How’s This for a Brave New World, Boys & Girls?
March 31, 2005
Think that Terri Schiavo’s murder by starvation is just inhuman and wrong? Wesley Smith assures us that “Bbbbbb-aby you ain’t seen nnnnothin’ yet…”
After you read this article (and vomit), consider the fact that, if we are the accidents of Darwinist evolution as so many in the “scientific” community would have us believe, what’s wrong with harvesting organs from living people?
Featured Blogger
March 31, 2005
Nick Queen is featuring Amy’s Humble Musings this week as one of his…ummm…featured bloggers (from our Department of Redundancy Department), and this lady is funny–and a great writer. She’s going on my list ASAP. Stop by and check out some good stuff!
It’s a long post but I tried my best to make it worth reading
First Amendment, Schmirst Amendment
March 30, 2005
Attorney Douglas Lee writes a good article on a poorly-reasoned ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the chilling effect that this ruling will have on our First Amendment freedom of the press.
2 state court rulings squash right to know
Glenn Beck interviewed an attorney on his radio program this morning discussing this case. Here’s the nutshell of Norton v. Glenn: “Glenn” was a member of borough council in Parkersburg, PA, who, outside of council chambers, referred to the council president (“Norton”) and the borough mayor as “queers and child molesters”. This happened, FYI, in 1995. The Chester County Daily Local (readership: a little less than the New York Times) dutifully reported these remarks, without prejudice, but simply as a matter of public record. All they did, in other words, was report the remarks that the councilman made.
Norton, et al, sued, not only Mr. Glenn (and against whom they won a judgment), but the paper as well. The court threw out the claim against the paper on the basis of the “neutral reportage privilege”, which was a widely-held standard determining that the press has wide latitude in reporting on such affairs. Our buddy Norton, though, wasn’t satisfied, and appealed, to the Supreme Court of PA, ultimately, who ruled fairly recently that the newspaper could be sued merely for reporting the news in this manner.
Libel is one thing, and it ought to be illegal. But a case of accurately reporting the news, which contained statements by one party later found to be libelous? This is actionable in the land of the free?
Come now, justices of the Court; you’ve made a mockery of a cherished freedom.
Yipes…you guys gonna sue me for publishing this??? Come and get me, Commie swine!!!
(Just kidding. My attorney has advised me to state that the above line was inserted merely for “comic relief”, and any inference that Mr. Harvey intentionally charges that the members of the Court maintain affiliation with the Communist Party, or any of its subsidiaries, should not be drawn. Further, in repeating the words of Mr. Glenn, Mr. Harvey sincerely apologizes to Mr. Norton and his compadres, for the appearance that he might consider these wonderful individuals to be “queers and child-molesters”. Further, Mr. Harvey also apologizes to any “queers and child-molesters” for any presumed linkage between them and Mr. Norton.)
Are There 51 Spines in the U.S. Senate?
March 30, 2005
From Sunday’s Agape Press:
…A conservative legal activist says the effort to change a Senate rule that could end the filibusters against pro-life and Christian judicial nominees is being blocked by Republicans. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, says it is time to place the blame for the filibusters right where it belongs. After all, he notes, a simple majority vote could change the Senate rule and end the filibusters, but GOP members are standing in the way of that happening. The head of Judicial Watch says one “would think there would be enough Republicans to change the rule, given the fact they have a large majority there, and there aren’t. So right now, filibusters will go forward against presidential nominees to the federal judiciary with the support of Republicans.” Although many conservatives oppose the age-old political tactic they feel the Democrats are exploiting to block Bush’s judicial nominees, Fitton says the Republicans are more afraid of changing the Senate rules than they are of facing Democrat filibusters. For that reason, he adds, “when we complain about the judicial filibusters, now we’re going to have to complain about the action or inaction of both parties.”
Is a Republican with no backbone worse than a Democrat with no belief in the Constitution?
Advice for Dear Abby
March 30, 2005
My good friend Warren Throckmorton has written a letter to “Dear Abby” about her poor advice given to a 14-year-old and her mom about the teen’s feelings of lesbianism. It’s a good read regarding some of the misconceptions surrounding this subject, one in which the liberal media is much more concerned to shed heat than light. It’s sad to see some evangelicals (Tony Campolo being the leading one) who uncritically seem to suck up so much of the homosexual propaganda and then disseminate it. Here’s a primer on some basics:
Credit Where Credit is Due
March 29, 2005
This is the No Kool-Aid Zone, in that we don’t drink the Kool-Aid for anyone, but neither do we do the opposite here, and automatically deride everything done by “the opposition”. You can probably guess, if you read this blog often, what my general
impression of Jesse Jackson is. But Jesse, I applaud your courage and your efforts today. A big tip of the UVa Wahoos cap to you.
Jesse Jackson Urges Fla. Woman Be Kept Alive
I don’t know what has motivated you to take this stance, given your general stance about issues of life, but whatever the reason, you are to be commended. Thank you, Jesse Jackson.
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
