What Ho! This newest link to great humor simply must be added!
Right-O!
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Great Quote
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." Jonathan Swift
WSJ officially endorses 'Collective Rights'
The Wall Street Journal paves way for tyranny?
See link
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005012
Read it and be scared.
See link
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005012
Read it and be scared.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
U.N. is Evil
Every once in a while, I have this dream that I am President and I have the United Nations building surrounded with our own troops and, switching on the Bullhorn, I would announce that all inside should "come out with your hands up!, You are under arrest for crimes against America." Now, I don't suffer this dream very often, thankfully, but I do have it. Take a look at the newest link to the left about the UN. There you will find many excellent articles and editorials condemming every action of this disgraceful body. Check it out, and donate if you can.
From David Horowitz:
See frontpagemag.com...
"Rebels in the holy city of Najaf were stockpiling weapons in mosques, shrines and schools, creating a 'potentially explosive situation.'" So reported the NY Times today (Monday). What better self-definition of blasphemy than to have soldiers use these sites for their weapons. But then this is a holy war in the eyes of our enemy. With Allah on their side everything is justifiable even using children as shield. This is evil self-defined.
The United States command in Iraq should declare that mosques, shrines and schools used by Islamic terrorists for weapons of death or other military purposes to be military targets. Then it should systematically raze them to the ground.
[Editor's Note] This last paragraph is what should have been done from day one of this 'war.' Bush is afraid to attack other 'religious' countries or sites because he is a 'Christian'. The internal contradiction is too much for conservatives to handle. They know they can't defend America, unless it's on secular (i.e. Reason) grounds and they can't do that because that would mean they'd have to face the fact that their pathetic faith is groundless, so they continue the charade of 'belief', and America faces ever worsening danger's.
"Rebels in the holy city of Najaf were stockpiling weapons in mosques, shrines and schools, creating a 'potentially explosive situation.'" So reported the NY Times today (Monday). What better self-definition of blasphemy than to have soldiers use these sites for their weapons. But then this is a holy war in the eyes of our enemy. With Allah on their side everything is justifiable even using children as shield. This is evil self-defined.
The United States command in Iraq should declare that mosques, shrines and schools used by Islamic terrorists for weapons of death or other military purposes to be military targets. Then it should systematically raze them to the ground.
[Editor's Note] This last paragraph is what should have been done from day one of this 'war.' Bush is afraid to attack other 'religious' countries or sites because he is a 'Christian'. The internal contradiction is too much for conservatives to handle. They know they can't defend America, unless it's on secular (i.e. Reason) grounds and they can't do that because that would mean they'd have to face the fact that their pathetic faith is groundless, so they continue the charade of 'belief', and America faces ever worsening danger's.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Monument to Atheists in Foxholes...
There is indeed a monument to Freethinkers, who have served to defend our great and noble nation. See link at left for full description, along with several stories about the monument and men who served.
Salute!
[Editor's Note]: I disagree with almost all "Humanists" in that they think there should be no weapons of any kind. As a free man in a country losing its freedom daily (due to irrational leadership) a nation remains free so long as its military is superior to any force or threat, and that military is used to properly CRUSH all enemies. Totally. Convincingly. Without remorse. Swiftly.
Instead of the disgrace you see today in Iraq and elsewhere. We are handing out Bibles and showing 'compassion' instead of murdering those who would slaughter us in the blink of an eye.
Salute!
[Editor's Note]: I disagree with almost all "Humanists" in that they think there should be no weapons of any kind. As a free man in a country losing its freedom daily (due to irrational leadership) a nation remains free so long as its military is superior to any force or threat, and that military is used to properly CRUSH all enemies. Totally. Convincingly. Without remorse. Swiftly.
Instead of the disgrace you see today in Iraq and elsewhere. We are handing out Bibles and showing 'compassion' instead of murdering those who would slaughter us in the blink of an eye.
Monday, April 26, 2004
Religion vs. America
Here's an exerpt from Leonard Peikoff's essay, "Religion vs. America" from the book, 'The Voice of Reason:Essays in Objectivist Thought'.
“Point for point, the Founding Fathers’ argument for liberty was the exact counterpart of the Puritans’ argument for dictatorship — but in reverse, moving from the opposite starting point to the opposite conclusion. Man, the Founding Fathers said in essence (with a large assist from Locke and others), is the rational being; no authority, human or otherwise, can demand blind obedience from such a being — not in the realm of thought or, therefore, in the realm of action, either. By his very nature, they said, man must be left free to exercise his reason and then to act accordingly, i.e., by the guidance of his best rational judgment. Because this world is of vital importance, they added, the motive of man’s action should be the pursuit of happiness. Because the individual, not a supernatural power, is the creator of wealth, a man should have the right to private property, the right to keep and use or trade his own product. And because man is basically good, they held, there is no need to leash him; there is nothing to fear in setting free a rational animal.
