“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Who knew John Adams was a prophet?




These words are turning out to be prophetic:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other. John Adams.
I'll keep banging the drum. The changes we are seeing in society are the result of a secularization which has been occurring since the Scopes Monkey Trial. Last Thursday's California Supreme Court 4-3 ruling that a California law against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional is merely the latest of events which corroborate Adam's observation about the nature of the Constitution.

The case against the Yearning for Zion cult has taken a turn as the State of Texas has not been able to prove its allegations of child abuse. Both the ACLU and the CATO institute have weighed in against Texas. Listen to this CATO podcast to get a better idea of what has gone awry.

Unless "majority rule" is allowed to prevail in our politics, polygamy, same sex marriage and more will soon be legal in America. It's inevitable that without a common moral foundation, we will not be able to agree on morality or laws regarding moral issues.

Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

62 comments:

  1. I don't know about the case to be made in scripture, but I recognize over-reaching elitism, group think, and the arrogance of power. The same group that thinks a thirteen year old should be able to have an abortion without parental notification thinks that children should be taken from their parents because of what may happen in the future.

    Government has no business in these people's lives.

    ReplyDelete
  2. when you find out that the "leaders" of this group of child molesters are the combined fathers of 70% of the kids with mother's under the age of 13 - 15 you may think different...

    it pains me to see fucking retards use my tribe's concepts, words, thoughts and even names to try (without success) to attach themselves to the G-d of Israel.

    The Scopes trial was a sham....

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's one thing if the people vote for it, another if four judges shove it down the people's throat.


    California Decision Will Radically Change Society
    By Dennis Prager

    Americans seem mesmerized by the word "change." And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.

    Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.

    Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.

    And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it's no big deal. Hey, it doesn't affect any heterosexuals' marriage, so what's the problem?

    This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones -- and their millions of compassionate supporters -- allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays.

    Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.

    That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.

    Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion -- or to any past wisdom -- for one's values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America's values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn't they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.

    Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals -- the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society's values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, "the Bible says" ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, "compassion says" ends discussion.

    If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.

    Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming -- to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.

    The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity -- especially females -- can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction -- until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is "heterosexism," a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.

    Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.

    Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger -- if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.

    Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.

    Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it -- a man and a woman.

    Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

    Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.

    And what will happen after divorce -- which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.

    We have entered something beyond Huxley's "Brave New World." All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.

    Anticipating reactions to this column -- as to all defenses of man-woman marriage -- that it or its author are "homophobic," i.e., bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic that a gay man or woman is created in God's image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life's unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person -- and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.

    That is why Californians must amend their state's Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And in Oz..

    The New South Wales Opposition has decided to have a conscience vote on a bill that will give same-sex female partners parental rights.

    The bill will change birth certificates of IVF babies by replacing the word 'father' with the word 'parent' when the child is born to a mother in a lesbian relationship using a sperm donor.

    The change is one of about 50 amendments that expand the definition of marital status and relationships to include same-sex couples.


    Parental Rights

    ReplyDelete
  5. Horseshit! If they want to marry a donkey, it's none of my business. Or yours! Or Dennis Praeger's!

    They took those kids away from their parents; and, NOW they can't prove abuse?!? What a steaming crock of shit.

    I don't want to live in a town with no churches; BUT, I sure as hell don't want to live in a town "Governed" by Any Moralistic, Holder of the "Holy Truth, bunch of assholes.

    Those among us who would choose to be held to a set of laws laid down by a "Church" (Any church) had better look back in History, and around the present-day world, and rethink this "Governed by the Holy Laws of the Religious" bullshit; cause, it hasn't worked out too well in the past.

    Don't ask me how I "Really" feel.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anything goes, I can marry my sister.

    I don't know about the child abuse in Texas. But you can't convince me those women were anything but brainwashed, and good. You'd have to be to put up with that nonsense. All clothed alike, like clones. Must do this, can't do that. Daddy is boss. Can't escape. Trapped. Wash the dishes. Share some moron. Brood mares.

    sheeeezsh

    ReplyDelete
  7. By the logic of that decision, a man can marry his grandmother, mother, sisters, daughters all at the same time, taken to its conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Albert Hawkins says it will cost about $1.7 million a month for Texas to care for the youngsters, who are in foster homes.

    State Senator Bob Deuell of Greenville suggested making the adults left behind on the secluded West Texas compound, which is valued at more $20 million, foot the bill.

