October 28, 2009

No Life to Give

This post is long overdue. I am going to go on record and say flat out that I am against abortion. If you have the courage, hear me out. Warning: This discussion is going to be very direct and some people may find it offensive. "Offended" in this case is wimp talk for "I can't handle the truth".

My facts are confined to the United States. The principles still apply wherever you are, though.

But first, I have to tell you that I am not so extreme that I say "no" to all abortions at all times. The exceptions that I accept are when the life of the mother is in actual danger (none of this philosophical nonsense, I want facts), rape or incest (only one percent of abortions occur because of these factors).

Ninety three percent of abortions are for social convenience. Millions of abortions are performed, and most of those are because women can't keep their legs together. Sure, it's OK in their lust-crazed minds to do the bang tango, unprotected, with a man that they do not want to actually have children with. Then they have the child exterminated.

I can hear it already: "A woman has a right to choose. Men have no right to legislate our bodies." In this discussion, men are told to clam up, that they have no rights and no say at all in this matter.

Are you sitting down, Bubbles? No, don't lay down, you've done that enough already. The fact is, abortion is murder. No, not my opinion. Medical fact. But since feminazis make so much noise and influence legislation, this murder is legal. At nine weeks of age, the fetus can respond to being lightly touched. Fingerprints, those life-long identifying marks, begin at ten weeks. Brainwave activity begins very early. The heart begins beating, also very early — and the unborn child may have a different blood type than the mother that is carrying it. And what if you are carrying a female child? Who speaks for her? What about her rights? Of course, the guy you did the wild thing with does not have any rights or say in the matter except to pay child support — but what do you care?

Women who have abortions have other problems, including depression, thoughts of suicide and medical complications. Suppose you have that abortion because it is "inconvenient" or will be "too upsetting" for you to continue. There is a chance that you may not be able to conceive again. It may be legal, but it's not always safe. And that "back alley abortion" myth, where so many women died? That's another lie, big time.

Looks like you have some counseling to get. The first step is to get right with God.

The biggest abortion mill is Planned Parenthood. In 2008, they performed over 315,000 abortions (with a dismal five thousand adoption referrals). Their profits in 2008 were (insert Doctor Evil voice here) one billion dollars. They pretend that they're doing a public service, but instead, they are simply a money-making business.

Ever notice that most Planned Parenthood centers are in predominantly black neighborhoods? Their founder was Margaret Sanger, a proponent of eugenics. Eugenics is a process to weed out the unfit in the population. Hitler loved it; eugenics is a way to speed up human evolution. Obviously, they consider blacks to be unfit. Maggie said, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population".

Someone made an agonizingly stupid remark to me: "So what? That was years ago, it's different now." Sort of like saying, "Stalin was a bit radical, but we can continue his work." How convenient! The past does not matter, the motives behind the founding of the organization do not matter either. How ludicrous! And have they forgotten their brutal origins, really? Nope. They still give out their Margaret Sanger award. It went to Hillary Clinton in 2009.

If you want some fast facts about abortion in America (and some numbers for the rest of the world), click here. There's a pamphlet by Planned Parenthood from 1952 that says "abortion kills the life of a baby". For a glimpse of that, click here.

Now I'm officially on the record as being Pro Life. Click here for additional information by my friend Gypsy.

September 26, 2009

Mexico Complaining About Mexicans

This came from my patriotic ex-marine buddy. (Hey, Don! I'm using your material again!) I am very selective on the scores of e-mails that I receive. Many are inaccurate or out of date. I checked this one and read a good portion of the text that is below is reproduced here.


The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from Sonora don't like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.


State of Sonora (Mexico) is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico.


Nine state legislators from the Mexican state of Sonora traveled to Tucson in 2008 to complain about Arizona 's new employer crack down on illegals from Mexico.


It seems that many Mexican illegals are now returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off about it.


The delegation from Sonora said that Arizona's new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora (Arizona 's southern neighbor) made up of mostly small towns cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money.


The law punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don't have valid legal documents to work in the United States . Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.

The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on their state government.


'How can they pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales.


