have to write that down somewhere? I learned in military and law enforcement training to seek cover when shot at but then return fire. Now the problem with the left is that they do not believe in guns unless one is shooting at conservatives or one is a Mideast terrorist shooting Jews.
Any plan that does not include shooting back is a bad plan. I have no problem with training children to survive shootings but the way that the libs are it will cost money. There is one school district in this country that is going to train teachers to shoot back. This has worked in Israel. In fact I have seen photos of Israeli school teachers armed with assault weapons. That would not go at all in our country.
When I was in the military I was working in an area in Europe and we believed there was a possibility that we would get hit by terrorists over the bombing of Libya. Part of our plan was to have soldiers guarding the post with rifles but no bullets. The concept was that with an empty magazine in the weapon the terrorists would not shoot at our people because they would believe the weapon was loaded. When it came to my turn to put in some input I recommended 80 live rounds and roving armed patrols. Someone at the meeting asked me what happens if the guard shoots at a terrorist and hits an innocent person. My answer was something to the effect that the guard would have to take another shot. This did not go over well. We actually had guards with guns and no bullets.
This vein of thinking comes from the concept that the gun in and over itself is the source of evil. It is not the gun that is dangerous. It is the bad guy that has a gun. A firearm is an inanimate object and does not think at all.
Fight crimes shoot back.
THE D.C. CLOTHESLINE
Liberals Develop a New School Shooting Plan
Do they arm teachers? No. Do they hire armed guards? No. Do they put locks on classroom doors? No. Arne Duncan, Obama’s Education Secretary, devised a totally different plan. Run and hide. Brilliant. I’m sure none of the kids at the schools where shootings occurred tried that. Maybe someone should explain to Mr Duncan that the French army tried that method in WW1 and WW2 and it didn’t work either time.
“Leave your personal items behind.” Sheer genius. I’m sure many kids stopped and tried to retrieve their new 634 count of crayons before trying to get away. Maybe swing by the gym for those white socks standing up in the corner of their locker. And if you can’t run or hide? Fight back with a fire extinguisher or a chair. Hopefully, Obama is visiting your school that day, because an empty chair works best. Good thing most schools are equipped with bulletproof chairs and high-caliber fire extinguishers.
Now, I ask you. Just how utterly clueless you have to be to come up with such an inane plan? And to make it worse, they actually brought teachers in and paid them to learn how to run and hide. Couldn’t they have just sent them a tape of Obama being asked about Benghazi?
Steven Ahle is the Editor of Red Statementsand a regular contributor to The D.C. Clotheslin
One wrench that use to be tossed into Darwinism’s mechanistic view of the universe was the raising of the issue of what supposedly happened to all of those transitional forms.
Even Darwin himself is alleged to have relented that his theory would ultimately be proven or discarded on the basis of such geological evidence.
For well over a century now, those wanting to extol what passes for education over and above commonsense have attempted to elaborate any number of conceptual bypasses around the 800 pound subhuman hominid in the room.
An article in the May 2011 edition of Discover Magazine makes such an attempt by positioning that we ourselves are the transitional forms or at least what’s left over of them in terms of primate evolution.
No longer are we to think of ourselves in terms of being exclusively modern homo sapiens. Rather we are to view ourselves as the genetic composites of previous ancestors such as Neanderthals and those other creatures reminiscent of Chaka from Land of the Lost.
This theory is put forward as an attempt to silence the critics of naturalistic evolution.
Yet the hypothesis ends up raising a number of questions that reveal just what one has to ignore and overlook in order to accept this particular narrative’s attempt to account for the origins of man.
Foremost, if other higher order hominids were eventually wiped out or disappeared because they interbred increasingly with what we would recognize as human beings, why wouldn’t these alleged ancestors we are more reluctant to embrace as part of our own kind, if they are able to produce a fecund offspring as a result of copulation through mating, be considered fellow human beings?
For is not the history of Anthropology literally littered with the corpses of people thought to be of the status of less than fully human? I recall Ken Ham one time claiming that at one point in the 1800′s Australian Aborigines were harvested as research specimens.
Even when these remains are uncovered as part of legitimate research and excavation, it must be asked if a number of these conclusions arrived at are really inherent to the evidence or are active imaginations reading back into the data what these researchers instead intensely want to see.
For if Neanderthals could interbreed with run of the mill human beings to the point where certain evolutionary theorists are insisting that we ourselves are partially Neanderthal, aren’t Neanderthals just anther racial or ethnic group?
Researcher Jack Cuozzo hypothesized in “Buried Alive:The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man” that Neanderthals may have been the extremely aged or the diseased suffering from degenerative bone conditions similar to arthritis. For daring to proffer such a conjecture foremost proponents of inquiry and knowledge resorted to intimidation and threats of violence for presenting such an unconventional perspective.
