Saturday, April 19, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Here's an update from World Net Daily on the Christian kids art project getting a failed grade. I wrote on this a while back, but in this story we pick up where the school representative is explaining that they do not accept "religious" projects. As you read that, the journalist mentions what they are seeing on the walls in the hallways of the school as well as what is hanging in the room they are doing the interview in. Very funny and hypocritical.
"To meet our responsibilities, students are required to follow the rules of conduct for their classrooms and the instructions that their teachers give them for class assignments. While the district respects all students' religious freedoms, those freedoms are not a license for students to force the school to display religious messages of their choosing…"
The ADF said the teacher's grading policy banned depictions of "blood, violence, sexual connotations, [or] religious beliefs."
A "demon" mask that was allowed
But in practice it was a discriminatory policy, the ADF said in a court motion seeking an immediate injunction against the school.
"Allowing demonic depictions by some students while prohibiting Christian religious expression in artwork by others is a blatant violation of the Constitution," said David Cortman, senior ADF legal counsel.
The lawsuit was filed late last month after the student's artwork was rejected, then he was told he had signed away his First Amendment rights at the beginning of the semester in order to participate in the class.
The ADF's motion noted: "While penalizing A.P.'s religious express, defendants prominently display[ed] in the school's hallway a large painting of a six-limbed Hindu woman riding a swan figure. … Elsewhere, on a hallway bulletin board, there hangs a drawing of a robed sorcerer."
A Buddha fountain that also was allowed
The law firm said the district displays artwork reflecting Hindu, Buddhist and satanic themes all over.
"It is displayed in classrooms (including the very classroom where district officials met to reiterate to A.P. that his Christian religious expression warranted no constitutional protection)," the law firm said.
The lawsuit names as defendants the school district, administrator Robert Fasbender, assistant principal Cale Jackson, and faculty members Julie Millin and Margi Genrich.
"The fact that the student was not only refused a grade on the project, but given two detentions creates "a draconian atmosphere … [that] evinces a manifest hostility toward Christianity," ADF said.
No such "waiver" of the student's First Amendment rights is applicable, either, the firm said.
"A waiver for First Amendment rights will be found only on the basis of clear and compelling evidence that the party understood his rights and intentionally relinquished or abandoned them," the law firm argued.
"At the time he signed the policy, A.P. had no idea that it would be so restriction of religious expression in the class … And the facts show that at the time that A.P. signed the policy, he did not think that including something like a small cross, or a simple scripture verse reference, would be subject to censorship…"
Further, the student is a minor and was denied the opportunity "to seek advice from counsel" before being required to sign, ADF said."An incredible fact in this case is that in the very same room in which defendants Jackson, Millin, and Genrich conducted their parent-teacher conference with A.P. and his family – and reiterated their policies banning student religious express in class assignments – defendants displayed student drawings of the Greek
goddess Medusa; a demonic figure with horns, scales, and protruding tongue; several demonic masks; and a drawing of the Grim Reaper, holding a scythe," ADF said.
The injunction is needed immediately because of the passing of time and loss of grades for the student, the law firm said.
"Here, the school permits some religious expression in its classrooms and hallways, so long as it is not Christian religious expression," the ADF said.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Smoking Gun has had to embarrass a “hip-hop star” by doing an investigation on him that shows the straight forward lies Akon has told to get where he is in his fans eyes. The title of the article is below and you can click on the link in the article heading. But it is just another example of how the music industry prays on kids yearning to look to something when it isn’t their Creator.
Not so fast, Shvarts told the Yale student newspaper.
"She said she does not know whether or not she was ever pregnant," the newspaper said.
"No one can say with 100 percent certainly that anything in the piece did or did not happen," Shvarts told the newspaper, "because the nature of the piece is that it did not consist of certainties."
An adept reader linked this below in the comments section. Here is the title with the link in it for further reading. I must admit that I am somewhat relieved to find out this additional information. However, my rant still stands... about the Democrats being a party of death... and... stuff.
Here are some more articles on the matter and this “freaky” chick:
My favorite quote comes from this story:
I guess she showed the heteronormative patriarchy a thing or two about overreacting to, um, serial abortion as a form of highbrow entertainment.
At any rate... enjoy the updates.
UNBELIEVABLE... "may your babies shoot fire from their eyes every time you think of them when you mature!"
