Sunday, February 26, 2012

Quote From An Anti-Science Extremist

In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’, they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle’.

--Wolfgang Pauli

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

John C. Wright

Gives the devil-deniers what for. Excellent stuff.

A taste:
Happy Ash Wednesday, if that is the proper greeting for the advent of the season of repentance in ashes and mourning for our sins.

On the radio this morning, I heard what I thought was a Twilight Zone episode about a parallel universe in which the human race had never heard any Bible stories, fairytales, pagan epics, nor seen the movie TIME BANDITS nor read even a single history book of the long and sad and terrible history of the human race, and so had no idea that evil was real.

In this deliriously naive parallel world, the radio was chattering nervously about some politician who made a speech a few years ago, and made reference to the Supreme Being, and also to His adversary.


Has the Prince of Darkness already won so many hearts and souls that the slightest mention of reality, and of the real war between darkness and light that rages every day in every life, as well as in the life of a great nation, is to greeted with shock and disbelief? Is all truth, and everything interesting, or exciting, or dangerous, to be scrupulously and fastidiously expunged from the public forum?

At least one liberal commentator says yes. Truth is too judgmental, too moralistic. At least one conservative commentator says yes. Truth is not a pocketbook issue: voters are more worried about their keeping their jobs and making their mortgage payment than they are about the nosedive of this once-great nation into the outer darkness of pride, vanity and sensuality, the cold and colorless treason of the intellectuals, the shambles of the scattered flock of Christ.

Meanwhile, back in reality, in the bright sunlight far from the Twilight Zone, today is a day to initiate the season of fasting and repentance. Perhaps the first thing for which we the people should repent was letting ourselves be led so far astray, to have forgotten both the light of heaven so completely and the darkness of hell, that any mention of such high things or profound strikes the ear not merely as odd, but ugly.

Have we forgotten Christ so completely that the mere mention of His name sounds like a faux pas to us, a breach of etiquette, a curse? Or the mere mention of the name of His adversary?
Let us by all means repent in ashes that we have allowed our nation to descend into such a swamp of worldliness that even to speak as all Christians always and everywhere have spoken is thought not merely impolite, but extraordinary.

If Christ indeed is forgotten so completely, ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Signed, Epstein's Mother

Fake as all get out, Powerline explains why.

Sunday, February 19, 2012


Classical Values:
Over the last few days it’s been impossible for me to log on to the Face Book without being assaulted by postings on the “Republicans War On Women” from my female Face Book Friends most of whom are educated and many of whom work in a profession that, at least in broad theory, requires them to have the capacity for original or individual thought.

But no one is discussing banning contraceptives or even abortion.  The contraceptive issue was introduced in a Republican debate by George “Supine” Stephanopoulos as a means of painting Republicans as being against contraceptives.


The republicans PROPERLY have pointed out this is a violation of the freedom of religion secured to us by the constitution.  BUT because they oppose taking the founding document of the United States out in the backyard and screwing it like a two bit whore, they’re being accused of starting a war on women.

Because, the Catholic church changed its doctrine yesterday, to refuse you free contraceptives, ladies.  Yep, that’s the truth.  And those mean, nasty, awful Republicans are conniving with the mean, evil nasty papists.  And, yep, they are going to refuse to pay for your contraceptives EVEN IF YOU DON’T work for them, as the vast majority of women who in the US don’t.  How nasty is that?

What kind of enormous, unyielding, painful daddy issues have you got to have to think that Uncle Sam has to force a CHURCH to pay for your contraception?  Are you really that infantile?  That conflicted about your sexual being?  Society must cover your contraception because… you were born with a vagina and that makes you speshul?  Because that absolves you of your guilt in having sex?  Society must provide for your abortions because… then it’s not your fault?

Poor wittle girly-girls.  Did the devil make you do it?

And this is a war on women because…

Because…  When the Romans took over Carthage, they immediately refused to pay for Carthaginian birth control, OR Carthaginian  abortions.  As we all know, this immediately reduced Carthaginians to a state of slavery.

Is THAT what you think?  Do you realize that actually invaders usually try to reduce the occupied population?

Let me tell you what war on someone means: It means that you and your children can’t keep what you work for.  It means that you are killed for the convenience of the occupiers.  It means you can’t worship as you please.  It means you can’t eat, buy or wear what you wish.  It means you can’t travel where you wish.  It means you can’t afford to have children when you want them.

In fact, a war on women, at least that portion of women who are American resembles very much what we are seeing happen right before our eyes, with a staggering deficit and an intrusive government.  Your children – and you – will be enslaved to pay for the debt the government is incurring.  This will greatly reduce your ability to live your life as you wish.  A war on women is what we’re seeing, when you won’t be able to educate your daughters (or your sons, but do you care?) because we’re flat stone broke.  A war on women resembles the restrictions on travel (through ridiculous, uncalled for constrictions of our energy supply – like the refusal of the pipeline from Canada) that are already being imposed on us, and that will get much much worse if you give these clowns another chance.

A war on women – a war on everyone – means forcing people to pay for things they believe are a sin, and which they think will cost them eternal torment.  (And it doesn’t matter if you don’t believe it. Freedom of religion is supposed to prevent the majority from violating the rights of religious minorities, no matter if their beliefs make you fall down howling with laughter.  No.  PARTICULARLY if their wishes make you fall down howling with laughter.  Force Roman Catholics to pay for your abortion today, force Jews to sell bacon tomorrow, force Mormons to drink wine.  It’s all the same.)

