This entry may seem somewhat harsh, but I believe that it needs to be said, and I believe that when dealing with Islamic enemies, options are limited.

Earlier today I read this article:

Updated: 4:22 p.m. ET July 25, 2007

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – Afghan police discovered the bullet-riddled body of a male hostage on Wednesday, one of 23 South Koreans kidnapped by the Taliban last week.

Because of a recent spike in kidnappings — including an attempt against a Danish citizen Wednesday — police announced foreigners were no longer allowed to leave the Afghan capital without their permission.

The South Korean victim was found with 10 bullet holes in his head, chest and stomach in the Mushaki area of Qarabagh district in Ghazni province, the region where the group was seized July 19 while riding a bus, said Abdul Rahman, a police officer.

———-

For the complete text see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19913035/

It seems like almost every day (probably because it is everyday), Islamic terrorists have made the news by killing people, and I cant help notice that most of the abductees murdered by the terrorists are CIVILIANS.  In this case they were actually relief workers, trying to help out the locals, but of course since they were foriegn, and non-Islamic they were captured and held hostage.  The fact that they were foriegn caused them to stand out, but I would bet anything that if they were Moslem they would not have been taken hostage. 

—–more—–

The South Korean church that the abductees attend has said it will suspend at least some of its volunteer work in Afghanistan. It also stressed that the Koreans abducted were not involved in any Christian missionary work, saying they provided only medical and other volunteer aid to distressed people in the war-ravaged country.

—–end—–

My tolerance has kind of run out with these people, if they would restrict themselves to military targets, then I wouldnt say what I am about to say, but they don’t.  They have no honor, they’re cowards, liars, and TERRORISTS.  I don’t know why the news always calls them “militants,” a term which is vague and subjective, whereas a word like, TERRORIST, describes them as being exactly what they are.  Now I know that a lot of liberals who think themselves cultured and witty like to say, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”  I suppose that the argument for this might be the fact that terrorism is a method, and not specifically a religion or political position in and of itself.  But the thing which Islamic terrorists fight for is not freedom, except for the freedom to murder and kill people of different religions, races, and cultures, and to beat and murder their wives when they don’t want to dress up like burlap bags with eyes.  Now I think it’s about time we start using the same kinds of methods on our enemies, not only fighting them with superior technology but also incorporating some of their techniques.  First of all, there must be no negotiations, if civilians get involved in relief efforts, then they do so at their own risk, they cannot be  used by the terrorists in order to get concessions.  Next time the terrorists say, “we have hostages and we want _____” in exchange then the answer ought to be something like this, “No negotiations, you give up the hostages or when we do find you we will kill you in such a way that you’ll think you’re already in Hell before you actually get there.” 

Furthermore, as far as the Islamic terrorists are concerned any war with us is already a religious war.  To them it’s a holy war, it’s just that the media, being liberal, refuses to recognize it as such.  This denial does nothing to negate the nature of what it is.  Since they think it’s a religious war let’s use their own religion against them.  Israel has already begun keeping bags of pig lard in school busses and other places which terrorists like to target.  I say take it a step further and use pigs blood.  My dad told me a story once, I don’t know where he heard it, but he said that a while back in the Phillipines the Moslems were terrorising the non-Moslems, and the American commander in charge of the area wanted it stopped, so he gathered up about 10 or so Islamic males, and lined them up.  He took a pig, and stabbed it with a sword, then stabbed a terrorist with the same sword.  After doing so he stabbed the big again and stabbed the next terrorist.  He killed all of them in this manner until only one remained, and he allowed this one to return to his fellows so that he could tell others what he saw.  It might have been good to go a little extra and castrate the last man before releasing him, but what they did proved sufficient to end the Islamic terror.  These methods should work for a while, but there is a chance that some cleric or mullah would issue a Fatwa saying that anyone who is “martyerd” with the blood of a pig is not truly defiled.  In that case it’s time to be even more creative.  No one terrorized the Islamic world as much as the Mongols.  The Mongols put such fear in them that a single Mongol could capture a small troup (about 10-20) of Moslem males. 

More on this later, to be continued…

It’s time to review some news articles, specifically articles pertaining to the activities of our opponents, the liberals.