“This, in substance, was the American argument for man’s inalienable rights. It was the argument that reason demands freedom.”
This essay, and the entire book, should be read by every thinking person in America.
“Point for point, the Founding Fathers’ argument for liberty was the exact counterpart of the Puritans’ argument for dictatorship — but in reverse, moving from the opposite starting point to the opposite conclusion. Man, the Founding Fathers said in essence (with a large assist from Locke and others), is the rational being; no authority, human or otherwise, can demand blind obedience from such a being — not in the realm of thought or, therefore, in the realm of action, either. By his very nature, they said, man must be left free to exercise his reason and then to act accordingly, i.e., by the guidance of his best rational judgment. Because this world is of vital importance, they added, the motive of man’s action should be the pursuit of happiness. Because the individual, not a supernatural power, is the creator of wealth, a man should have the right to private property, the right to keep and use or trade his own product. And because man is basically good, they held, there is no need to leash him; there is nothing to fear in setting free a rational animal.
“This, in substance, was the American argument for man’s inalienable rights. It was the argument that reason demands freedom.”
This essay, and the entire book, should be read by every thinking person in America.
Re-establish the Military Draft? NO!
Here's a succint Letter from the Ayn Rand Institute...
Dear Editor:
As Senator Chuck Hagel and others call for the re-establishment of
military conscription, it is worth remembering Ayn Rand's words:
"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy,
the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It
negates man's fundamental right--the right to life--and establishes the
fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state,
and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle.
Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.
If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and
crippling, in a war declared at the state's discretion, for a cause he may
neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required
to send him into unspeakable martyrdom--then, in principle, all rights
are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any
longer. What else is there left to protect?"
David Holcberg
Ayn Rand Institute
Copyright © 2004 Ayn Rand® Institute
Dear Editor:
As Senator Chuck Hagel and others call for the re-establishment of
military conscription, it is worth remembering Ayn Rand's words:
"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy,
the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It
negates man's fundamental right--the right to life--and establishes the
fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state,
and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle.
Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.
If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and
crippling, in a war declared at the state's discretion, for a cause he may
neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required
to send him into unspeakable martyrdom--then, in principle, all rights
are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any
longer. What else is there left to protect?"
David Holcberg
Ayn Rand Institute
Copyright © 2004 Ayn Rand® Institute
A Milestone for The Secular Foxhole Blog!
Today, my Blog has been added to the blogroll of Cox and Forkum. See their link at left.
I'm truly honored that they included me.
Thank you gentlemen!
I'm truly honored that they included me.
Thank you gentlemen!
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Pat Boone=Colossal Dimwit
Pat Boone opened his mouth the other day to reveal a hatred for freedom of thought...(http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040420-114829-2076r.htm)
Hat tip: Marginal Revolution
Here are the juicy parts... "I don't think censorship is a bad word, but it has become a bad word because everybody associates it with some kind of restriction on liberty,"
"But we do know that at some point a line that has to be drawn between one man's liberty and another man's license."
Mr. Boone said that if he were in charge of standards, there would be stringent controls on material.
"It must be majority approved ... voluntary ... and self-imposed," he said, clad in a yellow blazer, black slacks, a canary yellow tie and white leather shoes. "Censorship is healthy for any society, and that goes for arts, entertainment, anything. "
Here's even more scary stuff...
A more serious meeting of celebrities was when Mr. Boone was invited to a private screening of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."
"After the screening was over, I turned and said, 'Mel, you're an apostle,' " said Mr. Boone, who has appeared in 15 films. "An apostle is one commissioned by God to tell the story and you are telling it more powerfully than it has ever been told or will ever be told, and you are therefore an apostle."
"I consider it the most important film ever made. It is a film that is not only of gigantic proportion but one that changes life, that affects people's eternal destiny."
It is all the more significant, he said, "because Hollywood has an open antipathy toward Christianity itself."
"I knew that early in the game and therefore tried to be [nonconfrontational]," he said. "I know better than to collar people and try to force my views on people."
Such as his former neighbor, Black Sabbath frontman Ozzy Osbourne, who lived next door to the Boones off Sunset Boulevard in Beverly Hills for three years. It was shortly after that the two ended up taking pictures together for Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Boone said.
