Useful Latin Phrases

Via Jimmy Akin, here are some phrases that may come in handy if you find yourself time-warped back to Ancient Rome...

Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat.
It's not the heat, it's the humidity.

Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
Look at the time! My wife will kill me!

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
The designated hitter rule has got to go.

Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.
I think some people in togas are plotting against me.

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam posit materiari?
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

(At a barbeque) Animadvertistine, ubicumque stes, fumum recta in faciem ferri?
Ever noticed how wherever you stand, the smoke goes right into your face?

Sona si Latine loqueris.
Honk if you speak Latin.

Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
If you can read this you're over-educated

Mihi ignosce. Cum homine de cane debeo congredi.
Excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog.

Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!
If you can read this sign, you can get a good job in the fast-paced, high-paying world of Latin!

Gramen artificiosum odi.
I hate Astroturf.

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
I'm not interested in your dopey religious cult.

Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo.
Don't call me, I'll call you.

Nullo metro compositum est.
It doesn't rhyme.

Non curo. Si metrum non habet, non est poema.
I don't care. If it doesn't have meter, it isn't a poem.

Fac ut gaudeam.
Make my day.

Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
Those green pants go so well with that pink shirt and the plaid jacket!

Visne saltare? Viam Latam Fungosam scio.
Do you want to dance? I know the Funky Broadway.

Re vera, potas bene.
Say, you sure are drinking a lot.

Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!
May barbarians invade your personal space!

Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant!
May conspirators assassinate you in the mall!

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
May faulty logic undermine your entire philosophy!

Radix lecti
Couch potato

Mellita, domi adsum.
Honey, I'm home.

Tam exanimis quam tunica nehru fio.
I am as dead as the nehru jacket.

Ventis secundis, tene cursum.
Go with the flow.

Totum dependeat.
Let it all hang out.

Te precor dulcissime supplex!
Pretty please with a cherry on top!

Magister Mundi sum!
I am the Master of the Universe!

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Gag me with a spoon!

Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.
I can't hear you. I have a banana in my ear.

Prehende uxorem meam, sis!
Take my wife, please!

Nihil est--in vita priore ego imperator Romanus fui.
That's nothing--in a previous life I was a Roman Emperor.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem!
Stand aside plebians! I am on imperial business.

Sic faciunt omnes.
Everyone is doing it.

Fac ut vivas.
Get a life.

Anulos qui animum ostendunt omnes gestemus!
Let's all wear mood rings!

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head.

It's The Oil, Stupid

Oil is the common thread in many of the geopolitical threats we face today. Victor Davis Hanson ties the pieces together in his column today.

Islamic jihadists, fed from petrodollar wealth of the Middle East, have the cash to arm and plan operations from Baghdad and Kabul to Madrid and London. Thanks to oil, unhinged leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Chavez in Venezuela can stay in power (and demand the world's attention) despite policies that ultimately harm their people, ruin their economies and imperil their neighbors.

Russia, meanwhile, is essentially threatening Eastern Europe with energy cutbacks and reviving the old Soviet nuclear and arms industries. It's stirring up an already volatile Middle East by selling radical Islamists everything from nuclear reactors to high-tech anti-tank guns. President Bush may have seen, as he attests, something reassuring in the heart of President Putin. But Russia's new oil riches offer a fast track back to superpower status -- which we're already seeing them use to silence critics at home and abroad.

Furthermore, the global thirst for oil distorts interstate relations. Take the case of China. Its amoral foreign policy is aimed mostly at securing petroleum. Because Beijing is involved in long-term oil deals with Sudan, it's reluctant to join the West in pressuring the corrupt Sudanese government to cease the genocide in Darfur. (Of course, the West, beholden to China for economic reasons, is in turn reluctant to pressure China.) Similarly, China worries far more about getting its hands on Iran's oil than stopping its nuclear proliferation.

The U.S. is often subject to the same blackmail. Take away its need for imported oil and American officials long ago would have ceased visiting Saudi Arabia -- a monarchy based on sharia law and the cash nexus for Islamist madrassas and Wahhabi terrorism. Rather than appeasing a few hundred sheiks in the Gulf, American presidents -- both Democratic and Republican -- might have instead worried more about the poor millions slaughtered in Chad, Darfur, Ethiopia and Rwanda.

High-priced oil also warps the entire world's limited attention span. We hear daily about Israeli "occupation" in the Middle East because the oil-rich patrons of the Palestinians have sent their terrorists ample subsidies and in the past leveled oil embargoes to punish those sympathetic to Israel. Yet millions more people the world over have also lost land. We don't televise daily refugees from, say, Tibet or Cyprus, since their patrons have no ability to shut down global commerce. MORE

In the 1980s Reagan and Thatcher found a way to use this weapon in reverse to bring down the Soviet Union. By getting the Arabs to drive down the oil price, they starved the Soviet Union of hard currency and simultaneously started a massive arms race. The Soviets could not keep up and eventually collapsed.

Maybe this is what Bush should have done after 9/11. Had he launched a massive drive to free the U.S. from depending on its enemies for energy, we might be much better off today. (Yes, I know this is hindsight; I didn't think of it then either.) The strategy can be implemented in both directions: reduce the environmental restrictions that prevent the U.S. from exploiting our own oil and gas reserves (which the GOP will like) and at the same time make a massive push for alternative energy sources like solar, wind, ethanol, nuclear, etc. The Democrats will like this, except the nuclear part. Anyway it seems like a grand bargain could be struck. This makes so much sense you can be assured our Leaders will never do it.