By downplaying distinctions between human beings and what were at one time categorized as species preceding us along the chain of primatology obviously nothing more than glorified apes, radical evolutionists hope to further erode the preconceived boundaries between the species for the purposes of biological manipulative amalgamation.
Several years ago, I posted a column about Darwinistic propaganda speculating that in prehistoric times that the genetic boundaries might not have been as set in stone with jungle fever taking on a connotation that might shock those of us entrapped by a morality that frowns upon transpecies romance.
Sophisticates of the scientific establishment easily dismiss bloggers for being out of touch and not playing with a full deck. However, seldom will they speak out against media mouthpieces allied in the cause of foisting a revolutionary secularism upon the nation such as The New Republic.
On the cover of the April 23, 2008 issue was a photo that bordered on the creepy. Depicted was a chimpanzee gazing dreamily off into the sky. However, that was not the truly disturbing aspect.
For as the chimp looked to the sky, tucked beneath his arm was a human female. However, this was not the embrace of a zookeeper showing a little affection to one of her charges or like one would share with a pet. Rather, from the depiction, one gets more of the impression that these two are somehow lovers.
The look on the woman’s face with head tilted back with her eyes shut and her hand intertwined with the paw of the chimp causes one to wonder if the duo might go swinging in the trees together a bit later if one gets the drift.
Some might dismiss such shock as the rantings of a prude with too much time on their hands. However, numerous credentialed scientists have come out speculating as to the possibility of a human/chimp hybrid as mankind’s technical expertise continues to advance while moral expertise among the overly educated continues to atrophy.
According to an article in Wired Magazine titled “Science Without Limits”, such a primate hybridization program was suggested by renowned evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould. Categorizing the experiment as “the most potentially interesting and ethically unacceptable experiment I could imagine”, Gould speculated such a hybrid would theoretically shed light on how the retention of juvenile characteristics in chimpanzees led to the rise of human beings. That is if one believes in that sort of hooey.
The Wired article insists such an endeavor would not be as outlandish as it sounds. Research conducted with baboons and rhesus monkeys suggests that given genetic similarities such an undertaking might be biologically feasible. Such a creature could be brought into existence through the techniques of invitrofertilization and placed within a human surrogate.
Proverbs 8:36 teaches that those that hate God love death. That not only applies to the individual existential death that comes to mind when contemplating that term horrid to all people of goodwill. It also applies to the broader obliteration of our species that will result from the failure to properly recognize those distinctions that set mankind above his fellow creatures in the natural order below.
I have been reading a lot of garbage stories about the evil Christians of our country. I have not heard about a real Christian engaging in mass terroristic violence but I have heard about Muslims doing so. There is a movement to de-Christianize the US Military. One thing they are doing is creating lists of suspected terrorist organizations. The military has been looking to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for guidance. It’s kind of like consulting with the KKK on how to treat blacks and Jews with respect and brotherly love. Jews and Christians are not evil because some group says that they are.
HAGEL GRILLED ON ARMY EMAIL EQUATING CHRISTIANS TO RACISTS AND TERRORISTS
by KEN KLUKOWSKI 18 Apr 2013
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) grilled Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel on a Pentagon email warning Army officers to watch out for soldiers who do not support gay marriage or who disfavor Muslims, equating them with the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis.
BRUJO SAYS: It is apparent that the current administration does not believe military members have a right to an opinion unless it meets their liberal pinko standards.
The Pentagon officer who sent this email reportedly got his information from a radical, leftist anti-Christian organization linked to a convicted terrorist.
As reported by Fox News’ Todd Starnes, Lt. Col. Jack Rich at Ft. Campbell sent an email warning Army officers to be on the lookout for soldiers connected with “domestic hate groups.” In his 14-page email, Rich identified groups that support traditional marriage or advocate strict border enforcement regarding illegal aliens as domestic hate groups.
This story is disturbing for several reasons, one of which is this U.S. military email was reportedly using the “domestic hate group” list created by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). This radical-left organization has listed Christian organizations such as the American Family Association and Family Research Council (FRC), immigration reform groups such as FAIR, and various Tea Party organizations as “hate groups.” The SPLC publicly claims they are no different than the KKK and Neo-Nazis, groups that engage in extreme violence and acts of terrorism.
BRUJO SAYS: I grew up during a time wherein the blacks were asking that their rights be acknowledged. Martin Luther King worked on having the rights of black people acknowledged. What a lot of people today will not recognize is that the Democrats and the KKK were in bed together and wanted to continue to deprive blacks of their rights.
Yet SPLC has itself now been linked to a domestic terrorist. As we covered in detail, on Aug. 15, 2012, Floyd Corkins attempted to go on a mass-shooting spree at FRC headquarters in Washington, D.C. with 100 rounds of ammunition. Corkins shot building manager Leo Johnson, yet the wounded Johnson disarmed Corkins, who was then captured alive.
