Pravda writes that "it must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people." Pravda says that "the final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama." To read the article for yourself visit http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/.
Tweet
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Pravda: "The American Descent Into Marxism Is Happening With Breath Taking Speed"
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Attorneys Ted Olson And David Boies (Who Faced Off In Bush V. Gore) To Bring Prop 8 To Federal Court Claiming It Violates U.S. Constitution
These two lawyers are claiming that Prop 8 violates fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution and amounts to discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The analogies made by these attorneys are perverse. They equate gay marriage with interracial marriage. First, there are differences between men and women, while there are no differences between people of different races. That is why everyone intuitively understands there is nothing wrong with having a Boy Scouts and a Girl Scouts, but there would be something very wrong with having a White Scouts and a Black Scouts. Second, those that opposed interracial marriage were advocating something against all Judeo-Christian and secular norms. Both biblical and secular morals saw nothing wrong in members of different races intermarrying (although members of different religions was certainly a different story). In contrast, no religious or secular system of morality has ever advocated gay marriage. Third, and many would not agree with some of the finer elements of this point, but being black or white is not by definition characterized by the type of relationships one ends up having later in life. You are born with whatever skin color and are a member of whatever race regardless of whether you ever even have a partner. One's race is in no way associated with any specific behavior or desires. Sexual orientation and race are not in and of themselves equivalent. Limiting marriage to those of the same race is therefore not the same as expanding and changing the fundamental meaning of the institution to encompass homosexuality. Fourth, there are inherent differences between straight couples and gay couples, while there are no differences between interracial couples and same-race couples. Straight couples can biologically have children, and having a mother and a father is the most natural and healthy experience for a child. If the law wishes to protect this cornerstone of civilization and promote the creation of the next generation in a certain manner that is most healthy for that next generation, that is certainly the prerogative of the law.
The two attorneys continously compare the civil rights movement to the gay marriage movement, thereby trivializing what was a real and harsh history of discrimination against African-Americans. It is nothing short of disgusting for Ted Olson and David Boies to claim they are fighting for "civil rights" and to compare their cause to the noble movement that fought for an end to segregation. Homosexuals are not blacks in the Jim Crow South. The laws of this land apply equally to gays, they did not apply equally to blacks. There are no signs saying "No Gays Allowed." In fact, in California, gays have all the same rights and benefits if they enter into a domestic partnership. To make these comparisons belittles the history of segregation and racism.
Ted Olson claims that preserving the definition of the word "marriage" would be tantamount to claiming that the word "citizen" could never apply to any immigrant who becomes an American. That is so stupid it does not even deserve a response. Even though the distinction should be very clear, I will spell it out for you. If someone from Japan did all that was necessary to become an American, for the government to then say that individual could not be called a "citizen" because he is Japanese would be changing the definition of "citizen," not preserving it. It would be an example of a gross redefinition of what has traditionally been considered "citizenship" under American law. How that example demonstrates that those that want to change the definition of marriage to mean something it never has under American law should have the ability to do so as per the U.S. Constitution completely eludes me.
These examples are simply outlandish and asinine. The federal Constitution in no way demands that marriage be defined as encompassing same-sex couples. Two hundred years of American jurisprudence and thousands of years of Judeo-Christian civilization have defined marriage as between those of the opposite sex. It is based on an assumption about what marriage is that predates the law itself. To claim the Constitution undoes that reality and demands the traditional definition of marriage become a thing of the past is ridiculous on its face. To make that claim one must twist that document to mean whatever one wants it to mean, cheapening it to the point where it has no real meaning or value.
Furthermore, the famous Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virgina that overturned laws banning interracial marriage can be easily distinguished from the current gay marriage cases making their way into courtrooms. The Supreme Court said that the ban on interracial marriage was "designed to mantain White Supremacy" and therefore unconstitutional. No comparable purpose is present by defining marriage as it has always been defined, as between a man and a woman.
