Friday, August 20, 2010


By Ted Shoebat

Flavored cough syrup for kids is not intended for dessert. The sweetness was intended to lure children to ingest a spoonful of this remedy for congestion. Neither is sex meant for dessert. Out of control sex can also be disastrous. You might think that I do not know what I am talking about, especially after I share a confession that I never have had sex. No. Never.

But why should this be a confession? Confessions are for the guilty.

Sex, like marriage, is between a husband and wife. You can make fun of me for choosing abstinence but I have seen some teens gone wild and miserable during my high school days. I have had no regrets about watching the condom go by during the so-called safe sex class. School teachers had no business trying to persuade me via hands-on training with condoms while they told girls about birth control abortion pills. If such teachers were so caring - the premise they use - why don't they encourage the invention of a pill to solve the problem with the soaring divorce rate?

Republican strategist, Mary Matalin, said that "When The Pill arrived, we second-wave feminists heralded it as a miracle. The Pill had way less to do with reproductive control than just control. Period. Health concerns were dismissed; progressive mothers [...] sent their girls off to college with The Pill." And "girls with their packages of portable liberation ushered in a generation of women determined to break free from their inferior patriarchal oppressors. And how did they manifest their superiority? Their freedom? Thanks to The Pill, by casual, drive-by sex."

Birth control is popular in America. A recent CBS poll shows that 59% of Americans believe the pill is better for women. The Center for Disease Control reported that 1 in 4 women choose permanent birth control. Feminist Letty Cottin Pogrebin says the pill "was an equalizer, a liberator".

Nancy Pelosi, acting as an expert on the economy, tells us that birth control is good for the economy. Real experts like Gary S. Becker give us an absolute that "Depressions are associated with decreasing population." He was referring to the effects of birth control by paraphrasing Adam Smith, a pioneer of political economy.

Philip Longman confirms that birth rate decline is "the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st. century." Robert J. Samuelson wrote in The Washington Post: "It's hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling." In America, our baby boomers are already crossing the threshold into retirement. As the old increase in number relative to the young, fewer workers will exist to drive the economy and fund Social Security and Medicare.

The latter may be taxed more heavily and in turn, work less and have even fewer children, causing a vicious circle. We will soon find out that the problem with our economic crises is ignoring another absolute necessity, that is, to "be fruitful and multiply." Birth control is simply another way of trying to alter the sacred concept of the family.

The main dilemma is still how can family be sustained when women want to become totally equal to men Especially since it was the woman that had to endure child labor? But still yet, how did we get to the position that we must control our population?

In history, we shall see the future. By studying the history of this whole issue we will fully understand everything.

Progressive women wanted to become totally equal to men, and began to conclude that if they could prevent child-birth, they could enter the work force as men do. In 1960, the pill, met their need.

Theresa Notare laments the use of the pill: "How are women (and men) healthier or happier because of The Pill? A thoughtful person should connect the dots. Young people routinely have multiple sexual partners before marriage, no doubt facilitated by The Pill, and the divorce rate still soars. The Pill does not prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, accordingly, the STD rate is epidemic."

But the whole thing behind population control is more "control" than it is population, freedom or liberty. If the left can change the minds of people on absolute gender roles, they can deconstruct the entire nation and rebuild it to their liking, for a nation is built upon the family.

It was socialists and feminists William Thompson and Anna Wheeler who advocated socialistic communities, challenged patriarchy, advocated contraception, collectivization of domestic labor, and influenced the trade union and cooperative movements. Communists like Friedrich Engels, who co-authored the Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx, wished to destroy marriage and the family. Engels saw women in patriarchal families as slaves. This "slavery" came from private property. Gender inequality's purpose was for capital gain. For women's liberation to be established, women must become wage laborers. Women becoming workers would make them class conscious and capable of forging a revolution to destroy capitalism.

Feminism even goes back to the Saint-Simonians who fought the "tyranny of marriage" by communal living and free love. The Saint-Simonian women refused to submit to their husbands. They taught that traditional wives were "slaves" and described their husbands as slave masters. One called for the decriminalization of adultery, another the establishment of no-fault divorce.

But to every explosion of socialist control agenda, there are methods for silencing dissidents not by scientific nuanced study of the issues but by making louder thunder. The subject of Feminism gets men scolded by the "I am woman, hear me roar!" crowd, and sticky labels are flung on foreheads with the dreaded "male chauvinist sexist pig".