Meanwhile another item today reveals that our so-called friends, the Saudis, have decided to use their control of oil as a weapon against the UK. It's a typically complex financial scheme but a fascinating story. MORE.

Four Jills In A Jihad

The inimitable Mark Steyn's latest column is not easily summarized, but well worth reading. So I will simply suggest that you click here and decide for yourself.

In case the link goes bad, search the Chicago Sun-Times, 11/26/06.

Smiles

Just in case no one has smiled at you today...

Who Gives?

Today's Wall Street Journal had an interesting commentary by Arthur Brooks today about charitable giving in the U.S. Unfortunately a subscription is required to read it online, but here are some key points.

While 85 million American households give away money each year to nonprofit organizations, another 30 million do not. And this distinction goes beyond "formal" giving. Recent survey data reveal that people who fail to donate money to charities are only a third as likely as donors to give money to friends and strangers. Non-donors are half as likely as donors to give blood. They even are less honest: Non-donors are much less likely than donors to return change mistakenly given to them by a cashier. When it comes to charity, we are two nations.

Why does Giving America behave so differently from Non-Giving America? The answer, contrary to what you might be thinking, is not income; America's working poor give away at least as large a percentage of their incomes as the rich, and a lot more than the middle class. The charity gap is driven not by economics but by values.

Nowhere is the divide in values more on display than in religion, the frontline in our so-called "culture war." And the relationship between religion and charity is nothing short of extraordinary. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey indicates that Americans who weekly attend a house of worship are 25 percentage points more likely to give than people who go to church rarely or never. These religious folks also give nearly four times more dollars per year than secularists, on average, and volunteer more than twice as frequently.

It is not the case that these enormous differences are due simply to religious people giving to their churches. Religious people are more charitable with all sorts of nonreligious causes as well. They are 10 percentage points likelier than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities like the United Way, and 25 points more likely to volunteer for secular groups such as the PTA. Churchgoers were far likelier in 2001 to give to 9/11-related causes. On average, people of faith give more than 50% more money each year to non-church social welfare organizations than secularists do...

Couples, even when they earn the same amount as single people, are more likely to give to charity, and the simple act of raising children appears to stimulate giving as well -- children help us fill the collection plate even as they drain our wallets. Further, family life is the ideal transmission mechanism for charitable values: Data show that people who see their parents behave charitably are far likelier to be charitable themselves as adults.

The article also notes that attitudes about government spending are also predictive of charitable giving. Those who believe that government should spend more on welfare are LESS likely to donate to charity.

Despite this hard data, what do we always hear about? "Hard-hearted" and "compassionate" liberals.

Twas The Month Before Christmas

I do not know who wrote this but I like it...

Twas the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.
See the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a "Holiday".
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was nowhere to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate "Winter Break" under your "Dream Tree"
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS, not Happy Holiday!

AND DON'T FORGET TO SEND A NATIVITY SCENE CHRISTMAS CARD TO THE ACLU.

Dueling Sperm?

I occasionally listen to the Dr Dean Edell talk radio show. He seems to be a knowledgeable physician, but today I learned a little more than I wanted to.

The caller was a gay man. He is, with his partner, seeking to become a parent. Since the nature of their relationship rules out normal procreation, they have brought in a woman to be a "surrogate" and carry "their" child to term. This is weird enough, but there's more.

Apparently the surrogate mom has been visiting the two prospective daddies to be fertilized. The exact mechanics of this were thankfully not explained, but it seems conception has not yet occurred despite many attempts.

Then it emerged that the daddies have been combining BOTH their emissions, prior to the insemination ceremonies. The reason for this is so that both men can feel like they are "real" parents, not knowing which sperm actually found the target. The medical question for Dr. Dean was whether this would be harmful to the process.

Dr Dean observed that the human reproductive system actually seems to anticipate this possibility, and in prehistoric times it may have been common for a woman to be fertilized by several men in rapid succession. Sperm are therefore prepared for combat. The better sperm will prevail and reach the egg, leaving the others to die in despair. Dr Dean said he would defer to a fertility specialist but did not see any immediate problem. The caller was relieved and hung up.

I'm not sure where to begin reacting to this. First, it is simply not possible for two men to be parents, no matter how hard they try. The attempt is an inherently un-natural act. Both these men have a disorder and need to get some help.

Second, their attempt to reproduce strikes me as a very selfish decision. They "want" a child so they can be "normal" people. But they CAN'T be normal, as discussed above. Nevertheless, if they want a child so bad, why go to all this trouble to create a new one? And then, to make matters worse, deprive this child of a mother?

I'm not in favor of gay adoption. Nevertheless, there are plenty of children languishing in foster care or institutions who need parents. There is no reason for anyone, gay or straight, to take such extreme measures to create a child when they are already in plentiful supply. Adopt one. Better yet, find a young girl who is about to have an abortion, help her through the pregnancy, then adopt the child that would otherwise have been killed.

People don't do this because they want a child that is genetically "mine." Ok, I get it. This is an instinct that is hard-wired into all of us. If we think about it, though, we have to admit that WE and our desires are not the most important part of this equation. The child is. Every decision we as parents, or prospective parents, make should be directed to that end.

