Vol 1. No. 25.Baltimore, MD  Thu September 18th 2014GIVING YOU THE NEWS THE MSM IGNORES 
Our Contributors:

Britton becomes unlikely rock at back of bullpen
Last winter, the idea of Zach Britton closing games for the Orioles was comical. Even to him. Britton was out of options and had a career 4.86 ERA as a big league starter.

Gausman, O's set sights on race for AL's top record
With the American League East title locked up, the Orioles are now moving on to their pursuit of the best record in the AL and home-field advantage throughout the postseason. They open a three-game series against the Red Sox on Friday night behind Kevin Gausman. Boston counters with Allen Webster.

Pearce's two homers power O's to sweep
A day after celebrating their first American League East title in 17 years, the Orioles' clubhouse still stunk of stale beer and champagne Wednesday. Players sipped coffee to recover as they reveled in the memories from Tuesday night's festivities. Buck Showalter wrote up a lineup with players in unique spots and regulars on the bench. But he and his team could do no wrong. Behind Steve Pearce's two home runs, the Orioles swept the Blue Jays with a 6-1 win.

Blue Jays' Stroman suspended for six games
Blue Jays right-hander Marcus Stroman has decided to appeal the six-game suspension that was handed down by Major League Baseball on Wednesday afternoon for throwing near the head of Baltimore catcher Caleb Joseph. Stroman threw a pitch over the head of Joseph during Monday night's 5-2 loss to the Orioles. The fastball appeared to be in retaliation for an incident earlier in the game when Toronto shortstop Jose Reyes felt Joseph stepped on his hand while sliding into home.

Hogan accuses Brown of 'blatant lies' and 'disgraceful' attack ads
Republican nominee asks lieutenant governor to take down negative ads; Brown refuses

The war of words in the race for governor escalated Thursday as Republican Larry Hogan called his Democratic rival a liar and asked him to take down a series of "slanderous" advertisements.

With shortfall fixed, Maryland National Guard re-starts drills
Army National Guard units in Maryland and across the country will begin holding drills again now that Congress has resolved an unexpected budget shortfall, Col. Charles Kohler of the Maryland National Guard said on Thursday.

Baltimore Co. police dept. employee charged with marijuana possession
Defendant worked in the Criminal Investigation Division

Baltimore County police have charged a civilian employee who worked in the department's Criminal Investigation Division after detectives found marijuana in her home Wednesday.

Ravens announce details of Ray Rice jersey exchange
The Ravens on Thursday announced details of this weekend's Ray Rice jersey exchange, which will allow fans to turn in their No. 27 jerseys for another, following the former star running back’s release last week.

Two, including man from Rosedale, die in Ocean City rip currents
Rosedale man was one of several swimmers caught in strong waters Wednesday

Two men, including one from Rosedale, died while swimming at Ocean City Wednesday, officials said.

Season draws to a close in Ocean City
Smoking restrictions on the horizon for next year

Smoking restrictions on the horizon for next year.

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.

from conservativecontracts.com

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.

Kevin Dayhoff

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

Other sites I write for:
Flopping Aces
and Red Maryland

Want to help?
Baltimore Reporter is looking for writers to help counter the biased media. Email us if interested.

My Count Since 10/11/07
~ 23516 ~
Site Meter




Filed under: — Brujo @ 12:02 pm

By Brujo Blanco

For a number of years not the organized atheists have been attempting to rid our country of churches. Reading the 1st Amendment is a good way to start with our argument:

“The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.”

1. Now reading this it is important to know that government is not supposed to pass a law regarding the establishment of religion.

2. Government is not allowed to pass a law impeding the free exercise of relgion.

3. Government is not allowed to abridge the freedom of speech.

4. Government is not allowed to pass laws infringing on the freedom of the press.

5. Government is not allowed infringe on the right to peaceably assemble.

Note: The entire first amendment places restrictions on government not on the people and their churches. Now the IRS believes that if a church is a non-profit IRS has the authority to dictate what the churches may have in the content of the speech from the pulpit. If a preacher comments about politics then it is a violation of the non-profit status. This speech can be the mere mention of abortion. It can also include mention of homosexuality. You see with a non-profit status the IRS has the idea that means they can control what is said, written, or discussed in the church. It should be noted that the Democrats use black churches and a sounding board for partisan politics and not peep is mentioned. Let a Republican speak at a church during a campaign and see what the reaction is.

There is an article from Traditional Values Coalition that I believe provides important information. Now an atheist is someone who does not believe in God. However, there are those atheists and feel that since they do not believe in God they have a duty to see that people that do believe in God are controlled. These organized atheists want to monitor the activities, speech, and publications put out by churches. There has been an agreement between IRS and atheists that the atheists will monitor churches for the IRS and snitch regarding what they consider to be violations.

Take this into consideration. What about the organized atheists? Are they registered non-profits? If they are who is going to monitor them? Certainly not IRS because IRS is in bed with them. If an organized atheist organization is monitoring a church is that not prohibited actions for a registered non-profit.

I have noted that over the years anti-God organizations have been chipping away at organized religion. They have been scoring victories over churches and in many cases individuals.

I am going to make a statement that might come to be a rigid truism: We will never see a Muslim non profit cited for a violation of their non-profit status. Islamic organizations get involved in political activity all of the time but they will never suffer for it.

Are we going to see a time wherein a church will have to have an attorney advise them on the content of sermons and writing. If IRS and the atheists have their way they will.

One might ask what happens if a church violates an IRS regulation by practicing their religion? The Ocean Grove Church in New Jersey took a hit and they lost their tax exempt status. I suspect that at some time churches may suffer the loss of real estate. There are a good number of small churches that do not have the resources to fight government and they are considered soft targets.


Last week it was reported that the IRS had struck a secret agreement with atheists to investigate and monitor church sermons and homilies for speaking to the issues at the core of our values. And guess which agency is in charge of this? The same IRS division Lois Learner headed that targeted conservative non-profits and Tea Party groups is now coming after your church.

In 1954, Democrat Minority Leader Senator Lyndon B. Johnson was in trouble. Up for reelection after having won by only 87 votes in 1948 and with the Democrats one seat away from a majority in the Senate, Johnson was afraid of the challenge to his political base in Texas and was looking for a way to cut off the political right. In a political ploy that had no basis in reality and only in electoral fear, Johnson proposed an amendment that would stifle the free speech rights of churches and other non-profits by limiting their political speech or face the wrath of the IRS.

Senator Johnson ordered his staff to find a bill that he could slip-in his unrelated amendment — it never had a hearing, never had a reading, and was passed on the same day it was introduced by unanimous consent at the request Sen. Johnson, Minority Leader and future President.
The Johnson Amendment is rearing its ugly head again as the Obama Administration and the IRS utilizes it to continue their assault on the First Amendment rights and religious freedom of Christians across America.
Sermons that call on one to live their faith, stand up for Christian principles, defend traditional marriage and protect the life of the unborn could now be called “political activity” by the IRS and impact a church’s tax-exempt status. Even reading scripture that holds life lessons that could apply to the political realm puts churches at risk of IRS audits and fines.

This is a chilling attack on the First Amendment rights of individuals and churches across the nation and yet another affront on religious liberty by this
From its inception, the Johnson Amendment has been a political tool used by the left to target churches and organizations of faith and limit their ability to be active members of their communities. It was a solution in search of a problem and is once again a tool being used to target Christians for merely living their faith.

Freedom of religion and speech are constitutionally protected rights – and should not be subject to government monitoring and bullying.


Andrea Lafferty


Jesse Ventura and his Friend Che By Brujo Blanco
Filed under: — Brujo @ 8:13 pm

I have been following the news regarding the situation between Israel and the Palestinians. The Muslims have been running a very sophisticated propoganda operation while they were getting their butts kicked by the Israelis. What is surprising is there are so many people that believe that the Israelis are the bad guys when it is crystal clear they have been acting in self defense. Hamas has constructed an elaborate tunnel system so they can get into Israel undetected and commit murder and kidnapping. Hamas has been firing anti personnel missiles into Israel which are being aimed a civilian areas. Hamas is trying to kill people. Hamas has been firing from schools, churches, mosques, hospitals, and population centers. The purpose is they know that the Israelis will likely knock out these launching pads and in the process kill innocents.

I have been watching with a heavy heart while the Muslims in Europe, Scandinavia, and Australia terrorize Jews. In fact in France the Muslims have a website with the mug shots of Jews to be targeted. The media has not been reporting on these matters. In fact Hamas has been threatening the media to make certain that media does not show that Hamas is launching from areas in hope that the Israelis will respond and kill civilians. Also, note that the media has not been showing photographs or visual recording of Muslim fighters, however, they have been doing so with Israelis. This is a blatant act to make it look like the Jews are doing all of the nasties and the Muslims are in a defensive mood.

Elsewhere in the Mid East it is apparent there is a war on anything that is not Muslim to include Christians. There are reports that Muslims are systematically cutting the heads off Christian children. The Islamic wackos are in the process of killing anyone who is not Muslim.


Are Critics Of Intelligent Design As Intelligent As They Propagandize?
Filed under: — Frederick @ 7:57 pm

A cartoon on the cover of the 11/2013 issue of the Reports For Science Education depicts a be-robed bearded figure holding a diagram labeled “flagellum”. The figure quips, “All right, it could be that stars, galaxies, living species, the eye, the immune system, and all sorts of complex things evolved on their own…but this, I made myself.”

The caption beneath the illustration reads, “The Intelligent Design God is something of an underachiever.” He apparently also has a high tolerance for guff as very few have poked as much fun at the venerated spokesman of a particular world religion with a fetish for explosives and flying jetliners into skyscrapers.