As part of a plea deal, Corkins signed a full confession in which he admitted that he selected his targets from SPLC’s hate group list and used the map SPLC put on its website to find FRC with the intent of murdering everyone in the building (several dozen people). He called himself a political activist and was going to kill everyone in the FRC building because FRC opposes redefining marriage to include gay marriage.
BRUJO SAYS: I believe the SPLC is a hate group. They hate Christians and patriotic Americans.
Corkins was convicted on Feb. 6, 2013, of committing acts of domestic terrorism.
It is profoundly disturbing that anyone in the U.S. military would use material from such ultra-left zealots, who label organizations that disagree with them on a range of issues—not just social issues like marriage, but also national security issues (immigration) and economic issues (Tea Party groups)—as “hate groups.”
Yet SPLC is the only group here that has actually been linked to a terrorist, one who was inspired to commit his despicable crime by none other than the same SPLC whose material the Obama administration’s military command is now using.
The terrible Boston bombing is a reminder what real terrorism looks like. The Obama administration needs to deal with this threat, not associate with radical-fringe organizations that convicted terrorists cite as their enablers.
BRUJO SAYS: The Boston bombing was only a taste of terrorism. I hope there does not come a day wherein there are a dozen or so coordinated attacks with the aim of killing people in our country. In this day of easy communication it can happen. We cannot do anything to silence hate groups such as the SPLC, however, we can decline to believe their lying.
Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is also senior fellow for religious liberty at the Family Research Council.
WHAT IS DONE TO THE LEAST OF US IS DONE TO US ALL
By Brujo Blanco
Throughout history there has been one group that has always been an easy target and that group is the Jews. They have been a distinct group which makes them easy for the violent bigots to find. The religious among the Jews have religious clothing which makes them easy targets. Also, they have been hard working and educated which means they are successful due to hard work.
When the Jews fled the Mideast for Europe and other “safety zones” they showed up in a group. Due to their religious beliefs they could read and write Hebrew and they stuck together as a religious group. When the Jews moved into a country they were not so firm in their actions that they would not learn the local languages. Not only did they learn the local language they learned to read and write that language. In Europe this gave them a leg up because in many Christian communities only the clergy were well-educated and able to read or write.
There were many countries in Europe that did not allow Jews to own land or live among the general population. So the Jews became adept at business. Because they were literate at times they secured work that their non-Jewish neighbors could not do because it involved reading, writing, and math.
This was a formula for bigotry and hatred.
There came a time after World War II that Jews, because of the Holocaust, wanted to travel to the Mideast. Consider that when they first arrived in Europe there were many who wanted the Jews to go back to the Mideast where they came from. They after World War II when they started taking up residence in the Mideast they were considered Europeans that needed to go back where they came from.
The Jews did something in the Mideast that they had not done for centuries successfully. They defended themselves. The Jews of Israel continued to defend themselves and do so very well.
Now what I wanted to bring up is that this attitude about the Jews of the Mideast is now showing its ugly face here in North America. Canada is a prime example. Pamela Geller traveled to Canada to speak publicly and apparently the Canadian government did not like the idea. You see Canada has a diversity government type agency which is supposed to ensure the rights of the people making sure that different ethnic and racial groups are properly treated. The problem is that these types of organizations tend to make matters worse. In this case Geller, a Jew, had to be prevented from speaking in the name of fairness and diversity. The Canadian government bullied a rabbi into canceling her scheduled speech.
One might ask what the big deal is in that this happened in Canada. My answer is the big deal is that there are those in the USA that are looking at what happens in other countries, particularly the English speaking countries, are doing about the Jews and how Sharia is being implemented. There is no question that Jews, under Sharia, are targets to be vilified and killed.
We need to insure that these wacked out Muslims cannot establish any Sharia law at all. Religious laws regarding marriage and what have you are not a problem unless they are used to impose that law on other religious groups such as Jews and Christians. Anywhere Muslim law has been implemented there are target groups that are not treated fairly. Right now the Muslims in Egypt are killing the Christians. In Nigeria Christians are being massacred.
There are places in the USA wherein the implementation of Sharia is being tolerated. My opinion is that the US Constitution needs to remain the primary law of the land. No foreign law or domestic religious rules should be considered at all by the courts.
If it happens in Canada it can happen here. We the majority need to insure that no racial, ethnic, or religious group has to take any kind of political correctness crap from any other group. If you do not like your neighbor stay away from him and leave him alone.