    Almost 50 children are housed at Waco’s Methodist Children’s Home.


    Adding Up

    ReplyDelete
  9. For other experts, however, the concern is not the separation of church and state but deprogramming. The bottom line, according to Utah psychologist Dr. Larry Beall, who has worked work with women and children who have fled polygamists sects, is the FLDS is a "cult" involved in "plain ole brainwashing since birth." Says Beale, "They have been taught that anyone on the outside is untrustworthy. They are the enemy and they are going to hurt you." He adds, "My experiences with these kids is once they are out of the controlled environment they come to enjoy their freedom."

    Some, of course, Beall says, may not. For the boys, particularly those who had found favor with their fathers, the transition will be more difficult; meanwhile the young, teenaged mothers who see themselves as an integral part of the culture will also pose complex challenges. The young mothers occupy a crucial place in their community, proud symbols of a central tenet of their faith that only "celestial marriage" [polygamy] gains believers admission to the highest level of Heaven. (Upon reaching puberty, FLDS girls are required to marry, usually into the existing families of older men.) Furthermore, says Beall, the young women may harbor feelings of guilt and shame as victims now that they left what they have been taught to believe are the safe and sacrosanct confines of the FLDS community.

    The Future of the Polygamist Kids

    Required to marry at puberty. Sounds like child abuse to me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. THAT would be child abuse, Bob. But, if that Was happening, why are we reading that NO Abuse was found?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I haven't followed it at all, Rufus, so I don't know. No slapping around, maybe, no bruises, that sort of thing. Maybe the girls are afraid to speak out. I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Maybe they think, or are sorta, happy in a way, having known nothing else, never having any choice about anything.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I haven't paid any attention, either, Bob; but, I haven't heard of any charges being filed.

    I don't know, Bob. I just get the jeebies when people want to attain enough power over me that they can make me live according to "Their" Religion.

    In short: "Keep Your Church out of MY Church; and, I'll keep My Church out of YOUR Church." And, if the dumb sumbitch wants to pay "Child Support" to a Dozen wives, Lotsa Luck wit dat.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There's a fuckin' shitload of dirt out there on this guy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Removing the lapel pin makes perfect sense now. Jeremiah must've told him 'yo bro, that shit ain't coo.'

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yeah, I'm pretty much with you there, for sure. The trouble with that California court decision is, four people overturned a measure passed by 61% of the people of California, who already through their legislature had given gays pretty much all they wanted. Anad taken further, it really does open up lots of other possibilities.

    I've pretty much concluded the human race is ungovernable anyways, except with an iron fist, which I certainly don't support. So, I try not to lose too much sleep over it.

    If the people of California want to vote to have gays marry, seems to me they have a right to do that, and maybe they would someday. They can't vote to require girls at puberty to marry though, that violates the girls freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What I don't get is how come the superdelegate heavies can't see through this bullshit? It's like everybody is hypnotized. Are there subliminal messages being beamed out from NBC?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Che is not a real Communist, any more, sam, he's a logo for the chic & stylistic.

    Most of the Democratic elite support Drivers Licenses for all the folk driving on the roads.

    Why you or any one else would support illegals driving without licenses, the status que situation, is beyond me. Just one of the reason auto insurance rates, in AZ, are amongst the highest in the nation.

    We have such a high percentage of unlicensed and uninsured drivers, here. No one has yet to explain the social or moral good that is obtained by denial of legal drivers licenses and the required liability insurance. Nor explained how denying legality to those residents is in the best interest of US citizens. Citizens that are sharing the roads with them, daily, due to the quantity of illegals the Federals have allowed residence in the US.

    Nearly 20 million of mixed nationalities.

    Seems that the Texas authorities acted in haste, and are now looking for a way out. One of the reasons the AZ and UT governments have given those folk a pass for all these years, damned hard to get an indictment, let alone a conviction.

    ReplyDelete
  20. How about this question, Bob: "Just what business does the Government have "Sanctioning" ANY KIND of "Marriage?"

    Marriage is, basically, a "Religious" construct; perhaps, the "State" should just stay out of it from the git-go.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Is there "Anything" in the Constitution that allows as how the government should be promoting one type of marriage/religion over the other?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't support illegals driving without licenses.