Bush Denies Congress Access to Aides

Published: 7/10/07, 3:45 AM EDT
By LAURIE KELLMAN

Link: http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?bfromind=7816&eeid=5293741&_sitecat=1504&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=1&ck=&ch=ne

To sum it up, the liberals are trying to take the President to court on the grounds that he’s holding Congress in contempt, speaking in legal terms.  Speaking in non-legal terms, I happen to hold most of Congress in contempt after this last election.  Congress has not filed a case for contempt since 1983.  This time, the Democrats want to accuse the President for contempt on the grounds that he whitholds information about the fireing of Attorny General Alberto Gonzales. 

Of course this is nothing more than another pathetic attack on the President from pathetic people who are trying to grab as much power as possible.  The President can fire anyone he wants to within his department, for whatever reason, and it’s really no one else’s business.  Do the liberals really care that someone got fired?  No, of course not, what they care about is grabbing at any opportunities they can to attack the president, and if one does not present itself they attempt to manufactor one.

Sheehan threatens to run against Pelosi

A few days back I picked up the AJC again, and once more was reminded why I do not read the paper.  Most newspapers are run overwhelmingly by liberals, and they of course serve the liberal agenda.  I started reading the editorial, because that is how you determine what the true views of the staff are, and as it were, how far down the proverbial rabbit hole they go.  This time there was some guy rambling on about how conservatives had made “liberal” a meaningless term, and actually used it as a pejorative term.  This is of course not true, “pinko commie nazi douche bag” is an example of a pejorative term I might use, although usually when I use words, even strong language, it is intended to be descriptive, not insulting.  Anyways, the author said that conservatives were a minority in the US, and that anyone who disagreed with them was automatically labeled a liberal, which is of course always intended as an insult.  Anyone ought to see how stupid this is immediately.  Of course anyone who disagrees with conservatives is a liberal; there are only two options, left or right.  If someone gets their feelings hurt by being called a liberal than too bad.  There are really only three options in that case, change their views and stop being a liberal, deal with it like a grown up, or be a big baby and whine about it like a little girl with hurt feelings. 

The author went on to say that the ideals of those who the “far right” conservatives would consider liberals line up with most “world religions,” so that whenever a conservative calls someone a liberal they are essentially calling them “Christian” or “Jew.”  This is wrong for a variety of reasons, and to make it easy I will list them with numbers.

1.      Christianity and Judaism, regardless of whether or not the overlap, are based on the Bible, and are not “world religions.” 

2.      Liberalism or left wing ideology in general, is based on moral subjectivism, not on any kind of revealed word (excepting the possibility of being satanically revealed).  This is why liberals believe that rights come from the government, or from human consensus, whereas conservatives believe that they come from God, and are absolute.  This is also why you frequently here them say “just because something is right for you doesn’t mean its right for me.”  They believe that morality is determined by opinion and circumstances, which essentially makes it non-existent.

3.      Leftist ideology uses evolutionism as its foundation.  If there is a God, then there must be immutable laws governing human behavior, just as there are immutable laws governing natural forces.  A creator has two things, a will, and a purpose.  Even speaking for myself, every time I make a new drawing or write something I do it for a purpose, and I have a plan or desire for how I would like my creation to be used.  Liberals don’t like that because they don’t wish to be held to a standard higher than themselves.  They therefore circumvent the whole concept of natural rights and natural laws by attempting to circumvent the fact that a creator exists, with their belief in evolutionism.  Unfortunately for them evolutionism is so ridiculous to it’s very core and completely lacking in evidence that they have to rely on government action (exclusivity in the education system), and ethos based arguments (the appearance of consensus in the scientific community), to prove it.  Christians who believe the Bible do not believe in evolutionism, nor do they generally appreciate sponsoring it with their tax dollars.  Liberals do, enough said.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of “Gay Marriage” and where I stand on it.  First of all, I have heard liberals claim that the Republicans (keep in mind I’m anarcho-capitalist not Republican), are trying to take away “Gay Rights,” and the example is that they are against “Gay Marriage.”  Well, this isn’t true, there have been no federal laws passed to mitigate gay behavior *(more on this later), and “Gay Marriage” has never been allowed.  Of course one has the right to be gay, to do drugs, and to go to hell.  Your body is your own if you are not a Christian, and you have the right to wreck it.  If you are a Christian you have the right to renounce God if you so desire and ruin your life if you so desire.  However, rights do not come from governments or humans, they come from God, and governments cannot take them away, only mitigate the free exercise of them.  If there is no God then there are no rights, so no one can take away your rights.  Gay marriage is not a right, one cannot truly marry the same gender anymore than one could marry an animal, a plant, a car, or presently a computer.  So it’s silly to even acknowledge that such a thing is possible, much less a right.

*Now, to be quite honest, I wouldn’t really care or mind if laws were passed making sodomy illegal.  I don’t know how they would or could be enforced, but I do know that I wouldn’t want anyone who is gay watching my children.  After all, if they are perverse enough to be gay they might also have a taste for children, and if my children ever got anally violated I would be very angry, and would most certainly retaliate.  It would be my right as a parent.  Especially considering that that is one of the primary ways in which gayness is perpetuated.

I have decided that it is time to address the issue of socially programmed standardized responses.  For instance, “How are you doing?” has become a standardized greeting rather than an actual question.  When someone poses that statement they don’t mean it as an inquiry, but rather as something akin to “hello.”  The response they expect is usually “good” or some other synonym for it.  Most of the time they don’t really care how you are actually doing and certainly don’t want to hear it.  In middle school when people would ask me that, I would take them literally and tell them how I was really doing.  Responses would vary depending on the person.  When I got older I sort of fell into the groove and gave them the answer they wanted to hear regardless of whether or not it was true.  Not because I intended to lie to them, but simply because the same form of social programming which altered their minds succeeded in altering mine, and because I seldom gave ritualized greetings anything more than 50% of my attention.  I began to answer them as one who is not paying attention might answer a child, positively without any kind of awareness as to the nature of the inquiry.  For example, “is it OK if I go to my friends house instead of practicing my instrument?”  Response: “Ya (not paying attention).”  Since I disapprove of improper language usage I now only tell people “good” if things are going good.  Of course it is all relative, compared to a starving peasant in Ethiopia my worst day is probably better than their best.  At any rate, I have found that for less than ideal circumstances “so-so” and in more extreme circumstances “not so good,” will suffice as responses without incurring too much irritation from the “inquisitor.”

Another issue I struggle with is the “yum yum fun sunny day,” which is simply  how they refer to non-overcast daylight condition, or a bare sky, on that terrible old show “Barny and Friends” (which I always referred to as Barfy and Friends or Spewball and Chunks).  The first Job I ever worked was in Plano Texas, during the summer when it remained 100+ F all day.  I think I was 17 years old, maybe 16, can’t remember for sure, but I was a bagger at a grocery store.  My duties also involved pusing the carts out to the customers cars, and collecting any other carts that might be out there and returning them.  The sky was barren for almost the entire summer, the only time we had anything resembling any kind of cloud cover was when the smoke from the forest fires in Mexico partially obscured the sun.  It was so hot and so bright and so dry that when I walked out of the store into the heat I felt like I was going to pass out.  My skin was burning, and I sweat so much that my body was lubricated far beyond the point of feeling sticky.  I felt like I was swimming in oil.  It was the most miserable job I have ever done.  One thing I noticed, was that many of the people I helped would say, “Isn’t it a beautiful day today,” or “It’s a beautiful day today.”  I realized subconsciously that this was a form of ritualized greeting so I instinctively reciprocated with the appropriate ritualized response, initially.  Of course I absolutely loathed and hated the weather.  My skin hurt, my eyes hurt, they throbbed, and my head began to hurt as well.  My energy was drained from me by the sun.  Looking up was painful, and the light was so abundant that looking at a white car (with sunglasses on), hurt nearly as much as looking up at the sun.  It was like a huge portion of the sky was on fire.  I absolutely hated it, and if any of those people had thought about it a bit, surely they wouldn’t have made such a statement to me.  After all, the soaking wet shirt clinging darkly to my chest and back should have constituted blatant evidence of my discomfort.  After a while when I was greeted with those kinds of statements I would tell people, concerning the weather, that, “it isn’t what I prefer,” “it’s too hot,” or “I don’t like this kind of weather.”  Some people would agree with me, because in their case, they were merely participating in a socially programmed ritualized greeting, which did not reflect their true feelings, whereas others would simply fall silent.

I think that in some cases when people say those sort of things they are participating in a ritualized greeting, whereas others are in fact convinced that a yum yum fun sunny day is something desireable and ideal.  I believe that the majority of people who think they prefer the yum yum fun sunny day are programmed by society to think that it’s good, and their feelings are not based on original thought or sentiment.  How did this even get started?  I don’t know for sure, but my theory is that it ties back to Europe.  Most of the people in the US today have their family origins in Europe, and in fact for this reason the US fits beneath the umbrella of “western culture.”  Most of Europe gets a great deal of rain, and too much rain can create complications.  Wet soggy muddy soil can be difficult to build in, and it can also be difficult to plant and grow crops in.  So a yum yum fun sunny day from time to time might actually be a good thing, because the excess moisture can evaporate, and Queen Victoria can go out and play croquette without getting her skirt muddy.  Also, a yum yum fun sunny day might be the harbinger of the end of a long winter, finally the snow can melt, and we can all stop wearing these darned animal skins.  It is however, absolutely silly to wish for yum yum fun sunny days all the time, like so many people do.

Back when I was at ORU there was this really whimsical girl that sat at our table and started going on about how much she hated the rain.  My friend mindflenzing simply informed her of the water cycle and it’s importance, and reminded her that living things need water.  She was rather surprised and said, “you’re right, I never thought of that before.”  I wonder if she ever thought about anything before?  But I digress.  I want to give my position on the yum yum fun sunny day.  First of all, the yum yum fun sunny day, I absolutely hate.  Even during the winter I do not welcome sunny days, because the sunlight still hurts my eyes, even with sunglasses on and looking at the ground.  It is simply too much, and it’s not natural.  It was not part of God’s original plan for us to have to endure weather like that.  He created the Earth with the water canopy to block out a lot of the negative rays of the sun, which was why the plants, animals, and people grew to be much larger back then.  I am not saying that it has to rain all the time, but I at least prefer for it to be overcast.  I also find it ironic, how most of these people who say that the yum yum fun sunny day is “beautiful” also spend most of the time when they are outside, in the shade, squint their eyes and/or wear sunglasses, and run airconditioners in their homes.  Some of them even complain about it being hot.  Hello?  Can’t have it both ways. 

So if this kind of weather is so good, so natural, and so beautiful, then I encourage all people who hold those beliefs to go outside, open their eyes wide, and look up into the sun.  If it’s enjoyable, then enjoy it to the fullest.  Drink it in.  Also, switch off the air conditioner and let your house be hot.  That’s what the sun does, it heats things up, enjoy the heat.  Now if these things are not enjoyable, and the average person finds their comfortable temperature range to be 65-75 F, then chances are this is the natural temperature range under which we were supposed to exist.  Just something to think about.  Also, before I go, melenoma is real, and anyone can get it.  Once you get it then you can have it forever, even if you begin to avoid the sun afterwards.   I know someone who used to tan a lot, and now, years later, she has to sporadically return to the doctor to have parts of her skin removed due to recurring melenoma. 

I’m so sick of hearing about Paris Hilton, it’s not as though no one else has gone to jail, or been convicted of similar charges.  Seriously, people go to jail all the time, and PH is not any more special than anyone else, in fact she’s kind of more worthless than the average person since she doesnt work, and the only reason she has money is because her parents are rich.  It’s not like she’s done anything to get rich.  In my eyes shes almost on the same level as all those people who live off of welfare, the only difference is that the people who breast feed her actually do so willingly, whereas welfare junkies live off of money that has been appropriated.  Anyways I get sick of hearing about her, and celebrities in general, people fawn and drool over these people, and feel as though they need to know every nuance of the persons life (what kind of car they drive, what sort of music they listen too, who they’re shacking up with), I submit that it’s irrelevant.  By the way people fawn and gawk over losers like PH a 3rd party would be likely to assume that they are somehow more than human, but they aren’t and I get real sick of hearing about it.  It’s nothing more than pathetic idol worship, and people who just “have” to know what’s going on in the life of the “celebrities” really need reassess their lives and get a grip on themselves and make something out of their own lives. 

 I just read today that the Democrats in Congress, which unfortunately compose the majority, have attempted to pass a bill for withdrawal of troops from Iraq.  Fortunately the President saw fit to veto the bill.  I’m sure that many liberals will cry and whine about it, which is of course foolish and pointless since the issue really does not concern them personally, but a horrifying thought struck me:  If the Democrats win the presidential election, then not only would we have a Democrat president, but also a Democrat Congress!  That would mean that whatever stupid and evil legislation passes in Congress, would be signed into law by the president.  So the liberals might actually succeed in withdrawing troops from Iraq.

This would be a huge mistake, because Iraq is not another Vietnam.  When the troops were withdrawn from Vietnam the enemies won in their region, but they stayed in their region because they got what they wanted.  This would not be the case with Iraq.  The problem is, that unlike Vietnam, the ideology of the terrorists is one that calls for the use of force to spread their religion, and one wherein the major goal is to spread the religion around the entire world.  Moslem terrorists have a tendency to strike outside of their region, as they have demonstrated many times, and Islamic terror has a tendency to inspire Moslems who were previously not terrorists to engage in acts of terror as well.  Monkey see monkey do.  So to sum it up:

Vietnam War:  The enemies goals were national, and once sated that was the end of it.

Iraq: The enemies goals are global, and our backing down will be interpreted as a victory.

If we back down in Iraq, the terrorists will see that they have overcome a huge milestone, and increase their activity.  They will believe that Allah has given them the victory, and that if they press on and continue they can count on a long series of victories.  And what then?  Who will defend us from the terrorists with Democrats in complete control?  How will such a bad situation be reversed?  It wont be. 

Long Distance Relationships:

I feel the need to address the issue of long distance relationships, and relationships in general, because I find myself in one and I believe that the issue needs to be addressed. I have had people express bewilderment over my decision to pursue a long distance relationship, so I would like to couple my response with a lecture/sermon on the topic.

“Why didn’t/don’t you find someone in your area?”

–Because I didn’t, and that’s the end of it. Furthermore, why should I, or anyone else restrict their search to such a narrow field? Why would you wish to impose such restricting parameters on something as important as the search for your future spouse? That would be folly and foolishness, and I prefer logic and wisdom. Second, why would I wish to limit God? I find this question silly.

“I don’t see how you can do that (be involved in a long distance romance), I know I couldn’t.”

First of all, I’m not entirely certain what they mean by “I can’t” or “I couldn’t,” there is most likely some variance in the meaning depending on the person. I think generally they mean that the relationship would inevitably fail. Well, the hard hard truth of the matter is, that if you cannot handle a long distance relationship, then you are too immature to be in a relationship, and probably lack the capacity for true love. When you truly love someone, you are willing to wait on them. You stay in the relationship because you don’t want to be with anyone else, and you wait for the circumstances to improve so that you can be together in person someday. If there is no chance that you can be together, like perhaps you meet someone on the internet who is in a death camp and/or prison camp in another part of the world and that person is awaiting execution. That’s the only example that I can think of, and that’s really a highly unlikely situation since people in prison camps are not generally allowed outside contact, and certainly not over the internet. So what it really comes down to, is not a matter of impossibility, but a lack of patience and an unwillingness to wait. People who claim that they “can’t” wait on someone are people who place the physical aspects of a relationship, over the relationship itself. They don’t love the other person for who they are, but they love what that other person can do for them, immediately. Anyone who marries someone like that takes a huge risk, because even married couples who meet in the same town are not by any means immune from extenuating circumstances. Suppose that your spouse goes on a business trip, or gets sent to Iraq on military duty, then what? Well the aspect of immediate physical gratification, which formed the basis for the relationship, is no longer there. So frequently, the spouse turns to others in the area. I know people who this has happened too, which is why I know for a fact, that a person who cannot handle temporary separation, is not ready to be in a relationship, and is certainly not a trustworthy lover. If they (or you) have to go to another city, state, or country for an extended period of time, get ready to find someone new for yourself, because they sure will, in your absence.

I would like to nail a few items with this entry…

Islam:

The other day when I was walking through CSU, I was stopped by some ROTC recruiters who wanted to hand me some stuff (which I took anyways) and invite me to their barbecue, I guess to get me interested in the military.  Anyways, I didnt go to the barbecue because I was feeling sick, and I’m not really a freshmen or undergrad student, but that’s OK.  Anyways, it got me thinking about the war in Iraq.  Would I go if they drafted me?  Yes, would I join the army on my own?  Probably not at this stage in my life, I have slightly different career goals.  But back to the Iraq war. 

The liberals and the Islamic media are trying to claim that it is a religious war.  The liberals think that all the big bad Christians are picking on Moslems because were mean, the smarter liberals, however, think that the war is over oil.  In fact the need for resources is a good enough reason to go to war, and while I do believe that factors in, there is more to it than that.  The Moslems think that we are controlled by the Jews, and that we are fighting a religious war on their behalf. 

