Monday, June 30, 2014

Mike Adams on Incest Equality

Mike Adams on the natural extension of the gay marriage argument:

Dear Governor Cuomo: 
I am writing to express my deep disappointment with your recent decision to push for an expansion of the definition of marriage – one that allows for marriage between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. Most of your recent critics are writing because they think your crusade on this issue has gone too far. I’m writing because I don’t think it goes far enough. In fact, I think your approach to this issue reflects a fundamental narrow-mindedness that is almost as distasteful as your Pharisaic moral posturing and your constant media grandstanding....
Governor Cuomo, I want to get married. And I want to move my new wife to New York City so we can pursue our respective careers in education and art (she is a painter). But, unless your state becomes more welcoming and affirming, we won’t be able to do that because the woman I want to marry is my younger sister Jennifer.
It may shock you to hear from someone who openly advocates incest. But that is the way people used to react to homosexuality. In the case of homosexuality, the remedy for such a puritanical reaction has not been silence. It has been openness. Just as we talked about homosexuality constantly – beginning in the early 90s – we must now do the same with incest. There simply is no other way to make our lifestyle seem normal.
Under my plan tolerance of incest must begin in the public schools...
... Some have asked me whether I am concerned at all about the implications of marrying Jennifer. Specifically, they worry that once married to me she will try to bring a third party – one of her girlfriends – into the marriage. But I am okay with a three party marriage. I’m committed to marriage equality even if it means sharing a lover with my younger sister. Sharing is an integral part of the progressive vision.

The fools who support the deconstruction of marriage have no answer to the point that Adams is making. Once you deny natural law and millennia of tradition to expunge the inherent heterosexual nature of marriage, you open the box to stuff that would make Pandora's head spin.

Why restrict marriage to two people, or to two unrelated people, or to people at all? Siblings, parents and children, whole communities marrying, animals as spouses. You aren't species-phobic are you?

Let the bacchanal begin.

Friday, June 27, 2014

So much surveillance, for so little.

Mark Steyn:

How did all these Tsarnaevs-in-waiting wind up living in the United States? They were let in by the government, and many of them were let in in the years since 9/11, when we were supposedly on permanent “orange alert.” The same bureaucracy that takes the terror threat so seriously that it needs the phone and Internet records of hundreds of millions of law-abiding persons would never dream of doing a little more pre-screening in its immigration system — by, say, according a graduate of a Yemeni madrassah a little more scrutiny than a Slovene or Fijian. The president has unilaterally suspended the immigration laws of the United States, and his attorney general prosecutes those states such as Arizona who remain quaintly attached to them. . . . 
As for Major Hasan, who needs surveillance? He put “Soldier of Allah” on his business card and gave a PowerPoint presentation to his military colleagues on what he’d like to do to infidels — and nobody said a word, lest they got tied up in sensitivity-training hell for six months.

Our Obamaguardians need to sift the phone and internet records of hundreds of millions of Americans, ostensibly looking for any evanescent snippet of furtive pre-terrorist behavior, yet they ignored two f*cking letters sent to our government from the Russian government telling us that Tsarnaev was a terrorist.

So much surveillance, to what end? Dead and maimed Bostonians?

It all makes sense of course if one concludes that the ubiquitous surveillance of Americans doesn't really have much to do with terrorism, except of the government kind, directed at Americans.

But you'd have to be paranoid to think that, right?

Novella invokes the Lemon test

In defending the "separation of church and state"-- an unconstitutional phrase inserted into Constitutional law by a former Klansman who used it as part of the KKK initiation oath in Alabama-- Steven Novella invokes the Lemon Test:

The Lemon Test 
Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if: 
1) It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose. 
2) The practice either promotes or inhibits religion. 
3) Or the practice excessively (in the Court’s opinion) involves government with a religion.

The Lemon Test has been described as unconstitutional gibberish by a number of legal scholars and Supreme Court justices.