This is how fascistic our society is becoming. Where life is considered good enough to stop merely for an art project. I can tell she is a liberal, other than the fact that she is killing the beginning of life without a second thought... I mean the Democratic Party is the Party of Death, by the line that the abortifacient drugs she is taking are herbal. I do not want to paint the “Blue Dog Democrats” into this liberal corner, but definitely the current leaders of the Democratic Party, they are partly to blame for keeping this institution of death so unmanaged while asking people to hand over more than half their earnings when they die, thus affecting the deceased immediate family, who could need that money to make up for the rising food costs incurred by the eviro-“mental” groups that the Democratic Party is wholly sold out to. People like this that are so careless as to end a life to make a point or to shock people are insainly sick. they are - however - living out the evolutionary ethic.
The only question one should ask is it life. That’s all. This is from a very well written book (44 reviews on Amazon with a 4-1/2 star... pretty good) in study note fashion:
When Does Life Begin?
1. It is uncertain when human life begins; that’s a religious question that cannot be answered by science.
An article printed and distributed by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL [the original, and still largest pro-“choice” organization]) describes as “anti-choice” the position that “human life begins at conception.” It says the pro-choice position is, “Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact.” Bill O'Reilly of Fox News said on July 3, 2000, "No one knows when human life begins." He made no distinction between biological life and any other kind of life. Mr. O’Reilly then went on to ask a guest if "is an embryo in a [petri] dish a human life"? Sen. Hatch's claim that "an embryo in a petri dish is not a human life"?
1a. If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.
[One of the reasons the Supreme Court allowed the legalization of abortion is that they weren’t sure of when life began.] Suppose there is uncertainty about when human life begins. If a hunter is uncertain whether a movement in the brush is caused by a person, does his uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire? If you’re driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may be just a shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes? If we find someone who may be dead or alive, but we’re not sure, what is the best policy? To assume he is alive and try to save him, or to assume he is dead and walk away?
Shouldn’t we give the benefit of the doubt to life? Otherwise we are saying, “This may or may not be a child, therefore it’s all right to destroy it.”
1b. Medical Textbooks and scientific reference works constantly agree that human life begins at conception.
Many people have been told that there is no medical or scientific consensus as to when human life begins. This is simply untrue. Among those scientists who have no vested (monetary) in the abortion issue, there is an overwhelming consensus that human life begins at conception. (Conception is the moment when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, bringing into existence the zygote, which is a genetically distinct individual.)
Dr. Bradley M. Patten’s textbook, Human Embryology, states:
“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of a new individual.”
Dr. Keith L. Moore’s text on embryology, referring to the single cell zygote, says:
“The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being.” He also states, “Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote.”
Doctors J. P. Greenhill and E. A. Friedman, in their work on biology and obstetrics, state:
“The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”
Dr. Louis Fridhandler, in the medical textbook Biology of Gestation, refers to fertilization as:
“that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new unique individual.”
Doctors E. L. Potter and J. M. Craig write in Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant:
“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”
Popular scientific reference works reflect this same understanding of when human life begins. Time and Rand McNally’s Atlas of the Human Body states:
“In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”
In an article on pregnancy, the Encyclopedia Britannica says:
“A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.”
These sources confidently affirm, with no hint of uncertainty that life begins at conception. They state not a theory or hypothesis and certainly not a religious belief – every one is a secular source. Their conclusion is squarely based on the scientific and medical facts.
1c. Some of the world’s most prominent scientist and physicians testified to a U. S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception.
In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. Al of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the
“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of a human life….
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty… is not a human being. This is human life at every stage….”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the
“after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:
“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth,
“It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of
“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view as simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological [familial, age, or medical advances], political [pro-choice], or economic goals [cannot finish school].”
A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who could specifically testify that life begins at any other point other than conception or implantation.”
1d. Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception.
Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was co-founder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL [Dr. Nathanson help start the entire pro-choice movement]). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the Western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.
Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”
In his film, The Silent Scream, Dr. Nathanson later stated, “Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from us.” Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader. At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.
Dr. Lundrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at
“I oppose abortion, I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest – that human life commences at the same time of conception – and, secondly, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.”
The official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:
“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a humans being – a being that is and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”
Does It Matter?
In a statement form the The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Director of Media and Policy Daniel McConchie said:
"Stem cell lines are quickly becoming marketable items. Once some integral human parts can be bought and sold, we run the risk that democratic societies will decide that other weak and defenseless members of the human race in those societies can be utilized for profits as well."
Jews and Blacks were once said by the courts to be less than human, I wonder if we are headed down that path again?
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
For a few days now I have heard the idea of “élite” thrown around by the democrats that show just how out of touch they are on many issues. In fact, if you watch the beginning of this Colbert Report interview of Michelle Obama, elitism is defined as how much money was involved in your upbringing.