I suspect our gay friends just want something to love. Fine. They can get a dog or a cat - plenty of orphans there, too. They should not, however, produce a child. They cannot give it a natural, loving home with a female mother and a male father who are bound together for life. The same goes for straight people who aren't willing to make a full commitment. Parenting is serious business.

UPDATE 11/28 - My better half tells me the above post sounds unduly harsh. For the record, I think gay people should be treated with the same respect due to any human being. In turn, I hope gay people will accept that children deserve respect as well, and should be allowed to grow up with both a mother and a father. The desire to love and care for someone is laudable, and I'm sure you can find some other way to express it.

Also, my statement above that being gay is a "disorder" is easily misunderstood. I understand that many homosexuals believe they were born this way. This is quite possible. We are all born as sinners of various kinds. Some people have a propensity to steal, others to commit violent acts, etc etc. God calls ALL of us to repent and seek forgiveness for our acts. Your sins are of a different nature than mine, but we both need the same salvation. In this sense, we are all "disordered" in our own unique way.

The Rumsfeld Sack

Robert Novak has some of the best inside sources in Washington. The story he gets about the abrupt post-election departure of SecDef Donald Rumsfeld is thus very aggravating.

According to administration officials, only three or four people knew he would be fired -- and Rumsfeld was not one of them. His fellow presidential appointees, including some who did not applaud Rumsfeld's performance in office, were taken aback by his treatment...

The treatment of his war minister connotes something deeply wrong with George W. Bush's presidency in its sixth year. Apart from Rumsfeld's failures in personal relations, he never has been anything short of loyal in executing the president's wishes. But loyalty appears to be a one-way street for Bush. His shrouded decision to sack Rumsfeld after declaring he would serve out the second term fits the pattern of a president who is secretive and impersonal...

[Sources] believe removal of Rumsfeld falling into the 24-hour cycle was intended to crowd out continued rehashing of disastrous election returns. It is hard to find anyone in the Bush administration who endorses the way Rumsfeld was handled. His friend and comrade, Vice President Dick Cheney, is reported to be profoundly disturbed. MORE

This is totally consistent with the way the Bush Administration operates. Bush has total confidence in his people and stands 100% behind them. Until he doesn't. The same thing happened with FEMA Director Michael Brown after Katrina, CIA Director Porter Goss, two different Treasury Secretaries, and various others.

Obviously the president is entitled to hire and fire people as he pleases. After awhile, however, it becomes difficult to find good people to join the administration when they know they will be treated this way. Bush is caricatured as someone who is surrounded by flunkies and insulated from the real world. Stories like this do nothing to prove the caricature wrong.

Pope In Turkey

Pope Benedict XVI will be visiting Turkey next week, Nov 28 - Dec 1. This is more than just a courtesy call and is important on a number of levels. We have the spiritual leader of 2/3 of the world's Christians visiting a nation that is 99% Muslim at a time when tensions could hardly be higher. It also comes two months after B16's Regensburg speech that incited Muslim protest and violence, including the killing of a nun in Somalia.

I think the Pope knew exactly what he was saying at Regensburg and what the reaction would be. He knows the demographic wave that is coming, and that there is no time to waste if Europe is to avoid becoming the next Muslim conquest. The pope recognizes that military force will not end this war. Therefore he is deploying an even more powerful weapon: ideas. He wants to bring Islam to a dialogue and, eventually, reach some kind of peaceful coexistence.

Meanwhile there are couple of sub-plots. As a Cardinal, B16 loudly opposed the admission of Turkey into the EU and the Turks have't forgotten. The Turkish government has been noticeably chilly about everything surrounding this visit. Another angle is the Pope's meeting with the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox church - Rome would love nothing more than to bring the Eastern churches back into full communion. Most of the theological differences have been worked out, except for the sticky issue of papal authority. This meeting is, in fact, the real reason for the trip - Patriarch Bartholomew invited B16 to visit long before the Regensburg flap brought new significance to the trip.

Time magazine, which I usually cannot stand, has a decent story about B16 and Turkey that reviews most of the issues at least superficially. Here it is. Also, Chris Blosser of Against The Grain has a terrific roundup of press coverage about the trip. Click here.

Protests and death threats are already beginning in Turkey. I feel sure the greatest precautions have been taken and security will be tight. Keep in mind, though, that the last Pope was shot right in St. Peter's Square - by a Turk, incidentally. So we must deploy the full armor of God for Benedict's protection on this trip. The Knights of Columbus are asking all Christians to say the following prayer daily until the Pope returns safely:

Heavenly Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name, we humbly ask that you sustain, inspire, and protect your servant, Pope Benedict XVI, as he goes on pilgrimage to Turkey – a land to which St. Paul brought the Gospel of your Son; a land where once the Mother of your Son, the Seat of Wisdom, dwelt; a land where faith in your Son’s true divinity was definitively professed. Bless our Holy Father, who comes as a messenger of truth and love to all people of faith and good will dwelling in this land so rich in history. In the power of the Holy Spirit, may this visit of the Holy Father bring about deeper ties of understanding, cooperation, and peace among Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and those who profess Islam. May the prayers and events of these historic days greatly contribute both to greater accord among those who worship you, the living and true God, and also to peace in our world so often torn apart by war and sectarian violence.