Anyways, I agree that it is a religious war, and I agree that it is a war against Islam to a certain degree.  For our part, this is a war of self defense and preservation.  Preservation of our resources.  If the region becomes too unstable it will be difficult to keep those oil wells open.  Self defense because we are fighting against an enemy which will stop at nothing to bring us down.  No tactic is too cowardly, too inhumane, too extreme for them.  These are people who would blow themselves up just to kill a busfull of us.  They would certainly place a nuclier or dirty radiation bomb in one of our major cities, and not wait till they get out of town to detonate it.  For the Jihad fighters it is more important that they cause us harm rather than that they live to see the fruits of their actions.  This is because they are not fighting for peace or security, they are fighting for their god, Allah.  If one pays attention to their rhetoric everything is done in the name of Allah.  So for our part it is not a religious war, it is self defense, for their part, it is a religious war, and we are against Islam because Islam is against us.  Although we are unwilling to declare a war against Islam because that would merely further destabalize the region.  It’s a pity really, that we have to be dependant upon such a place for so vital a resource.  We need some economically feasable synthetics so that we can be done with the Middle East.

Food Stambs:

The other day I was in the store, and since I am quite poor, nearly broke in fact, and still owing money on the credit card, I was not able to buy a lot of food.  I did buy a pount of lunchmeat, a pound of cheese (to go with it) and a loaf of bread.  This was to give me something to eat during the next week while at work so that I wouldnt pass out at work, again.  Anyways, I was in a hurry, and since I only had three items I figured I would go through the express lane.  There is one person in front of me, so I figure it would be quick, but then it ends up taking forever.  The person had quite a bit more food than I did.  They took way too long, and were talking and discussing, and started talking about exchanging one item for another of similar weight.  So whenever the person in front of me pulled out a very special card I knew right away what was going on.  Assisted Living!  Some kind of food stamp or perhaps WIC.  As they neared the end of the transaction I went up to the display to see how much she was going to pay for all her stuff (which was a lot more than what I had), and it was about $6.15 for all that.  In the meanwhile, for my 3 items I had to pay about $25.  Why is this?  First of all, I was purturbed at having to wait for so long, second, I was purturbed at how this person, who was hugely fat, was able to get such a discount from the government, at the expense of actual tax payers, like most of the people in my family.  I’m sorry, but you earn money based on how much you contribute to a business, not based on the fact that you exist.  If you didnt earn the money you shouldnt have it, unless someone gives it to you as a gift, and guess what, coming from the government its not a gift, because the government has to TAKE it from someone else.  I know the purpose of that stuff was to help out people who are starving, but if you are FAT, you’re not starving.  One cannot be fat AND starving.  It’s ludicrous to think so.   Back when I was in high school I once worked at Super 1 Foods as a cashier back in Texas, and had a lot of women come through on Food Stamps and WIC, and you know how many needed them?  ONE!  I only had one come through my line that wasnt significantly overweight, and didnt but anything else along with it.  Most of the time they would come through my line, many so fat that they could barely walk, and get a handbasket of stuff that they were elegible to get with the foodstamps and WIC, while in the meantime pushing a regular sized basket or cart, crammed full of food.  Again, if you are fat you arent starving.  The poor people in America have it easy compared to poor people arount the world.  The poor people in Africa and Idia are truly poor and starving.  You can see almost all of their bones.  In India they think that Americans are the new Maharajas because we have more than one shirt.  So no, if you are fat, you arent starving.  Seriouly, most of these people have enough fat to live off of for a few weeks without food anyways.

Response to Evolutionist:

This is my response to a comment left by pinkynarf on the following entry: http://www.xanga.com/jmsnooks/552782137/why-i-have-israel-stuff-all-over-the-place.html

“You are mistaken. Most lineages and people are traced through the mitochondrial DNA also called matrilineage ie. through the female line.”

–No, it is you who are mistaken, not only that, but you misuntersood the entire point of the entry.  Most, if not all, civilized cultures around the world have traced their family lineage through the male line.  This is what could be called universally normal.  I say civilized cultures because I do not consider the ancient matriarchal tribes of North America and  Southern Africa (although not all the groups in Southern Africa) to be civilized, with their illiteracy, inability to work metal, and lack of specialization of labor to be civilized.  So I don’t know where this comes from, but I can probably guess.  What you are talking about is Mitochondrial DNA, or MDNA, which is something the evolutionists in America use to try to trace human origins to Africa.  They claim that Africa was the starting point because it supposedly possesses a great deal of variotion of genotypes among MDNA.  Not because there is any actual evidence to support their claims.  Anyways, I consider MDNA to be irrelavent when defining who you are as a person, because the MDNA is not a part of your genetic structure, it exists only within the mitochondria, which are actually symbiots living within our cells. 