Check out the Geller article:
July 28, 2013 by Pamela Geller Police Use Full Force Of The State To Enforce Sharia
When a policeman uses the full force of the state to enforce the Shariah at the cost of our constitutionally protected inalienable rights, the West is in trouble. But that’s what happened last May in Canada, when I was scheduled to speak at the Chabad Flamingo Synagogue in Thornhill, right outside of Toronto’s city limits. Two of York Regional Police’s “finest,” Chief Eric Jolliffe and Inspector Ricky Veerappan of the force’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Bureau, threatened Chabad Rabbi Mendel Kaplan into canceling my speech.
Other Canadians wouldn’t stand for this, and my speech went on as scheduled in another venue. And now I have even more good news. The intrepid Canadian freedom fighter Ezra Levant was determined not to let this police intimidation stand. He encouraged me to file a complaint, and now our complaint against Inspector Veerappan has been accepted for investigation. Our complaint against Chief Joliffe has been forwarded to the York Regional Police Services Board for further consideration – since he is chief of police, there are extra procedures to go through.
Veerappan richly deserves to be investigated for his persuasion of Rabbi Kaplan, who serves as a chaplain for the York Regional Police. Back in May, he announced that if Kaplan hosted my speech as planned, “then we’d have to reassess our relation with (Kaplan). Some of the stuff that Ms. Geller speaks about runs contrary to the values of York Regional Police and the work we do in engaging our communities.
Values? The “stuff” that I speak about includes gender apartheid, creed apartheid, Islamic Jew-hatred and honor killing. That runs contrary to their values? What exactly are their values? Imposing Shariah? Because that’s exactly what they’re doing. My value is life. What’s theirs? The Ottawa Citizen said in an editorial, “The York Regional Police department should be ashamed. … Whether the job threat was real, and whether anyone agrees or not with Geller’s views, Veerappan’s conduct is appalling. Canadians expect police to respect Charter provisions protecting freedom of speech. They are not supposed to act as censors at the behest of a particular community.” And the incomparable Mark Steyn wrote: “Thanks to the York Regional Police’s creepy and Orwellian ‘Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Bureau,’ Canada is now a land where cops are sent round to synagogues to threaten rabbis – all in the name of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion,’ which must give the old-school fascists a laugh at their Monday-night poker game in hell. Jewish organizations north and south of the border ought to be up in arms about this. According to Brian Sibley, Inspector Ricky Veerappen, the head of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Bureau, is himself Muslim – which may or may not explain why he’s strutting about like the Ontario branch of Saudi Arabia’s Mutaween.”
Steyn also pointed out the double standard: “Pamela Geller, tireless campaigner against Islamic imperialism (and a lady I had the honor of being introduced by at CPAC a few years back), was scheduled to give a speech at a Toronto synagogue on May 13. Miss Geller is not a convicted terrorist or terrorism-supporter or someone who argues for the execution of all homosexuals. If she were, she could speak at any Canadian venue with impunity.” It’s true: The superb Canadian blog, Blazing Cat Fur, reported at the time that my talk was canceled that “Imam Abdul Hai Patel, is a chaplain with the York Regional Police. Patel, along with other members of the Canadian Council of Imams in 2012, attended a conference in Saudi Arabia sponsored by the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League, as detailed below, has a long and sordid association with terrorists. Do note well that the Muslim World League operates WAMY – the World Assembly of Muslim Youth. WAMY was stripped of status as a Canadian charity last year after it was discovered to have funded terrorists.” And the convicted terrorist and airline hijacker Leila Khaled, who is known as the “poster girl of Palestinian militancy,” spoke via Skype in early June at the University of British Columbia. Khaled has been convicted of terrorism for participating in airline hijackings for the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist group. She spoke at a conference hosted by a group supporting the Palestinian jihad. This outrageous double standard has to end. It is good that Veerappan is going to be investigated. Free people must not stand idly by while our most basic, fundamental freedoms are silently seized and destroyed
Despite differing perches along the political spectrum, in separate segments on the 8/29/11 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, Juan Williams, Bernard Goldberg, and Kinky Friedman each made snide comments against candidates for the Presidency that did not embrace evolution as part of their respective individual worldviews.
Each of these spokesmen for the secularist perspective (though Williams made a fuss over his Episcopalianism which has been one of contemporary Christianity’s most spineless forms) insinuated that one’s position regarding origins somehow represents an intellectual deficiency if one does not enthusiastically embrace Darwinism.
Perhaps we should take a moment to examine how this might impact a politician’s political philosophy.
Often ultrasecularists assure we dimwitted rubes that religion has no bearing on the nuts and bolts issues voters really care about as the nation edges closer to financial ruination and social collapse. These days, one is as likely to hear this from certain varieties of grassroots conservatism as you are from ACLU types.