Feminism is not American. It is foreign and has infiltrated us. "In Goddess We Trust" is not American apple pie. Feminism was in France before it was in America, thus why Jefferson was shocked: "(Few Americans) can possibly understand the desperate state which things are reduced in this country [France] from the omnipotence of an influence which, fortunately for the happiness of the sex itself, does not endeavor to extend itself in our country beyond the domestic line." (1) Darwinist Herbert Spencer wrote that as we evolve, "race-maintenance is achieved ... with a decreasing sacrifice of parental lives to the lives of offspring". (2)

After looking through this history, the left's mission is apparent; they wish to rewrite absolutes that are impossible to destroy, absolutes that were etched by the "In God We Trust" crowd. But I guess a 19 year old should be ridiculed for thinking like Jefferson, who would have never married a Feminist. People can contract Herpes from a kiss and it sticks around like luggage until death do they part. As for me, a church going girl is awaiting for me someday to tie the knot, and will not mind having a large family until death do us part. Until then, God Bless the family.

1 A history of English utilitarianism By Ernest Albee, Page 323, See ch. xiv, 96.*
2 As cited in Ellis, 1997, pp. 90-91*


Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Lack of Intellectualism Is Losing the Marriage Debate

Judge Vaughn Walker's legal ruling striking down California's Proposition 8 certainly was no triumph of intellectualism. But while it's easy to thus dismiss it, what's usually forgotten is that reasoning such as his flies only in a certain cultural milieu -- a milieu that, in part, has been shaped by conservatives. Let's examine the matter.

Walker's lack of intellectualism is profound. Among other things, he said that opposition to faux marriage was ultimately based on "moral disapproval." While this is a rhetorically compelling argument in an age where "morality" has become a dirty word, it is also nonsense. This is not because he is wrong in his understanding of marriage's more cerebral defenders; it is because he is wrong in his understanding of law. For the fact is that all credible legal proscriptions and prescriptions are a matter of "moral disapproval." Don't believe me? I'll explain.

A law is by definition the imposition of a value (and a valid law is the imposition of a moral principle). This is because a law states that there is something you must or must not do, ostensibly because the action is a moral imperative, is morally wrong, or is a corollary thereof. If this is not the case, with what credibility do you legislate in the given area? After all, why prohibit something if it doesn't prevent some wrong? Why force citizens to do something if it doesn't effect some good? You'll never see a powerful movement lobbying to criminalize chocolate ice cream or broccoli.

To provide a concrete example, what is the possible justification for speed laws? It isn't simply "me no like speedy." Rather, there is the idea that it is wrong to endanger others or yourself, and, in the latter case, it could be based on the idea that it's wrong to engage in reckless actions that could cause you to become a burden on society. Of course, some or all of these arguments may be valid or not, but the point is this: If a law is not underpinned by a valid moral principle, it is not a just law. Without morality, laws can be based on nothing but air.

This brings me to a problem with a certain conservative argument. We have heard many, while bristling at Walker's ruling, complain that "one judge has wiped away the votes of seven million people with the stroke of the pen." Like Judge Walker's "moral disapproval" nonsense, such talk certainly is rhetorically effective. And if it is used simply for the purposes of rhetoric, it may be fine. But the reality is that if the Proposition 8 vote had been swung a few percentage points the other way, the measure wouldn't have passed, and the left could be citing the will of the people to buttress its cause.

But right and wrong aren't determined by popular will. Nor should the latter have a bearing on judges' rulings, as they are supposed to be governed by the Constitution. Thus, the problem with Walker's ruling is not that it is anti-majoritarian; it's that it is unconstitutional and dumb.

Since the constitutional factor is obvious, let's delve into the dumb part. Harking back to the foundation of law, if "moral disapproval" is off the table, on what legitimate basis can we refuse to recognize any conception of "marriage"? If right and wrong cannot be a guide -- or if we live in a relativistic universe in which there is no wrong -- then how can you, with credibility, prohibit polygamy or Billy from marrying his billy goat?

So while many people today believe, in grand relativist fashion, that morality is some arbitrary thing, they have it exactly backwards. Morality is "The Rules," and, just as with a football referee who ignores his game's rules and makes calls based on what feels right, it is when you ignore The Rules that you become arbitrary. Your rationale, boiled down, is then nothing more than "me no likey," nothing more than might makes right. For, to state the obvious, the recognition of morality is the only thing that moors us to reality -- moral reality.

And this is where the 7,000,000-vote argument finds common ground with Judge Walker's judicial activism. Both perspectives ignore morality and reduce the debate to one of who will wield the might that makes right, of who will be that renegade football referee. It is either the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of a black-robed minority, and who advocates which depends on how each group lines up on a given issue.

