Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Saturday, January 07, 2006

Microsoft Shuts Down Chinese Blog

Microsoft Corp. has shut down the Internet journal of a Chinese blogger that discussed politically sensitive issues including a recent strike at a Beijing newspaper.

And we're buying billions of dollars from these barbarians. We're sending billions of dollars to fund the Chinese military, which can be used to keep their own people under the heel of communism and will someday be used to kill American military members.

And Microsoft and Yahoo ought to be ashamed of themselves for their complicity in the Chinese assault on freedom. Smut-peddlers whine "censorship" when the people get fed up with their sewage here in America, but this is a true case of what censorship is: government quashing criticism of itself.

Sado-Masochism Might be ‘Sexual Orientation’ says BC Human Rights Tribunal

The BC Human Rights Tribunal is being asked to discover a new “sexual orientation.” The Vancouver Sun reported December 30, that a self-described “pagan” is accusing the Vancouver police of discrimination for refusing him a license to drive a limousine because of his involvement in the “bondage and discipline, domination and submission, sadism and masochism” (BDSM) underworld. A Vancouver man, Peter Hayes, has accused the Vancouver police of illegal discrimination because of his involvement in BDSM.

This is what you get when you embrace moral relativism. This is what you get when you say that sodomy and buggery are normal, natural and healthy--then pretty much anything is normal, natural and healthy. You can't say polygamy is wrong. You can't say bestiality is wrong. You may even find it hard to say sex with children is wrong (NAMBLA), so long as it's "consensual."

Judge gives child-rapist 60-day sentence

Claiming he no longer believes in punishment, a Vermont judge issued a 60-day sentence to a man who confessed to repeatedly raping a girl over a four-year period, beginning when she was 7 years old.

Here's another judge who should be impeached. He's obviously incapable of doing his job.

Anger is like most things: it can be used for good or evil. God gave humans the emotion of anger to spur us to appropriate action. We should be angry in the face of evil: the crime committed against this child should make us angry. We should also be angry in the face of injustice: the dereliction of this judge should make us angry and spur the appropriate people to impeach him.

The Bible even tells us to be angry, adding that we should not let it lead us into sin. Who could argue that Jesus wasn't angry when he denounced the Pharisees as snakes, etc.? Who could argue that Jesus wasn't angry when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip?
Idiots...no, morally depraved idiots like this on the bench (and he's far from the only one, maybe just one of the more extreme ones) are why the JAIL amendment got on the ballot. Good people are rapidly losing faith in our justice system--and that undermines the very fabric of our civilization.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Homosexuals Sue Mass. For Following the Law

From Reuters:

The lawsuit by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) said the state's attorney general erred when he ruled in September that Massachusetts voters could decide in a 2008 poll to redefine marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

They said the decision by Thomas Reilly, a Democrat who is likely to run for governor this year, was unconstitutional because ballot initiatives cannot reverse judicial decisions under the state's Constitution.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said in a CBS story on the issue, that the proposed amendment doesn't specifically address the judicial decision which essentially legalized homosexual "marriage" but seeks to clarify the definition of marriage. The amendment would clarify what had been clearly understood for thousands of years, until Mass. judges took it upon themselves to redefine "marriage." (You have to clarify things for judges these days--they're either products of public education, or the intentionally don't give a rip about representative democracy).

According to these homosexuals, it's unconstitutional to change the constitution via constitutional measures. It is, however, fine to legislate by judicial fiat.

The legally-outlined process for an initiative to change the Mass. constitution is unconstitutional, but judges making their own laws to impose on the people of Mass. is constitutional. Only liberals can come up with twisted logic like that!

Clicky Web Analytics