First they outlaw your guns ...

Jihad Watch: Denmark: Girl faces charges for protecting herself against sexual attack -- In this story, it's pretty much beside the point whether the would-be rapist is or is not a Moslem. The point is that if you are a normal law-abiding person, then leftists are your enemy: leftists are on the side of the deviants and criminals; and they are always liars: no matter what they say to gull you, they don't care about you (well, other than to hate you and work to destroy you and all you cherish), they don't care about "the children", and if they ever manage to disarm normal law-abiding Americans, they will then make non-lethal self-defense illegal.

Natural Born Citizen Definition

Doo Doo Economics Blog: Natural Born Citizen Definition

Here is a comment I posted in response --

As you correctly, though indirectly, point out, being a natural born citizen is not about *where* a person is born.

At the same time, while this is true -- “This is the simple and indisputable definition: Two citizens who have a child, naturally create a new citizen. This is a Natural Born Citizen” – it’s actually the case that it is true because natural born citizenship is inherited from the father; this is what the Founders understood and meant by the term.

These days, as people want to pretend that sexual egalitarianism is the truth about nature and about society – if one can even get them merely to admit that the above is what the Founders understood and meant by the term – people will tend to assert that natural born citizenship can be inherited from either parent … never mind that no law (*) has ever been enacted to so change the meaning of the term. BUT – and what such people will then *refuse* to acknowledge – if that were the case, then a person so born of citizens of two different countries would be a “natural born citizen” of two different sovereignties, which is a logical impossibility: or, as you put it, a “mule”.


(*) I question whether Congress even has the power to make such a change to the meaning of the term, absent a Constitutional amendment.

Another compare and contrast

... in this case, I don't think it's even necessary to post something for the un-islamic column

Jihad Watch: Pakistani boy cuts off his own hand after accidentally committing “blasphemy” -- The boy's "blasphemy" was misunderstanding the poobah's question, and thus raising his hand when the islamicly-correct response was to not raise it. But, give him his chops: he was wise enough in the ways of Moslem mobs to know that if he didn't cut off his own hand, his kith and kin would cut off his head, lest even worse be dealt them all.

But, hey! All cultures are "equal" and all religions are "teaching the same thing".

After all, a rapist is just as likely to look like Bill Clinton as Bill Cosby

V the K, at 'Gay Patriot': Swedish Police No Longer Allowed to Describe Race or National Origin of Suspects -- "... There is a great huge difference between the racist assumption “All members of Race X are criminals” and the equally racist counter-assumption “Acknowledging that some members of Race X commit crimes is equivalent to saying all members of Race X are criminals.” However, this nuance is lost on the Progressive Left.

After all, a rapist is just as likely to look like Bill Clinton as Bill Cosby."

Trick question

Was George Washington a natural born US citizen, or was he a naturalized US citizen?

Answer -- he was *neither*, which is *why* the Constitutional provision setting forth the required citizenship of the president (and vice-president) was written exactly as it was written --

Article II, Section 1: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ..."

One can be a non-naturalized US citizen and *still* not be a natural born US citizen.

It really is that simple

I've quoted this before, and no doubt I'll quote it again (to make, once again, the same point I'm going to here) -- From 'The Demon-Haunted World' by Carl Sagan --

Consider this claim: as I walk along, time -as measured by my wristwatch or my ageing process -slows down. Also, I shrink in the direction of motion. Also, I get more massive. Who has ever witnessed such a thing? It's easy to dismiss it out of hand. Here's another: matter and antimatter are all the time, throughout the universe, being created from nothing. Here's a third: once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street. They're all absurd! But the first is a statement of special relativity, and the other two are consequences of quantum mechanics (vacuum fluctuations and barrier tunnelling,* they're called). Like it or not, that's the way the world is. If you insist it's ridiculous, you'll be forever closed to some of the major findings on the rules that govern the Universe.

*The average waiting time per stochastic ooze is much longer than the age of the Universe since the Big Bang. But, however improbable, in principle it might happen tomorrow.

As the above quote demonstrates to those willing to think about it, the God-deniers don't scoff at the possibility of miracles for any principled reasons, but only because as they have chosen to deny God, they must perforce deny all things connected in any way with God (*).

What is the difference between the claim that "once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street" and the claim that an iron axe-head, rare and expensive in the time and place, which had flown off the handle into a body of water, was seen to float to the surface to be retrieved by the people who needed it?

Well, one minor difference is that no one claims ever to have witnessed the former -- and, in fact, the sort of persons who assert that it *could* happen simultaneously assert that the possibility of it actually happening is so vanishingly small as to be non-existent -- whereas the latter is claimed to have been witnessed, and that claim is recorded in a certain famous "bronze age religious text".

But the major difference, the difference that makes all the difference in the world, is that the former, should it ever be witnessed to occur, would be utterly meaningless, caused by nothing and for no reason and signifying nothing (**); whereas the latter not only had a cause, but had a personal cause, was the result of a deliberate act, and signifies, among other things, the lordship of God over "the Laws of Nature".

What is the difference between the claim that at some point in the far distant past, mere undifferentiated and unorganized chemicals became living entities, and the claim to have witnessed the death of a person and then later to have seen that very person alive?

Well, one minor difference is that no one claims ever to have witnessed the former -- and, in fact, the sort of persons who assert that it *did* happen simultaneously assert that the possibility of it happening again is so vanishingly small as to be non-existent -- and further, such an occurrence is contrary to what we believe we understand about "the Laws of Nature", whereas the latter is claimed to have been witnessed, and while such an occurrence is not commonly witnessed, it is not contrary to what we believe we understand about "the Laws of Nature".

But the major difference, the difference that makes all the difference in the world, is that the former, while asserted to have happened, and asserted to be one of the ultimate causes of our existing, is intrinsically utterly meaningless, being something that "just happened", for no reason, and given what 'Science!' has become of late, no cause; whereas the latter not only had a cause, but had a personal cause, was the result of a deliberate and reasoned act, and signifies, at the very least, the lordship of God over "the Laws of Nature".


Now, my point is that God-deniers do not denigrate the possibility of miracles and claims to have witnessed miracles out of any high-minded principles. And they certainly don't do it because miracles "break the Laws of Nature", as they like to accuse. For, as the Sagan quote makes clear to anyone willing to see, in the end the God-deniers deny that there even are any such things as "Laws of Nature".

No, the reason -- the *only* reason -- that the God-deniers denigrate the possibility of miracles and claims to have witnessed miracles is because, by definition, a miracle is the result of a deliberate and reasoned act of God, and signifies, at the very least, the lordship of God over "the Laws of Nature".

God-deniers don't hate miracles because they "fuckin' love science", as so many of them are wont to claim when they imagine that 'science' may be a handy stick for beating God, but because they hate God; it really is that simple.



(*) which is why, in the end, they always end up denying that they themselves, and you also, of course, even exist.

(**) well, it does signify the denial that there even *are* any "Laws of Nature"

If he does ...

... you already know *how* he does

The bridge not far enough

Margret Thatcher said something like, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

And, while that is true, it's also not the full truth: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's lives."

Compare and contrast

On the one hand and on the other (also, this).

And on the other, moral equivalency, hand