(Note: This isn't to say that 7,000,000-vote-argument advocates aren't more morality-oriented than Judge Walker's set. After all, many conservatives would point out that they cite the majority only because it supported a constitutional and moral position. Nevertheless, when taken at face value, the majoritarian argument is not logically sound.)

So what should be the logical basis for an argument against faux marriage?

Simply that it doesn't exist.

And you cannot have a right to that which doesn't exist.

This is not slick-lawyer sleight-of-hand -- this is what exposes it. For this issue is about changing definitions, not changing rights. After all, like all people, those experiencing same-sex attraction have always had a right to marry and have done so since time immemorial. It's just that marriage was always understood -- correctly -- to be the union of a man and woman. Thus, whoever did get married tied the knot with a member of the opposite sex.

But when we accept that a same-sex union can be marriage -- a standard with no credible basis whatsoever in history (which renders the votes of the ultimate majority) or morality -- the discussion about rights naturally follows. After all, if such a union is marriage and people have a right to marry, how can they be denied recourse to it?

Speaking of majoritarian folly, this brings us to another way most of us have undermined ourselves. While many say the Walker set has redefined marriage, this is nonsense that gives non-thinkers too much credit. They have not redefined it.

They have undefined it.

That is to say, they do not steadfastly, unabashedly, and definitively say, "Marriage is the union between any two adults and nothing else, and here is the moral basis for this conclusion." No, they would then be drawing a line just like the traditionalists, wouldn't they? They would be guilty of the kind of "bigotry," "exclusiveness," and "narrowness" of which they accuse their opponents. Relativists can't have that, so they offer no definition. All they do is imply that the traditional definition is incorrect.
By Selwyn Duke

And this is another hole in the Walker set's argument. After all, while they scoff at the claim that legalizing faux marriage paves the way for polygamy and everything else, an "undefinition" excludes nothing. Sure, they can oppose such things, but only as the renegade football referee saying "me no likey."

The reality is that if they cannot definitively say what marriage is, how can they be sure they know what it is not? And this is why their criticism of traditionalists deserves no respect: If they cannot say what defines a "right" marriage, they cannot credibly say the traditional definition is the wrong one.

Yet they don't have to because, while they can reliably define nothing, we allow them to define the terms of the debate. Know this: Every time you use the term "gay marriage," "homosexual marriage," or even "traditional marriage" (the Lexicon of the Left), you undermine yourself. If one of the first two, it is because you are explicitly acknowledging an imaginary institution's existence. If the last one, you are implying it. For what is the other side of the coin of "traditional marriage"? And if the American psyche is imbued with the idea that "marriages" between same-sex individuals exist and that marriage is a right, well, you can forget the legal and political battles. If you lose the cultural one, everything else follows. It's just a matter of time.

This is why "conservatives" must stop being conservative and start being bold. They must start thinking outside the box. Otherwise, we may win some battles in courts and ballot boxes -- we may carry the approaching November day -- but we'll be sure to lose the war and the way.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Ann Coulter speaking at gay rally

I don't know how Ann Coulter can call herself a Christian, or a conservative, when she is going to be speaking at a gay rally called homocon. A supposed gay "conservative" event. For one thing, there's no such thing as a gay conservative. Its like saying I'm a capitalist socialist.

The New York Observer reported on this:

By David Freedlander
August 6, 2010 | 4:36 p.m

GOProud, a 14-month-old 527 organization dedicated to representing the viewpoints of gay conservatives, will be holding their first New York gala in September, and it will be hosted by Ann Coulter, the conservative commentator who has gotten into trouble in the past for anti-gay comments.

The event, called "HOMOCON 2010"--a reference to gay conservatives, according to the group's founder Jimmy LaSalvia--bills Coulter as "the right wing Judy Garland."

LaSalvia acknowledged her previous statments, but said, "But she is fun, she is smart, she is hilarious, provocative and insightful. And our folks love her."

He added, "You are not going to see us placating the uber-PC crowd. We can laugh and enjoy everybody."




"There are no moral absolutes," the foolish told the wise.
"Are you absolutely sure?" replied the wise.

Marriage being only "between a man and a woman" is an absolute. It can never be between a man and a horse or a tree, or between the sun and the moon, a mare and a stallion, chicken and rooster or rooster with rooster.