In all seriousness, the cartoon is a jab directed at the work of biochemist Michael Behe who popularized the flagellum in “Darwin’s Black Box”. It was the likes of the Darwinists and the naturalists who first categorized the single cell and assorted microscopic organisms as “simple” in comparison to other biological, geological, and astronomical phenomena considered to be complex.

With the concept of irreducible complexity, pioneers of the Intelligent Design movement such as Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson popularized the concept how these simple cells and organisms were anything but with their entire systems breaking down unless all of the components work in tandem and likely worthless without the others. Likewise, these functions are of a magnitude so beyond the sum total of the constituted parts that it is unlikely that they would have arisen on their own over time through the minuscule accumulation of random genetic modifications.

It is not that the proponents of Intelligent Design have totally ignored these other scientific curiosities such as stars, galaxies, and other mind boggling wonders of the physical universe. In fact, a number of these are presented in a marvelous manner that can be appreciated by the scientist and understood by the enthusiastic non-technician alike in “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist” by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler.

Adherents of the worldviews of naturalism and scientism often stand behind their lecterns before their blackboards clicking their tongues how religious faith and its corollaries of intelligent design or some kind of creation theory cannot be categorized as true science because it is doubtful that the faithful believer would ever renounce their preferred theology no matter how overwhelming the evidence arrayed against traditional revelation and dogma. However, the subtitle of the organization’s own newsletter is “Defending The Teaching Of Evolution And Climate Science”.

Just what evidence will adherents of these perspectives accept before themselves surrendering to the epistemological or paradigmatic inevitable?

For example, the newsletter’s Dec 2013 cover might spoof the Intelligent Design movement’s flagellum fetish. But haven’t the Darwinists been harping their finches, fruit flies, and peppered moths even longer?

At the end of the day, no matter how much these creatures might change over the generations, they pretty much remain fruit flies, finches, or peppered moths begetting other fruit flies, finches, or peppered moths respectively not that dramatically different on the genetic or molecular level where it counts from the original. So should geneticists dig deep enough that it is discovered that, despite the considerable material similarities between the species, it is impossible for a chimp to make the leap to human being, will multitudes of academics come forward to renounce many of Physical Anthropology’s cherished foundations?

The second area of focus in the mission statement is defending the teaching of climate science. There is hardly a Christian out there walking free this side of the funny farm fence that condemns meteorological forecasting. Even if they don’t catch the segment on the 11 PM news or fiddle around with Doppler radar and satellite imagery, even the Amish probably consult their own methods to get some kind of idea what the weather will be like the next day.

The National Center For Science might go out of its way to position itself as one of Feurbach’s cultured despisers of religion. However, what this organization really means by the term “climate science” is instead the faith of global warming and environmental extremeism.

And as in the case of the most diehard adherent of traditional theism, there will be nothing to dissuade these zealots that man (especially of the White industrialized variety) isn’t the cause of climate change.

Had a warmer than usual winter? It’s global warming’s fault.

Had a colder than normal winter? That’s global warming’s fault also.

Had a summer or winter where the weather was for the most part within the range of what one should expect for that particular season? Surely, it was the fault of global warming.

Like any good revivalist, the goal of the ideologues at the National Center for Science Education is not so much to dispassionately impart a set of objective facts for the recipient to then make up their own minds as to whether they will accept them into their existential epistemic framework and then determine how these should be applied to life and policy. For example, it is doubtful the newsletter publishes articles detailing how the world really hasn’t warmed for over a decade and how, when changes take place, they are more the fault of solar activity than the failure of the American people to willingly embrace a lifestyle virtually indistinguishable from that of Third World squalor.

One of the greatest gifts parents and educators can bestow upon a child is to cultivate an awareness of the assorted charlatans that will attempt to take advantage of the weak-willed and simpleminded. A considerable number will appear wearing the cloaks of a great many religions. However, just as dangerous are those wearing lab coasts that instead attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting by rattling off numbers presented as statistics and obtuse obscure verbal formulations masquerading as facts.

By Frederick Meekins


Filed under: — Brujo @ 10:37 pm

By Brujo Blanco

I was reading the Aegis paper in Harford County and I came across a letter to the editor by a man from Bel Air, Maryland that is really on point and here it is:

The Following was sent to Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown. A copy was provided for publication.

While I deeply sympathize with the loss of your family member to a murderous criminal, I fail to understand how a well-educated man with as much all-around experience as your TV ads claim, just does not get the point. It was not the gun but the warped mind of a violent criminal who grossly misused a gun a gun in place of a knife, ax, sword, hammer, tire tool, mixed martial arts or anything handy to commit whatever evil deed was no his warped mind at the time. It’s those criminals who should be removed permanently from our society!

What is worse is that hile you and your party are so anxious to totally disarm most honest Americans who will obey your anti-gun laws, you work overtime to make life easier and more pleasant for the damned crminals among us that obey no laws: e.g. you eliminated the death penalty {its worst feature was how seldom it was imposed}, and you campaign to lower bail, shorten prison terms, give more rights and provide more comforts for prisoners, they have apparently ended “exiling the worst crminals to distant prisons” and you encourage the influx of illegal aliens to Maryland – even those with MS13 tattoos – who possess few marketable skills, poor if any command of English and will live here at the expense of Maryland’s working taxpayers who pay your salary. And look with shame on the present foolishness about legalizing marihuana! Can you possibly believe that greater availability of pot will help create more responsible citizens, safer drivers, ambitious workers, better students, better parents or less “graduates” to harder drugs and more crime?

God bless and protect what’s left of America.
Elliot Deutsch, Bel Air

Brujo Continues:

This reminded me of an All in the Family episode in which Archie’s liberal daughter Gloria made an observation to which Archie responded which was substantially:

Gloria: “Well, he shot him with the gun!” (This was a comment regarding evil guns.)
Archie: “Little girl, would it make you feel better if he pushed him out a window.”

I took several points from the letter to the editor.

1. Guns to do not kill. It is the evil in the hearts of man that kills.
2. If no guns are available the bad guys will improvise and make bombs or perhaps simply start a fire.
One thing that I have observed is that individuals such as Anthony Brown, who make the most noise about guns, are in fact protected by people carrying guns. All of our fearless leaders who are in the anti gun crowd are protected by men with guns. Diane Feinstein is in fact an example of a liberal that had a permit the carry because she alleged she was threatened and needed to protect herself. This is a right she would deny everyone else.

With the advent of guys like Brown I can envision attempts to disarm.

When I was in the military in Europe we received information that terrorists were likely to hit certain targets in Europe. I was in a position in which I was one of the individuals that worked to protect the military and I carried a loaded firearm 24/7. They were setting up security at the gates and then came the real gem. The installation commander told us that only the two Military Police partrolmen would have bullets. There were people armed with unloaded rifles and no access to bullets. In fact I was told that I had to surrender my firearm and since I was not under the command of the installation commander that attempt did not go well. During a meeting I expressed my objection and advised those at the meeting that it was a mistake to threaten anyone with an unloaded firearm. I was asked what would happen if a soldier shot at a terrorist and hit an innocent person and my answer was to take another shot because he would have more than one bullet. This was the US Army. One would think that the Army would understand guns and violence but that would be an assumption. This problem came to a head twice at Fort Hood. I do not believe that every soldier on an Army post should be carrying a firearm because there are those that are really stupid. However, a soldier who has a carry permit should be allowed to carry on post. I do not state this lightly. I know the problems which may occur but we must understand the mindset of today’s terrorists and that is to inflict maximum damage. A lone gun man with a handgun that can shoot can inflict a lot of damage in a hurry.

In the UK it has gotten to the point that when one is successful when engaging in self defense one may suffer by being arrested for assault. The problem in the UK is that the police have such control over these situations that they have in the past arrested the true victim and turned the aggressor loose with a warning not to be a bad boy anymore.

My personal assessment is the problem of violent crime can be alleviated in many cases with a good citizen carrying a firearm. This may be a little old but is a truism in certain jurisdictions: “If guns are outlawed then only criminals and outlaws will have guns.” We know what criminals will do with their guns and that is use them on them to make a living. As far as the police they may have guns but they are not camped out in your front yard to keep the bandits away. The police literally cannot be everywhere.


Filed under: — Brujo @ 10:02 pm

I recall a liberal writer from a good number of years ago that presented himself as an anti-gunner. This guy was a resident of Washington, D.C. He was at his residence when he caught some juveniles trespassing on his property in the vicinity of his swimming pool. Mind you the only crime was trespassing. While these boys were fleeing the scene he shot one of them with a .25 semi auto pistol. For those that are not familiar with guns that pistol is a small framed gun that was called a Saturday night special. This guy got into trouble over the shooting. His excuse for having the guy was that his son was an FBI agent and he left the gun there. This argument from my perspective is totally bogus. No one in law enforcement would carry such a gun. I did not hear much from this individual throughout the years.

The latest such incident happened with the liberal Leland Yee. He was caught dealing weapons to terrorists. See the link for more information. The weapons he was involved with were Stinger Missiles. Stingers are shoulder fired weapons that can take down an aircraft with a heat seeking projectile. This weapon could potentially be used to kill Americans. It is a really hot item.

The first thing that came to my mind is whether or not Eric Holder will take him to court or will he sweep in under the rug. As far as I am concerned this man is a traitor.



Absentminded Professor Spreads Falsehoods Regarding Science & Religion
Filed under: — Frederick @ 10:44 am

Throughout much of the modern era, one of the main slugfests with the draw of a Hulk Hogan and Rowdy Roddy Piper cage match of the 1980′s has been the ongoing dispute between so-called science and religion Proponents of each side of the debate contend that their own viewpoint is the foundation upon which ultimate knowledge rests.