Even if evolution was true, what bearing does Rick Perry, Michelle Eichmann, or Sarah Patin believing the world was created six thousand years ago have on the proverbial price of tea in China? Given the worthlessness of the US dollar, such an example is no longer as merely rhetorical as it once was.
On the national level, it’s not like a singular figure would be able to reverse the inertia of an entrenched technocratic bureaucracy steeped in scientism.
If a more creationist approach to science held sway in the jurisdictions where the aforementioned politicians enjoy a constituency, who are elites to criticize the prevailing conceptual framework?
After all, aren’t these the same multiculturalists that dare anyone to criticize the adherents of a particular unmentioned religion who have a penchant for flying jetliners into skyscrapers and to strap sticks of dynamite to their chests.
Those thinking, to paraphrase Bernard Goldberg, that is is ignorant to believe that dinosaurs and human beings might have shared the earth at the same time apparently also believe that how the world came into existence impacts other areas of existence. That is a notion that they share with the Christian that actually just comes at the question from the opposite direction.
Since those wanting to shut God out or at least hold Him at bay in one’s approach to one of life’s most fundamental questions on what is constantly tauted as cable’s most highly rated news program, perhaps we should examine these assumptions a little more closely.
Those holding to evolution believe everything is in a constant state of flux and change. There are no unaltering realities or lasting principles.
For example, Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion or speech, or the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Those might have been alright in the 1700′s, but those provisions aren’t meant for today since we have progressed so far beyond them, the evolutionary collectivist would argue.
Rights are not something we are endowed with by our Creator as individuals made in his image. Rather these protections are statutory provisions that can be extended and contracted for the benefit of the elite ruling any given society.
The contrasting perspective holds that every detail in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis are to be taken literally. Such an assumption produces a number of worldview implications.
For example, the theist holding to the Genesis account generally believes that the individual is created in the image of God. This doctrine is taught in Genesis 1:26.
As such, the individual possesses an innate dignity and worth. The person is not some random conglomeration of cells to be manipulated, reconfigured, and even obliterated for no valid reason.
However, that very same origins account that places man in such high esteem also reminds the reader that we are also a marred and broken species. There is only so much that can be done with us no matter what kind of theory the overeducated postulate in the attempt to deny the reality staring them straight in the face.
Thus, those principles viewed as outdated and obsolete are often the only things that prevent us from being obliterated by those so deluded that they can remake the entire world in their own warped image.
The rate of technological and cultural change is so fast and comprehensive in these days in which we live that futurist Alvin Toffler has likened the phenomena to waves sweeping over society and labeled the feeling of disoriented perplexity that settles over us in the wake as “Future Shock”. Many of these changes appear to be so profound that the pressure to abandon traditional values and beliefs from academia, media, government, and even certain factions within organized religion can feel overwhelming. However, there is more at stake than whether we send letters to acquaintances via the post office or through the computer electronically. Rather, such radical shifts of the paradigms through which we sift reality and experience will ultimately impact how we see ourselves and how we value other human beings.
With the technical complexity inherent to many of the latest developments in the fields of biology and medicine, it is easy to fall for the assumption that ethics and morality in these disciplines would better be left to the highly educated such as scientists or philosophy professors. The field of bioethics is a relatively new area of study in comparison to the totality of human knowledge. Because of its frontier nature as ethically uncharted territory, it is a discipline in desperate need of a solid Christian presence as it is pretty much a wide open field in which the ambitious and enthusiastic can plant their flag in the hopes of persuading the masses as to the propriety of a respective position.
As Christians, it is the fundamental assumption of the believer that all truth is derived from God as revealed to us either directly from His word (the Bible), deduced from reflection upon His word, or discernable from His creation construed in the light of His word. II Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is given inspired of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Likewise, Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the works of his hands (NIV).”
Since this is the case, God’s law is written across the whole of creation. Try as men might to ignore or escape these binding commandments, they ultimately cannot and are seared by their own consciences as evidenced by the responses that often border on violence as typified by homosexual militants reacting whenever someone responds with anything less than a standing ovation or lavish government subsidies for this particular lifestyle. Romans 2:14-15 says, “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.”
Though the Bible might not address specific bioethical issues directly by name such as stem cells and cloning, a number of the Good Book’s foremost passages and doctrines serve as the foundation to a Christian response to these kinds of challenges arising in the world today. As the basis to all divine law contained within both the Old and New Testaments, the Ten Commandments serve as the guiding principles for all healthy relationships with both God and man. Prominent among these is the injunction “Thou shalt not murder.”
This admonition was not handed down arbitrarily just so God could laud his authority and power over us. Rather, this commandment was set in place as recognition of man’s unique status as a creature made in the image of God. Genesis 1:26-27 says, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image’…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” This image of God in each individual is so sacred that no individual should be able to take the life of another without serious consequences. Genesis 9:6 warns, “Whoever sheds the blood of man; by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.”