We also ask, O Heavenly Father, that you watch over and protect Pope Benedict and entrust him to the loving care of Mary, under the title of Our Lady of Fatima, a title cherished both by Catholics and Muslims. Through her prayers and maternal love, may Pope Benedict be kept safe from all harm as he prays, bears witness to the Gospel, and invites all peoples to a dialogue of faith, reason, and love. We make our prayer through Christ, our Lord. Amen.

... and Amen again. The Fatima title is a nice touch, since the town where the famous apparition took place is named after Mohammed's daughter. A small point - but maybe a start.

Post Office Treason

Michelle Malkin reports that protesters took down the U.S. flag from a post office in Maywood, California this week and replaced it with a Mexican flag, all while chanting anti-American slogans.

It seems that Maywood has declared itself a "sanctuary" city and refuses to cooperate with the Feds in enforcing immigration laws. So no surprise that local cops stood by and watched while Old Glory was torn down and stomped on. Story and video

Here's an idea: if you are an illegal alien, GO TO MAYVILLE CA. You are most welcome there. Be sure to use all the local public services that you can. Do not worry yourself over the poor taxpayers of Mayville who must pay to take care of you. Through their elected leaders, they have chosen to welcome you. So take full advantage of their red carpet. Bienvenidos a Mayville!

Border Insanity

Peggy Noonan has some of her typically brilliant thoughts today, this time about the immigration problem.

Both Congress and the White House, our official deciders, will likely do in the next session what they did in the last: spend a lot of time trying to confuse people into thinking they're closing the borders without actually closing them. There will be talk again of fences, partial fences, fencelike entities and virtual fences. While they dither and mislead, towns and cities will continue to attempt to make their own immigration policy.

You know the facts. Immigrants are here in huge numbers, unlawfully, in the age of terror. They swell the cost of local life--emergency rooms, schools--which has an impact on local taxes. There are towns and cities that feel, and are, overwhelmed. And no one will help them.

The essential reason, I think, is that America's elites don't want America's borders closed. Businesses want low-wage workers; intellectuals are wed to global visions of cross-border prosperity; politicians want Hispanic loyalty and the Hispanic vote. It's not convenient for any of them to close the borders. If Americans on the ground are enduring difficulties over this, it's . . . too bad. This is further eroding America's already eroding faith in its institutions. MORE

She's exactly right. Neither party has any political incentive to actually DO anything about the borders. Yes, there are people to whom this is a serious problem and they are screaming as loud as they can. Our Dear Leaders believe that we, the people, are stupid. If they just talk a lot and throw some bones our way, we will shut up.

Our political figures say they have to concentrate on an overall, long-term, comprehensive answer to the immigration problem. So they huff and puff about the long-term implications of this move or that, and in the end they do nothing.

They are like people in a burning house who sit around discussing the long-term efficacy of various kinds of water hoses while the house burns down around them.

The sad part is that, from the politicians point of view, this method works. Voters have short memories. We keep re-electing these people and we keep getting the same results.

Thoughts About Sex

Ha, that title got you to read this post! Calm down. Scarlett Johanson is, apparently, an actress of some renown. I have never heard of her myself. Anyway, she sounds like a shameless harlot, by her own admission.

The Lost In Translation star last month boasted about being so "socially aware" she gets tested for HIV twice a year.

Johansson says, "We are supposed to be liberated in America but if our President had his way, we wouldn't be educated about sex at all. Every woman would have six children and we wouldn't be able to have abortions." MORE

Hat tip to Mark Shea for finding this article. He also has some interesting conclusions:

... there is a language of the body, as well as a language of the tongue. The act of sex means "I give you all of myself in sacrificial love."

In Johannson's world, the act of sex is recreational and semi-anonymous. The guy might or might not be giving you a deadly plague as he pursues his own pleasure with you as the useful apparatus. Best to be "socially aware" of how anonymous, disposable, and meaningless you are. And best to dispose of any by-products of that mechanical act. That's educated. God forbid you find yourself in a family full of love. That would require something of you. Liberation is isolated atomized autonomy. Slavery is a family of love and mutual care.

Feminists think they are somehow "liberated" by being able to have sex anytime, with anyone, and in any manner that they please, with no consequences for their actions. In fact, they are enslaving themselves to a meaningless existence that will ultimately destroy them.

Redefining Pedophilia

We Americans, or many of us at least, have a European heritage and to this day we often find ourselves following trends that begin across the pond. Here's one we can do without. Police officials in the UK want to make it easier for adult predators to get away with abusing youngsters.

LONDON, November 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Terry Grange, the leading officer on child protection of the UK's Association of Chief Police Officers' has ignited controversy by commenting in an interview with The Sunday Times that pornography featuring children at 13 years of age should not be considered child porn. Grange also said that the term "pedophiles" should only apply to adults who have sex with 12 and under.

Grange's comments match those of the pedophilia party launched recently, with court approval, in the Netherlands. The 'Charity, Freedom and Diversity' (NVD) party of the Netherlands formed last Spring introduced itself to Dutch politics as a champion of children's rights. In a press release, the NVD's spokesman and co-founder, Ad van den Berg said among their goals is lowering the age of consent for sexual activity from 16 to 12 and eventually eliminating it completely.

Grange told the Sunday Times: "Child porn is 12 and under." On pedophilia he said: "For me, that sort of thing, paedophilia, is [with] prepubescent children."

