Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Potpourri

I was out of town last week, so the blogging has been light...actually non-existent. Better get going...

Tom Fleming with a typically audacious essay on "Sex and Death," asks, "Why is the right to kill one’s own child so special that it trumps all other considerations, even public health rules. Abortuaries are subject to less regulation than veterinary clinics. Is that really how most Americans view unborn babies?"

Needless to say, Fleming provides an answer:

The answer is probably known to everyone who reads this column: reproductive rights, or rather on-reproductive rights: the right and duty to have sex without reproducing. The sexual revolution, a far more profound and dangerous revolution than either the French or Russian Revolutions, was a revolution against human nature and against the most basic elements of human society. However wicked the Cities of the Plain might have been, Sodom and Gomorrah were, to some extent, only a story that foreshadows the nightmare we have come to accept. Do not look for parallels in ancient Greek bisexuality (a much misinterpreted phenomenon) or Roman decadence.


Fleming also indicts the Church. "When the churches turned first to contraception and then to abortion, they became the church of Antichrist. (I understand that ELCA Lutherans pay for their pastorettes’ abortions)," writes Fleming. "The deeper meaning of this revolution I glimpsed yesterday, reading about a bizarre Gnostic sect whose members devoted 365 different copulations to 365 different supernatural forces. Contraception was the rule, but where contraception failed, they had recourse to abortions carried out in combination with grotesque rituals. This worship of sex and death, I submit to you in all seriousness, is the diabolical religion of mainstream 'Christianity' today."

Fleming next turns his guns on the rioting in France.

I had been watching the news since the disturbances broke out, and on All Saints I noted that of nearly 300 stories on Google mentioning France and Interior Minister Sarkozy, only one was an American reference to the violence—a few seconds on FOX news. When the Washington Post and the New York Times finally made up their minds that the news could not be suppressed—always a painful decision for them to have to make—we quickly learned about French racism and the plight of the poor Arabs and Africans. Time after time on NPR I heard a comparison with America’s own civil rights struggle in the 1960’s. Apparently, people who work for NPR or the Post are under the impression that the Watts riots had something to do with civil rights. Some day they should read Edward Banfield’s The Unheavenly City, particularly the chapter on “Rioting for Fun and Profit.”

If Muslim young men in Paris are rioting, raping, setting buildings and women on fire, all for better jobs, what explains their behavior everywhere else in the world? In Egypt, where they riot to protest a secular government. In Pakistan, where they stage cross-border raids into India for the sole purpose of killing non-Muslims. In New Jersey, where they went into the streets to celebrate their victory on September 11.

To take the argument back to the source, how do we explain the actions of Mohamed and his followers, who looted, murdered, and raped their way across Arabia and the Middle East? Yes, it is true, an Islamic state, after a few decades of grotesque brutality, will generally let Christians and Jews alone. They need people to pay the taxes, handle the trade, and staff the bureaucracy—talents that are traditionally hard to find in Islamic states. Naturally, the success of non-Muslims will periodically arouse the righteous indignation of the “youths” who spend their time loafing on street corners, and a pogrom a decade is a small price to pay for living under George Bush’s religion of peace.


Sailer and Buchanan also weigh in on the mess in France.

Pat Buchanan says that the "embrace of the twin heresies of neoconservatism and Big Government Conservatism" has killed the Bush presidency." Looks like adopting the foreign policy of The Weekly Standard wasn't such a good idea.

I was reading Carmon over at The Backwater Report and noticed this link about Jay Sekulow. Looks like Sekulow, head of the American Center for Law and Justice, and full-time Bush shill, is livin' large.

For example, in 2001 one of Sekulow's nonprofit organizations paid a total of $2,374,833 to purchase two homes used primarily by Sekulow and his wife. The same nonprofit also subsidized a third home he uses in North Carolina.

At various times in recent years, Sekulow's wife, brother, sister-in-law, and two sons have been on the boards or payrolls of organizations under his control or have received generous payments as contractors. Sekulow's brother Gary is the chief financial officer of both nonprofit organizations that fund his activities, a fact that detractors say diminishes accountability for his spending.

According to documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service, funds from his nonprofits have also been used to lease a private jet from companies under his family's control. And two years ago, Sekulow outsourced his own legal services from the ACLJ, shifting from a position with a publicly disclosed salary to that of a private contractor that requires no public disclosure. He acknowledged to Legal Times that his salary from that arrangement is "above $600,000" a year.

Sekulow's financial dealings deeply trouble some of the people who have worked for him, leading several to speak with Legal Times during the past six months about their concerns -- before Sekulow assumed his high-profile role promoting President George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominees.

"Some of us truly believed God told us to serve Jay," says one former employee, who requested anonymity out of fear of reprisal. "But not to help him live like Louis XIV. We are coming forward because we need to believe there is fairness in this world."

Another says: "Jay sends so many discordant signals. He talks about doing God's work for his donors, and then he flies off in his plane to play golf."

Still another told Legal Times, "The cause was so good and so valid, but at some point you can't sacrifice what is right for the sake of the cause."


Out to prove that they aren't a gaggle of godless, secular humanists, the Lexington chapter of Planned Parenthood is bringing the organization's national chaplain (you read that right) to speak to local clergy. Ignacio Castuera, a United Methodist minister, says of abortion: "It's always a tragedy, I don't think it's a sin." Castuera says, "Most church organizations would not give me names and e-mail addresses for their clergy. There were many organizations, both denominational and ecumenical, that didn't want to get involved."

And why wouldn't they want to be involved? Well, it turns out that they just don't get Jesus. "The closer Jesus got to the cross, the smaller the crowds got," the chaplain said. "This is pretty close to the cross because people have to take derision, ostracism, all that." So Castuera is comparing his ostracism to Christ's trek to the Cross. Now I've heard everything.