'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona ,' she said, speaking only in Spanish.


'Mexico is not prepared for this--for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs,' she said.


'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.


Wrong!


The United States is a sovereign nation, Cupcake, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico 's citizens.


It's time for the Mexican government and its citizens to stop parasitically feeding off of the United States and to start taking care of its own needs.

Too bad all the US states don't pass a laws just like Sonora (see below). Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will not do anything:


New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message..

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
* * * * * * * *
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
* * * * * * * *
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
* * * * * * * *
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
* * * * * * * *
5.. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.
* * * * * * * *
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care or other government assistance pro grams. Any burden will be deported.
* * * * * * * *
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
* * * * * * * *
8. If foreigners come here and buy land.... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
* * * * * * * *
9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
* * * * * * * *
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted and, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Too strict ???


The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO!


These sound fine to me. NOW, how can we get these laws to be America's immigration laws?


If we don't wake up, we'll lose our country!


More about this kind of topic can be found here.



August 24, 2009

Crying Woman Syndrome

Let me get something out of the way straight away. I am not saying that there are not bad people who call themselves Christians, both now and in the past. And I am not saying that there are not good people who call themselves Muslims, both now and in the past. I'm saying that Islam promotes violence and condones murder much more readily than Christianity. Capice?

While re-listening to an audio book of Godless: The Church of Liberalism by my One True Love, I'm still pondering the situation involving Rifqa Bary. (Listening to Ann Coulter and thinking about Leftists makes me even more dangerous than usual.) In fact, I had a bit of a scare this morning when I saw a headline that said something like, "Fugitive Found Dead", but it was about someone that probably deserved it.

Annie was talking about how liberals will often trot out a crying woman, or women, to make their case when logic doesn't work (and logic doesn't work for leftists most of the time). The World Trade Center widows (the "Jersey Girls"), Cindy Sheehan dishonoring her heroic fallen son in her lunatic protests of the war on terror, etc. Coulter's point about using sobbing, hysterical women is, "You can't respond to them because that would be questioning the authenticity of their suffering".

Right! Sort of like an emotional human shield. And who wants to be the bad guy that tries to argue with facts and reason? You'll look like a hearless cad.

But that only works with leftist causes. Hearing the very genuine fear and sobbing of Rifqa Barry went right through me. Yes, I was moved. Did you see Agam's comment in the previous post?

You know what burned me up most in that video? The interviewer treating her like maybe she's a bit kooky for going off to Florida to find this Christian group. "Do you really think that this is true?" I don't know if this is a media person, but it sure sounds like one of those. Rifqa gets more upset at that point, thinking she isn't even being believed, and frustrated that the questioner seems not to have any background education on the issue at all.

Then the lady - she talks just like a damn social worker, if she isn't a "reporter" - says, "So what do you want at this point now?"

All the Christians present were just too well-mannered to have slapped that woman on the face, which is what she really needed. Rifqa has been telling her for six minutes. She doesn't want to die. She wants religious freedom, which for her means Christ. Simple. She doesn't want to be sent back to a family which will probably murder her, as other families have done to thousands of girls like her. Finally she just blurts it out - "I don't want to die."

And the social worker / journalist hootchie says, "Alright."
Do you know why the, uh, "journalist" was so callous? It was a Muslim girl that had converted to Christianity! This is not a leftist cause! Who cares about her feelings? Now, if she was afraid to return to her Christian parents, liberals would be interested. After all, the "Islam is a religion of peace" mantra is one of their pet projects, as is "tolerance" (which is "tolerance" of everything except the Judeo-Christian ethic, heterosexuals, Caucasians, etc.)

Perhaps that is why this intellectually castrated "journalist" was not moved, either. His own liberal bias is prevalent in his piece, but he may have cared if this was about a leftist cause. If you can stand to read it, see how the commenters let him have it. Bam! He should be barred from ever doing this kind of "work" ever again. Not because I disagree with him, but because of his obvious bias.

August 22, 2009

Outrageous Spam

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised anymore. After all, I've been around for quite a few years and seen many things.

But I'm going to be a rat and squeak loudly.