Unfortunately, elitism would be a bit closer to this definition... although, this isn’t a proper definition either. Here is a good place to quickly discuss the percentages of whom is in Congress for a reference point:
Now to a quick clip by Michelle Obama:
I want to give a definition of elitism that hits closer to home. Take note that a persons upbringing and wealth status does not necessarily matter.
(1) The belief: that government ought in principle, always and everywhere, to be confined to elites. Rarely a worked-out doctrine on its own right, more often a piece of unexamined value judgment, or a view which follows from some more general argument in political philosophy, as for example in Plato’s Republic.
(2) The belief: that government is in practice confined to elites; that, following a maxim of Hume, “ought implies can” (in other words, that there is no point in saying that government ought to be controlled by the people if in practice it cannot); and that we might just as well accept what we are bound to have anyhow. These views are especially associated with Mosca and with Pareto in the early twentieth century, and with Schumpeter in the mid-century. All three writers shade into elitism in sense 1 because they go on to produce normative justifications of rule by elites in a Democracy. However, their earlier arguments do not in themselves imply that if democratic control of government were somehow achievable it would be undesirable.
(3) The belief: that government is in practice confined to elites; that this has often been justified by arguments from Plato or Schumpeter; but that this is undesirable because elite rule is in practice rule on behalf of the vested interests of (usually economic) elites.
Now, I will say that since the McCain Feingold law passed, a richer segment of society can only run for office, which is a form of elitism. But so is the fact that lawyers are over represented in Congress, a form of elitism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy concisely defines elitism as “[t]he belief that in any society there exists of ought to exist groups of those pre-eminent in any given field, including the political.” This same book goes on to say that the term,
Some people have natural talents that make them rise above others can often times lead to an elite type of people at times in positions of power or influence. This isn’t always negative. It is almost comical that if these democrats consider themselves feminists or friendly to feminists, that “elitism” is defined in the Feminist Dictionary as the “label used by feminists, from 1969 to 1971, to denounce other feminists who acquired public notoriety. Since feminists had rejected overt structure and hierarchy...”. You see, radical feminism that exists within the Democratic Party ultimately have a radical (some would say elitist) view of political science and man/womyn relations (I spelled woman like feminists do, womyn).
Feminist author Ti-Grace Atkinson shows her true autonomy when stating, “the institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.” Marilyn French, feminist author calls all men rapists: “All men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.” Gloria Steinen, feminist extraordinaire, wrote the following about Andrea Dwarkin, a contemporary, “Every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them.” Wow, such high accolades from one of the most well-known activists in the feminist movement, so what does this Andrea Dworkin have to say about us men? “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies.”
This from the Feminist Dictionary, whose definitions are self-explanatory:
- Male: “... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.”
- Man: “... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man.”
- Testosterone Poisoning: “Until now it has been thought that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from ‘testosterone poisoning.’”
Some more quotes for clarity:
This type of feminist philosophy can be considered elitist. I consider elitist ideas a bit differently. I would say that within the division of the pure modern liberalism versus conservatism, that liberalism is more elitist than conservatism. But that is neither here nor there. The scope of this post is merely to show that the Party of “egalitarianism” separates people by race, gender, and how much money they make, which skews how they interpret “elitism.”
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
At any rate, if you wish to watch the video for now Explorer is your best hope until Blogpsot or Mozilla fixes the issue
Monday, April 14, 2008
A quick run-down of what MEChA is:
Portions of speeches by MEChA members... yes, this includes Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa:
One last video about illegal immigration, tomatoes, and Whole Foods Market:
Sunday, April 13, 2008
In case any of my 3 or 4 readers do not know what is going on in
- After we deposed Saddam, thus ending combat operations involved in the takeover of Iraq with the largest coalition of allies ever put together in world history (in-other-words, not unilateral in the invasion), we began assisting in rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure, the final consensus being that all the revenue from Iraqi sales of their oil would be put into a fund governed by the United Nations which was then to be put right back into the rebuilding effort.
has never seen any of the revenues from these sales, nor have they gotten any of the oil... much to the chagrin of all those lefties who think Bush went to war for oil. In fact, if memory serves me, the first time America Iraqactually took over the sales of this natural resource, and a few other countries (India, Vietnam, and Indonesia) were set up for contracts. China was not in those contracts... so sorry Code Pink (e.g., all the really left leaning persons) and (*wink*) Kimba (e.g., anyone who is left on the left, known as confused stragglers). America
Now the Democrats (who, again if you remember, said we went to war for oil) want us to get in on the oil deals from