"And I found out what he thought of my version of [Mr. Osbourne's hit] 'Crazy Train' when I tuned into his show a few years later," Mr. Boone said. "The Osbournes," MTV's popular reality program that shows a day in the life of the rocker's family, opens with Mr. Boone's rendition of "Crazy Train," a much tamer version than the guitar frenzied original.
Even in covering one of rock's most untamable enigmas, Mr. Boone had succeeded in calming things down.
"[Ozzy] told me he was trying to attract a family audience," he said.
Don't you just love it that Boone says, "I know better than to collar people and to try to force my views on people." (!!!!!!!)
So, we have a 'celebrity' calling for outright censorship of art, media, you name it. Then he says he doesn't want to 'force' his views on anyone!
Only government has the power to use force against it's own citizens, Mr. Boone. So, asking for the government to 'monitor' our 'self-imposed' censorship is asking for the muzzle over individual thought.
Mr. Boone, may you go straight to hell.
Hat tip: Marginal Revolution
Here are the juicy parts... "I don't think censorship is a bad word, but it has become a bad word because everybody associates it with some kind of restriction on liberty,"
"But we do know that at some point a line that has to be drawn between one man's liberty and another man's license."
Mr. Boone said that if he were in charge of standards, there would be stringent controls on material.
"It must be majority approved ... voluntary ... and self-imposed," he said, clad in a yellow blazer, black slacks, a canary yellow tie and white leather shoes. "Censorship is healthy for any society, and that goes for arts, entertainment, anything. "
Here's even more scary stuff...
A more serious meeting of celebrities was when Mr. Boone was invited to a private screening of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."
"After the screening was over, I turned and said, 'Mel, you're an apostle,' " said Mr. Boone, who has appeared in 15 films. "An apostle is one commissioned by God to tell the story and you are telling it more powerfully than it has ever been told or will ever be told, and you are therefore an apostle."
"I consider it the most important film ever made. It is a film that is not only of gigantic proportion but one that changes life, that affects people's eternal destiny."
It is all the more significant, he said, "because Hollywood has an open antipathy toward Christianity itself."
"I knew that early in the game and therefore tried to be [nonconfrontational]," he said. "I know better than to collar people and try to force my views on people."
Such as his former neighbor, Black Sabbath frontman Ozzy Osbourne, who lived next door to the Boones off Sunset Boulevard in Beverly Hills for three years. It was shortly after that the two ended up taking pictures together for Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Boone said.
"And I found out what he thought of my version of [Mr. Osbourne's hit] 'Crazy Train' when I tuned into his show a few years later," Mr. Boone said. "The Osbournes," MTV's popular reality program that shows a day in the life of the rocker's family, opens with Mr. Boone's rendition of "Crazy Train," a much tamer version than the guitar frenzied original.
Even in covering one of rock's most untamable enigmas, Mr. Boone had succeeded in calming things down.
"[Ozzy] told me he was trying to attract a family audience," he said.
Don't you just love it that Boone says, "I know better than to collar people and to try to force my views on people." (!!!!!!!)
So, we have a 'celebrity' calling for outright censorship of art, media, you name it. Then he says he doesn't want to 'force' his views on anyone!
Only government has the power to use force against it's own citizens, Mr. Boone. So, asking for the government to 'monitor' our 'self-imposed' censorship is asking for the muzzle over individual thought.
Mr. Boone, may you go straight to hell.
Saturday, April 24, 2004
The Threat of Bush's Faith-Based America
This is from The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism.
(moraldefense.com)
I couldn't agree more with the writer's assessment.
[Friday, April 23, 2003]
In the war between reason and religion, declared by Islamic fundamentalists, President Bush is firmly on the side of religion. The positions he supports most passionately are those of theocracies: prayer in schools, a national pledge “under God” recited by children, judges who uphold religion in government, laws against abortion, publicly-funded faith-based initiatives, bans on cloning and genetic research, censorship of pornography, and a marriage amendment to the Constitution. If he has not imposed religious censorship, it is not because it is antithetical to his core values. Mr. Bush is energizing the political foundations of an American theocracy.
Nevertheless, there is only one issue in the 2004 election: the war with militant Islam. Here Mr. Bush has also remained true to his principles. He has not acted against a single religious government.
He took down the Taliban because they had aided those who “hijacked a great religion.” He threw down a secular dictator in Iraq and established the terms by which the country can become fundamentalist. Iranian mullahs have been assured that their overthrow is not on our agenda. We have bombed their opponents in Iraq, and negotiated with their Shi’ite stooges who plan to take over Iraq. If they succeed, they will control a second country— bordering on their first, Iran. A greater Islamic state, armed with nuclear bombs, would be a gift from George Bush.
Mr. Bush accepts that people may establish a government based on religious principles; after all, he thinks, that is what we did in America. He uses US troops to preserve the “rights” of foreigners to establish the same religiously-inspired governments that attacked us to begin with.
From the start, Mr. Bush exercised his leadership by declaring the war not against militant Islam, but against “terrorism.” This has obfuscated the nature of our enemies and led us to squander our resources in ways not central to our interests. Had our president named the enemy properly, but then taken no action at all, we would be able to repudiate that inaction and fight the war properly. Now we must repudiate the very aims of the war. It will take extraordinary leadership to reverse this error.
The result is that the source of America’s enemies remains untouched. Iran is building nuclear bombs. Pakistan (a thug who seized power) and Russia (an ex-KGB officer) are called allies. Syria and the Saudis have not been confronted. Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan remain hideouts for Al Qaeda. We arm Islamic soldiers while our money builds schools in Baghdad. When we leave, those schools will teach radical Islam, and those soldiers will shoot at us.
Further, Mr. Bush is undercutting the very idea of self-defense. He spent over a year asking the UN for permission to invade Iraq, while claiming that no permissions will be sought. He is re-defining “overwhelming force” into a consensual war fought with compassionate regard for “innocents.” Such a conceptual stew leaves people with little guidance as to what offensive retaliation against foreign enemies is.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush has established a permanent, institutionalized state of siege at home. The war can now be fought against Unabomber-types, without ethnic “profiling.” And, don’t forget: you are permanently at risk; the war will be long; better buy some duct-tape.
This is all a consequence of Mr. Bush’s “faith-based” thinking. He has “faith in markets,” “faith in the American people,” “faith that people want freedom.” He holds such ideas as religious absolutes. He shoots out a strong statement from his subconscious (“we will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them”), and then watches it dissolve in the face of arguments he cannot answer. The statement becomes an empty utterance, compromised in words and actions, precisely because it was held on faith rather than as a rational, defensible conviction.
More specifically, Mr. Bush’s policies are defined by two elements: religious patriotism, and religious altruism. The first demands that he stand tall against America’s ungodly enemies. The second demands that he spend billions to help the unfortunate. Picture two bombers over Afghanistan: one drops a bomb (precision-guided, to avoid hitting a Mosque), and the next drops peanut butter. The first satisfies the patriot, the second redeems the altruist. This, he thinks, is how God wants him to fight the war.
It is a positive sign that many Americans want a forthright offense against our enemies. But they are confused if they think that Mr. Bush advocates this in fact. I do not wish to abet that confusion.
What about John Kerry, an obnoxious Carter / Kennedy / Clinton wannabe who sees Americans as war criminals? He does not hide his desire to subordinate American defense to a foreign consensus. This leaves less confusion in its wake; no one will mistake him for George C. Patton. Besides, Mr. Kerry will be desperate to be seen as tough on terrorism; he might actually do a better job against America’s real enemies.
Most of all, in the war with fundamentalist militant Islam, Bush is pro-religion, all the way to the core of his soul. Kerry does not share this premise.
If you think that a turn towards a theocracy in America is far-fetched, remember that “The Passion of the Christ” is approaching a half a billion dollars in box-office take, and conservatives have lined up to extol its blood-soaked message.
—John Lewis
(moraldefense.com)
I couldn't agree more with the writer's assessment.
[Friday, April 23, 2003]
In the war between reason and religion, declared by Islamic fundamentalists, President Bush is firmly on the side of religion. The positions he supports most passionately are those of theocracies: prayer in schools, a national pledge “under God” recited by children, judges who uphold religion in government, laws against abortion, publicly-funded faith-based initiatives, bans on cloning and genetic research, censorship of pornography, and a marriage amendment to the Constitution. If he has not imposed religious censorship, it is not because it is antithetical to his core values. Mr. Bush is energizing the political foundations of an American theocracy.
Nevertheless, there is only one issue in the 2004 election: the war with militant Islam. Here Mr. Bush has also remained true to his principles. He has not acted against a single religious government.
He took down the Taliban because they had aided those who “hijacked a great religion.” He threw down a secular dictator in Iraq and established the terms by which the country can become fundamentalist. Iranian mullahs have been assured that their overthrow is not on our agenda. We have bombed their opponents in Iraq, and negotiated with their Shi’ite stooges who plan to take over Iraq. If they succeed, they will control a second country— bordering on their first, Iran. A greater Islamic state, armed with nuclear bombs, would be a gift from George Bush.
Mr. Bush accepts that people may establish a government based on religious principles; after all, he thinks, that is what we did in America. He uses US troops to preserve the “rights” of foreigners to establish the same religiously-inspired governments that attacked us to begin with.