Marriage is a matter of civil law, but it is not a civil right. The issue is whether the basic assumptions, that in fact predated the law, about what constitutes marriage should be upheld. It is about whether the law is right or wrong and what the law ought to be. If violating equal protection meant not accommodating those who wanted to alter the understood meaning of the institution then anyone could make these ridiculous claims. Caretakers could claim to be married if they so wished. Business partners could claim to be married if it helped the business. A person should legally be able to have multiple spouses. Anyone could claim to be married to anyone, since apparently violating an individual's idea of what marriage ought to be is considered legal discrimination and a violation of some fundamental right. The truth is that marriage has a specific definition. The law, based on the underlying assumptions of the definition of marriage, treats all citizens to whom it applies fairly. Blacks get married. Whites get married. Jews get married. Immigrants get married. Asians and Latinos get married. Believe it or not, gays can get married too, so long as they marry the opposite sex. But saying that because marriage doesn't include same-sex couples it is therefore a violation of equal protection is absurd. If one wants to argue that marriage should have a completely new meaning, then a new law is necessary to bring that about. It would require statute to redefine what marriage itself means.
Tweet
Barack Obama At Hollywood Dinner: "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet"
Fox News reports that "when the president hit the road Tuesday for a two-day fundraising tour to pack the party coffers, he also was racking up a $265,000 partisan bill for just one leg of the trip, according to a watchdog group -- part of which taxpayers, regardless of party affiliation, will have to pay. Obama started out in Las Vegas, where he stumped that night for state Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. On Wednesday night he was to attend a two-tiered donor dinner for the Democratic Party in Los Angeles."
Here is an NRSC ad about Harry Reid's "Hollywood Bailout":
Tweet
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
North Korea Abandons 1953 Armistice Agreement
Bloomberg reports that "North Korea threatened a military response to South Korean participation in a U.S.-led program to seize weapons of mass destruction, and said it will no longer abide by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War. 'The Korean People’s Army will not be bound to the Armistice Agreement any longer,' the official Korean Central News Agency said in a statement today. Any attempt to inspect North Korean vessels will be countered with 'prompt and strong military strikes.' South Korea’s military said it will 'deal sternly with any provocation' from the North."
Reuters reports that "Russia is taking security measures as a precaution against the possibility tension over North Korea could escalate into nuclear war, news agencies quoted officials as saying on Wednesday. Interfax quoted an unnamed security source as saying a stand-off triggered by Pyongyang's nuclear test on Monday could affect the security of Russia's far eastern regions, which border North Korea. 'The need has emerged for an appropriate package of precautionary measures,' the source said."
Tweet
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8 And Same-Gender Marriages That Took Place Before It Passed
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
On the one hand the court ruled that "applying well-established legal principles pertinent to the question whether a constitutional provision should be interpreted to apply prospectively or retroactively, we conclude that the new section cannot properly be interpreted to apply retroactively. Accordingly, the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid and must continue to be recognized in this state."
The court concluded, however, that "in a sense, petitioners' and the Attorney General's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it. If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted -- perhaps in the manner it was explicitly limited in an earlier version of our state constitution ... or as limited in the present-day constitutions of some of our sister states ... this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake through the process of amending their constitution in order to impose further limitations upon their own power of initiative."
Rallies are planned across California in response to the court's ruling. Here is a news report from one such rally:
The truth is that this court was painted into a corner. The Attorney General of CA was arguing that Prop 8 constituted a "revision" to the CA constitution requiring it go before lawmakers, while the other side said it was clearly a legal constitutional amendment as set forth by the intiative process. Had the court ruled differently they would have been going against all relevant precedent and they would have been setting a dangerous precedent themselves. Not to mention the fact that they also would have clearly been going against the will of a majority of Californians who legally used the initiative process to amend the CA constitution in a manner prescribed by law. The court clearly made the right call, but it was not unexpected. Visit http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/26/state/n155353D85.DTL&type=health from the AP about how experts are not surprised by the ruling to uphold Prop 8.
Tweet
Obama Chooses Sonia Sotomayer For Supreme Court
Another Sotomayer quote making the rounds: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male."
George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley says that Obama's pick lacks "intellectual depth":
Furthermore, Sotomayer is getting a lot of attention because she is Hispanic and would be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. I think that a person's race or gender should have nothing at all to do with picking a Supreme Court nominee. But since this element seems to be getting a lot of attention, and was presumably part of the reason she was picked, it is important to not allow the Dems to paint Republican opposition as somehow being anti-Latino. For it is the Democrats themselves that are the ones with a recently documented history of "borking" a judicial nominee because "he is Latino." A November 7, 2001 staff memo to Senator Durbin said quite clearly that Miguel Estrada was "especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment" (emphasis added) .
To read this article from the Wall Street Journal visit http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004305.
Tweet
Monday, May 25, 2009
The History Channel To Air Pure Propaganda "Missing Link" Documentary About "Ida" Fossil
Here is another ad from the History Channel website: http://www.history.com/content/the-link/watch-video?bcpid=23297146001&bclid=23711371001&bctid=23722126001.
The History Channel plans to air a documentary about the newly announced "Ida" fossil. A voice in the ad for the May 25th feature states "it's the first link to human evolution." Then the narrator proclaims, "The link, this changes everything." The History Channel is airing "The Link" on Monday, May 25, at 9 PM ET. The History Channel website declares, "Missing link found!" and that "this groundbreaking discovery fills in a critical gap in human and primate evolution." One of the scientists calls it "a transitional fossil like Darwin was dreaming of" and "the one that will be pictured in all textbooks." History Channel is calling it a "revolutionary scientific find that will change everything." To see the History Channel website for yourself visit http://www.history.com/content/the-link.
As has
already been reported, the fossil was announced with much fanfare. Google responded to the new 47-million year old fossil by working an image of the fossil into the logo of its search page. The discovery was presented with a press conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, where researchers called the finding a "missing link." New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke at the press conference. Fox News reported that "the small body represents a roughly 9-month-old female that probably looked a lot like modern lemurs. The researchers who studied the fossil, led by Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum, nicknamed her 'Ida'." Experts are almost unanimous in their praise for the fossil's exceptional preservation.
Fox News further reported on "the authors of the scientific paper reporting the Ida finding in the journal PLoS ONE May 19 claim that some of Ida's features could redraw the evolutionary tree of life, and even suggest that Ida might belong to a family that is an early precursor of humans. Humans, apes and monkeys all belong to a group called anthropoids."
What the History Channel documentary no doubt seems to be ignoring is that highly respected evolutionist scientists have already come out and said that this discovery does not represent what the discoverers are claiming it represents at all. In fact, what it represents is science being turned into a media circus. No one denies and all are impressed with the amazing amount of the fossil that is still intact, but the "missing link" claim has already gotten very much criticism. In fact, the Associated Press reported that "experts not connected with the discovery...questioned the conclusions of Hurum and his colleagues about how closely it is related to ancestors of monkeys and humans."
"On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing," said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. "They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they're proposing."
"What does it tell us about human evolution that we didn't know? Precious little," said Stony Brook University paleoanthropologist John Fleagle. The AP quoted Fleagle as saying that the scientists' analysis provides only "a pretty weak link" between the new creature and higher primates, called anthropoids, that includes monkeys and man. "It doesn't really tell us much about anthropoid origins, quite frankly," Fleagle said.
On the discoverers claim in the paper that by examining the anatomy of adapids, these animals have something to do with the direct line of human ancestry and living monkeys and apes, paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University says: "This claim is buttressed with almost no evidence. And they failed to cite a body of literature that's been going on since at least 1984 that presents evidence against their hypothesis."
"This fossil has been hailed as the eighth wonder of the world. Frankly, I've got 10 more in my basement," said Chris Beard, a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. He also disagreed with some of the outlandish claims researchers made during the press conference, such as the suggestion that Ida represents a "missing link" between early primates and humans. "It's not a missing link, it's not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they're trying to make," Beard said. The AP report quoted Beard as saying, "I actually don't think it's terribly close to the common ancestral line of monkeys, apes and people. I would say it's about as far away as you can get from that line and still be a primate."
In fact, curator Chris Beard has already written an article in response to the hoopla surrounding Ida. He wrote in the New Scientist that Ida retaining "primitive 
features that commonly occurred among all early primates, such as simple incisors rather than a full-fledged toothcomb, indicates that Ida belongs somewhere closer to the base of the tree than living lemurs do. But this does not necessarily make Ida a close relative of anthropoids – the group of primates that includes monkeys, apes – and humans. In order to establish that connection, Ida would have to have anthropoid-like features that evolved after anthropoids split away from lemurs and other early primates. Here, alas, Ida fails miserably. So, Ida is not a 'missing link' – at least not between anthropoids and more primitive primates. Further study may reveal her to be a missing link between other species of Eocene adapiforms, but this hardly solidifies her status as the 'eighth wonder of the world.'" To read his full article visit http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html
Live Science Editorial Director Robert Roy Britt said that "it can now be said the findings may well have been significantly overstated. We won't know for sure until further research is done. But if this event causes the public to distrust science and media, that distrust is well placed." To read the Live Science article for yourself visit http://www.livescience.com/culture/090520-ida-fossil-hype.html.
"The P.R. campaign on this fossil is I think more of a story than the fossil itself. It's a very beautiful fossil, but I didn't see anything in this paper that told me anything decisive that was new," said anthropologist Matt Cartmill of Duke University in North Carolina.
Yet the P.R. campaign appears to be going forward on the History Channel which is featuring this film with the discoverers of this fossil. Robert Roy Britt, the aforementioned Editorial Director of Live Science, said the disoverers with the help of the media were "struggling with the knots in their stomachs that suggested something just wasn't quite right. Maybe it was the appearance of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at Ida's unveiling. Maybe it was the TV documentary planned around the finding. Or the book that's been written about it. Or the exclusive deal for yesterday's TV and Web coverage with one network. That much hype, and you wonder what they're hiding."
The response of many scientists declaring Ida's significance to have been overstated hardly got the press coverage that was awarded to the initial announcements that "the missing link" had been found. Now it appears the History Channel will present a documentary that amounts to nothing more than pure propaganda for that already widely criticized proposition. The History Channel feature will promote the view espoused by the discoverers of the fossil and will very likely not include the opinion of colleagues in the scientific community that have pointed out that this fossil's implications have been largely exaggerated. The media, along with the History Channel, should be giving the highly qualified scientists that through a sort of informal peer-review have deflated this story as much air time as the discoverers themselves.
Yet the History Channel and the mainstream media cannot be trusted to bring you the full story, especially when it comes to the issue of Darwinism. Instead they promote propaganda. Websites like this one exist to point that out.
New York's American Museum of Natural History will feature a replica cast in a new exhibit about mammals. And yet I wonder whether the museum will provide the balanced portrait that I have provided.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT. Stimulate debate and discussion, and let the truth be told.
Tweet
Sunday, May 24, 2009
North Korea Says It Has Conducted A Second Nuclear Test
The AP reports that "North Korea announced Monday that it successfully carried out a second underground nuclear test, less than two months after launching a rocket widely believed to be a test of its long-range missile technology. North Korea, incensed by U.N. Security Council condemnation of its April 5 rocket launch, had warned last month that it would restart it rogue nuclear program, conduct a second atomic test as a follow-up to its first one in 2006, and carry out long-range missile tests. On Monday, the country's official Korean Central News Agency said the regime 'successfully conducted one more underground nuclear test on May 25 as part of measures to bolster its nuclear deterrent for self-defense.'"
Tweet
Colin Powell: "I Am Still A Republican"
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says: “I don’t think anybody has the authority to read anybody out of a free party. Having started my career in Georgia when there were no Republicans and we were eager to show up, and having been in the House for 15 years as a member of the minority, I’ll tell you if we didn’t have moderates, we would never have become a majority party. You can’t be a national party without internal tension.”
Tweet
Netanyahu Defies Obama On Expansion Of Existing Settlements And Half Of Israelis Support Attacking Iran Now
Reuters reports that "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday rebuffed U.S. calls to impose a freeze on all settlement activity... The note of defiance came less than a week after Netanyahu held talks in Washington with Obama, who wants Israel to halt all settlement activity... Netanyahu's comments reaffirmed a position he took in his bid for the premiership in a February election. By natural growth, Israel refers to construction within the boundaries of existing settlements to accommodate growing families. "
"We do not intend to build any new settlements, but it wouldn't be fair to ban construction to meet the needs of natural growth or for there to be an outright construction ban," Netanyahu told his cabinet, according to officials.
Certain news organizations such as Reuters would have you believe that Obama is trying to enforce the 2002 Roadmap to Peace and Netanyahu is rebuffing it. However, "Phase 1" of the Roadmap calls for Palestinians "Ending Terror And Violence, Normalizing Palestinian Life, and Building Palestinian Institutions." This has yet to happen. To prematurely call on Israel to constrain existing settlement growth while the Palestinians fulfill none of their obligations is against the very nature of the Roadmap itself.
In other news, the AFP reports that "just over half of Israelis back an immediate attack on the nuclear facilities of arch-foe Iran but the rest want to wait and see the results of US diplomacy, according to a poll released on Sunday. Fifty-one percent support an immediate Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites, while 49 percent believe the Jewish state should await the outcome of efforts by the US administration to engage with the Islamic republic, said the survey published by Tel Aviv University. But 74 percent of those questioned said they believe that new US President Barack Obama's efforts will not stop the Islamic republic from acquiring atomic weapons."
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)