Thus, the fundamental consideration in regards to these complex issues arising as a result of advances in biotechnology is that of personhood. As these scientific developments promise more and more of the things we as human beings crave the most in our earthly lives such as freedom from disease, prolonged life, or even enhanced abilities and children designed to our specifications, it becomes easier and easier to view other human beings as a means to achieve these goals for ourselves rather than as those whose lives we would like to see improved.
For while all of the issues raised in a cursory bioethics survey start off with noble-sounding justifications, when we look behind the lofty pronouncements, many of us would be shocked by the staggering numbers of bodies concealed behind the curtain. Perhaps one of the first bioethics debates to grip the public consciousness was no doubt abortion.
Those opposed to the practice argued that the procedure so dehumanized the unborn that the utilitarian allure of convenience would prove so seductive that the value would be invoked to justify the disposal of other members of the human family not measuring up to some arbitrary standard of productivity or quality of life. Since the time of its legalization, abortion has continued to divide the American electorate. This barbaric practice has been joined by a plethora of additional bioethical conundrums and outrages.
If anything, the potential of human cloning and the use of stem cells harvested from either fetuses falling victim to the abortionists knife or embryos purposefully formed in a laboratory to destroy in order to collect these genetic components garner even more headlines. At the other end of the spectrum of life, physicians are intervening to end the lives of those deemed a waste of recourses such as in the case of Terri Schiavo. This woman would have undoubtedly remained alive if she had not been denied basic nutrition and hydration, actions that could cause considerable legal trouble with the likes of PETA or the Humane Society should you decide to inflict such appalling mistreatment upon the family dog.
Even though the strongest and most direct moral case is the one that boldly stands upon the Word of God as its ultimate foundation, Western culture has become so “de-theized” (the very thing that causes human life to be devalued in the first place) that if one does not introduce these theories and concepts surreptitiously at first, one may find oneself excluded from the public policy debates where these kinds of decisions are made. In “Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics”, Scott Rae provides a framework through which the believer can introduce Biblical principles into these debates without initially coming across like some kind of “religious lunatic”. In today’s philosophical climate, all it takes to get that slur hurled at you is to question the prudence or propriety of the increasingly popular urge to copulate with anything that moves (or even with that which doesn’t according to the necrophiliacs who, if you search hard enough, probably endow a professorship at some prestigious university or a public interest lobbying group at some swanky office building not far from Capitol Hill).
A professor of Biblical Studies and Christian Ethics at the Talbot School of Theology, Rae shows that all truth is God’s truth and how the best philosophical thinking reflects this foundation. These seemingly disparate approaches to knowledge (faith and reason) find a connection through natural law. This approach to jurisprudence and ethics holds that there are certain principles binding upon all people with slight variations that produce the kinds of circumstances under which human beings thrive. These include the universality of heterosexual marriage, respect for private property, and prohibitions against murder.
“Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics” equips the reader to ferret out the hidden moral assumptions of those opposed to the Judeo-Christian approach to these issues. A number of the alternative ethical systems explored include utilitarianism (the right option is that producing the greatest good for the greatest number), ethical egoism (the morality of an act is determined by one’s self-interest), emotivism (morality is merely an enunciation of the inner feelings of an individual making an ethical pronouncement), and relativism (right and wrong change depending upon the context of a particular situation with there being no eternal absolute). It is emphasized that the advocates of these positions cannot accuse the Christian believer of bias and not being objective unless nontheists want to shoot themselves in the foot as well.
“Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics” provides the student with a multi-step framework of analysis that will assist the individual in weeding through complex issues that they may initially find intimidating and beyond their expertise but which can be more easily comprehended once boiled down to their constituent parts (105-107). These steps are listed as follows: (1) Gather the facts (one should obtain as much information about a specific case as possible). (2) Determine the ethical issues (these can be stated in the form of the conflicting claims at stake). (3) What principles have a bearing on the case (these are the principles at the heart of each competing position)? (4) List the alternatives (these consist of possible solutions to the moral dilemma). (5) Compare the alternatives with the principles (in this step one eliminates the possible solutions by determining their moral superiority or propriety). (6) Consider the consequences (in this step, one contemplates the implications of the alternatives). (7) Make a decision after analyzing and contemplating the information.
While this is important information, none of it will do any good unless Christians and those troubled by the disregard for human life sweeping across the culture get their message out to the wider public. Most will assume that as common everyday people not holding positions of influence in either academia, the medical profession, or within the formal ecclesiastical structure of the organized church that there is little that they can do to assist in this daunting struggle. However, with the advent of certain technologies as revolutionary to the realm of communications as the breakthroughs in genetic manipulation are to the field of biology, their voices can reach farther than they might initially imagine.
With technologies such as blogging and social media, independent voices laboring on their own (often derided by critics as geeks in pajamas) have coalesced into a source of opinion and information that in certain respects is coming to challenge the predominance of the mainstream media. Therefore, Christians can very easily use the new media to get their position out to the public regarding a wide range of bioethical issues.
Fundamental to the Christian understanding of the discipline is the pivotal role personhood plays regarding many of the issues at the forefront of bioethics. However, a number of voices within the Transhumanist movement (the ideology that humans should incorporate into their bodies mechanical or genetic enhancements so that the species might move beyond the the limitations inherent to our own nature) believe the definition of personhood should move beyond run of the mill human beings to include cyborgs, androids, and genetically engineered human/animal hybrids.
One doesn’t have to be an expert in robotics or genetics to warn of the human rights horrors that would likely result should such a line of research be allowed to advance too far beyond the stages of theoretical speculation. One merely need to have seen a few of the Borg episodes of Star Trek and point out what this kind of tinkering backed by a communistic outlook leads to.
The future is there for those that want it the most. It will either go to those that believe that the masses exist for the benefit of the elite as the push onward towards their New World Order. Or, it will go towards those that view each individual as being created in the image of God, existing within a framework of divine laws that allow the individual to live life to its fullest while protecting each of us from the dangers on the prowl in a fallen world.
I read an article written by Star Parker titled SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS WAR ON RELIGION. This is an interesting and dire concept. This article was about the Supreme Courts ruling which tanked the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This ruling from the court has some serious and destructive possible consequences.
This ruling by the court substantially provides the anti-God squad with ammunition that they may use to destroy the fabric of religion in the USA. There are some religious elements that will perform same-sex marriages and there are those that will not. One would think that if one believes that same-sex marriage as a matter of religious belief is not a marriage at all and that it is in fact wrong in the eyes of God. If one believes that his is a principal as outlined in the constitution. Remember the 1st Amendment says that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion nor the free practice thereof.
There are those in our country that feels that the US Constitution is simply a guide and not the law. There are laws on the books regarding public accommodations. These law claim that if one is operating things such as retail operations, motels, restaurants, etc one cannot refuse service to someone based on their national origin or race. Well, the libtards are claiming that the homosexuals are a priority minority and that churches, unless they restrict access, are public accommodations and therefore must allow homosexual marriages and perform said marriages.
Recently with the advent of the so-called Obamacare churches and other religious institutions that have employees are having birth control shoved down their throats. The next on the hit list regarding the churches will be the same-sex marriages. One might say that this has never happened before but in fact it has. The Ocean Grove Church in New Jersey had their tax exempt status pulled because they would not allow a same-sex marriage in one of their religious sanctuaries.
It should be noted that many cities in particular see churches as a possible future source of income for city government. They would love to take away the tax exempt status of the churches. Note that I said churches and not mosques or synagogues. Generally, mosques and synagogues have restricted access wherein the churches are generally open to the general public. They have this idea that if access is not restricted the facility is a public accommodation and therefore must comply with the civil rights statutes.
If a church loses tax exempt status it would mean property taxes would be assessed. Many of the old churches are on real property that has substantially accrued in value. Many of these churches, even if well attended, will not be able to pay the property tax. In Maryland we have a rain tax. It is believed that the churches must pay this and it could amount to thousands of dollars a year. This rain tax is in regard to run off which is not filtered through the ground prior to the water going into the Chesapeake Bay and other bodies of water.
There is a war on religion and Christianity in particular. The same-sex marriage could morph into another weapon to be used on religion. If a church loses its tax exempt status there is no doubt that municipalities and other government entities will see this as an opportunity to obtain the real property of churches. As far as I am concerned if churches are pushed to hard it could end up seriously harming the moral fabric of our country.
The way I would suggest the churches avoid this problem is to somehow demonstrate the evil nature of such policies. Churches need to emphasize that they have religious beliefs and that same-sex marriage runs contrary to religious law and religious law will be obeyed.
Now for my politically incorrect comment of the day: GOD BLESS AMERICA
NFL Week 14 Winners and Losers: Patriots gifted a win on a horrible penalty call (Shutdown Corner)
The Patriots can't really complain much about the officials anymore this season.
New England was ticked about a non-call on Luke Kuechly on the last play of Carolina's victory a few weeks ago. The Patriots got away with a clear holding on their game-winning touchdown against New Orleans early in the season, but they did have a point with the non-call on the Panthers.
But now, it has more than evened out.
Giants-Chargers: What we learned (The SportsXchange)
SAN DIEGO -- For Chargers fans, it doesn't get much better: watching their team wallop the Giants, 37-14, and the opportunity to boo their quarterback, Eli Manning. "After 10 years, you think they would let up," Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers. Rivers threw for three touchdowns and the Chargers' running game added another as the team's playoff hopes remain alive after winning for the second time in six outings. "We played our most complete game yet," said Rivers, who came to San Diego in exchange for Manning in a 2004 draft-day trade after the Chargers drafted Manning first overall.
