posted June 16, 2006 07:48 PM              

and we can be immortal..for as long as we wish..

posted June 22, 2006 11:04 AM            

I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.

In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!

If you're upset about what I said about the Witches of East Brunswick, try turning the page. Surely, I must have offended more than those four harpies. Wait 'til you get a load of what I say about liberals in the rest of the book! You haven't seen the half of it.

For snarling victims, my book is Christmas in July. Hey — where's Max the grenade-dropper? Let's keep this diaper-fest going all summer.

How about these pungent points:

— No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time — undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals — the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over — except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, but going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives. Liberals don't care about women. They care about destroying human life. To them, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.

— Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court was known for shouting obscenities from the bench and identifying undercover policemen in open court. Bill Clinton nominated Massiah-Jackson to be a federal district court judge in 1997. Among other notable rulings, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum and apologized to the rapist, saying: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused to allow the district attorney to present a pre-sentence report or victim impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" After his release, the defendant was rearrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.

Massiah-Jackson wasn't some random nut nominated by Clinton by accident, likeJanet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a liberal heroine. The New York Times was in high dudgeon when Massiah-Jackson withdrew — and not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered atAIDS victims and rape victims ... The Times was in a snit because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. Massiah-Jackson, the Times said, "now returns to the state bench, battered but with her honor intact. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."

— Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ ("The Bell Curve") because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what's the point? After Hitler carried the secularists' philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people — especially racial groups. It's difficult to have a simple conversation — much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry — when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.

— While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was more interested in not "stigmatizing" them than in saving their lives. See, where I come from, being dead also carries a certain type of stigma. Instead of distributing condoms in gay bars and at productions of the play "Rent," where they might have done some good, Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does.

In 1987, New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd — before she was elevated to the cartoon pages — wrote a heroic portrait of the man. Dr. Koop, she said "fiercely wants to strip AIDS of its stigma," and for that reason, he talks "about making an animated educational video that would feature two condoms 'with little eyes on them' chatting, and about the need for 'gentle, nonmystifying' sex education for students, starting in kindergarten." I would pay quite a bit of money to hear someone describe anal sex — oh hell, make it any kind of sodomy — to a 5-year-old in a gentle, nonmystifying way.

posted June 22, 2006 11:27 AM              

quote:

---

but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.

---

So why hasn't Georgey Porgy banned it then?

He's the coke head sitting in the white house. Go ask him about it.

posted June 22, 2006 11:40 AM            

Human life is either sacred...or it isn't. Leftists have proven over and over that to leftists, it isn't.

Nor am I willing to permit leftists to reclassify life so they can then kill it with impunity. Can't kill babies but fetuses, hey that's cool and in some leftist circles, it's near mandatory.

So the obvious conclusion one must draw is that when leftists whine about US war casualties, they're just trying to blow smoke up everyone's rear.

Their real opposition is to the United States itself, no matter who the enemy at hand happens to be. War casualties are just a device as is their phony compassion for innocent civilians who are killed or injured.

I don't know why Coulter didn't go further and contrast the leftist position on say...save the baby seals, save the whales, save the courgars, save the elephants.....but kill the babies.

The left is just full of it and most any reasonable person would immediately identify and catalogue leftists as hopeless liars, hypocrites and confused cranks and their "causes" as hopelessly contradictory or a smoke screen.

posted June 22, 2006 12:43 PM              

2 points -

1) I'm carrying an unborn fetus. If, God forbid, something were to happen to it never would I compare my disappointment and sorrow to what is now being felt by the mothers of the two boys recently tortured and killed in Iraq. As surprisingly attached as one can get to an unborn child, the born are simply not the same as the unborn. Potential is not the same as actuality.

2) Being as Coulter brought up God I don't feel I'm dragging the conversation off on a tangent here.
In terms of "life" to say that a human spirit is attached to and can claim ownership of a 2 month old fetus to the same degree as it does a 20 year old man is laughable at best and dangerous at worst.