    ReplyDelete
  23. During the course of the American independence movement, a "hard-line" approach also developed and became the basis for the 19th Century abolitionist movement that sought the immediate and absolute emancipation of all slaves. Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who founded the abolitionist periodical "The Liberator" in 1839, was white and drew upon his deeply religious convictions.

    Frederick Douglass, who founded "North Star" in 1847 was a former slave, who drew upon personal tragedy and a lifetime of resolute resistance. While the two only differed in their backgrounds and the source of their inspiration, both were vitriolic in their opposition to slavery and uncompromising in their support for emancipation.

    Douglass summarized his political philosophy as follows: "If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.


    Repression Persists

    ReplyDelete
  24. I've long had a strong suspicion that if Robert Bork had been around the entire past two hundred what-not years, he'd have issued a new volume of Slouching Toward Gomorrah every half decade.


    I'm with rufus (on this here issue) but I understand why it makes people awfully itchy.






    OT:

    I came upon this bit at americanfootprints.com, but the whole (not much longer) is available at jamestown.org:

    Michael Scheuer examines what happens within terrorist groups when we kill "senior operatives:"

    "From the Islamist side of the battlefield it is instructive to examine the use Islamist leaders make of their captured and killed senior operatives. It would be incorrect to claim that their organizations do not suffer from these losses because they surely do. No Islamist chief could look on the loss of such talented operatives as Ibn Khattab, al-Muqrin, and Abu Hafs al-Masri with anything but regret and dismay. But because their organizations are modeled on insurgent groups—not terrorist groups—these leaders have put extensive amounts of time and resources into succession planning and are able to install as replacements men who have been trained for the job they are to fill. In some cases, in fact, the replacement is a better leader than his predecessor. There seems little doubt, for example, that al-Qaeda-in-Iraq is far better off with Abu Ayyub al-Masri in charge than it was when Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi was in the saddle.

    "It also is clear that Islamist leaders have little or no fear that news of the death or capture of senior operatives will undermine the morale of their fighters or curtail funding or other forms of aid from their supporters. Neither al-Qaeda, the Chechen insurgents, nor al-Qaeda in Iraq nor Saudi Arabia has tried to hide the death of prominent members. The Islamist leaders appear to believe that “martyrs are recruiters, too,” and at times have used the death of a leader to make light of the success of their foes. When al-Muqrin was killed in a gunfight with Saudi police, for example, al-Qaeda quickly used the internet to announce his death, name his successor, and describe the successor’s qualifications.

    "The most recent addition to the ways in which Islamist leaders exploit the death or capture of operatives for positive purposes is one that attempts to strengthen recognition among jihadis worldwide that they are involved in a single struggle for Islam’s defense. This tack began to emerge after the death of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi when eulogies were issued not only by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, but also by the leader of al-Qaeda-in-the Islamic-Maghreb and Taliban chief Mullah Omar. All the eulogies praised al-Zarqawi not only for the contribution he made in Iraq, but also for the example of bravery and self-sacrifice he set for all mujahideen. More recently, the al-Qaeda organization in Yemen issued communiqués claiming that its recent attempt to mortar the U.S. embassy in Sana was conducted to exact revenge from the Americans for the deaths of Taliban military commander Mullah Dadullah and senior al-Qaeda field commander Abu Laith al-Libi [1]."

    He emphasizes, though, that the killing of such figures is still useful.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. AQI better with Masri than Zarqawi? Don't kmow about that one.

    ReplyDelete
  27. There may have been some crimes by some members of this group, but Texas taking away a four year old away from a twenty year old mother because they do not like her dress and hair style is group punishment for unproved charges.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Because the life Ted Kennedy made for himself after his two brothers' assassinations, and after his self-inflicted wounds at Chappaquidick and Palm Beach was anything but tragic.

    Out of the ruins of his own limitations, Ted Kennedy has built a triumphant life in the very Senate he tried to leave.

    That lesson, in the end, may be his greatest legacy.


    Looked Out for Little Guy

    ReplyDelete
  29. I guess their post-Zarqawi (pre-Awakening) stretch is judged by Scheuer to have been the more productive.

    At the same time he was very insistent years ago that there'd be hell to pay were bin Laden to remain alive, without suggesting that killing him would be the end of our worries.

    I've had, and have, some little added interest in the issue, by virtue of marriage.








    Enjoin the Cuban ex-pats to help end the embargo! Isn't ANYONE working on that yet?

