This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Posted by Anthony on February 2, 2010
I am deeply disturbed by the Obama administration’s decision to try the 9-11 terrorists in civilian courts, whether in New York City or anywhere else.
My jaw dropped when Holder and Obama began offering their justifications. They clearly thought that they were being reassuring but they made it much worse. For example, in response to the argument that going through the civilian courts… you know, giving the terrorists status under the Constitution of the United States… meant leaving open such possibilities that these terrorists could get parole or even declared innocent, it was replied, essentially, “Not to worry, there is no chance that a guilty verdict won’t be returned.”
Oh? Then why have the trial at all? If you can assure us of a guilty verdict before the trial itself how is this not actually a show trial?
There are any number of tweaks to the system that will have to be made in order to have a fair trial under the Constitution. For example, how are we to provide the accused a fair jury of their peers? Do we need to import people from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to find men like the accused? Also, wouldn’t a change of venue be in order? If I was the defense attorney I’d ask for one, and since I wouldn’t expect anyone in America (excepting those who write for the Huffington Post, but again, they aren’t rabid Islamicists, so not exactly peers) to feel less than outrage over the attacks, I would ask for the trial to be moved to Europe, or Pakistan or failing this, back to Gitmo.
Now we note, in passing, that these men haven’t had their Miranda rights read to them. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on December 4, 2008
I wasn’t really going to say anything about the whole ‘the auto execs flew on their private jets while begging for money’ thing, as absurd as the coverage was, but when I saw today that the automobile CEOs are driving to DC in their hybrids instead of flying this time I just burned inside with the lunacy of it and had to tell someone what I think. Since there is no one around, you, my faithful readers, must endure.
This is just stupid. I am getting tired of these media generated firestorms. As a case in point, the same media that hammered the auto executives for flying in on their private jets barely make a peep as Al Gore flies around the world in his private jet. And if the Global Warming fanatics are right, then this is a far more serious issue, as it means that Al Gore is destroying the very world he aims to save.
I saw recently too that there was is a Global Warming conference coming up expecting some 8,000 to 11,000 participants, ie, flying in from around the world. Holy cats! Think of those carbon emissions! Granted I learned about this from the media- as I learned about Al Gore’s destruction of the earth from the media- but there isn’t the same sort of pressure and relentless criticism that would have driven these people to put their money where their mouth is.
If Global Warming Conspirators really believed their message, would they not choose instead to have a virtual conference? The technology exists.
The topic of people following through with their actions as tangible sign that they really believe what they say they believe is discussed on my Christian/atheist discussion forum. While this angle is of interest, the thing that really burned me up is the media coverage. It is literally coming to the point where I don’t believe anything I see on TV or hear on the radio or read in the newspaper. The people deciding what to report- and not report- do not share my views about what is really newsworthy and as this example shows, what kinds of things are worth getting bent out of shape about.
While all the news is a buzz about what the auto execs are taking to Washington DC, there has been nary a peep (I heard a small reference on Fox News but no more) about the up coming Supreme Court conference as to visit the issue of Obama’s ‘natural born status.’ While cases were getting thrown out left and right one can almost see the mainstream media declining to report on it but in my book, if the Supreme Court actually decides to look at something of this importance, that is newsworthy. At the very least, it is newsworthy.
It reminds me of the whole Gary Condit controversy. Day in and day out we were treated to the roiling rumor mill about Condit’s affair: all this came to an end when the real story finally came out: 9/11. Now, I’m not trying to compare the auto exec story with an Obama who may not be natural born, per se. My point is that what transportation the auto exec choose to drive to DC pales in comparsion to a multitude of much more important stories in general- and on these, we hear nothing. Possibly, even likely, to our peril.
Posted by Anthony on September 11, 2008
Yesterday I was approved to be on the pro-life blogsite, www.prolifeblogs.com. Welcome to anyone arriving on my site from there. I invite you to see what I am about and my somewhat unique approach to the abortion issue.
The South Carolina chairwoman of the Democrat party said yesterday that Sarah Palin’s “primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.” This has apparently inspired a firestorm but this is an observation that was made in the conservative camp already from the reverse: that in the liberal (feminist) mind, Sarah’s primary disqualification was that she hasn’t had an abortion.
Sarah Palin is proof that carrying your baby to term is not ‘punishment‘ and does not destroy your life and keep you from succeeding as a woman. There is no question that young mothers have a difficult road ahead of them but the liberal message that it is ok to annihilate your offspring to make it easier is a bizarre moral statement entailing numerous wierd philosophical and ethical justifications. Call the offspring a ‘fetus’ or a ‘zygote’ and you can do anything you want with it, nevermind the fact that these labels are almost completely arbitrary and the implication that they are not ‘human’ by virtue of these labels completely spurious.
This sort of moral and logical jujitsu made me think about the moral equivalency present in the reaction to the terrorist attacks on 9-11. By now of course we’ve all heard the saying that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ By insisting that there is no moral foundation many become hesitant to impose their preferences on another. This applies to the abortion debate as well as to terrorism. A person of this mind might not want to condemn terrorists. They might say as their subway is blown up or their building demolished, “Well, we probably had it coming. Who am I to say?”
I don’t for a minute believe that my country is perfectly innocent. I am the first to remind people of certain government abuses. However, there can be no question that America has been, in the main, a force for the good, and this in large part because of the distinctly Christian outlook that Americans historically have possessed.
The ability to see this is completely clouded in the minds of some. Sarah Palin has been described as the perfect example of the ‘American Taliban.’ (See just one example). This is moral equivalency writ large, moral sense perfectly unhinged.
When was the last time we saw a Pentecostal walk into a coffee bar and blow it up? When was the last time we saw a Pentecostal (she’s not one anymore, but still) video tape him or herself beheading someone? When was the last time we saw a Christian of any stripe commandeer an airplane and fly it into a building? These things do not happen, yet liberals perceive that Christian ‘fundamentalists’ are just like Muslim ‘fundamentalists.’
We aren’t talking about rational people. In ultimate terms, there is no discussion possible with them. There are only three ways to overcome: 1. Convert them. 2. Out-reproduce them. 3. Out-vote them.
The Jihadist would have added “4. Slay them” but the fact that I didn’t won’t be noticed on the left, which is precisely my point.