This one is something. The sender claims to be "Benny Crocker" . False sense of security, huh? The nice lady image in your mind of someone that helps you with good food and feeds you brownies or something. The other part is a dead giveaway, however.

The headers say more about the sender: Received: from mail.haosen.com.cn (unknown [59.46.168.60]). "CN" is "China". ChiComs are trying to trick me? The boys in the crew are laughing almost as hard as I am.

The loser's subject line is, "List of small companies in the USA".

And the rest is: "many different fields such as company income, email, number of employees and more

There are 17 million total records and 2 million emails

Reduced to only: $299 - from today until this Friday

Email us at: Jerome@BestAccurateReliable.com".

Riiiiight. I'm going to e-mail a spammer and do business with him. A spammer with fake headers, probably from the ChiComs, that's even worse. "Jerome"? Yeah, Jerome Jintao or something.

Most of my readers are bright, but this is important, especially if you're going to send this to someone with less experience than you or I have: Never do business with a spammer. Never even contact them. Capice? It only encourages them, and you'll probably be ripped off, anyway.

In this case, the spammer is selling names and addresses so that I can be a spammer as well.

"But Cowboy Bob, how do they get addresses to sell?"

One way is when the unwashed masses will keep forwarding e-mails. Look at some of the subject lines: "FWD:FWD:FWD:RE:FWD Happy gushy nonsense you don't want to see anyway". Then you have to scroll through about five thousand previous readers... Yeah, those letters fall into the hands of spammers and make us all miserable. They have software to extract valid addresses, too.

Responsible citizens like you and I will copy and paste the good part of the e-mail, or delete the old addresses, before we forward it. Then, when we send it to our own group of forty five special close friends, we use the "BCC" field so that everyone else's name doesn't show. In the "To" line, send it to yourself or one person that doesn't mind having their name broadcast to the world. Oh, you didn't know that trick? Now you do. Use it.

Another method to send you spam is using software that will generate names on a hit or miss approach. They don't care, they're disposing of their real e-mail address later, anyway. So when you get e-mail that includes, say, "Doctor5@Hotmail, Doctor005@Hotmail, Doctor123@Yahoo.cn, TheDoctor@Gallifrey.com.cz", and so on, and so on, you know you're not special to this sender; it's automated sending.

At the bottom is the line, "To invoke no further correspondence status please send an email to exit@BestAccurateReliable.com". Never do that! You'll validate your address to a spammer. Many of them don't even know you're really out there (like in the above example).

Wow, I turned a simple rant about silly e-mail that I received into a "teachable moment". I hope you will copy and paste this article and send it to your friends, or use the "e-mail" button near the bottom. Any little bit of edjamakation to reduce spam is helpful.

Addendum: Found this in the Spam folder of another account. "The same thing, only different", as the saying goes. This one appears to have been sent from Germany. Since the last one had the appearance of China, this one Germany, neither may be true:

15 sortable fields including contact names, phone, email ETC...

Thousands of emails for every state - very fresh data

This week only you pay only: $291 - during this week only

send and email to: Marion@BestAccurateReliable.com

August 18, 2009

Two Links on Atheism

Buona sera. I've been going on about "humanists" and atheists lately, and off and on for several months. Those people irritate me with their smug "I'm smarter than you" attitudes, and their efforts to tear down the beliefs of others.

Here are links to a two-part article by Frederick Meekins. This is more scholarly and less caustic than my articles (here are a few if you want to have some fun), but contain a great deal of truth. I won't invite atheists to read them, because the number of atheists who have the intellectual honesty to examine the evidence against them, well, I can count them on one hand. (For instance, mention Intelligent Design and just sit back and watch them rant. Extra points if they turn red in the face.)

Take it away, Mr. Meekins!

http://www.newsbull.com/forum/more.asp?TOPIC_ID=74565

http://www.newsbull.com/forum/more.asp?TOPIC_ID=74637

August 13, 2009

This Ain't Human

Buon giorno. While poking around some online forums and communities, I happened across a nest of "Humanists". Humanists are essentially atheists; they believe there is no God, and have antipathy for organized religions, especially Christianity. They'll use derogatory terms like "Xtians" and refer to "Jeebus", and are more than happy to tell you how much smarter they are than the millions of us who believe in a higher power.