In the UK where the age of consent for sexual activity is 16, Grange says, "It is much more of an issue for me if a child is under 13. I think the closer they get to 16 the more it becomes a grey area and I think everyone in the field of dealing with sexual health and sexual activity acknowledges that."

He added: "I don't actually personally adhere to the 15-year-old being with a 20-year-old boyfriend being paedophilia, or even if the boyfriend is 30."

The ACPO incident is the latest in the ongoing normalization of pedophilia, which has picked up steam since homosexual 'marriage' has been mainstreamed.

In comments this weekend, Romeo and Juliet director Franco Zeffirelli made positive remarks about homosexual sexual contact with young boys. In the context of noting that as a boy he was sexually abused by a priest, Zeffirelli said, "(Homosexual experiences) are not always bad for boys. I don't think they make you homosexual. Sexual choice is made for you early on in life anyway - if you like girls, you like girls." MORE

Unfortunately, not all such thought is on the other side of the ocean. Check this out from Canada:

OTTAWA, November 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In what is likely a Canadian first for a major political party, the Liberal Party of Canada is proposing lowering the age of consent for "anal intercourse" in their publicly-released book of policy resolutions....

...a Liberal Party policy resolution, attributed to the British Columbia branch of the Party, calls for lowering the age of consent for such activity to 14-years of age. Policy no. 45 reads: "WHEREAS the current law discriminates against unmarried same-sex couples by not permitting unmarried persons under 18 to legally engage in consensual anal intercourse; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Federal Government of Canada to bring the age of consent for anal intercourse in equal pairing with other forms of sexual activity." The age of sexual consent for heterosexual intercourse in Canada is 14. MORE

If enacted, this should make American perverts very happy. Maybe they can organize tour buses to head north and invite youngsters aboard for some fun & games. Eventually, though, they will tire of having to travel and start agitating for similar liberties here in the U.S.

Kramer Loses It

If a well-known Hollywood conservative says something racist or bigoted, you can rest assured it will be all over the news. Mel Gibson, for example. If the bigot is a more typical Hollywood pagan, well, they just pretend it never happened. Consider this story about Michael Richards, better known for playing "Kramer" on the Seinfeld TV series. (Warning: harsh language.)

Richards, who played the wacky Cosmo Kramer on the hit TV show "Seinfeld," appeared onstage at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood. Kyle Doss, an African-American, told TMZ he and some friends were in the cheap seats and he was playfully heckling Richards when suddenly, the comedian lost it.

The camera started rolling just as Richards began his attack, screaming at one of the men, "Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a f***ing fork up your ass."

Richards continued, "You can talk, you can talk, you're brave now motherf**ker. Throw his ass out. He's a n****r! He's a n****r! He's a n****r! A n****r, look, there's a n****r!"

The crowd is visibly and audibly confused and upset. Richards responds by saying, "They're going to arrest me for calling a black man a n****r."

One of the men who was the object of Richard's tirade was outraged, shouting back "That's un-f***ing called for, ain't necessary."

After the three-minute tirade, it appears the majority of the audience members got up and left in disgust. FULL STORY AND VIDEO

Hat Tip to The Curt Jester for this heart-warming story about the tolerant, compassionate Hollywood Left.

UPDATE 11/21/06 - Ok, so I was wrong. The story is in my left-wing hometown paper, the Austin American-Statesperson. Even CNN is covering it. I'm changing the title of this post, which was originally called "A Story You Missed."

Mr. Richards appeared on David Letterman last night to apologize and said he is not a racist. Fair enough - I'll take him at his word, in the absence of other evidence. Nevertheless, there is a point to be made here about liberal hypocrisy. Fr. Jay Toborowsky of Young Fogeys said it better than I can:

It wasn't too long ago that something similiar happened to Mel Gibson, and Hollywood went ballistic about an uncontrolled tirade full of bigoted comments. Only some things were different: Mel's comments were included word-for-word in every journalistic account of the story, while Michael's are being asterisk'ed out and described with an ambiguous "racist remarks". Mel was documented to be intoxicated, while Michael was essentially "at work". Gibson has been the target of late-night comedic jokes and insults, while Michael was given free airtime on David Letterman and a sympathetic forum from Dave and Jerry Seinfeld to publicly express his contrition. Gibson has been called "The Most Frigid" Hollywood personality because Hollywood as a corporate body has decreed Mel needs to be punished for his deeds. Season 7 of "Seinfeld" comes out tomorrow on DVD; think anyone will suggest a boycott to show the same attitude towards Richards?

Both men deepy wish they could turn back time and lose their respective 15 minutes of infamy. But for now, why does it seem that Mike is in nowhere as much hot water as Mel? Hmmm, guess it's a good thing Mike never made a Jesus movie.

Body Parts - Made In China

This sounds like a movie script but is apparently real. The Chinese government, which enthusiastically applies capital punishment to those it defines as criminals, has been harvesting organs from executed prisoners and selling them to people who need transplants.

This week, at a summit for transplant doctors held in Guangzhou, the once-denied practice was confirmed by government officials.

"Apart from a small portion of traffic victims, most of the organs from cadavers are from executed prisoners," said Vice Health Minister Huang Jiefu, according to English-language China Daily newspaper. "The current organ donation shortfall can't meet demand."

A ministry spokesman also said that "wealthier people, including foreign patients" were able to move to the top of waiting lists ahead of others waiting for organs.