“The Y chromosome itself contains only 83 working genes; compare this to close to 1000 working genes on the X chromosome due to Y chromosome degradation, which is why the X chromosome is usually used.”

–No, the Y chromosome is used to determine lineages because, yes it is short chromosome, and it also changes very little over time.  The process of independant assortment seldom touches the Y chromosome, which is why scientists were able to trace the descendants of Thomas Jefferson through Sally Hemmings back to him through analysis of the Y chromosome, in spite of the fact that some were black and some were white.  All they had to do was take a sampling from the corpse, and lo and behold, it had changed very little.  Scientists can also use the Y chromosome to pinpoint what continent or area of the world a person came from originally.  For example, pinpointing someone of European descent who has mingled with the population of Libya for hundreds of years, just based on the analysis of the Y chromosome. 

“I’d go into the processes and mutations but you’d call it evolution and start going on about that, so I won’t.”

–Either you can support your points or you can’t, so whatever it’s called it makes no difference if you can’t support it.

“And just so you know, we all start out female in the womb and you either stay the same or change to male at about 16 weeks.”

–That sounds very high school, anatomically one is not male right at conception, or for a few weeks, so what?  It is determined at conception, and there is more to being male or female than just what is between the legs, although it certainly helps.  Anyways, you misunderstood the entire point of the entry.  The point was to illustrate that the way that God identifies our lineage, as well as the classical way of doing so are also based in reality and the physical world.

Well it looks like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are going to be the next presidential candidates for the Republican party.  I heard this news on a Christian radio station I was listening too on the way up to work (needed louder music to keep me awake so I don’t wreck out).  The station was 93.3 FM for those of you in Georgia.  Anyways, they announced who the Republican candidates were, and I heard it from them FIRST because all the ”mainstream”/liberal news outlets have not said a word about the next Republican candidates, as far as I know.  I couldnt even find anything on the internet stating specifically who they were going to be, although perhaps I didnt look long enough.  They seem to be talking a lot about the Democratic candidates (because those are their homies), but that’s about it.  As a brief philosophical aside; since it’s obvious and well known that they lie when they talk about how they are unbiased in their coverage, how can we be certain that their news stories are not lies as well?  I’m not so sure we can.

Anyways, out of the the two candidates, my support and endorsment goes to John McCain.  Quite honestly I am not pleased with either of them, or the Republican part in general, because they have slid far too far to the left.  Granted, they are not as bad or as liberal as the Democrats, but they are pretty washed out, and barely conservative, if at all.  This is why I do not self identify as Republican.  Ideologically I am far closer to anarchocapitalism.  Anyways, John McCain, based on what I hear, has this annoying tendancy to compromise with the leftists, and I certainly do not believe in that.  A partial loss is better than a complete loss, but a total victory is best, and true conservatives don’t feel the need to rely on votes from liberals.  Now Guiliani, I like even less because he supports “gay marriage” and is pro-abortion.  I don’t want anything to do with someone like that, so if it comes down to a race between Hildabeast and Giuliani, I might suffer from a case of cognitive dissonance to strong to allow me to vote.  Although I suppose I might vote for Giuliani anyways just to keep the Democrats from hiking up taxes to my dad and signing idiotic treaties with the UN.  So don’t vote for Giuliani if you vote in the Republican primary.  He’s definitely the worse of the two. 

As a side note, I hear that Hitlery is beating out Edwards and Obama.  The people on 93.3 FM are concerned that it might be a close election if Hildabeast wins, but I consider it good news.  Edwards is the one I’m scared of because he is a great speaker, and has a great deal of logic, albeit twisted logic, and might very well dominate the presidential debates.  Then again, the average person doesnt care about or understand the issues being discussed and tend to vote based on popular appeal and sentiment.  As sad as it is, wit and logic is wasted on most people.  So in reality, it’s a lot more like a high school home-coming queen contest then an enlightened and foolproof selection process.

Well well, it looks like Hitlery is going to try to run for president.  My first assumption when I heard the rumor (which is now no longer a rumor) was that this would be a good thing, since she might be easy to take down.  However, the question that remains on my mind is how will her being female affect the outcome of the election?  Will it work for her or against her?  Perhaps male Democrats will not vote for her because of her gender, but then again, how many Democratic voters would actually feel that way?  Probably not very many.  Most Democrats vote for Democrats because they are Democrats, and putting that aside, the overwhelming majority of Democrats are liberal leftist socialists.  If I remember correctly, the higher percentage of their constituency IS female, and of those a great many are femanazis.  Am I saying that there is no woman who could make a good presidenc?  No, although I don’t believe that women generally make as good of leaders because they tend to be more emotional by nature (Ann Coulter would make a good president though).  What I AM saying, is that no Democrat would make a good president.  A simple overview of the priorities of both parties will explain why, but before I do that I feel the need to preface with a disclaimer:  I am not a Republican, and disagree with them on some ideological grounds.  I am an anarcho-capitalist, and I believe that Monarch and Anarchocapitalism are the only viable political systems.  So now, my overview:

Republicans (R): Domestic lives take priority over foriegn lives.

Democrats (D): Foriegn lives take priority over Domestic lives.

R:  Economic prosperity takes precedence over pleasing the mob.

D:  Garnering votes comes first, and this usually takes the form of bribing certain economic levels to give them their votes.  (Bread and Circuses)

R:  National security is important.

D:  Security can be achieved better by merging (or perhaps I should say submerging) into the UN.

R:  A strong military is good.

D:  A strong UN and sharing information with foriegn powers is good.

R:  Israel is good.

D:  Islam is good.

R:  The US should act unilaterally.

D:  The US should be unable to act unilaterally, and ought to be subject to international scrutiny.

Let us also not forget that the Democrats are the advocates of evolutionism and abortion.

Anyways, moving along, I thought that JK would have been easy to take down considering that his entire campaign was based on being the opposite of Bush rather than actually putting forth anything concrete, however, in spite of that he still managed to garner nearly half the votes.  I believe that the media is the entity to thank for that, rather than any campaigning by the Kare Bear.  People literally voted for JK in droves because they “hated” Bush.  And who was responsible for stirring up those sentiments?  The liberal media.  Anyways, the Hildabeast will not have as much of that to go on because she will not be running against Bush (assuming she wins the Democratic Primary).  In the meantime, Hitlery ought to be easy enough to take down, at least, verbally.  Her comments which I am using can be found here: http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=1446&eeid=5113040&_sitecat=1504&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=1&ck=&ch=ne&s=po&rg=blsadstrgt

“You know after six years of George Bush, it is time to renew the promise of America.”  Only God knows the full extent of the horrors she has in mind, but we can probably guess that it involves increasing social spending (which involves dumping more taxes on my dad), and strengthening the UN.  Perhaps she will even cut back on the military like her husband did.

“I’m not just starting a campaign, though, I’m beginning a conversation with you, with America.”  Not with me you aren’t.  I’m the WCM (white Christian Male), which makes me the enemy.  In addition to that, my dad is rich, I had all of my college paid for, I’m a Zionist, and strongly opposed to to evolutionism.  Which means that I dont have much in common ideologically with someone like the Hildabeast, other than the fact that we both believe that breathing is necessary to stay alive.  But the point is, why would I want to vote for someone who is so diametrically opposed to my existence in every way?  Um…I wouldn’t, but I’ll listen to the speach anyways so that I can critique it.

“Let’s talk. Let’s chat. The conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don’t you think?”  Perhaps a little, but not nearly as much as I would like it to be.  Of course with someone like Hitlery in charge, it will be even more one sided, but it will be the other side.  You’re a communist, so of course I don’t want you to have any power.

The Hildabeast says she will spend the next two years, “doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush’s mistakes and restore our hope and optimism.”  What mistakes?  Not catering to your communist inclinations?  This is exactly why Democrats are impossible to work with, and why the goal of Republicans ought to be to work around them and make them look stupid.  I don’t know exactly what she means, but if she ever did become president we could look forward to tax increases, increased power to the UN, and pressure put on Israel to make concessions to terrorists.

“I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine. After nearly $70 million spent against my campaigns in New York and two landslide wins, I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate, and how to beat them.”  The Republican Machine!  Fight the power!  Take down the MAN (that would be me).  So in other words, after wasting a lot of money she gets into a position where she can waste taxpayer money.  Anyways, it’s obviouse to anyone who thinks, that these are the sorts of speaches which stir up mob sentiments.  This is a dangerous and foolish thing to do.  A person who rules by the mob can be thrown out by the mob, all it takes is someone who is better at stirring up the mob to get rid of them.