    ReplyDelete
  30. In a speech marking Cuba's independence day, Sen. John McCain told a cheering crowd of supporters Tuesday that if elected president he would "not passively await" the arrival of democracy in Cuba.

    ...

    Distancing himself from his Democratic rivals, Sen. Barack Obama in particular, the presumptive Republican nominee said he stood behind the four-decades-old U.S. economic embargo against Cuba, including recent efforts by the Bush administration to tighten it.

    ...

    McCain also used the free trade debate to jab Obama and Clinton for their decision not to support a treaty with Colombia, which he said would lift $1-billion in tariffs on U.S. exports. "Delaying approval will not create one more U.S. job," he said.


    Policy on Cuba

    ReplyDelete
  31. As a practical matter, how you going to sort out all the property rights, if anybody can marry anybody and anybodys? If I can marry A in 1965, pick B in 72, hook up with C, D, and E in 1975, etc. and their are ten kids involved, and I die and I'm the guy that put the bread on the table, what's the probate court to do with this fucking mess? In a community property state?

    ReplyDelete
  32. It's really a shame, sam. If Cuba is destined to be free - and why not? - we certainly can be active participants in that process. By ending a miserably failed, if well-intentioned, policy. Chavez'd shit a brick, I tell you what.

    ReplyDelete
  33. That would be funny.

    The Chavez angle to the whole deal.

    ReplyDelete
  34. And don't say we made wills. People fight about wills all the time. What rule of law are you going to create to cover all this shit?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Marriage isn't a religious construct. At least nowadays. Atheists marry atheists all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  36. But even if McCain had better ideas, he needs that (Miami) bloc come November - just as Obama needs the equally instrumental Labor one.

    It's all so sad and predictable.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The Beaver State has 52 delegates. It also had the distinction of staging the only contest without a designated polling day.

    Instead, under a vote-by-mail system, election officials tallied all ballots received by 11 p.m. on primary day.

    The only primaries remaining are in Puerto Rico, on June 1, followed two days later by South Dakota and Montana.


    Oregon/Kentucky

    ReplyDelete
  38. Answer: Sharia law. That should do it. Like bin Laden, and his many wives. Which is to say, the wives got very little rights.

    ReplyDelete
  39. We're a nation of well-paid lawyers, bob. Let THEM figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Is there "Anything" in the Constitution that allows as how the government should be promoting one type of marriage/religion over the other?

    Anything not ceded to the Feds is reserved to the states. The legislature makes the laws.

    ReplyDelete
  41. :) Shit, talk about happy times for lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  42. It's a hell of a lot easier on the system, one's own, and the state's, just to have one wife.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Chalk up another one for The Prognosticator aka Sam. He said by 'at least 12' and Obama won by 16 in Oregon.

    ReplyDelete
  44. In Idaho, if you've been living with the girl, I think it's five years, maybe seven, you're married, whether you know it or not. At least that's the way it used to be. So move around a little:)

    ReplyDelete
  45. What, you don't think two or three wives is a s'marvelous idea?

    I take it this isn't a failure of imagination on your part.

    The Continentals are undoubtedly smarter and boggle at the whole idea. They just take mistresses.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Down here they dump wives (and kids) and move on to the next with utter and appalling abandon.

    ReplyDelete
  47. A time honored and tested cultural tradition, that they have there in the old world.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Down here they dump wives (and kids) and move on to the next with utter and appalling abandon.

    Which is probably a main reason they live in squalor, many of them. With a new revolutionary savior always on the horizon.

    ReplyDelete
  49. No threat to national security here. Orgy at MI5

    World's gone nuts.

    grrnite

    ReplyDelete
  50. It's socially accepted, and here in Colombia there is rather a shortage of men, which only makes it worse.

    Colombian women of any means at all keep the retail cosmetic surgery industry in piles of pesos. Retaining a husband is a seriously competitive endeavor.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Relatives outside sect seek custody in Texas case

    SAN ANGELO, Texas — Child welfare officials have said in the opening days of individual custody hearings for members of a polygamist sect that at least eight mothers once held in state custody as minors were actually adults. One is 27.

    The disclosures, which have dribbled out in hearings held across five courtrooms, brings the number of underage mothers in state custody to 23, eroding statistics state officials have cited to bolster their claims of widespread abuse. Other reclassifications are likely to follow as judges sort out family relationships in custody hearings scheduled to last three weeksRelatives outside sect seek custody in Texas case,

    ReplyDelete