Some experts estimate that over 90 percent of organ transplants in China come from prisoners. Chinese transplant physician, Dr. Zhonghua Chen, said at a conference in Boston in July that Chinese doctors had transplanted 8,102 kidneys, 3,741 livers and 80 hearts in 2005, reported the Los Angeles Times...

With past investigations revealing kidneys offered for $40,000 and livers for $60,000, the opportunity for illicit profit will continue to plague the system.

Mabel Wu, 69, of Northridge, Calif., paid $40,000 for her new kidney in July. The family was told only that the donor was a 30-year-old male.

"I am very happy with this transplant," Wu told the Times. "I got a good kidney." MORE

While I'm pleased for Mrs. Wu and her family, this is a truly gruesome practice. One could argue that the prisoners are going to die anyway, so we may as well let some good come from the situation. In this view it's not unlike donating your body for research, which may eventually lead to life-saving cures. However in the Chinese case it is not clear whether the donors have a choice in the matter. It is also far from certain that the executions are for legitimate crimes. Remember, this is a regime that routinely forces women to abort babies that the State deems unnecessary, and also sells children to the circus.

Abortion and Immigration

Everyone is up in arms about illegal immigration. Obviously the border with Mexico is out of control. Yet all these people are coming here for a reason, and the reason is jobs. Businesses argue they need the workers and can't fill the jobs any other way.

Well, duh. We've aborted our way into a labor shortage. LifeSite reports on a legislative panel in Missouri that has actually put two and two together.

A Missouri state panel is under fire for issuing a report that blames 33 years of legalized abortion for the United States’ increasing dependence on illegal immigration. Missouri’s House Special Committee on Immigration Reform also credited "liberal social welfare policies" for discouraging Americans from working jobs taken by illegal immigrants.

The report stated: "Suggestions for how to stop illegal hiring varied without any simple solution. The lack of traditional work ethic, combined with the effects of 30 years of abortion and expanding liberal social welfare policies have produced a shortage of workers and a lack of incentive for those who can work." The report then added, “Today’s growing affinity for government dependency has created a class of potential employees who are not eager to work.” ...

"We hear a lot of arguments today that the reason that we can't get serious about our borders is that we are desperate for all these workers," Emery responded. "You don't have to think too long. If you kill 44 million of your potential workers, it's not too surprising we would be desperate for workers." MORE

More excellent analysis here.

That'll Teach Him, Maybe

SPRINGFIELD, MO, November 14, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Emily Brooker, a student in the Missouri State University's School of Social Work, sued the university after being punished by a professor for refusing to lobby in favour of homosexual adoption. Only weeks after launching the suit, the university has settled out of court and disciplined the professor in question.

Professor Frank Kauffman had assigned Brooker, and her classmates, to write a letter to the Missouri Legislature expressing support for homosexual adoption. She refused to do so because of her religious objections and was charged with a "Level 3 Grievance," the most serious charge possible, and faced the possibility of having her degree withheld.

In addition, Brooker faced a 2 1/2 hour interrogation from an "ethics" committee, which asked her personally invasive questions such as "Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?" and "Do you think I am a sinner? ...

After an investigation, the university has purged the grievance from Brooker's academic record and has forced Kauffman to resign from his administrative duties. He was also put on non-teaching leave for the rest of the semester. MORE

This is what goes on in our universities, folks. Refuse to go along with the culture of death and accept the glory of gay sex, and they will try to destroy you. God bless Emily for standing up for the truth.

Is Bush A Conservative?

Is George W. Bush a conservative? I used to think so. I was convinced that in his heart he believed in limited government, low taxes, peace through strength, and the right to life. Occasional breakdowns could be chalked up to political reality and the necessities of wartime.

Now I think I was wrong. Bush is first of all a politician, and like all politicians his prime motivation is protecting and expanding his own power. He used conservatives to gain power and abandoned us as soon as we were no longer necessary. His failed nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was the wake-up call for me. Many conservatives, myself included, held our noses and voted to re-elect Bush only because we could not stand the thought of John Kerry appointing pro-abortion justices to the court. With dozens of highly qualified constitutional scholars of impeccable credentials to choose from, Bush still decided to pack the court with one of his old cronies, who may even be pro-abortion herself. I was disgusted, and the fact that he failed to get his way does not excuse the fact that he tried.

Of course, to answer the question fully we have to define what is a "conservative." A new article by Jeffrey Hart suggests Bush may fit in a category of his own, but is in no case conservative.

The problem is that Bush campaigned in 2000 as a “compassionate conservative.” Today, the media calls him a conservative, yet there is nothing at all conservative about his policies, whether foreign or domestic. William F. Buckley once said that conservatism is the “politics of reality.” But Bush has not pursued reality-based policies. Will we have to find another word? It certainly looks that way...

Is Bush a conservative? Of course not. When all the evidence is in, I think historians will agree with Princeton’s Sean Wilentz, who wrote a carefully argued article judging Bush to have been the worst president in American history. The problem is that he is generally called a conservative, perhaps because he obviously is not a liberal. It may be that Bush, in the magnitude of his failure, defies conventional categories. But the word “conservative” deserves to be rescued. MORE

It will be interesting to see how much of Bush's dirt the Democrats will dig up, now that they control Congress. Call me a cynic, but I suspect it won't be as much as some pundits expect. The White House and the Dems will work out a cease-fire that gives both sides enough goodies to claim victory - and, most important, remain in power. That's what it's all about.