The Lemon test has been criticized and revived numerous times by the Court. Justice Scalia likened the Lemon test to a “ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried.” It is “easy to kill,” allowing the Supreme Court to apply the test when the Court wishes to condemn a particular practice, ignore the test when the Court wishes to allow a practice, or simply refer to the test as a helpful guide. Lamb’s Chapel v. Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384, 398-99 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring). The inconsistent application of the test led to great uncertainty, and concomitantly chilled legitimate religious expression clearly outside the legitimate boundary of the Establishment Clause.

Is the Lemon Test unconstitutional gibberish?

Consider this: apply the Lemon Test to the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of religion or prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof
The Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment clearly promotes religion. This violates prong #2 of the Lemon Test, which rules unconstitutional any law or government practice that "either promotes or inhibits religion".

According to the Lemon Test, the First Amendment is unconstitutional.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

"The Time Has Come to Outlaw Human Cloning"

Wesley J. Smith:

Scientists recently announced that they had successfully cloned human embryos for the first time, using the same process that produced Dolly the sheep. 
[T]herapeutic cloning already poses an acute threat to human dignity. As Charles Krauthammer, who served on George W. Bush’s President’s Council on Bioethics, warned in the New Republic in 2002, creating cloned embryos for research—now accomplished—is “dangerous” because it reduces the cloned embryo to “mere thingness,” justifying “the most ruthless exploitation.” He went on to say: 
It is the ultimate in desensitization . . . The problem, one could almost say, is not what cloning does to the embryo, but what it does to us . . . Creating a human embryo just so it can be used and then destroyed undermines the very foundation of the moral prudence that informs the entire enterprise of genetic research: the idea that, while a human embryo may not be a person, it is not nothing. Because if it is nothing, then everything is permitted. And if everything is permitted, then there are no fences, no safeguards, no bottom.
The only effective preventative is to enact a comprehensive legal ban on human SCNT, not just the uses to which a cloned embryo may be put. Contrary to what the science intelligentsia, the biotechnology industry, and the mainstream media might claim, banning human SCNT is a step that is widely supported internationally. Indeed, in 2005, the General Assembly of the United Nations votedoverwhelmingly in support of a non-binding resolution calling upon member states “to prohibit all forms of human cloning.”
The devil will be found in how the term “cloning” is defined. In particular, we should be on the lookout for phony bans that actually legalize the SCNT process using human DNA. For example, many proposals would only outlaw “reproductive cloning.” But as we have seen, such a “ban” would not outlaw cloning at all, merelyone potential use that could be made of embryo made through cloning.
Outlawing human cloning would provide salutatory benefits. First, it would deprive cloning researchers of the funds to further perfect human cloning techniques. Outlawing human cloning would also be a clarion call to our scientists demanding that they stay within proper moral parameters as they serve society through the pursuit of knowledge. And it would protect women. Recall that human eggs are the essential ingredients in the cloning recipe. As I wrote here last month, the need for human eggs in cloning threatens a great “human egg rush.” 
But retrieving human eggs can be very dangerous to women’s health and fecundity. Banning cloning can thus prevent the further objectification of the female biological function. 
Finally, on a positive note, once human cloning becomes beyond the pale, we could begin to row in the direction of areas of biotechnology that are morally licit, freeing human and financial resources for the pursuit of the abundant avenues of moral andefficacious biotechnological research—such as adult stem cell research, genetically tailored chemotherapy, and other medical treatments. 
We can achieve remarkable biotechnology breakthroughs in this century without surrendering our ethics. Outlawing human cloning is the essential progressive act.
It is the ultimate in desensitization . . . The problem, one could almost say, is not what cloning does to the embryo, but what it does to us . . . Creating a human embryo just so it can be used and then destroyed undermines the very foundation of the moral prudence that informs the entire enterprise of genetic research: the idea that, while a human embryo may not be a person, it is not nothing. Because if it is nothing, then everything is permitted. And if everything is permitted, then there are no fences, no safeguards, no bottom.