But the attack on Proposition 8 has nothing to do with the left's love for homosexuals and everything to do with eroding the absolutes set in our Constitution. Altering the U.S Constitution is the only way for socialism to prevail in the U.S. Socialists like Elena Kagan plays with the First amendment, attacking that moral absolute and said to redefine it as depending "upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

These "societal costs", spell socialism and nothing more. History tells us that by altering "absolutes" the Left replaced individualism (which works) with collectivism (which doesn't).

Perhaps a little history can help us understand the likes of Kagan and Judge Vaughn Walker overturning Prop 8. Collectivism stems from positivism--founded by French philosopher Auguste Comte (19th century).

Positivism says that human experience is the supreme criterion of human knowledge, denies the existence of a personal God and takes humanity, "the great being", as the object of its veneration in order to elevate man over God. Comte's positivism was derived from Henri de Saint-Simon, a utopian ideologue who was the influence to none other then Karl Marx's socialism.

In his Essay on the Science of Man (1813) Saint-Simon explained that every field of knowledge moved successively from a conjectural to a "positive" stage, and that the sciences reached this stage in a definite order, Physiology had now moved into a positive stage, just as astrology, and alchemy had previously given way to astronomy and chemistry. Now the science of man must move towards the positive stage and completely reorganize all human institutions.1

Aguste Comte perpetuated the search for a science of society through a three-stage theory of progress, which he derived from Saint-Simon in 1822. Thus the idea that truth is not absolute but historical became popularized during the nineteenth-century and is realized not in "individual thought" but in "social action" collectively.

It was Saint-Simon's followers in the 1830s that first gave widespread use not only to the word "socialism," but also—"socialize," "socialization," and socializing the interments of labor. 2 Comte's influence by Saint-Simon explains why he rejected divine human rights: "Social positivism only accepts duties, for all and towards all...Any human right is therefore as absurd and immoral. Since there are no divine rights anymore, this concept must therefore disappear completely..." 3

Later, positivism would now submerge itself with the coming of Darwinian evolution. And since mankind evolves, morality must also evolve with it, and instead of all men are created equal we have Charles's Darwin's doctrine: "Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well in man."

It was evolutionist Herbert Spencer who first coined the phrase "Survival of the fittest" that intended to link darwinism and positivism together. Spencer believed that because human nature can improve and change, then, scientific‚ including moral and political views must change with it, that ethics "have to be considered as parts of the phenomena of life at large. We have to deal with man as a product of evolution, with society as a product of evolution, and with moral phenomena as products of evolution." 4

Thus, Spencer believed in the redefining of nations' constitutions: "All evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions. This is true of everything that lives."5

The final point in evolution according to Spencer was to see a progression to "perfect man in the perfect society." Positivism quickly sprung on its way to America, a land whose constitution is disdained and in need of an altercation. Under positivism, judges were to guide both the evolution of law and the Constitution. By these, the views of the Founding Fathers are hampering the progressing evolution of society.

But if darwinian evolution is a science as claimed, why does it always have to leap onto ethics and morality?

What we are dealing with is noting new. President Woodrow Wilson said that Evolution is "not theory, but fact" that "Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice." 6 Wilson even mocked individual rights: "a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual". 7

Using positivism is nothing new and like Kagan, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1902 argued extensively that decisions should not be based upon absolute laws but the "felt necessities of the time" and "prevalent moral and political theories" instead of natural law and its absolute standards. Holmes claimed that: "The justification of a law for us cannot be found in the fact that our fathers always have followed it. It must be found in some help which the law brings toward reaching a social end."

It is no longer by the people and for the people, but by the whims of appointed judges. Charles Evans Hughes, the Supreme Court Chief Justice from 1930 to 1941, held a similar view: "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." US District Court Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker's followed suit and overturned Prop 8, by this negating the law in the name of the law. With a stroke of a pen one judge ruled over votes which men bled and died for. Thus is tyranny.

What Elena Kagan is saying reflects the philosophy of the Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall who considered the Constitution and the Founding Fathers as "defective" and unwise. Kagan and her ilk bring nothing new; there are no new tricks under the sun. Americans need to wake up. Believing in absolutes or denying them matters nothing to absolutes, since no matter what choices Americans make, they must still choose between an absolute truth and an absolute lie. We either choose ethics according to God or ethics according to man. We can choose failed Socialism or successful Capitalism.

We can choose Universalism or Nationalism. Even if we do not make a choice at all, we would still have made a choice not to make a choice. I made my choices; I say "No" to the United Nations and yes to the United States with its Constitution set by the founding fathers over all other constitutions.