From the start, Mr. Bush exercised his leadership by declaring the war not against militant Islam, but against “terrorism.” This has obfuscated the nature of our enemies and led us to squander our resources in ways not central to our interests. Had our president named the enemy properly, but then taken no action at all, we would be able to repudiate that inaction and fight the war properly. Now we must repudiate the very aims of the war. It will take extraordinary leadership to reverse this error.
The result is that the source of America’s enemies remains untouched. Iran is building nuclear bombs. Pakistan (a thug who seized power) and Russia (an ex-KGB officer) are called allies. Syria and the Saudis have not been confronted. Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan remain hideouts for Al Qaeda. We arm Islamic soldiers while our money builds schools in Baghdad. When we leave, those schools will teach radical Islam, and those soldiers will shoot at us.
Further, Mr. Bush is undercutting the very idea of self-defense. He spent over a year asking the UN for permission to invade Iraq, while claiming that no permissions will be sought. He is re-defining “overwhelming force” into a consensual war fought with compassionate regard for “innocents.” Such a conceptual stew leaves people with little guidance as to what offensive retaliation against foreign enemies is.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush has established a permanent, institutionalized state of siege at home. The war can now be fought against Unabomber-types, without ethnic “profiling.” And, don’t forget: you are permanently at risk; the war will be long; better buy some duct-tape.
This is all a consequence of Mr. Bush’s “faith-based” thinking. He has “faith in markets,” “faith in the American people,” “faith that people want freedom.” He holds such ideas as religious absolutes. He shoots out a strong statement from his subconscious (“we will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them”), and then watches it dissolve in the face of arguments he cannot answer. The statement becomes an empty utterance, compromised in words and actions, precisely because it was held on faith rather than as a rational, defensible conviction.
More specifically, Mr. Bush’s policies are defined by two elements: religious patriotism, and religious altruism. The first demands that he stand tall against America’s ungodly enemies. The second demands that he spend billions to help the unfortunate. Picture two bombers over Afghanistan: one drops a bomb (precision-guided, to avoid hitting a Mosque), and the next drops peanut butter. The first satisfies the patriot, the second redeems the altruist. This, he thinks, is how God wants him to fight the war.
It is a positive sign that many Americans want a forthright offense against our enemies. But they are confused if they think that Mr. Bush advocates this in fact. I do not wish to abet that confusion.
What about John Kerry, an obnoxious Carter / Kennedy / Clinton wannabe who sees Americans as war criminals? He does not hide his desire to subordinate American defense to a foreign consensus. This leaves less confusion in its wake; no one will mistake him for George C. Patton. Besides, Mr. Kerry will be desperate to be seen as tough on terrorism; he might actually do a better job against America’s real enemies.
Most of all, in the war with fundamentalist militant Islam, Bush is pro-religion, all the way to the core of his soul. Kerry does not share this premise.
If you think that a turn towards a theocracy in America is far-fetched, remember that “The Passion of the Christ” is approaching a half a billion dollars in box-office take, and conservatives have lined up to extol its blood-soaked message.
—John Lewis
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Barry Goldwater
Although I was too young to vote in 1964, I would surely have voted for this man. One of my favorite quotes from him is (I quote from memory, so this may or may not be verbatim):
"Toleration in the face of tyranny, is no virtue. Extremism in defense of liberty, is no vice."
Thank you Barry Goldwater. Where are you now, when we need you!
"Toleration in the face of tyranny, is no virtue. Extremism in defense of liberty, is no vice."
Thank you Barry Goldwater. Where are you now, when we need you!
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Arabs Hate U.S. "More than Ever"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=2&u=/nm/mideast_egypt_usa_dc
This link provides "the usual" story about how it's America, and not the Middle East, who is the 'aggressor,' the bully. (!) And of course, Isreal is thrown in to spice things up! HA.
PUUUUULLLLLEASE!!!!
Here's an idea. Let's cut off the annual $2 billion aid (bribe monies?) we give Egypt, and see how fast Mubarak changes his tune toward us.
Just a thought. Too bad our leadership doesn't have the moral confidence to do it.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=2&u=/nm/mideast_egypt_usa_dc
This link provides "the usual" story about how it's America, and not the Middle East, who is the 'aggressor,' the bully. (!) And of course, Isreal is thrown in to spice things up! HA.
PUUUUULLLLLEASE!!!!
Here's an idea. Let's cut off the annual $2 billion aid (bribe monies?) we give Egypt, and see how fast Mubarak changes his tune toward us.
Just a thought. Too bad our leadership doesn't have the moral confidence to do it.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Friday, April 16, 2004
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)