Of course, a human embryo is a person, more than "not nothing", endowed by God with a right to life.

But Krauthammer  and Smith get it otherwise right. Human cloning is the literal desecration of man-- the manufacture of man. The purposes are likely to be ultimately as vile as the procedure-- the use of the manufactured person for tissue and organs, for vanity or slavery of every imaginable type. 

Ban it now. 

Progressives Made Their Beds; It’s Time They Lay In It

Derek Hunter from Town Hall:

Republicans must resist the urge to help with these “fixes.”
We just spent a month being lectured by arrogant know-it-alls about how Obamacare is “settled law.” So keep it settled. 
Obamacare is failing already, and it will continue to fail in more spectacular ways as we move forward, let it. 
Democrat wrote the bill, Democrats voted for the bill, a Democrat president signed it into law. It’s theirs. Make them live with it. As is.Do not change one comma, one letter. It’s settled law! This is what they wanted, this is what people voted for. If the full failure of Obamacare isn’t allowed to happen, if “fixes” are passed, it will live on in a money-sucking spiral of destruction that will lead to a complete and total government takeover of health care in this country – which is their goal.
It’s going to be painful, but it’s also going to be quick. And the pain will be nothing compared to the damage to the economy and our future if this Frankenstein’s monster is helped to limp into permanency. 
Meanwhile, this is also a chance for conservative groups to flex their muscles (and ample money) in a non-circular firing squad way. I have to address them directly now.
Set up a website as a clearinghouse for Obamacare failure stories. 
I know you don’t play nice with each other, but get over it. One website, not competing websites – and the focus has to be spreading these collected stories to the media, both national and local. I know you love adding to your email lists, but this can’t be about that. This has to be about spreading the truth the media will do its damnedest to ignore. 
Gather stories from any source possible, including user-submitted. Verify them and record the actual people going through them on video in 30- and 60-second clips. Then blast them out daily to every local media outlet in their area. And post new ones on the site daily. Go around the media like President Reagan used to. Overwhelm them into covering the truth. 
It’s going to take money, but this can’t be a fundraiser for you. Asking people for money is understandable in normal circumstances, but this is not a normal circumstance. Collect stories, film them and get them out there – that is the only purpose here. If you want to win, that is. If you’d rather be the voice of the conservative movement or the Tea Party group, then that’s your priority – not making the country a better place – and I can’t help you.
Republicans have to be united. Conservatives have to be united. If done right, this effort will have no spokesman on TV. It will be a conduit for getting real people with real Obamacare horror stories in front of any camera, at any time, anywhere in the country. It will be a major undertaking, a massive database and possibly the most important thing any or all of you can do over the next year. 
Progressives are unified and indignant. They are indifferent to the cost to both the country and individual, and the pain to the individual is, to them, irrelevant. This is about the concept. 
To protect their agenda, they will highlight any success story, no matter how dubious. Conservatives must beat them at their own game. They trot out personal stories constantly; we must do the same. If the president gives a speech touting Obamacare in Fresno, Calif., every reporter within 100 miles should be served up a menu of people suffering under it before Air Force One touches the ground. 
This is a winnable fight. It’s our fight to win. But if there’s one thing Republicans and conservatives excel at, it’s snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. 
Obamacare is a disaster, not just in code on a website, but in concept and construction. It survives if we allow it to survive. No more delays, no more defunds, and no more changes. Every unconstitutional change the president makes must be immediately met with a court challenge, even if it’s good. It’s his law. It’s his “medicine.” Make him take it.

I have a lot of sympathy for this approach. Americans voted for it by voting in the crooks and fools who enacted it.

Perhaps the Republican strategy should be to shove it down everyone's throats, and play it hard to Republican advantage. Make ordinary Americans understand what they did when they pulled those "D" levers in the voting booth.

Perhaps it would backfire. I suspect that Obamacare is a mess on purpose-- I think Obama's strategy is to wreck the medical system, so they can get single payer from the wreckage. A Cloward-Piven strategy, applied to our health.

But we can play the game too. Let it be wrecked, and make damn sure the American people know who did it, and lead the charge to drive them out of our government.  

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Same sex... marriage.

Same sex marriage is gaining ground, fast. There's no question that the truth-based community is losing this fight. Some observations:

1) Gays don't actually care about marriage, in any significant numbers. Few gays marry, even where it is legal.

2) Homosexuals didn't devastate marriage. Heterosexuals have caused enormously more damage to marriage than gays have or can. Millions and millions of us have wrecked our marriages with selfishness, infidelity, and just plain stupidity. We made divorce easy and adultery commonplace. We reduced marriage from the sacrament that it is-- an image of the Holy Trinity (father, mother, and child)-- to a temporary legal arrangement, open to nullification for the most adolescent and venial of reasons.

3) The culpability of the gay marriage movement in the destruction of marriage lies more in the emerging victory of the pagan culture it exemplifies than in the specific damage it will cause. Same sex marriage will certainly degrade marriage, but gays will always be pikers compared to the degradation that heterosexuals have inflicted on marriage.

4) The pagans are winning because they have taken control of the culture. For the most part we are using their terms and logic. Checkmate.

5) The primary impact of the legalization of gay marriage will not be on marriage but on religious freedom. The legal imprimatur conferred to gay unions will rapidly lead to suppression of Christian praxis in the public square. Christians will be forced to collaborate with gay matrimony in innumerable ways-- Christian wedding photographers, florists, venue owners, musicians, teachers, government employees, churches and pastors will have to choose between livelihood and faith. It's already happening. It will be a tsunami when gay marriage is legal everywhere.

This use of government force to drive Christians from the public square by forcing us to deny our faith or lose our livelihood is already happening with the contraception mandate, and has been tested and refined in decades of legal assault on Christians in the courts on issues such as teaching of evolution and public displays of crosses and creches. This is the next step. The Christophobes used to call the police if we asked questions in school about Darwinism or put a manger on the courthouse lawn. Now the haters will call the police if we demur on the purchase of contraception or on renting our banquet hall for Bruce and Steve's wedding reception.

The gay marriage movement has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage of gays. It is an Alisnkyite checkmate--

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Gay marriage has everything to do with elimination of faithful Christians from the public square.

We cannot beat this by imitating their language and logic. When we use their terms, we have already lost. We are living in a rapidly de-Christianizing and paganizing society, ignited with astonishing evil, and marriage is being transformed to serve other purposes, like a cathedral turned to a brothel. No amount of debate and sociological exegesis will save marriage if we forget that marriage transcends law and civilization and cultural breezes. Marriage-- real marriage between a man and a woman-- is part of what it means to be human.

We have probably lost this fight and this culture already. But the truth remains: marriage is a sacrament. The life-long union of a man and a woman open to new life is the image of God with us.

What remains for us is to tell the truth, without compromise and without fear. 

"That simplifies our problem..."

Wisdom from the most decorated Marine in history, Major General Chesty Puller.

During the Korean War, (then) Colonel Puller, on being informed that his Marine unit was completely surrounded by the Chinese army at the Chosin Reservoir, replied:

"We're surrounded. That simplifies our problem..." 

Face it, fellow Christians and cultural conservatives. We're surrounded. We are on the HOV lane to paganism. We're now on the part with no speed limit. We are losing this culture war. Fast. We've been out-Gramsci'd.

This simplifies our problem. We can let go of spin, censoring ourselves, imitating our foes, straining to be politically correct. We of course should continue to fight in the political arena and in the cultural arena, but most important, we need to protect our families and friends and fellow Christians, and pray for our enemies, and we need to serve and love God.

We are surrounded by an increasingly pagan culture. But we've been here before.

It's how we started, actually.