They believe in "reason" and science, and constantly slam anything religious as being ignorance and superstition. As I constantly maintain, they do not bother to seriously examine the scientific basis for belief in God and the Bible. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have been Christians, or "believers" to some degree (that is, being an atheist does not make you a better scientist).

What do Humanists stand for? Oh, they say that they believe in people, or humanity or whatever similar word you want. It's a bit difficult to determine their tenents, because they have nothing to direct them other then their own consciences and opinions. And everyone has their own opinions, so it looks like it would lead to anarchy.

But these people get so smug, I want to slap them. They worship reason, but their logic is faulty because it's based on preconceptions and emotion. The main one is, essentially, "If you're a believer, then you're an idiot". (Just like with Intelligent Design or Creation Science, they will put it down as being unscientific, but will not be able to discuss it because they have not had the intellectual honesty and integrity to investigate it.) And these smug cafones in one particular forum were gathering insults to use on believers. One was, "You remind me of myself, when I was young and stupid." Yep, that really shows their intellectual and moral superiority, doesn't it?

Let me ask you two questions, Captain Humanist: If you're so much smarter, or just plain better, than I am, why am I a threat to you? Why can't you just have a quiet self-assurance in your "rightness" and clam up? I think those are fair questions.

Addendum: Since words like "atheist" have negative connotations (ya think?), Richard "Daffy" Dawkins is suggesting that the term "bright" be used in its place. Yep, still have to slam everyone else because they're so much smarter than we are.

August 11, 2009

Say What You Mean

Buona sera. I'm going to keep this short and to the point.

In my lines of work as well as my personal lives, I don't have much tolerance for having people waste my time or toy with my emotions. I think some of that is because I'm getting older, too. If my time is going to be wasted or my emotions are going to be toyed with, I'm going to be the one choosing to do it.

What I'm going on about is having to guess what people mean. When one of my goomahs says, "We don't have to go out tonight", then fine, she doesn't want to go out tonight. If Tommy the Knocker says that he doesn't want the last piece of pizza, then it's fair game for me or one of the others in the crew to grab it. I don't want the babe whining at me later that she really did want to go out, or Tommy to grumble because he didn't get the last slice.

What, I'm supposed to read between the lines? I'm a freakin' mind reader? (Besides, mind reading is illegal on dozens of civilized planets, as well as being a violation of privacy.) When someone gets bothered because I took him at his word, I get bothered right back.

And I will not accept a guilt trip.

I know, I know, sometimes in a relationship you figure out how the other person ticks, and you do learn to figure out what they mean instead of what they say. When it's a regular thing, then it's a manipulation tool.

Somewhere deep down, I also feel like it's dishonest to play guessing games by making people try to figure out what you meant because you did not say it. Be honest with me and you have a much better chance of earning my respect.

I know a woman who does this kind of thing, too, but it's more subtle. When she was living with her mother and my pal Neil, she would make a remark like, "It's hot in here." He mother would have to get up and open the windows, adjust fans, whatever, just so that lazy bones did not have to get up off her lazy tail and actually do something for herself. Neil wanted her mother to just say, "Yes, it is hot in here" and leave it at that. But the poor broad has such low self-esteem and has been manipulated by the control freak for so many years, she couldn't help herself.

I guess one of the reasons I get along with Lela and the guys in the crew that know me is because they take a direct approach; there's no guessing games. And I have the basic viewpoint of, "Here I am. If you don't like it, well, sorry. But I'm not changing just to please you." (With the possible exception of a hottie, I may make a little extra effort before I remember my basic vows to myself.)

There's wistful thinking about the Old West, or maybe just the old days in general, when a man's word was his bond and a handshake was as good as a written contract. People could be more direct. That's a concept that I wish we had today. My own integrity is important to me, and I prefer to say what I mean and not make people guess what I mean, instead. Capice?

Subscribe in a reader