16 responses so far ↓

• 1 David Yeagley // Dec 6, 2009 at 7:01 pm   

  I didn’t want to clutter the text too much, but here’s more on atimony Antimony oxide is added to textiles and plastics to prevent them from catching fire. It is also used in paints, ceramics, and fireworks, and as enamels for plastics, metal, and glass.

  The amount used in the hamster toy’s head and eyes must be infinitesimal. Ah, but, the committee is omniscient, and faithful to rule.

• 2 John Sandusky // Dec 6, 2009 at 8:48 pm   

  The banning of Christmas by the U.N. at the climate-change conference makes perfect sense.

  It is written in Matthew that man cannot serve two masters . . . global warming is a faith in direct competition with Christianity.

• 3 One Salient Oversight // Dec 7, 2009 at 6:06 am   

  The celebration of Christmas was originally a pagan festival that was “Christianized” over time, namely the “Sol Invictus” festival. Constantine sort of helped mix it up by naming a day after the week after the Sun and calling it the Roman day of rest – Sunday. Given these pagan roots, many Christians – especially those who see the Bible as the word of God and thus who do not find any Christmas festival ordained in scripture – have chosen not to take Christmas too seriously.

• 4 David Yeagley // Dec 7, 2009 at 9:15 am   

  OSO, everyone knows this. Most everyone. This is not the point, at all, however. The point is, in the way of the world, exterior things indicate other things.

  The Bible doesn’t say anything about prayer in schools, either. Do you take that seriously? The Bible doesn’t say anything about saluting the flag.

  The way the world works, you take these things away, and they are replaced–with Islam, currently.

  Culture is prop-ism. We have our props. No, they are not sacred in and of themselves. But they have legitimate function.

• 5 David Yeagley // Dec 7, 2009 at 9:30 am   

  Laura Ingraham tells us that Desiree Rogers (White House social secretary) had planned to nix the nativity from the White House this year. Wants to be more inclusive. Musn’t offend the Muslims.

  Whether traditions or worthy or not, isn’t the issue. It’s the political venue involved.

• 6 keyboard jockey // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:24 pm   

  I agree get us out of the UN.

  Hide the Decline “Climategate” Parody.

• 7 PM // Dec 7, 2009 at 11:08 pm   

  D.Y. said “The leaders of the world have declared themselves enemies of the world.” because they are not allowing Christian symbolism at a UN function.

  You’ve got to be kidding. Right?
  The UN is an international body composed of (virtually) all states on Earth. Those states are equal in the same way that all Americans are equal under the law/constitution. Yes, many of the member states are overtly Christian, but others are Muslim, Taoist, Confucian, and so on. If you are going to hold meetings at which all are to sit at the table as equals then it is only sensible that no particular tradition be singled out and put in a preeminent position. Thus no Christmas trees. No minorahs. No replicas of mosques. And so on. Any individual attending the conference is of course free to practice their religion as they wish. Undoubtedly some American representatives will wear a cross around their neck. Those from the Punjab in India will wear their turbans. This is as it should be.
  It astounds me that you would find offence in such straight forward and polite arrangements.

• 8 PM // Dec 7, 2009 at 11:15 pm   

  DY says “…the UN is the enemy of Western Civilization. The UN should be dissolved immediately. ”
  The biggest problem with the UN is that it is not a fully democratic organization. Although all states are supposedly equal a few are more equal than others. The USA, Britain, USSR (former), France and China (if memory serves me right) have constant seats on the security council and each has veto powers. It is unfortunate that USA, Britain, and France did not have the faith in democracy that their domestic politics would suggest.

• 9 PM // Dec 8, 2009 at 12:08 am   

  DY says: “Remember the National Collegiate Athleteic Association (NCAA) and its peremptory intrusion into Indian affairs? They decided that images, monikers, or names of American Indians must be removed from all teams, or they couldn’t play in any post-season tournaments. The American Indian image must be removed from the public view. Why would the NCAA committee want to destroy culture and tradition in this way, and commit a visual genocide, an optical holocaust against Indians? It is an ethnic cleansing on U.S. campuses.”

  I think this is revision of history almost as bizarre as that proposed by Holocaust deniers! David and I grew up in the same era I believe. My memory of the time is that various native american groups were offended by the use of native icons in the ways that sports teams used them. There was not the slightest suggestion that natives should be removed from public view . On the contrary, there was a great deal of annoyance by the wider community about the over sensitivity of native americans to such “harmless” practices. But just as the wider community finally stopped using the word nigger in polite company, so to did we stop using native names/symbols in ways that offended those native communities. In short, many natives believed (mistakenly, in my opinion) that the association of natives icons with the violence of sport served only to perpetrate the image of native as blood thirsty savage. The wider society caved to native pressure. And the wider society was right to do so.