To use Linda Goodman's analogy, which hurts more - watching a house you live in burn down or watching a house you are in the process of building burn down?

posted June 22, 2006 12:47 PM              

often times..when they choose to go the womb early..they are still traveling in the spirit realm..learning and getting ready..for

posted June 22, 2006 01:09 PM              

"this is the world of Illusion"

this is truth..we are nothing but OUr SOul..this is a shell..body temple vehicle
if you leave it..you are truely you instantly
thus knowing truth..you never die

you can attaoin mastership of this body temple..for as long as you wish..
through immortality..with God. ...

posted June 22, 2006 01:20 PM            

That paragraph makes me sick. People just don't realize how often this idiots re-offend and we keep sacrificing children to "protect" pedophiles from being mistreated or being sentenced in prison for too long.

posted June 22, 2006 01:33 PM            

People view life..and death in the abstract when they don't know the party who was born or died, then it's still a shame someone died but not the heart wrenching event it is for those who knew them...the neighbor next door who we chatted with over coffee in the mornings, the favorite aunt or uncle we spent time with...or one of our parents.

Just because you haven't had personal interaction with a fetuses does not suggest it's not a baby and is not alive any more than someone being born or dying you don't know.

You mentioned a two month old fetus but the abortionist left is in no way content to kill only 2 month old unborns. The abortionist left adamantly, religiously, hysterically, gleefully and insanely refuses to recognize the right to life of a baby in the process of actually being born and mostly already born. Their term is partial birth abortion. My term is infanticide.

Your second point is a matter of conjecture and opinion. I have mine and you're welcome to yours.

In spite of some opinions as to my age, I am not ancient enough to speak to the reasons ancient astrologers cast horoscopes based on the time of actual birth....but it's perhaps not fruitful to think they believed life begins at birth. Just as likely, it's a reflection of them being unable to ascertain the moment of conception

If however you would like to know what General Washington told us before the battle of Yorktown, he said..."all right you yahoos, let's go kick some British butt".

posted June 22, 2006 01:39 PM              

to higherSelf to MInd..on Earth. ...

posted June 22, 2006 02:05 PM              

quote:

---

Just because you haven't had personal interaction with a fetuses does not suggest it's not a baby and is not alive any more than someone being born or dying you don't know.

---

You assume I have not had personal interaction with the waiting Spirit. As for the entirely different matter of interaction with the fetus, feeling a kick or movement is admittedly a very primitive form of interaction but I think it's interaction just the same. I expect the mothers on the board would agree. But I put it in perspective. I have seen people in deep comas, from which they will never recover, move fingers or toes or so forth. We've all heard stories of bodies twitching after a beheading. Bodies do this sort of thing.

I mention 2 month old fetus only because I mention a 20 year old man. I don't know the exact age of the two young men in Iraq. I only estimated. 2 .. 20. Call it poetic license. Feel free to substitute another month.

quote:

---

Your second point is a matter of conjecture and opinion. I have mine and you're welcome to yours.

---

You can't brush away the spiritual implications as easily as that. Miss Coulter brought up God, not me. So see it through.

Using your theory, there is no difference between a 2 month old fetus, a 9 month old fetus and you or me. I'm not sure that's logical, Jwhop. And I don't believe you need to be a seer to acknowledge it.

quote:

---

In spite of some opinions as to my age, I am not ancient enough to speak to the reasons ancient astrologers cast horoscopes based on the time of actual birth....but it's perhaps not fruitful to think they believed life begins at birth. Just as likely, it's a reflection of them being unable to ascertain the moment of conception

---

Then you must not believe in the accuracy of astrology? As far as I know, and I'm no authority on the subject, all horoscopes are curently cast from the moment of birth. Are they all wrong? Are you saying that the stars occupy the same point in the Heavens at conception as they do at birth? I was conceived in February. I promise you I am not an Aquarian. I promise you.

posted June 22, 2006 02:39 PM            

I notice you didn't speak to partial birth abortion. What conclusion should I draw from that?