The science side of the controversy contends that religion isn’t merely an alternative way of looking at the universe but rather instead a harmful mindset that must by stamped out by science’s proclivity to rely upon experimentation and evidence rather than an unquestioning reliance upon faith and authority as is endemic to its epistemological adversary. However, Jerry Coyne in the 10/1/10 USA Today essay titled “Science And Religion Aren’t Friends” relies on more untested assumptions than can be found in the average Sunday morning sermon.

It is only natural that Jerry Coyne would have the tendency to end up relying on those things he has bluntly labeled as threats to mankind to make his argument. He is, after all, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago.

Both of these disciplines practiced by Professor Coyne these days are as much about philosophy and politics more so than the collection of objective facts through observation and experimentation. The University of Chicago is to at least be commended for exercising a modicum of caution in quarantining those on the faculty payroll oriented towards imposing opinion rather than simply elaborating actual details of natural phenomena as would a true biologist worthy of recognition as such.

Early in the essay, Professor Coyne asserts, “Evolution took a huge bite a while back [he means out of religion], and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality distinct from the lumps of jelly in our head.” From such an contention, he concludes, “We now know that the universe did not require a creator.”

That’s quite a rambunctious leap on the part of the eager professor. It use to be thought that nothing existed below the level of the atom. However, eventually researchers discovered an entirely new kind of universe (if you will) existing in terms of even smaller particles and energy clouds at the subatomic level.

Why can’t a similar position be held regarding the mind, soul, and spirit? Though it cannot be denied that these are somehow linked to the material brain, that does not mean these ephemeral building blocks of individuality and personality do not exist because those in lab coats haven’t quite pinned them down and sliced them in half with a scalpel.

After all, it is doubtful scientists can conclusively tell us why a certain assemblage of chemicals has the spark of life coarsing through them and others do not. Since a number of their brethren have denied the existence of the Creator, perhaps a number of scientists will endeavor to convince that the phenomena that we call life does not exist either.

Conyne says of science, “Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is praised. No finding is deemed ‘true’ unless it is repeated and verified by others.” And of religion, he writes, “…rather than relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation, dogma, and authority.”

That is, of course, until someone challenges those sacred cows that often eat at the troughs of big government, industry, and academia. For example, in “Reason In The Balance”, critic of evolution Phillip Johnson chronicled the plight of one professor that dared to buck the herd mentality by simply suggesting that the complexity of organisms MIGHT point to a creator.

At no time did this particular academic fill in to any great degree the detail of this nebulously defined ultimate power or coerce students into swearing allegiance to it. This professor’s pedagogical approach was considerably more broadminded than the professor that essentially required students to declare an oath of fealty to the Darwinist position if they wanted the professor to provide the student with a reference for medical school. It would seem though that an aspiring physician believing in a Creator or Intelligent Designer might make a better doctor since such a student would see the patient as made in the image of God rather than as a worthless lump of tissue not all that different from what the orderlies dumped from the bedpans or the tumors zapped with radiation down in the oncology department.

Furthermore, evolutionists make a public display as to how much they eschew dogma and authority. However, can you honestly tell me that each and everyone of them has built from scratch through their own experimental observations the entire tree of knowledge? Is the lowliest among their number going to thumb their noses at names such as Goldschmidt, Gould, and Hawking. The very fact that they rally behind the image of Darwin is testament to how they are prone to bend knee to their alleged betters like many of the religious individuals they heap so much scorn upon.

Among the nondogmatic dogmas of those professing this mindset is that one of the few remaining sins that cannot be countenanced is for the individual to speak out or act in an field where one has not been certified or credentialed by the elites empowered to bring down ruination or at least the edge of destitution upon those failing to curry the favor of these authorities. In academia, reprisals just short of lynching take place if those not bestowed the equivalent of a knighthood in the natural sciences (an advanced graduate degree) dares to speak out regarding evolution and how it applies to the origin of life. However, very little criticism or reprisals in terms of occupational status is inflicted upon the members of this scholastic caste when they venture beyond the confines of their respective narrowly defined fields when making sweeping pronouncements as to how things are to be in religion’s sandbox.

Those holding to scientism, the idea that science itself is an ultimate authority rather than a method or a tool, claim that the notion of religion is itself refuted because of the countless unreasonable propositions and doctrines advocated by those for whom an avowed faith is the primary framework through which they construe existence and the universe. As proof, Professor Coyne posits the person of Jesus and how Christians view Him as the Messiah, how Muslims do not, and how those of these respective faiths will incur divine retribution in the eyes of the opposing belief system for their misconstrued perspective regarding this one key figure. The fact that such attention is focused on an individual nothing more than an obscure carpenter and itinerant rabbi residing in a Roman occupied backwater is itself reason to stop and consider that there might be something more to this otherwise first rate failure by the world’s standards.

Coyne adds, “I’ve never met a Chrisitan ..who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. I would have thought the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.”

G.K Chesterton remarked, in regards to those horrors that cause even the most devout to question whether or not God actually plays an active part in the world, that these outrages and tragedies were manifestations of the one Christian doctrine that could be verified by a cursory perusal of the daily headlines. That is none other than the reality and pervasiveness of sin.

It is because of the existence of a God and absolute values based on His unchanging character that we are able to say something like the Holocaust is even wrong. For without the principles embodied in holy documents such as the Ten Commandments, who is to say?

Is the barometer of acceptability and propriety to be found in that amorphous moral sense referred to as “world opinion”? If so, that means the Holocaust is only wrong because it was an affront to a majority of the nations of the earth.

In that instance, even if too late to prevent an incomprehensible atrocity and as much in response to other geopolitical factors, world powers came to the rescue of the Jewish people. In an attempt to correct the situation and to prevent something similar from happening again, the nation of Israel was established.

But what of a time foretold in the Book of Revelation when hostility towards both Christian and Jew will be stirred to such a fanatic level by a future world leader known in prophecy as the Beast who, it is believed, will convince the nations of the world to join first in a campaign to wipe out Jerusalem and then attempt an assault on the very Gates of Heaven itself? Are we to believe in one instance the proper thing to do is assist the plight of the Jews or lament the failure to do so and then at some as of yet undetermined point down the time stream attempt to wipe them and allied theists from the face of the earth all because the prevailing consensus demands it?
Coyne assures, “Science is even studying the origin of morality.” The professor assures that atheists embrace the same moral truths as the religious but without something existing above so-called “science”. But where ought we to find these principles?

At the Patuxent Wildlife Visitor’s Center, there is a display of a kaleidescopic video montage titled “The Wisdom of Wildness”. The footage suggests that the course we stupid humans ought to pursue is to be found among the less deliberately rational creatures on the rung of what philosophers and theologians have titled the Great Chain Of Being.

If so, who is to say in a naturalistic ethos just what animals we are suppose to emulate?

Some animals such as elephants take considerable care of their young and even seem to mourn their dead. It is often claimed that the Canadian geese mate for life and will leave the migration gaggle should the partner be unable to travel onward for whatever reason.
Other animals emulate behaviors that do not comply with what most societies that have been influenced by the light of Judo-Christian Scripture and moral reflection would find acceptable. For example, occasionally female cats will abandon a kitten if she is unable to care for more than one and male cats will sometimes kill kittens that are not their own in order to encourage female cats to mate with them. In order for the couple to copulate, the female praying mantis must rip the head off of its mate and the nature of the female black widow spider towards its mate has become synonymous with a woman that murders her husband.

Before feminists do a victory dance as to these alleged examples of girl power found throughout the animal world, perhaps they ought to tell us why if there is no God establishing the morality by which higher order minds reflect upon the Creator’s own rationality and character in order to formulate ethics and values, why these examples ought to prevail over the ones more male-dominated as to how we interpret them?

Male lions pretty much loaf around and look fierce while the females do, shall we say, the lion’s share of the hunting and the raising of the cubs. And male sea lions and fur seals are pretty much indistinguishable from breakaway Fundamentalist Mormons such as Warren Jeffes in that they accumulate as many females to themselves as possible while banishing young unestablished males to the periphery of the colony (or out onto the streets in human terms)

Coyne writes, “In contrast, scientists don’t kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science — just science, a multicultural search for truth.”

In regards to the first claim of that particular paragraph, scientists haven’t really proven themselves that far removed and above the stains of the, shall we say, sin nature plaguing the remainder of humanity. The death counts under traditional religion run amok are nothing to be proud of and rightly give the sensitive seeker grounds for pause. However, one could properly make a case that these tallies pale in comparison to the 20th century totalitarian regimes that first and foremost dedicated themselves to Darwinian ideals in whose names were often justified the most appalling of atrocities such as the racialism of the Nazi regime attempting to purge the human gene pool of what that vile ideology considered contaminating elements or Marxism’s attempt to manipulate social conditions such as education in order to bring about that system’s new man devoid of individualism gladly embracing a place as a disposable cog in the technocratic collective.

The second claim in that paragraph insists that there is no particular variety of science but rather a multicultural search for truth. On the surface, that sounds correct as certain facts exist such as the distance between the earth and the moon irrespective of the religious outlook of the researcher ascertaining such an assessment. However, that is only part of the picture.

Like it or not, science arose to prominence as a method for obtaining knowledge about the world in which we live in a time when the Christian perspective was predominant even if not every last practitioner of this epistemological pursuit was an orthodox born again believer. As is attributed to Issac Newton, one of the initial motivations of what would be recognized as science was to think God’s thoughts after Him.

It could be argued that the Judeo-Christian mindset as found in the pages of the Bible is the font from which the assorted impulses and brands of modernism (for good or ill) were bequeathed with their concern for the world as it actually exists and how we might improve upon its conditions for the greatest number possible. A consistent multiculturalist cannot view such a mindset superior to one that does not.

Not everyone believes that progress (especially if it is of the technological or economic variety) is necessarily a good thing. There are those that believe such innovations should be opposed at all costs including those tactics lesser bourgeois minds would categorize as violence.

For example, among the Postmodernists that spout this kind of drivel about multiculturalist science are those that do not see the likes of the Unabomber as a homicidal terrorist but rather as some kind of visionary whose artistic masterpieces did not consist of paint and canvas but rather in exploding shrapnel, lacerated sinew, and severed limbs. And unfortunately, this threat once isolated among a few lunatics, has infested the ranks of the Occupy Movement that would have no problem with dragging society back to preindustrial standards of living even though they themselves would be the least likely to survive in a milieu where a lack of self-reliance would spell certain death. But then again, a preference for individual life is one of those pesky values that balanced Christians or even generalized theists drawing ethical inspiration from the Bible can’t seem to disimbue themselves of.

It must also be admitted that science came into its own as a research methodology in those settings where God was viewed as distinct from His creation with the natural world under the watchful eye of a single God with the universe operating in accordance with the physical laws He sustains by His own will. Though a number of exceptional minds were able to rise above the blinders of polytheism, there is something about the object you are about to study either being your god, containing the spirits of the entities that you worship, or the distinctions between you and the object ultimately being illusory that will discourage you from learning as much as possible about the given subject at hand.

Granted. Students from cultural backgrounds where Hinduism and Buddhism predominate are noted for their mathematical and scientific excellence. However, such aptitude came more into prominence when these societies came to adopt aspects of a more Western orientation.

Towards the conclusion, Professor Coyne writes, “Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid way of finding truth…not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good.” But it is only through acknowledging that truth originates in a personal fixed source (commonly referred to as “God”), it is possible for truth to even exist or to be something that is worthy of individuals and societies even pursuing in the first place.

By Frederick Meekins


The Olympic Charter A Crock
Filed under: — Frederick @ 7:56 am

The Olympic charter says, “The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity, and fair play.”

What a crock.

Fine and dandy if this is the goal that the Olympics aspires to.

But if this principle is to be elevated to the status of a human right extended beyond this borderline criminal racket, its implications could be downright frightening.

For example, the opening statement postulates that every individual must have the possibility of participating in sport.

What if an individual’s parents refuse to grant permission?
Should the child be snatched from the home on the grounds of child abuse?

And conversely, if the International Olympic Committee is so eager to hand down grandiose moral pronouncements, will this august body uphold the principle that it is the human right of every individual NOT to participate in sports, free of coercion?

For example, what about the case of Red China where child athletes are snatched from their families to be mercilessly trained in what are little better than glorified slave labor camps?

And to bring the issue back a little closer to home, what of the child whose classmates refuse to let him participate in a playground pick up game?

Granted, such bullying and exclusion is quite saddening.
However, it hardly rises to the level of an atrocity worthy of a UN human rights tribunal.

Most of all, it must be asked isn’t the International Olympic Committee violating the very spirit of the principles the organization’s charter claims to embody.

For example, the charter insists that EVERY individual must have the possibility of practicing sport WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND.

So does that mean a 300 pound geriatric alcoholic with equilibrium issues should be allowed to ascend the balance beam during the prime time broadcast?

If not, isn’t that a form of discrimination and exclusion?
Fascinating, isn’t it that these internationalist organizations renowned for advocating the fundamentals of socialism for everyone else the world over insist that the activities undertaken under their own auspices publicly be characterized by the utmost meritocracy.

By Frederick Meekins


Filed under: — Robert Farrow @ 11:01 pm



As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it’s too important to wait.

Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the Republican Party?

Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly’s report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party.

Immigrants — all immigrants — have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party. For one thing, recent arrivals tend to be poor and in need of government assistance. Also, they’re coming from societies that are far more left-wing than our own. History shows that, rather than fleeing those policies, they bring their cultures with them. (Look at what New Yorkers did to Vermont.)

This is not a secret. For at least a century, there’s never been a period when a majority of immigrants weren’t Democrats.

At the current accelerated rate of immigration — 1.1 million new immigrants every year — Republicans will be a fringe party in about a decade.

Thanks to endless polling, we have a pretty good idea of what most immigrants believe.

According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do.

While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree.

No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.

The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control.

According the 2012 National Asian American Survey, as well as a Kaiser Foundation poll, only 40 percent of the general public holds a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 42 percent unfavorable. Meanwhile, 51 percent of Asians have a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 18 percent an unfavorable one. Even Koreans support Obamacare by 57 percent to 17 percent.

Overall, 69 percent of immigrants like Obamacare, according to a 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

That same survey showed that only 35 percent of native-born Americans support affirmative action, compared to 58 percent of immigrants, including — amazingly — 64 percent of Asians (suggesting they may not be as smart as everyone thinks).

Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as “liberal Democrats.” While 47 percent of self-described “liberal Democrats” hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do.

Pew also found that only 27 percent of Hispanics support gun rights, compared to 57 percent of non-Hispanic whites. According to Latino Decisions, large majorities of Hispanics favor a national database of gun owners, limiting the capacity of magazines and a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

Seventy-five percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government — also according to Pew. Even after three generations in America, Hispanics still support bigger government 55 percent to 36 percent, compared to the general public, which opposes bigger government 48 percent to 41 percent.

How are Republicans going to square that circle? It’s not their position on amnesty that immigrants don’t like; it’s Republicans’ support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism.

Reading these statistics, does anyone wonder why Democrats think vastly increasing immigration should be the nation’s No. 1 priority?

It would be one thing if the people with these views already lived here. Republicans would have no right to say, “You can’t vote.” But why on Earth are they bringing in people sworn to their political destruction?

Republicans have no obligation to assist the Democrats as they change the country in a way that favors them electorally, particularly when it does great harm to the people already here.

Yes, it’s great for the most powerful Americans to have lots of cheap, unskilled labor. Immigration definitely solves the rich’s “servant problem.”

(Approximately 5 million times a day, MSNBC expresses bewilderment that any Republicans oppose amnesty when it’s supported by the Chamber of Commerce. Wow! So even people who profit by flooding the country with cheap labor are in favor of flooding the country with cheap labor!)

It’s terrific for ethnic lobbyists whose political clout will skyrocket the more foreign-born Americans we have.

And it’s fantastic for the Democrats, who are well on their way to a permanent majority, so they can completely destroy the last remnants of what was once known as “the land of the free.”

The only ones opposed to our current immigration policies are the people.

But are they going to give John Boehner a job when he’s no longer House speaker, as some big business lobbyist will?

Will they help Marco Rubio run for president on the claim that, as a Cuban, he can appeal to Hispanics? (Fat chance.)

Will they bundle contributions for Eric Cantor’s re-election, as well-heeled donors will?

Will they be enough to re-elect Kevin McCarthy to Congress so he can keep his gold-plated government health insurance?

Will they be the ones writing Darrell Issa’s flattering New York Times obituary?

Sorry, Americans. You lose.


Doublespeak: ABC Family produces anti-family programs.
Filed under: — Robert Farrow @ 11:46 pm

Click Here: 

And Here:

And Here.

Not surprised. I’m sure libs that are outraged over candy cigarettes and playing cowboys and Indians on the playground think this is fine.  But for the rest of us, don’t be surprised when you see more of this.
Remember, your kids are not your own.


MSNBC: Your Children Are Not Your Children – They Belong To The Community





RINO’s have abandoned Conservative Values. Have you noticed?
Filed under: — Robert Farrow @ 11:16 pm

After passing a 1.1 trillion bill that cuts Veteran’s Benefits, the RINOs in the House are now going to push amnesty. If you don’t want to have two versions of the same party then we need to vote the RINO’s out.

Here is who is challenging Boner.

Tea Party groups in the 8th Ohio Congressional District will host a forum at 7 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 12, to ask questions of the primary candidates for Speaker of the House John Boehner’s Congressional seat.

Candidates invited and attending include Matthew Trisler, Don Carter, Eric Gurr and J.D. Winteregg. Boehner declined to attend, and Democratic opponent Tom Poetter was invited but Tea Party officials said there was no response.

My only plea is this: Tea Party, back one primary opponent. Don’t split the vote and give the RINO’s a win by default!


Mat Bevin looks like he might be on his way to defeat McConnell


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is the number one target, and hedge fund partner Matt Bevin is the Tea Party candidate hoping to pick him off.

In a slew of post-government shutdown interviews and television appearances, McConnell has refused to mention his Republican primary challenger in next year’s election by name. His “real opponent,” he said, is Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes.

Bevin, McConnell’s primary challenger from the right, isn’t buying that.

I will not vote for a RINO again. Either I will vote for a real conservative or I will vote 3rd party.
Don’t forget my  my facebook page! Tell the RINOS you too will leave the GOP if amnesty passes.


Filed under: — Brujo @ 11:00 pm

By Brujo Blanco

Bible reference banned in ads on Port Authority buses » News — GOPUSA

The Bible isn’t welcome on Port Authority bus ads, a policy that’s “surprising and disappointing” to a Beaver County man seeking to sell his DVDs about the New Testament.

BRUJO SAYS: Now her is a citizen that wants to sell a product and in order to do so effectively he must advertise. This may be an old cliche but I will as it anyway: Would the Port Authority even consider for one instance saying anything to the effect that the Koran is not welcome at the Port Authority.

James Fitzgerald, who lives in Ambridge and owns WatchWord productions, ultimately bought 200 bus ads that don’t include religious references or show pictures of the Bible or use the word “Bible.” The ad campaign is intended to promote his 10-DVD set.

The prohibition included the vanity phone number 1-800-HolyBible. Instead, Fitzgerald used just the digits of the phone number on an ad that promotes “Love. Joy. Hope.” and includes a link to his website.

BRUJO SAYS: Now we have a man wanting to present a book for others to read and buy which involves having a free press. Also, he wants to comment on his religious proclivities which is the free practice of religion.

“I’m not promoting religion. I’m selling a product we created and produced in Pittsburgh,” Fitzgerald said. “Not to be able to use the word ‘Bible’ is kind of newsworthy.”

BRUJO SAYS: Fitz, I do not care what you are doing. What you want to do is your right. These people are saying that one can advertise but we will censor to make sure the content is politically correct.

Fitzgerald ran up against Port Authority’s policy of not allowing ads that promote the existence or nonexistence of a supreme deity or ads that are religious. The policy is one of 13 categories not permitted in ads, including political and cigarette ads.

BRUJO SAYS: The Port Authority is a government entity and as such they have no business getting involved with restricting the free practice of religion.

“It’s a pretty standard policy for a transit agency,” Port Authority spokesman Jim Ritchie said. “It’s a policy we put in place a couple of years ago following an ACLU lawsuit. We have to have some standards. Otherwise, ads could end up (being) offensive in any number of ways. We did work with him to find a way to still advertise. We didn’t slam the door on him.”

BRUJO SAYS: Mr spokesman, does anyone have a right not to be offended. I have not seen these words in the Constitution. Leaving out words about religion, God, or the Bible defies logic.

“The government is permitted a certain amount of content discrimination but not viewpoint discrimination,” Ledewitz said. “In other words, you can say no political ads, but you can’t say no Democrats.”

BRUJO SAYS: Where does it say in the constitution or caselaw that government has any authority to limit content? What the Port Authority is going for is viewpoint discrimination.

The policy sparked one lawsuit in November from an atheist group that was denied the opportunity to run ads on buses. The United Coalition of Reason Inc., a national organization that helps local atheist, agnostic and other nontheist groups, said the authority rejected an ad that said, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone,” and included the website of a local affiliate.

BRUJO SAYS: This is offensive to me, however, I do not have a right not to be offended.

Ritchie said they were rejected under the same policy

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Education Fund successfully sued the authority in 2006 for refusing, on similar grounds, to run an ad informing convicted felons of their voting rights.

Bobby Kerlik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7886 or bkerlik@tribweb.com.


2014 The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Greensburg, Pa.)

Visit The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Greensburg, Pa.) at www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib

Distributed by MCT Information Services

BRUJO SAYS FOR ALL TO HEAR: With every small victory the anti-God people move our one step closer to having a policy of not allowing Christianity to be seen in public at all. I can see a future that brings absolute censorship of anything having to do with religion and Christianity in particular. I fully believe that if the Muslims wanted to put some of their hate material up the authorities would not raise an eyebrow. People need to understand that government has to recognize that there is such a thing as religion. Failing to recognize that there is such a thing as religion will end up with a government that cannot protect the free practice of religion. Government as a duty to make sure that religion can be practiced freely. If it comes to government not being allowed to acknowledge the mere existence of religion that is a problem. If government cannot recognize religion then government cannot protect religion.


Protecting Clones
Filed under: — Frederick @ 11:32 am

Though it was not the only reason, the American Civil War was fought in part because a significant percentage of the population came to be seen as less than completely human. It is said if we don’t learn from the past we are doomed to repeat it and the only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn anything from history. As such, if society as a whole does not stop to consider certain bio-technical developments now being considered, the world could be in for a nightmare that could make the bloodshed, death, and heartache of the Civil War pale in comparison.

In popular culture and elite scientific circles alike, cloning is being heralded as a process through which humanity will be ushered onto the cusp of a golden age in terms of advances in the areas of agriculture and medicine. As with most advances, those with an entrepreneurial inclination are already positioning themselves to take advantage economically of the opportunities looming on the horizon.

For example, on April 3, 2001, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued Patent US 6,211,429 for a process for animal cloning. One must keep in mind that, apart from agricultural applications, such research is initially tried on animals with the hopes of eventually perfecting the techniques for human usage.

One scholar concerned about the application of this utilitarian mindset to human beings where people could end up being used as something not all that different than barnyard livestock is Paige Cunningham of the Center For Bioethics and Human Dignity. In response, he has formulated a set of principles that could very well stop this tragedy before things get too far out of hand.

The first principle has been stated as the following: “Every human being, however conceived or created, is unique and deserving of protection. From a religious perspective, humans are different than animals and above all animals because humans alone are created in the image of God.” This principle is Biblical as it respects the individuality of the human being as a unique creation no matter how he might have been brought into the world. Even though we might find it unsettling that an individual might be grown in a laboratory and not as the result of a loving (or at least pleasurable) coupling of his parents, that is no reason why, as Cunningham’s declaration argues, such a person should not be granted the same privileges and protections enjoyed by the remainder of our species.

Part of the justification for the first principle, while theologically sound from a religious perspective, that human beings are different than animals because humans alone are created in the image of God, unfortunately may be tougher to sell in a culture contaminated by Darwinian materialism. It is not only from a religious perspective that human beings are different from the remainder of the animal kingdom but in the manner of our fundamental ontology as well. When was the last time someone saw chimpanzees constructing medical facilities or dolphins cogitating on declarations to protect themselves from doing harm to one another? Someone might think they are an animal when it comes to themselves but seldom do they want to be treated like one.

Cunningham’s second principle has been stated thusly: “Every human being has the right to individual autonomy; i.e. that his or her bodily integrity must not be invaded or compromised by others.” The first principle was forceful in its conviction to the point of almost being too explicitly religious in that it overlooked the biological uniqueness of man in favor of the theological,. The second, though well intended, rings with a bit of the vagueness this declaration was promulgated to protect against.

While the Christian can agree with the principle that in most instances that the bodily integrity of the individual must not be invaded or compromised by others, the proposition is not always absolute. Unless enunciated in a strong pro-life context as intended, platitudes about not compromising the bodily integrity of the individual were the very kind of statements that got the ball rolling down the hill of human devaluation in the first place all in the name of “choice” and banshees wailing in the street slogans such as “keep your laws off my body”. One must be clear that the unborn child (either growing in the womb or in the laboratory) possesses the same protections against bodily harm as those enjoyed by the parents.

The third principle, that no person has the right to enslave, own, or control any human being regardless of their stage of biological development is a sound reminder of the basic principles this nation was founded upon, went through numerous struggles to extend to all those living here, and continues to expand into the twenty-first century. This principle does a superb job of upholding the innate dignity of the individual as created in the image of God and the equality of all men before Him irrespective of their power or status.

The fourth principle contends that any organism that is genetically human is a human being. While this statement is necessary in this Postmodern age that loves nothing better than to play word games in an attempt to justify all kinds of moral outrages, in academic circles and the popular press where secular philosophy and the Christian worldview clash almost constantly the position may already be in need of modification.

Though it may sound like science fiction, there is a growing movement called “Transhumanism” that seeks to expand the abilities of mankind beyond the limitations imposed by the biology of the species through genetic or technological enhancements. Some propose to accomplish this by combining human and animal DNA.

Therefore, at some point ethicists, theologians, and concerned scientists are going to have to sit down and hash out what is the bare minimum of human DNA a person can have and still be considered a human being. For example, is an organism with only 90% human DNA worthy of protection as a human being? Such statements may cause one to chuckle, but the matter is so serious, according to Tom Horn of RaidersNewsUpdate.com, that neuroscientists experimenting on mice by injecting human brain cells into the skulls of these rodents are under orders to destroy these vermin if they start to exhibit signs of intelligence.

The fifth principle holds that “A cloned embryo is distinct and separate from the person donating the genetic material, and therefore is a unique being protected in law.” This is a principle that Christians need to be at the forefront of championing.

Often the cloning discussion is framed in terms of setting aside a genetic savings account for a rainy day. For example, if someone needed a spare kidney or liver, one could simply thaw out a non-sentient replicant kept in suspended animation for just such an emergency. However, what really happens when a cloning takes place is more akin to forming a twin of oneself or, if one is unsettled by such age differences between siblings, parenting a child in a non-traditional format. As close as these human relationships are, at no time may we use our family members as spare parts without their consent.

The last principle holds that, “No person or institution has the right to control or profit from any process designed to clone a human being.” While it is a good idea to take the profitability and power out of the cloning process as such an action would cut down on firms entering into this undertaking (including government), if we wait to the point where we attempt to regulate the procedure where it is legislated that the technique must benefit all mankind, things may have already reached the point of no return. Such a response would imply that cloning had already become widespread. Rather, Christians in positions of influence should instead get busy cultivating, as Pope John Paul II use to call it, an ethic of life where blatant disregard for other human beings is such an anathema that no self-respecting scientist would consider participating in such research.

Overall, the policy declaration suggested by Paige Cunningham is to be commended as a good starting point for those within the church to start thinking about these kinds of issues that they may have not taken the time to consider previously but that are about to role over our country and change it in fundamental ways that we do not like unless we rise up now to set things on a better moral path.

By Frederick Meekins


Filed under: — Brujo @ 12:11 am

By Brujo Blanco

I was reading with some concern about recent developments regarding the benefits that our active duty and retired military have. A big one is the commissary. At this time the people who shop in the commissary save about 30% on their food purchases. A big recruiting point when one enters the military is the access to the commissary while on active duty and when one actually retires. Now there is a plan to close the commissaries worldwide.

If the commissaries are closed it will be just another broken promise to the military. Recently there has been a 1% reduction in pay benefits which will likely cost the retired personnel about $100,000 in pay during retirement. Now they come up with the commissary.

If you have not been in the military you may not fully understand the function of the commissary. For one is normally a very large grocery store. The commissaries in the USA itself provide affordable food to be purchased. Let me emphasize the fact that the food is not free and that the military personnel must buy the food and pay a 4% surcharge.

There is more to it than just having the food available. There are commissaries in isolated locations inside the US. This provides discounted food available for the military and their families. Now let us take a look at the overseas commissaries. These are crucial. We have soldiers living in places such as South Korea. If one has no commissary and must buy food on the economy that food would come at a very high price. Also, the food available may not be to the liking of the American palate. Also, in some countries the food on the economy might not be safe to eat. Also, our military in some instances will have to enter unfriendly territory to purchase food.