• 10 David Yeagley // Dec 8, 2009 at 4:13 pm   

  Well, I suppose it’s inevitable that a genuine liberal shows up now and then. It’s easy to manipulate someone’s words, as you did mine, in your very first line of your first post. But, I’ll not bother correcting you.

  Denmark is a Christian European Nation, or, do you not recognize any nation for anything? If the UN disallows all religious symbolism, let them set up shop in Mecca, and we’ll see how nobly intolerant they are of all religious symbolism equally.

  Equality is a theory, PM, not a reality. Never has been, never will be. It is wan plea of the weak. In the name of equality, they declare themselves strong. The Communist use of “equality” destroys the strength of the strong. This is never wise. The weak wreck the world. Strength evolved to avoid the perils of weakness.

  “Democracy” is an abused word. Today, it means Communism, essentially. I don’t believe in Communism. You apparently do. I believe in a Republican Form of democracy, basically. But, this isn’t “democracy” in the modern, liberal, Communist, tyrannical sense of the word. What Communists want is equality for everyone but the few elite leaders. They want fabulous wealth for a tiny few, and mass poverty and dependence.

  Your use of “politeness,” well-meaning perhaps, only contibutes to weakness. The Indian mascot thing is about feminist emasculation, and hatred of the Indian male warrior image. Nothing more. No psychological disguises. The whole movement uses white psychology to condemn imaginary ill effects of such a strong image. For Indians to be “hurt” or “offended” by warrior mascots is a delusion–taught by liberal professors to naive Indian students, and perpetuated by communist-funded organizations like AIM. Racial agitation is what that’s all about, generally.

• 11 David Yeagley // Dec 8, 2009 at 4:14 pm   

  And so I meet your etherial idealism with cold, hard reality–and some stiff generalizations!

• 12 Sioux // Dec 8, 2009 at 9:51 pm   

  Ahh, the irony of having a Global Warming power grabbing international conference going on in northern Europe in the dead of winter right before Christmas!

  Regarding the USA getting out of the UN – Yes to that – before that happens, I say get the UN out of the USA. If I were running for President that would be one of my campaign promises. No more American dollars for the UN and no more diplomatic immunity for anyone who steps off of UN property. And then I would hold my breath and turn purple before I let out any more of that poisonous CO-2….

• 13 keyboard jockey // Dec 8, 2009 at 10:45 pm   

  Brussels wants the UN lets – let them have it or have at it. Either way they have made an offer lets not let them off the hook.

  Try googling Brussels wants…..the first page the Copenhagen climate summit pops up.

  This is a funny Conservative Satirical Blog.

  Weather Forecast For Copenhagen

  http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=12400

• 14 PM // Dec 8, 2009 at 10:53 pm   

  DY says “It’s easy to manipulate someone’s words, as you did mine, in your very first line of your first post. But, I’ll not bother correcting you.”

  Be assured that I was not trying to manipulate your words. I did quote you as sayinig “The leaders of the world have declared themselves enemies of the world.” and summarized your reasons with my own words “because they are not allowing Christian symbolism at a UN function.” This seemed to me to be the crux of what you wrote. But please straighten me out if I am completely misinterpreting your position.

  You ask if I recognize Denmark as a Christian nation. Of course I do. Unlike the USA, Britain, and many other countries there is a state religion (Luthern I believe in the case of Denmark). However, when Denmark invites the UN to hold a meeting on its territory, it gave temporary permission for UN rules to apply at the venue. The UN, being a multinational body representign states around the world, has no official religion and, if the UN is to have any chance of working, must not favour one religious sect over another. The same concept applies to national flags. At the UN meeting all the participating nations flags will appear, and they will all be the same size, or none will appear. Surely this is reasonable.
  You suggest that the UN hold a meeting in Mecca. I expect the UN will not do so unless authorities in Mecca respect the UN rules of diplomacy. (I do recall a recent incident in which Israelis were un-invited to an international meeting in some Muslim country but I don’t believe it was a UN sponsored conference.)

• 15 David Yeagley // Dec 9, 2009 at 9:14 am   

  The Zhu Zhu Pet hamsters are “safe!” So says the CPSC.

  Who ya gonna believe? Really, I think if we consider the track records of both, the US government and private industry are equally unreliable and untrustworthy, at this point.

• 16 David Yeagley // Dec 9, 2009 at 9:18 am   

  PM, you’re fine. Correction is probably the wrong word to use on you!

  I’m saying the UN is anti-American, anti-progress, and anti-Christians. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. Actions speak louder than words, always.

  Like I said, there are weak and there are strong in the world. I say, Be strong.

  Problem is, the weak claim they are strong. This is a delusion, in the name of “equality.” Delusions, I dare say, are not healthy, and end in violent disappointment.

  If violence is inevitable, I say delay it as long as possible. Weakness invites it, quickly.

You must log in to post a comment.