There is a system for using time of conception to cast charts.

"CONCEPTION CHART: Hypothetical chart based on the individual's conception. Ptolemy describes the trutine of Hermes as a formula and Sepharial and E.H.Bailey also proposed formulae. Still open to conjecture and hypothesis."

Because astrologers cast charts based on a birth time is no reason to suppose the baby is not alive before that point in time.

That's an insupportable argument.

posted June 22, 2006 04:49 PM            

I love the way leftists defended Saddam and attempted to keep him in power so he could continue his killing spree amongst Iraqi civilians but moan and whine about US casualties and incidental deaths among Iraqi civilians.

Leftists are schizophrenic.

Now, as for global warming, there is no consensus among scientists who work in the field of climate that the earth is warming beyond the normal cyclical patterns.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that CO2 levels correlate with temperature. In fact the highest CO2 levels occurred during the single coldest period in the last 500,000,000 years.

I love the way leftists are so easily led and so easily influenced by those who do not have the scientific credentials or experience in a field to even express a scientific opinion.

I love the way leftists put forward people whom they call military heroes to shout retreat. John Murtha was I believe a sergeant in Vietnam and John Kerry was a lieutenant..junior grade and both these people are put forth as military experts whom everyone should believe about military strategy when they say "we can't win in Iraq".

You've chimed in Blue so let's get you on the record while you're here.

At what age should a baby be free of the sword of infanticide hanging over them?

posted June 22, 2006 04:52 PM            

Science can give NO moral opinion whether it is to say that Global warming is bad or good or if it even exists. Scientists- with biased backgrounds or agenda's - WILL pervert data (at times) or exploits statistics to match what they want... in some cases the existance of global warming and in some, the none existance.

Science can say "Should you continue doing x, y, and z- these are the possible outcomes" that's it. Science says "You ran a red light" but Science does not dictate if that is right or wrong.

Science says that at conception - the sperm enters the egg and sets off an enzymatic reaction thereby producing a zygote that develops overtime. Science does not say if it is wrong or right to have an abortion, when the soul enters the body or if one time of the gestation period is worse than another.

What science DOES speak of is the to the consquences of any action. An Abortion at 6 months of pregnany is more intense (blood, pain, potential infections) than one on day 10. Science can measure the threshold of pain experienced by any living organism (fetus or not) Science cannot say the moral implications of any action.

Science does not support Creation or Evolution because both are only theories at this point. We still have many holes in both options and one some level both sides have to use faith to believe in one theory over another.

That leaves us with our own social morals. One faction states a fetus is not a real life because it cannot live on it's own and another faction believes the soul enters into the body at conception and therefore the fetus is a real child.

Who is right and who is wrong? Neither wants the other side to make the decisions for them. As much as I admire Tink's intelligence and perspective I don't believe she has the right to tell me if a fetus in my body is less of a child than an infant (and I am not saying she is making that choice for me).

I can understand the premise that one believes they love the fetus less because they did not know "it" as they would have a child, but then why do those same people feel that losing a Soldier overseas is any more depressing if they did not personally know that Soldier and watch him or her grow?

Does that mean we can only have love and compassion for those we have grown to love or for anyone? Or do we base it on the kind of person he or she was at the time of death? What about the life of a pedophile killer? Many may not have ever known him or her, but they fight for that person's stay of execution.

I personally think it is easier for many to detach because they can't really (see the fetus as a baby on the inside there for it is not real... but a convicted killer has more right because.. they are right there in front of your face).

Does that make sense?

On the same hand - one can say "if you care so much about a fetus why not a killer?" once again, it is not science that can answer that question science can only give you probable outcomes of the effect killing both or allowing both to live has on society. By that I mean ' The killer may produce negative results as killing has continued, money has been spent for food and housing.etc..." By not having an abortion the parents are faced with caring for a mentally challenged child at the cost of ......

People will always use Science and Religion to support their views or pervert both entities to make others bend to their will.