When many of us retired military types entered the military we were told that when we retired we would have free medical care, commissary privileges, and post exchange access. The free medical is gone. When a military member retires that member initially has to go with a health care system off post which involves co-pays. That means the health care is not free. Dental care is somewhat covered but the co-pays are substantial and free dental was promised and now it is almost gone. Also, when one reaches the age of 65 one is enrolled in the Medicare system and has to payt $199.99 per month for health care out of their social security retirement. This is an end run but it is not free. Now the government is talking about commissary privileges going away.

What is patently unfair is that the DOD civilians have not suffered the loss of any pension or health perks but the retired military has suffered losses. I recall Obama commenting that our wounded warriors should pay for their own medical expenses out of patriotism. Also, Obama noted that since the military members volunteered for military service they knew there was a risk of being wounded. Let us consider if a civilian gets hurt on the job that civilian has workman’s compensation as a cushion. Now we have a Commander In Chief that has stated that the military should not have this cushion.

We should keep our promises particularly for those who have put their lives on the line for us.


Filed under: — Brujo @ 11:38 pm

By Brujo Blanco

Check out the following article on line:
VA Hospital Refuses To Accept ‘Merry Christmas Cards’
by Todd Starnes published December 25, 2013, Fox News

When I read that the VA was not allowing the delivery of Merry Christmas type cards to our military heros that are in the VA system I was irritated but not surprised. The last incident of this nature was the one wherein the VA at a VA cemetery wanted to eliminate religious practices. This did not work. In fact when they were caught with their pants down regarding the restriction at the cemetery they denied that it happened.

This one regarding the Christmas cards appears to me to be test. That is the VA testing to see how far they can go with these restrictions on the content of religion and specifically on Christianity.

A VA official quoted the policy which is in the Veterans Health Administration handbook:

“In order to be respectful of our veterans’ religious beliefs, all donated holiday cards are reviewed by a multi-disciplinary team of staff led by chaplaincy services and determined if they are appropriate (non-religious) to freely distribute to patients. We regret this process was not fully explained to this group and apologize for any misunderstanding.” This means the VA has a committee that determines what is permissible regarding the free practice of religion. The VA has constructively passed a law to issue restrictions on religion. The VA and other government entities need to insure that religion can be practiced.

I do not think the VA gets it. There is still a First Amendment on the books and the patients are entitled to make their own decisions. Note that in this quote there is reference to a “team of staff lead by chaplaincy services” making decisions to determine if the cards are appropriate. Can you imagine if one the the children who presented a card received it back with a comment that the content of the card was not appropriate? This is government censorship and a violation of the rights of the children and also the rights of the patients. Are there patients that have little or no family that would really would have appreciate those cards?

This situation made me wonder if there is any censorship when it comes to the content of the religious services conducted on VA real estate. Are the services non-religious in nature? Are the preachers free to practice their religion? My problem is that these questions are not answered. We either have a freedom or we do not. The smallest compromise regarding freedom allows those who would curtail freedom a foot hold in bringing that freedom down.

I do not hold with the concept that one has a right not to be offended particularly when no offense was intended. I have meet Muslims that were offended by the presence of Jews, Americans, other non-believers, pork, and alcohol. Has there been any attempt to see to it that people are not offended by Muslims? I would venture to say that if they were offended their complaints would be falling o deaf ears?

The VA needs to take a hard look at themselves particularly in the medical facilities. They have enough on their plate with just providing medical care. That is where their efforts should be placed. They should be spending no time on restricting religious practices and the content of religious literature.

Contra pereza diligencia.


Filed under: — Brujo @ 12:52 pm

By Brujo Blanco
I have been reading a lot of liberal views regarding the practice of Christianity and what Christians are not allowed to do from their politically correct point of view. It is apparent that the end game is to by law removed Christianity from the public venue completely. When I read these things it seems that only the Christian symbols and activities are curtailed. One Christian did 6 months in jail for having prayer meetings at his house. The idea the authorities proffered was that he did not have a use permit to have church services on his property. Recently cross was removed from a desert. This cross had been in place for many years as a memorial to the war dead. It seems that periodically atheists would drive down this road just for the purpose of coming upon this cross to be offended. There was the comment by a federal judge regarding a case in which he made the comment that if a religious symbol can be seen from government property that symbol is a violation of the separation of church and state. If true this could mean that standing on sidewalk and seeing a cross on top of a church could end with the cross being taken down. How about the Muslim minarets? These are religious symbols. Another thing in some places the liberals complained about the volume of church bells but I do not believe that they have every complained about the Muslim clergy doing the all for prayer 5 times a day with lound speakers.
In keeping with the commie/liberal agenda let me present you with the politically correct statutory holiday greetings:
Statutory Annual Greeting 2013
Please accept, with no obligation, implied or implicit, the best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender and gender-identity neutral, celebration of the Winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all . . . . . and a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2014, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures (such as the Mayan calendar that predicts EOT was 2012 but never happened) whose contributions to society have helped make America great, (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only “AMERICA” in the western hemisphere or that there are not other hemispheres of equal dignity), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, lifestyle focus or sexual preference or identity of the wishee. (By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/him or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher. Terms are subject to change without notice. By accepting this greeting the recipient acknowledges that s/he is represented by counsel or knew of their right to be represented by counsel and decided to accept the greeting without such representation. Do not remove this disclaimer under penalty of law).
Merry Christmas and God Bless America.
Comment: Brujo Blanco did not write this comment)


Secularist Educators On The March Against Traditional Holidays

Sometimes, the best way to gain insight into a thing, person, or an issue is to consider it through the lens of its seemingly opposite.

For example, in terms of celebrations on the calendar, on their surface few would be more opposite than Halloween and Christmas.

Halloween, on the one hand, is a reflection that all things in this life come to an end in death and that death is the result of evil having come into the world and how all mortals have at least a passing degree of interest in that particular existential state.

Christmas, on the other hand, is a celebration of the birth of the One who came into the world so that we might have life and life more abundantly held at the time of the year in the Northern Hemisphere when nature begins to remind that the preponderance of darkness is itself a temporary thing.

By examining how each of these are viewed and approached in the mind of the secular statist, one gains more of a comprehensive understanding of the irrationality of many of the critics of these otherwise beloved occasions.

A number of these lame excuses were examined in a Desert News article titled “For Religious Reasons Christmas/Halloween Take A Hit In Schools.”

For example, at Inglewood Elementary in the suburbs of Philadelphia, party poopers there canceled the school’s student Halloween parade on the grounds that the activity was religious in nature.

Reflection upon both Halloween and Christmas parties reveals that neither celebration will likely manipulate those attending these functions to abandon their mostly deeply cherished beliefs in favor of a whole new set of spiritual paradigms.

For example, the most professedly spiritual aspect of Christmas is the commemoration of the birth of the Christ Child destined to be slain from the foundation of the world in payment for the sins of every person to have walked the face of the earth willing to accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

However, at most Christmas parties, seldom does this truth upon which all of cosmic history orbits get all that much in the way of good eats and the gift giving frenzy.

But if Christmas has to be abolished because its true meaning might unsettle those that practice other creeds or who claim to practice no creed at all not so much out of a profound conviction that outright nihilism profess is really the correct way to ultimate truth but more out of a deep-seated hatred of Jesus, then Halloween should be banished from the halls of polite academia as well. But with violence and sexuality rampant throughout many of the nation’s schools, can they really be considered all that polite anymore?

Halloween traces its origin back primarily to traditions surrounding the Celtic new year known as Samhain that were introduced to America by Irish immigrants. In pagan times, it was believed that during that particular time of year that the boundaries between the realms of the spirit and corporeal flesh were at their thinnest with beings able to cross over.

As a result, assorted customs developed where the living thought the agitated spirits could be mollified with treats. Eventually, the enterprising realized that they too could get a piece of the pie and whatever other goodies were being passed out that night if they decided to disguise themselves in costumes.

Over time, Samhain evolved into the festival that we have today. To kill a number of birds with one stone, the Roman Catholic Church adopted the days around the first of November as All Saints and All Souls Day since the minds of the natives were already focused upon the departed that time of the year. And a festival similar to the one already in place provided the reluctant with one less excuse as to why they did not want to convert to Christianity.

In its assorted prohibitions and condemnations, Scripture is quite explicit about the believer not having much to do with witchcraft, necromancy, and related things that go bump in the night. Coupled with a suspicion of Catholicism and the rise of alternative spiritualities such as the New Age movement in general or Wicca in particular, a perspective rose to prominence within the more conservative wings of Evangelicalism that the true Christian did not participate in this celebrations that look to as mascots the darkest archetypes such as witches, vampires, and the disembodied spirits of the departed that continue to walk the earth.

However, as Lutheran apologist Gretchen Passintino has amusingly summarized, participating in traditions such as Trick-Or-Treat no more makes you a pagan than opening a Christmas present makes you a Christian.

Probably nearly 99% of children participating in the traditions of Halloween such as parades are not doing so with the expressed purposes of rendering glory and homage unto Satan. Most are merely excited to be prancing about as their favorite imaginary character or as something they would like to be when they grow up and at the prospect of sugary or salty snacks once they have completed their celebratory perambulation.

Your child will be more likely to veer off into the Devil’s clutches if they are denied things as Halloween parades if for no other reason than to slap such ultracontrolling parents across the face. It is often the human tendency to conclude that if something is to be banned to the extent with nothing to replace it other than to sit around and mope (and that includes Bible study when everyone else is running the street gathering candy) it must be better than one can possibly imagine.