War is forcing people to do what the invaders want them to, exactly in the way the invaders want.

The Democratic government is at war with America.  And they hope you won’t notice.

Worse, their campaign of war has been incredibly successful in reducing us to a population of slaves.  They hope you don’t notice that either.  Instead, they wave the false flag of contraceptives and “War On Women” and all these supposedly liberated SUPPOSEDLY rational women fall for it.

So far, the Democrats War on Reality is massively successful.

Thursday, February 09, 2012


Mark Shea:
It is imperative for the blogosphere to make noise here, because the MSM is largely in the tank for Obama and is, with malice aforethought, deliberately lying to make it appear that this is merely some dumb bishops with hangups about sex trying to impose their will on defenseless people who just want health care coverage.

The amazing chutzpah of those who say, “Whether I contracept is none of your business” while holding a gun to our heads and demanding we pay for their contraceptives is truly breathtaking, particularly since they are not only robbing us, but forcing us to violate our consciences while they do it. Contraceptives are cheap as dirt and common as water. Let those who want them get them themselves and not gratuitously force those who think them immoral to pay for them. Painting this as “the Church imposing its morals” on them is like accusing the pistol-whipped victim of armed robbery of lack of charity. This is an act of war against Catholic conscience and religious liberty and a naked act of malice from the Obama Administration. There must be no compromise. It must be utterly defeated.

Wednesday, February 08, 2012


By Michael Egnor:
The Gay Marriage Clause of the Constitution is right there next to the Abortion Clause of the Constitution and the Separation of Church and State Clause of the Constitution. Those parts of the Constitution are difficult for ordinary Americans to find, even with diligent search of the venerable document. It's analogous to the difficulty that leftist judges have in finding the 2nd and 10th Amendments, which are actually there.

The Constitution was written by men who would have responded to the assertion that "by a vote of 2 to 1 a panel of judges ruled that the Constitution and its Amendments subsume habitual buggery with sacramental marriage-- thereby nullifying the direct vote of millions of American citizens--" by reminding us that certifiably insane judges shouldn't issue rulings when drunk.

Mostly Correct

Not all, but essentially (Denninger):
Of course in the world of government none of these rights exist. This is, in fact, the trap the Catholic Church fell into originally, but it wasn't an accident. It was in fact their intentional throwing off of obligations that the Church has maintained for hundreds of years onto the State that led to this problem.

The Church loved this when it all worked their way. Rather than being the source of beneficience and charity, it has shoved off that onto state programs, thereby taking what was a voluntary act of donation and turning into a compulsion enforced by government with literal guns-up-the-nose through the power of taxation.

Turning tithing into taxation was the literal Holy Grail for the Church -- it was able to codify as a matter of law what was religious dogma. This, when it worked their way, was praised from the pulpit on Sunday and not one word was breathed about Establishment and its problems.

Of course that sort of tricksterism is the hallmark of Satan.

When you sleep with the Devil it rarely works out well.

The Church has never given a damn about the First Amendment's establishment clause when willfully ignoring it was to their benefit! By tossing off literal billions of dollars of annual expense in the United States alone that used to be allocated to charity works, from feeding the poor to running charity hospitals that provided care to people who had no money, The Church was the historic source of these good works for the poor, funded entirely from voluntary donations.


The Church in fact took what was a uniquely private institution -- provision of charity through hospitals (run by the Church), food banks (ditto), soup kitchens and provision of shelter for homeless people and others in dire straights and preached for literal decades that the forced taking of money from the congregation, along with non-believers, was not only justified but a moral imperative, thereby relieving what was a consensual act of charity and turning it into a legal obligation.

This burst of authoritarian jackboot application in fact met with the Church's explicit approval, not just silent assent. That same approval was voiced when EMTALA was passed in the 1980s when forced provision of care to the indigent came into law in the United States, taking what was a voluntary act and turning into a legal imperative. The very same position -- that of forced provision of cost-shifted care, has been considered a laudable goal for literal decades by The Church when it comes to Medicaid and Medicare, both of which effectively force private payers and working people to subsidize medical care for those who are either indigent or retired and have saved nothing of their own.

Then, having championed this organized theft from the citizens at literal gunpoint The Church stepped up to the trough and lapped up its share of hard-wrought blood from the people, attaching itself to the federal tit and drawing mightily upon tax benefits and transfer payments for its institutions (such as hospitals) that were once funded instead by the generosity of those who decided to tithe on Sunday.

In short the Church has, for decades, supported the entirety of the legal framework and the Democratic Left's position that the provision of charity, which was once provided for through voluntary tithe, was "best" provided instead in large part through mandatory taxation.

The very same Church that now bleats about the chains imposed by government, in short, was more than happy to help that very same government apply the chains of both fiscal and moral bondage to your neck.

The Bishops all need to drink a great big chalice of Shut-The-****-Up until and unless they reverse, in public, their explicit endorsement of Medicaid, Medicare, EMTALA and the rest of the blatantly unconstitutional and outrageous cost-shifting and forced charity that they have all supported for the last 50 years.