Ravens plow through storm in game like no other (Comcast SportsNet Mid Atlantic)
Ravens coach John Harbaugh opened his post-game news conference by asking: "Will we ever see another game like that again?" Indeed, the Ravens' remarkable 29-26 win over the Vikings -- featuring five touchdowns in the final 125 seconds -- was like no other in Ravens history. It also was, meteorologically speaking, like no other Ravens game: Never in the Ravens' 17-year history had they played a home game in measurable, driving snow "In the first half, you could hardly see," Ravens coach John Harbaugh said.
(VIDEO) Arthur Jones: "We are champions" (Comcast SportsNet Mid Atlantic)
It takes a special team to pull of what the Ravens managed Sunday against the Minnesota. As the Ravens watched the Vikings take the lead with only 45 seconds remaining, they still managed to gut it out and score the go-ahead touchdown with only 9 seconds remaining. How did the Ravens manage to rally and avoid collapsing after Minnesota took the late lead? "I just kept saying to the guys, 'we're champions,' you know?" said Arthur Jones.
Slipping, sliding, frantic finishes in snowy NFL (Reuters)
By Larry Fine NEW YORK (Reuters) - A wintry wonderland of games featured in National Football League action on Sunday with snow impacting several contests, while the Denver Broncos reached the playoffs and the Indianapolis Colts claimed the AFC South title. In more conventional settings, the Broncos (11-2) charged past the Tennessee Titans (5-8) 51-28 to clinch a playoff berth and hand the Colts the AFC South division title. Indianapolis (8-5) claimed their crown despite losing 42-28 to the AFC North-leading Cincinnati Bengals (9-4).
Ravens rally past Vikings 29-26 on icy field (The Associated Press)
After Joe Flacco threw a 9-yard touchdown pass to rookie Marlon Brown with 4 seconds left to give the Baltimore Ravens a 29-26 victory over the Minnesota Vikings on Sunday, the Ravens couldn't contain their excitement. ''What just happened?'' Ravens kicker Justin Tucker exclaimed. That is the most fourth-quarter lead changes in a single game in NFL history. And Jacoby Jones, who took a kickoff back 77 yards for a touchdown during the back-and-forth excitement, said: ''You couldn't even get emotional.
NFL-Slipping, sliding, frantic finishes in snowy NFL (Reuters)
* Broncos clinch playoff berth, Colts claim AFC South title * Denver kicker Prater makes NFL record 64-yard field goal * Snow storms bring big plays, fantastic finishes (Adds later games) By Larry Fine NEW YORK, Dec 8 (Reuters) - A wintry wonderland of games featured in National Football League action on Sunday with snow impacting several contests, while the Denver Broncos reached the playoffs and the Indianapolis Colts claimed the AFC South title. Snow buried yard-markings, cut visibility and inspired the building of snowmen on the sidelines in four contests played in conditions that set up a slew of sensational scoring plays and a series of breath-taking comebacks.
Rivers leads Chargers past Giants (The SportsXchange)
SAN DIEGO -- For Chargers fans, it doesn't get much better: watching their team wallop the Giants, 37-14, and the opportunity to boo their quarterback, Eli Manning. "After 10 years, you think they would let up," Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers. That is seldom a question, especially as Rivers continued his Pro Bowl-caliber play. Rivers threw for three touchdowns and the Chargers' running game added another as the team's playoff hopes remain alive after winning for the second time in six outings.
Sunday Scene, Week 14: NFL offenses remain open on snow day (Roto Arcade)
Even if you wanted to avoid the bad weather games this week, it was hardly possible. We had wintry conditions all over the map. Philadelphia basically looked like Hoth (see above). Snow covered the fields in Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Washington and Green Bay, too.
And in the end, league-wide statistical production didn't exactly suffer. Here's a look at total points and yards from Sunday's snow games:
DET-PHI – 54 points, 706 total net yards
MIA-PIT – 62 points, 772 yards
KC-WAS – 55 points, 607 yards
MIN-BAL – 55 points, 703 yards
ATL-GB – 43 points, 619 yards
Not exactly a fantasy snowpocalypse.
Top 5 Must-See Plays from Week 14 (Video) (Shutdown Corner)
1. Can't keep up with Jones
This time, there was no Mike Tomlin to create controversy. In the middle of an insane finish of the game, the Baltimore Ravens’ Jacoby Jones took a short kickoff return down the left sideline, just like on Thanksgiving, but there was no controversy or impediment this time as Jones blazed 77 yards for the score.