Concocting the excuse that both Halloween and Christmas must be banned since these celebrations might ignite the religious curiosities and inclinations of impressionable urchins apparently wasn’t enough. The bureaucrats controlling the public school system had to reveal additional cards as to just how incompetent and devoid of common sense they really are.

Dr. Fredrick Withum released the following statement to the press as to why assorted holiday activities had to be canceled in the Cumberland Valley District where he is superintendent. He said, “Twenty years ago, nobody would have ever thought that a principal would have to consider, as a part of their training, what they would do in the event of a shooting in their building or in the midst of an aggravated custody issue within their building in which a national amber alert is issued The best way to make schools safer is to continue to help them be joyful places, but we are going to have to find new ways and new procedures to ensure this is the case.”

The first part of this statement is invoked in order to paint those that disagree with what is to follow look like like such critics agree with mass murderers, kidnappers, and all around child predators. The opening statement has very little to do with why Halloween or Christmas festivities need to be canceled.

If students are passing through metal detectors and wanded before entering the building, shouldn’t that level of vigilance be able to ferret out any potential ne’erdowell attempting to sneak in an actual weapon as part a Halloween costume?

It is not that students are in any increased danger as a result of Christmas or Halloween parades.

The thing is, like many of the parents that seemingly don’t have any energy to take care of their offspring but are seemingly energetic enough to engage in the procreative calisthenics necessary to conceive another or to go on the hunt for another mate, most of the teachers backing this shift in policy are most likely just plain lazy and dislike children to such an extent that they simply don’t want to be bothered with supervising physically assertive activities such as traditional holiday parties.

Aside from serving as entertaining highlights of a given year, Christmas and Halloween parties also acculturate the youth with the narratives and traditions of the broader society across the span of time.

Thus, another prime motivator is not only bringing an end to Christmas and Halloween but also Western civilization in which these celebrations are practiced and expressed.

This is highlighted in Dr. Withum’s statement when he says, “The best way to make schools safer is to continue to help them be joyful places, but we are going to have to find new ways and new procedures to ensure this is the case.”

Throughout his campaigns and early days of his presidency, Barack Obama talked repeatedly about the need to fundamentally transform America.

There is only so much that the federal executive branch can do at that level. And even if sweeping changed are implemented from above they are often characterized as opposed rather than being transformative in nature.

In order to be the most successful, revolutionary transformation must be inflicted upon those possessing the least experience with things being a way any other than the alterations being proposed. Their acceptance is often the result of being exposed to them over the course of an extended amount of time as resistance is eventually worn down.

It is during the earliest years of education that this sweeping social manipulation is most likely to be the most effective. Hence the emphasis upon finding new ways of having joy.

As one concerned grandmother whose grandchildren attend school in the impacted district pointed out, in many instances that the observance of these holidays in the public school setting are being abolished with the excuse that these celebrations take away from instructional time. Of this, she astutely observed, “That’s a bunch of baloney. You’re going to tell me that 20 minutes out of the whole school year will do that…?”

She is absolutely correct. It is doubtful that these students are being constantly drilled in the sciences and technologies that will be need to take on and defeat the Red Chinese in the looming Lunar War.

But then again, there might not be enough time left over in the school day for Christmas, Halloween, or even Valentines Day. After all, the students of tomorrow are busy learning why they need to submit to Islamic peculiarities such as Ramadan while being led in classroom chants how there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet while they select their Muslim names or how to put a condom on a cucumber while being told that Heather has two mommies.

In their war to take over America, no front is too trivial to the proponents of totalitarianism. Many have come to realize this in the struggle to redesign the nation’s health care system.

However, seizing this essential aspect of our lives and sizable percentage of the U.S. Economy will not satisfy for very long. For even now those having embraced this despotic mindset conspire to proscribe for the citizen which rituals and commemorations bringing to mind ultimate concerns may be expressed in those venues now administered in the name of the state.

By Frederick Meekins


Filed under: — Brujo @ 8:11 pm

By Brujo Blanco

I spent my time in the military and I was a front line soldier for a short period of time. Now the military has allowed females into front line units. It is my contention that the military is not a social experiment. The military exists to win wars. Of course in this day of political correctness that may not be important for the military at the command level. One issue that is going to eat us alive is females in the military. We are likely to pay for this police in blood.

They will also be, as I said, on the front lines of the battle. In fact the military has already lowered the physical/performance standards so females have the opportunity to fight like the men do. Men have to meet a high standard of performance and it is official that the women do not. This will lead to serious operational problems. How about when it comes to portage? Portage is carrying a combat load on one’s back. We will end up with soldiers on the front lines that cannot carry a full combat load which can be substantial. This means the females that are small framed with insufficient overall strength and particularly upper body strength will end up not being required to carry a load or haves another person carry it for them or perhaps they will decrease the size of the load.

Also, there is this military tradition about not leaving anyone behind. When I was still on active duty I worked with a small framed female soldier. She stated that she wanted to be allowed to go into combat because she knows how to shoot. I then asked her, “Do you know what would happen if we were in battle and you were wounded?” She looked at me and said, “What?” I promptly told her that I would pick her up and carry her out to save her life. I then asked her, “Do you know what would happen if I was shot in combat and you were with me?” She again asked, “What?” My response really set her off when I said, “I would die because you could not even pick me up.”

Let me restate something and that is THE MILITARY IS NOT A SOCIAL EXPERIMENT. The military in this day and age are spending a lot of time in active combat. Everyone on a fighting team needs to pull their own weight and carry their own load. The enemy will allow no quarter and the enemy will take advantage of any and all weakness. Also, it is very likely that a female taken prisoner can end up being sexually assaulted.


An Open letter to John Boehner
Filed under: — Robert Farrow @ 11:12 pm

By Robert Farrow

Why am I still a Republican? The GOP just passed a bill that cuts veterans benefits, increases the debt, and raises fees (taxes) And in doing so they gutted the Sequester, the only successful attempt to stop the growth of government in recent memory. They decided to declare war on the very people who put them in the House, the Tea Party. Now, all accounts suggest the GOP is going all in on amnesty in the spring. And if amnesty is passed, the GOP will go full bore Big Government in an effort to try to win the larger Hispanic vote.

They don’t call the GOP the party of stupid for nothing. Per Wikipedia: In the 2010 midterm elections, 60% of Hispanics voted Democratic, while 38% voted Republican.[5] In 2008, 67% of Hispanics voted for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, while 31% of Hispanics voted for Republican presidential candidate John McCain.[6] In 2006, 69% of Latino voters supported Democratic candidates in congressional races, while 30% supported Republican candidates. So with all these facts in mind, what does the GOP think will add to the it’s chances in the 2014 election? “Lets add to the Democrat base of voters!” Actually, it’s worse then that. Previously, the GOP and its base had a bit of a understanding. The GOP pretends to be Conservative and we pretend to believe them as long as there were some lines that the GOP did not cross. They are however, crossing a good number of them this year. And in doing so the GOP has alienated a good portion of their base including people just like me. I, for one, am tired of it. And I will not play the game anymore.

I have no problem with legal immigration. Our nation was founded by immigrants. These were hard working immigrants who believed in the American Dream and assimilated into the melting pot  called America. Not Asian Americans, or Italian Americans, or German Americans, but just Americans. Illegal immigration is a different matter.  I am fully aware a vote for a third party is a vote for the Democrats in a two party system but I am starting to see little difference between the two because I know how it will end if Amnesty passes.  Amnesty will eventually bankrupt a country struggling with debt and overload a healthcare system already weakened by Obamacare. it will spark another wave of immigration. It will create a huge shift in voting patters, and drive down wages. This will hurt the poor and African Americans, the very group that votes Democrat 90% of the time.  Because of Amnesty there will be fewer jobs, and it will overwhelm our welfare system. And in an effort to pay for this, you guessed it, taxes will increase as will the debt. And as the percentage of debt per the GDP increases yearly, amnesty will only make the rise quicker and hasten the eventual collapse of our country’s social programs. If the country will go down, it will go down with me staying true to my values rather then being stuck with the party of stupid. I am telling Boehner one thing. If amnesty passes, I am done with the GOP. I will become an independent.  Lets send a message! If you agree with me please like my facebook page!
Tell him you too will leave the GOP if amnesty passes.


Filed under: — Brujo @ 10:32 pm

By Brujo Blanco

I was reading about a Nativity Scene on a military base. It seems that a couple of atheists saw the Nativity Scene and were offended. I suppose they went on a rant of crying and rendering of clothing. As a result of their complaint the Nativity Scene was removed. I guess a plastic Jesus was too much for them.
What I do not understand is that if one does not believe in God what is the harm of others believing in God? The military is a government entity and they are supposed to protect the rights of military members to the free exercise of religion. By taking down the Nativity Scene they have violated the rights of the individuals that hold such things holy.
I submit that if this was a Muslim display there would have been no criticism at all.
Also, there have been a number of municipalities that have been preventing Christians from having prayer meetings and services in their homes. Normally the problem is identified as the people not having use permits which they claim requires the home owner to have a use permit to comply with the zoning regulations.
Now if you have a beer blast, tupper ware party, or a bunch of guys watching a sporting event no permit is required. However, in the municipalities where these problems have been encountered they only focus on church services. My solution is that if the cops come to the door do not lie to them but do not let them in the house unless they have a warrant.
One individual recently did sis months in jail for preaching in his house. There have been some concept that these meeting create parking problems. If that is the case the cops need to focus on the parking and not what is going on in a private dwelling.
Regarding the military the military services have been stepping into the Christians off and one. Some commanders have actually told chaplains not to mention the name of Jesus Christ in that they may offend Muslims or Jews. There has been an instance wherein a military member left his Bible on his desk in his room and this offended his roommate. Libtards believe they have right not to be offended.
Then there was the story of the cross erected on a road out in the desert. In this regard some of the organized atheists apparently drove past this cross just so they could be offended. This cross has been in place since the First World War. The solution is that the atheists need to be told that as a matter of free will they should simply avoid things that offend them.
In conclusion if someone’s religious practices offends you do not go to the religious activity and be offended. Just mind your own business. If a person does not believe in God and someone else does not believe what is the harm in believing?

Filed under: — Brujo @ 10:10 pm

By Brujo Blanco

I have been reading about the nightmare of Obamacare and it is becoming something expected considering the current administration.
The current administration consists basically of people on the left and I believe that they are going to ride this Obamacare care thing to the end. Wealthy leftists and commies have always interested me because they are wealthy because they live in what is still (to a lesser degree than before) a capitalist country. Our wealth and success is based on people being able to work and take care of themselves.
One thing the left pushes hard is anything that redistributes the wealth. This health care system will really spike this redistribution. Of course the lefties will evade having their wealth redistributed. This evasion is apparent with the deals the President has made with the labor unions to exempt them. Also, we have the Muslim exemption. Also, we have the alien exemption. We have the homeless exemption. There are many people that do not and will not have to pay into the system but they will be covered.
The middle class will be required to pay high premiums and deductions which will likely create a pile of wealth to be redistributed. I believe that in the future the cost to the citizens that will be paying for it will skyrocket and be a seriously high bill to pay. With the wealth of the middle class virtually disappearing the strength of the middle class will drop lower and lower. The middle class is considered dangerous by the left and must be dealt with.
Another problem has raised its ugly head and that is a situation regarding volunteer firefighters and other first responders. The feds are alleging that volunteers are “technically” employees and as such if they work more than 30 hours per week they need to be provided with health care. My question is, “Are they supposed to have individual policies for themselves or coverage at their regular jobs?” Since 71% of the firefighters in this country are volunteers this is a real problem. My position is that they are volunteers and volunteers to do not get paid.
If they firefighters have to be in this position how about churches that have more than 50 volunteers? Obamacare is the biggest scam in the history of the world.
I suspect that they are going after the volunteer firefighters with the idea of replacing volunteers with paid firefighters and then unionizing them. Unions in this day and age are a product of liberalism. We have some towns that have had volunteer first responders for over 100 years. This may come to an end.
The only solution to these problems is to change the law and completely dismantle Obamacare. It is not affordable and I do not believe we will have healthcare which is actually available.


Baltimore Weather

Current Conditions:
Mostly Cloudy, 70 F
Are we a finished product?
Yes - we are what we are.
No - we are progressively changing based on society.
No - we are progressively changing based on evolution.
No - but evolution does not factor in the progression of the conscious mind

View results
Version 2.03
Nation's Finances
National Debt Clock

Police: Cardinals RB Dwyer head-butted wife (The Associated Press)
PHOENIX (AP) -- Arizona Cardinals running back Jonathan Dwyer head-butted his wife and broke her nose after she refused his sexual advances, and punched her in the face the next day, police said Thursday.

QB Joe Flacco returns to practice for Ravens (The Associated Press)
OWINGS MILLS, Md. (AP) -- Baltimore Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco has returned to practice one day after missing workouts with an illness.

Ex-Raven quit football to donate a kidney to his brother, an ex-Steeler (Shutdown Corner)
The bond between the Kemoeatu brothers is so tight that when Chris' career with the Pittsburgh Steelers ended because he needed a kidney transplant, that was it for Ma'ake and his Baltimore Ravens career too. "He couldn't play anymore, and I didn't want to be in a position where he couldn't play but I'd keep playing," Ma'ake Kemoeatu , a former nose tackle, said according to the Associated Press. "As soon as my brother's health was at risk I wanted to stop everything."

PepsiCo boss decries NFL problems, backs Goodell (The Associated Press)
PepsiCo Inc.'s CEO Indra Nooyi has made a double-edged statement on the NFL's problems handling domestic violence, calling some players' behavior ''repugnant'' but saying that Commissioner Roger Goodell is ''a man of integrity.'' The boss of the maker of Pepsi, Gatorade and Doritos, one of the league's biggest advertisers and sponsor of last year's Super Bowl halftime show, issued a statement late Wednesday that criticized the league but also expressed optimism that it can fix its problems. The league and its teams have come under fire over the past two weeks over how it is dealing with several players with domestic violence allegations against them. An investigation has been launched into whether Commissioner Roger Goodell knew about or saw a video of Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice hitting his then-fiancee earlier than he said. ''It's such a no-risk thing to come out against domestic violence, waving their finger but not pulling any money,'' he said.

Bengals star wide receiver A.J. Green (toe) expected to play against Titans (Shutdown Corner)
It's been a string of bad news for the NFL — on the field and off — but here's a bit of good news for fantasy football owners and Cincinnati Bengals fans alike: A.J. Green appears healthy enough to play in Week 3. [ Join FanDuel's $1.25 million, 1-week fantasy league: $25 to enter; top 11,490 teams get paid ] The right toe injury that forced Green from Sunday's 24-10 win over the Atlanta Falcons "feels good," and Bengals coach Marvin Lewis told reporters on a conference call to Tennessee Wednesday  — and reiterated to Sirius XM radio Thursday — he expects his All-Pro wide receiver to take the field against the Titans. "We expect him to play & he feels good about it." Bengals HC Marvin Lewis discussing AJ Green on @SiriusXMNFL — Ross Tucker (@RossTuckerNFL) September 18, 2014 Green initially suffered the injury in Cincinnati's Week 1 victory against the Baltimore Ravens and missed much of the following week's practices despite finishing that game. He returned to practice this past Friday and suited up against the Falcons, only to leave without a target on the first Bengals drive. While the Bengals have a Week 4 bye that would allow Green to rest his big right toe for two weeks, t he fourth-year wideout plans to practice Thursday in hopes of returning for Sunday's game.  "If it's feeling good, then I'm going to go. If not, we'll take it from there," Green told The Cincinnati Enquirer after not practicing on Wednesday. "I'm not thinking about taking a week off just to rest it some more because, if I'm fine, if I can go, I'm going to go. My body heals pretty quickly. I think I'll be fine." Green has ranked among the league's top 10 wide receivers in receptions, yards and touchdowns each of the past two seasons, but his departure against Atlanta marked the first game of his career without a catch.

NFL's Cardinals bench Jonathan Dwyer after assault arrest (AFP)
Los Angeles (AFP) - Another NFL team benched a player Wednesday over suspicion of domestic violence, deepening the woes of America's richest and most popular sports league.

NFL in crisis over off-field player violence (AFP)
Los Angeles (AFP) - The NFL, which has built a multi-billion dollar empire out of its violent and quintessentially American game, is under attack as never before over its handling of off-field violence involving players.

Column: Time for Goodell to really say something (The Associated Press)
Floyd Mayweather Jr., who has spent some time in jail for abusing women himself, was speaking some truth when he briefly rose to Ray Rice's defense last week while trying to sell some pay-per-views for his latest fight. What went on in Adrian Peterson's household with a defenseless 4-year-old boy had to be so sickening that we can only be thankful there is no video of him wielding the wrong end of a tree branch against his son. Surely the suddenly reclusive Roger Goodell must have understood that, even if the owners of the Minnesota Vikings didn't. Meanwhile, Radisson hotels had already pulled its sponsorship of the team, and major sponsors like Budweiser started making noises that they were getting uncomfortable with the way things were going down in the NFL.

Vikings reconsider, put Peterson on paid leave (The Associated Press)
EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn. (AP) -- Adrian Peterson has had the potential to be that rare post-modern NFL running back playing productively into his 30s. After that extraordinary comeback from knee reconstruction, Emmitt Smith's career rushing record became a realistic if daunting target.

NFL Injury Report (The Associated Press)
NEW YORK (AP) -- The National Football League injury report, as provided by the league (OUT - Definitely will not play; DNP - Did not practice; LIMITED - Limited participation in practice; FULL - Full participation in practice):

Chagrined NFL teams bow to pressure on domestic abuse cases (Reuters)
By Eric Kelsey and Mary Milliken (Reuters) - Another National Football League player was arrested on domestic violence allegations hours after two teams succumbed to public pressure and suspended players enmeshed in similar cases on Wednesday. The charges against Arizona Cardinals running back Jonathan Dwyer of aggravated assault in connection with two alleged incidents of domestic violence in late July come amid intensifying criticism from corporate sponsors and politicians toward America's top sports league. ...

Cardinals' Dwyer arrested on assault charges (The Associated Press)
Arizona Cardinals running back Jonathan Dwyer was arrested Wednesday on aggravated assault charges in connection with two altercations at his home in July involving a woman and their 18-month-old child, the latest in a string of such cases involving NFL players. The Cardinals said they became aware of the situation Wednesday and are cooperating with the investigation. The NFL said the case will be reviewed under the league's personal-conduct policy. Authorities depicted a stormy relationship between Dwyer and the woman that escalated into violence on July 21, four days before the Cardinals reported to training camp.

Can ex-prosecutor help save NFL from itself? (Yahoo Sports)
The league has proven itself inept at understanding abuse and figuring out punishments for various misdeeds. Both need to be addressed urgently. And just because Lisa Friel is a woman doesn't mean she gets a pass; social media and mainstream media will be justifiably skeptical of her every move.

Peterson won't rejoin Vikings until abuse case resolved (AFP)
Minneapolis (AFP) - Adrian Peterson won't rejoin the Minnesota Vikings until the child abuse charge he faces is resolved, the NFL team's owners said Wednesday, admitting their first decision to let him play was wrong.
Maryland News
Links To Others
Maryland Blogger Alliance

National News
Support the Baltimore Reporter. Buy a C.D.

Thank You

Advertise with Us!
Baltimore Reporter is looking for advertisers to help keep this site going. Email us here.
Please ignore the screen cleaner!