Babies by the quiverful

Newsweek has an interesting story about Protestant Christians abandoning birth control and having children by the dozen. It is a fringe movement but seems to be growing.

Quiverfull beliefs are absolutist. Purists don’t permit even natural family planning methods, such as tracking fertility cycles (the only form of birth control condoned by the Roman Catholic Church). Also taboo: any form of artificial fertility treatment. “The point is to have a welcoming heart,” says Mary Pride, a mother of nine whose 1985 book, “The Way Home,” celebrated a return to traditional gender roles. It has sold about 80,000 copies and has inspired many quiverfull families. “You shouldn’t be unnatural in going to a fertility clinic or in trying to avoid having children by regulating when to have sex with your husband,” says Pride.

Beyond such purists, the anti-birth control message appears to be gaining ground among some evangelicals. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has become one of its most prominent advocates. “If a couple sees children as an imposition, as something to be vaccinated against, like an illness, that betrays a deeply erroneous understanding of marriage and children,” says Mohler. “Children should be seen as good by default.” His stance isn’t as extreme as that of quiverfull followers; for instance, he condones the use of condoms for married couples in extreme circumstances, like illness. Still, Mohler’s views are considered “an oddity” in mainstream Baptist circles, according to Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Land admits, however, that Mohler has certainly expanded his following. “He is seen as the popularizer of a position that is still very marginal, but 15 years ago, it wouldn’t have even been discussed,” says Land, adding that he knows of at least two former students who had reverse vasectomies after hearing Mohler’s arguments. More

Prior to about 1930, no Christian denomination endorsed artificial birth control, and by the 1960s only Catholics held that view. Even there, relatively few members actually follow the Church's teaching. The results are now obvious: our civilization is literally dying away.

The quiverfull people are on the right track. Unfortunately there aren't enough of them to make up for the millions who either abort their babies or just have one or two. We need many more if Western culture is to survive.

Anglican With A Backbone

Since I dissed the Church of England yesterday, I'll be fair and show you one of their Bishops who actually appears to be a vertebrate:

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has accused the BBC of bias against Christianity and says the broadcaster fears a terrorist backlash if it is critical of Islam.

The archbishop, the second most senior figure in the Church of England's hierarchy, said Christians took "more knocks" than other faiths at the hands of the BBC.

"They can do to us what they dare not do to the Muslims," he said. "We are fair game because they can get away with it. We don't go down there and say, 'We are going to bomb your place.' That is not in our nature."

The Ugandan-born archbishop nevertheless said Christians must be more forceful in promoting their beliefs.

Blaming the "chattering classes" for undermining traditional Christian culture, he said: "They see themselves as holding the flag for Britain and that Britain is definitely secular and atheist. I want them to have their say but not to lord it over the rest of us."

In an interview with the Daily Mail, he called for a return to family values and an end to the tyranny of materialism, especially at Christmas.

Full Story

The key words above are "Ugandan-born." Unlike the UK's native eminences, Archbishop Sentamu knows what real religious oppression is like.

Should we call it "Anglicide" ?

The Daily Mail reports that a medical association in the UK proposes that severely disabled children be killed by their doctors. The group argues this will spare them from further suffering and their families from the pointless expense of keeping doomed babies alive for only a brief time.

If that isn't stunning enough, a leading Bishop in the Church of England actually supports this despicable idea. This is the parent denomination of the Episcopal Church in the US. No wonder the Pilgrims fled to America.

This is where it starts. The killing of "hopelessly deformed" infants will lead to the killing of those with survivable, but inconvenient, handicaps. From there it's a quick jump to the active termination of elderly and terminally ill people. We have to stop this madness now.

Full story

Update 11/14/06 - I should clarify that the Bishop in question does not speak officially for the entire Church of England. However, the fact that such a person can even become a Bishop raises question marks.

Update 11/18/06 - The word is getting around. Click here and here.

North Korean Orphans

So we are worried Kim Jong-il may use his newly built nuclear weapons on us. This is a real possibility, but he doesn't need nukes to torture and kill his own people. He also doesn't mind letting his Chinese pals do unspeakable things to children, OpinionJournal reports.

...most abandoned orphans in northeast China are the progeny of North Korean women who have been captured and deported and their Chinese "husbands," who spurn their children. They are stateless, rejected by both China and North Korea for their "impure blood." Pregnant women deported to North Korea are often forced to abort for the same reason, says Chun Ki Won, a South Korean minister whose organization, Durihana, has helped spirit hundreds of refugees out of China. "I know of many cases myself," he says.

"Diu Diu," or "little lost one," is the nickname given to a 3 1/2-year-old boy that LINK tried, but failed, to help. A year ago he and his mother were captured by Chinese police and taken to the border, where racist North Korean border guards refused to admit the half-Chinese boy, whom they tore from his mother's arms. The police then sold the boy to a circus for $100, where he was severely abused and ended up in a hospital. The photos LINK obtained of the boy are too shocking to print....

Amid this misery, there are a few stories with happy endings--of mothers who ride the underground railroad to the South with their Korean-born children or mothers who escape and then go back to smuggle out their Chinese-born kids. The humanitarian workers tell these stories with unflagging spirit. But the vast majority of the orphans remain lost in China, in lives that offer little hope. Most of the South Koreans and Americans working to help the children are Christian, as are many of the ethnically Korean Chinese who care for them. Pastor Chun speaks for many, when he says he takes inspiration from Isaiah 1:17, in which God exhorts the prophet to "Defend the fatherless."

Read Full Article

Here are links to some organizations working to end this carnage.

Liberty in North Korea
Helping Hands Korea

The article mentions two other groups, Crossing Borders and Durihana. I can't find either in Google. If anyone has links to them please let me know.

Clinton Population Initiative

Our former president apparently did his part to replenish the earth. Consider this class photo from a DC-area school, six years after Clinton left office.

Europe Disappearing

LifeSite reports that German authorities now admit their population slide is irreversible.

The fall in the population can no longer be stopped,” vice-president Walter Rademacher with the Federal Statistics Office said, reported Agence France-Presse.

Germany has the lowest birthrate in Europe, with an average of 1.36 children per woman. Despite government incentives to encourage larger families, the population is dropping rapidly and that trend will continue, with an expected loss of as much as 12 million by 2050. That would mean about a 15 percent drop from the country’s current population of 82.4 million, the German news source Deutsche Welle reported today.

Similar patterns hold throughout Western Europe. While there will be fewer Germans there will still be a Germany, at least until the new owners change its name to something more Islamic-sounding.

Germany has one of the largest populations of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe, with a Muslim community of over 3 million. That trend is expected to continue, leading some demographic trend-watchers to warn that the country is well on the way to becoming a Muslim state by 2050, Deutsche Welle reported.

The Brussels Journal reported last month that one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families by 2025. There are an estimated 50 million Muslims living in Europe today--that number is expected to double over the next twenty years.

How can this be? It's not hard to figure out....

The demographic decline coincides with a dramatic drop in Christian religious belief and a consequent rejection of Christian morality and emphasis on the benefits of family life and children.

Full Story

Mama, I Want To Live

Are We Really At War?

The Bush Administration likes to remind us that we are "at war." This is usually done as a way to distract us from their unceasing efforts to expand executive power. It is also useful as a way to justify their outright lies, such as the President's Nov 1 statement that Donald Rumsfeld would remain as SecDef for two more years, when Bush knew full well at that point he was about to be replaced.

The question then arises, are "we" really at war? I think not. The President is at war. The Pentagon is at war. The soldiers in Iraq are definitely at war. Are we, as a nation, at war? No.

War is not like peace. Things change during wartime, even on the home front. Ask members of the Greatest Generation what it was like during WW2. Everyone was mobilized to help in some way, from buying war bonds to collecting scrap metal to rationing gasoline and tires. I remember looking at my dad's 1945 high school yearbook, and the main feature is ROTC. Practically every male student is pictured in uniform. They knew where they were heading after graduation.

What about now? How has YOUR life changed since 9/11? What are you and I doing differently, other than waiting in longer lines at the airport (and griping about it!) ? Answer: not much. How about our young people? Are they overcome with patriotism and lining up to enlist? No.

In fact, the opposite is more nearly true. In the weeks after 9/11, what did we all say? "If we change our lifestyle, the terrorists will have won." Our Dear Leader encouraged us to go on with our normal lives. So we did.

Here is Bush's critical mistake: instead of rallying the public, he has insulated us. He's made it easy for us all to forget what our country is facing. Then he wonders why he doesn't get more support when events turn against him.

I don't expect perfection in the war effort. No plan survives contact with the enemy, the old saying goes. Mistakes will be made at all levels. Leaders learn from their mistakes and don't make them again. Bush failed to get the nation solidly behind him, and now it's too late.

A Liberal Who Loves Bush?

An article by Orson Scott Card is getting a lot of attention in conservative circles. Card, a liberal, fervently criticizes the Democrats for failing to back Bush on the war. He argues that all other issues pale in comparison to the importance of the War On Terror.

I found the article well-thought but ultimately unconvincing. Not that I want to give up in the war – far from it. There are things we should have done differently, but having started this endeavor the US has to finish it. What I can’t buy is the argument that the war is the only, or even the most important, issue we face today. It’s not. The core issue is Life. We in the West are destroying it, via abortion and contraception, at a rate that creates several new 9-11 body counts, every single day.

Look at the numbers. Dead soldiers in Iraq, victims of suicide bombers, those killed by Arab despots – all are terrible but they are not proportionate to the millions of children we have killed, a death toll that is accelerating. Even a terrorist nuke in a major city would not tilt the scales.

There is another connection. Military force will not win the war on terror. Pacifying Iran, Iraq and Syria may provide some temporary relief. It will not, however, eliminate radical Islam from the globe - and they are reproducing faster than we are. Ultimately, our disdain for unborn life will bring down our civilization by letting the enemy outnumber us. It is only a matter of time.

Is there a way out? Sure. The God who defeated Death itself can easily resolve our little quarrels. Unfortunately we are not seeking His help. When enough of us do, we may start to see some changes. Read the book of Job. It is now being repeated, on a global scale.

Why Blog?

According to legend, St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland. Biologists say this is impossible since there never were any snakes in Ireland to begin with. I have no idea – maybe they were swimming snakes, or possibly they hitched a ride on a boat. Anyway, these literal and/or figurative snakes were clearly pagan and St. Patrick was right to remove them.

Today the whole world is infested with pagan snakes, some of whom are able to appear in human form. In this blog I will identify and discuss these serpentine threats to civilization.