Indeed, if history repeats itself, it does so only on the fools. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Proverbs 14:12)

Theodore Shoebat is the author of For God
Or For Tyranny

1 See: Fire in the minds of men: origins of the revolutionary faith by James H. Billington.
3 Comte, Le Catchisme positiviste (1852).*
4 Spencer, The Principles of Ethics, Part III: The Ethics of Individual Life, Ch. 1, Introductory.
5 Spencer, Social Statics, Part I, Ch. 2 : The Evanescence of Evil, § 1.*
6 John G. West, Darwin's Conservatives: The Misguided Quest (Seattle: Discovery Institute, 2006), pp. 61.
7 John G. West, Darwin's Conservatives: The Misguided Quest (Seattle: Discovery Institute, 2006), pp. 61.

America’s Untapped Resource

By Ben Barrack

Former head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Arafat was caught on more than one occasion speaking peacefully in English while preaching hate in Arabic. As a former member of the PLO, Walid Shoebat insists that such tactics are part of the overall strategy to deceive the west. In Islam, says Shoebat, the standard is to use Muruna (stealth, flexibility), Taqiyya (Guarding the faith), and Kitman (Concealing the true intent); in plain English—lying.

Shoebat insists that westerners are not used to the concept of lying in order to further the agenda of a religion but that is what we are facing. He also states that the motives behind the ground zero mosque are not all that dissimilar from the motives behind the murder of seven CIA officials in Khost, Afghanistan last year—the difference is in approach only.

Since converting to Christianity in 1993, Shoebat has made it his life’s work to warn the west of the threats it faces from Islam. He is ready to help in any way he can but when his phone rings, it’s never the CIA, the FBI, or the DOD on the other end. Instead, it’s often another radio talk show host fascinated by his story and wanting him to share it with the audience.

On December 30th, 2009, at Camp Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi detonated a bomb that killed himself and seven high ranking CIA officials, including the base chief who had been tracking Osama bin Laden since 1997. Narrowly escaping death was the #2 CIA Chief in Afghanistan. A supposed informant with allegedly time sensitive intelligence about al Qaeda’s number #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Balawi was a actually a triple agent.

In the days after the bombing, a video of al-Balawi was released in which he was seen revealing his intentions in Arabic prior to the bombing.


Thursday, August 5, 2010

Center for Disease Control Survey Reports that One in Four Women Choose Permanent Birth Control

Essure Leading the Way as the Non-Surgical Option for Women Whose Families are Complete

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Aug 03, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- According to the recently released 2006-08 National Survey of Family Growth by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), one in four women choose permanent birth control. Conceptus, Inc. (CPTS 13.85, +0.25, +1.84%) wants women to know that its Essure(R) permanent birth control procedure has been gaining in popularity, and is a safe and effective solution used by hundreds of thousands of women worldwide.

In the past, tubal ligation -- a surgery that requires cutting into the body, general anesthesia and a hospital stay -- was the only permanent birth control option available to women. Since 2002, the Essure permanent birth control procedure has been a solution to this invasive surgery, and many women have chosen Essure over tubal ligation. The Essure procedure can be performed in the comfort of a doctor's office in minutes; it does not require surgery, general anesthesia, scarring, burning, hormones or slowing down to recover.

Female permanent birth control is used by 16.7%, or 10.3 million women, and male sterilization (vasectomy) is used by the partners of 6.1%, or 3.7 million women.


Washington DC law aims to make medical marijuana affordable for poor patients


Thursday, August 5th 2010, 11:29 AM

If you live in Washington D.C., you'll never be too broke to buy pot.

That is, of course, if you need marijuana for medical purposes, according to a law passed earlier in the year.

The law provides medical marijuana at a discount for the city's poor residents.

But who exactly is qualified to receive the cheaper pot, along with the price of the drugs, remains up in the air.

The city is expected give some answers about the law in a report Friday, but patients won't be able to buy medical marijuana until 2011, the Associated Press reports.

Fourteen states have laws legalizing medical marijuana, but D.C.'s is the first to offer the drug at a discount.

City officials tell AP an ounce of pot from a sanctioned dispensary could run $350. Police data suggest buying illegal marijuana costs between $100 and $140.

If the reduced rate isn't cheaper, pot advocates worry poor patients will break the law to get their medical marijuana.

D.C. has one of the highest poverty levels in the country, with a third of its residents getting some financial help with health care.

"People under the poverty level and below shouldn't have to pay anything," Teresa Skipper, a medical marijuana user who is HIV-positive, tells AP she can't afford to pay more than $50 an ounce for pot — which she currently buys illegally.

"Marijuana is like gas and food to me," she said. "It's in the budget."

Read more: