Coming Soon to a Barnes & Noble Near You?

The bozos over at Barnes & Noble evidently don't understand the difference between "making something available" and "shoving it in your face." Selling homosexual erotica is one thing; making it readily available at kids' eye level is quite another.

Does Barnes & Noble really want to be complicit in contributing to the corruption of minors? They may have the "right" to peddle porn, but they do not have the OBLIGATION to do so, especially in an upscale establishment that ostensibly welcomes families by having a children's section.

Plausible Myths

Well, my alma mater has made national news. The smoke hadn't even cleared before folks spouted the inevitable knee-jerk reaction: "We need more gun control laws!"

Thing is, declaring a school to be a "gun-free" zone only gives an illusion of safety. Until and unless you can convince someone bent on murder and mayhem that he shouldn't use a gun because it's against the law, your lawbreaker will use the "gun-free" zone as his personal shooting range full of terrified sitting ducks. Gun bans only give more power and control to the lawbreaker, not to law-abiding citizens whom the gun ban ostensibly protects.


It's time to lay to rest the myth of "gun-free" zones. Educate the citizenry about the lawful use of weapons, allow them to protect themselves, thereby making it a fair fight. Make it harder for mentally ill people to obtain firearms by enforcing the laws presently on the books - don't make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens of sound mind to protect themselves.

Riddle Me This

Why is it that the secularists/humanists/liberals (take your pick) get their panties in a wad over the supposed intolerance of Christians, yet willingly turn a blind eye to the fanaticism of Islam?

Here's something to chew on, if you think that Christianity is so "dangerous" to society:

If the Muslim fanatics ever get their way and impose Sharia law where you live, you'll be wishing that it was the Christians who had the power instead.

Global Warming? You've got to be kidding...

This picture was taken yesterday morning - we got some more white stuff during the night, and it's still there as of 2:30 p.m. Thursday. (If you look closely, you can see that it was snowing at the time I took this picture.) This is the first time that I can ever remember having measurable snowfall beyond the first week of April -not to mention that we just had one of the coldest Easters on record (and an April Easter at that).

So much for "global warming." The only hot air I've noticed is that which occurs whenever Al Gore opens his yap.

"The Craven American Media"

Dennis Prager nailed it in his radio program today with his labelling of the American media for their overall refusal to print the contentious cartoons, ostensibly out of respect for Islam. As Michelle Malkin points out, the American media have absolutely no inhibitions against offending Christians, much like a schoolyard bully feels secure in pushing around the wimpy kid with glasses but backs off anyone who stands up to him. Speaking about CNN, Malkin writes:

Unbelievable. The news network reports on an international controversy, but refuses to show readers what the news is actually about and let them judge the cartoons for themselves.

Even more galling is CNN's newfound respect for religion.

Where was that deference when Ted Turner was calling Catholics "Jesus Freaks?"

Where was the sensitivity about offensive religious imagery when Jeanne Moos was mocking images of Jesus Christ or Jonathan Mann was reporting on the Virgin Mary covered in dung?

Why is it that American media, including CNN, have absolutely no qualms about splashing Kanye West-as-Christ all over the airwaves and Internet...

[picture of Rolling Stones cover with Kayne West-as-Christ]

...but can't bring themselves to print the Forbidden Cartoons gallery (now available in thumbnail and full-size images over at Human Events Online, which is also running the photos with my column this week).

NBC was also singled out by Malkin for their hypocrisy:

Reader Jake G. e-mails that NBC Nightly News tonight also refused to show the cartoons:

"Just when I thought NBC might have had a moment of clarity (HA! Yeah, right!), I heard them tease a story on this for the Nightly News tonight. In the middle of the segment, the dropped the ball completely, refusing to show the cartoons! They made some weak statement about how they decided against airing the images out of respect for Muslims."

This from the network that showed no respect for Christians when it forged ahead with the religion-mocking show, "The Book of Daniel."

This from the network that plans to feature Britney Spears as the host of a fictional cooking segment called "Cruci-fixin's" in an upcoming "Will & Grace" epsiode.

Still believe the urban legend "No Media Bias"?

Boot-licking cowards.

Offenders for a Picture

For those who are curious about the cartoons that have the Islamic world all in an uproar, check out Michelle Malkin's site.

They're extremely tame compared to the stuff we see in American media - and they're positively benign when compared to "art" such as The Last Temptation of Christ or "P*** Christ." When's the last time you heard of Christians demanding for the decapitation of those insult Christianity? Call me dense, but some of them are so obtuse I fail to see how on earth they can be construed as "appalling," as Clinton seems to think they are.

This site has plenty of real media bias against Jews.

To Cast or Not To Cast

There is some controversy about End of the Spear, a movie about some missionaries in South America who were killed by the natives they were trying to reach with the Gospel. This incidence happened about fifty years ago, and it was recounted by the widow of one of the missionaries, Elisabeth Elliot, in her book Through Gates of Splendor.

The controversy surrounds the casting of one of the characters. Nate Saint was one of the missionaries who lost his life, and the producers of the movie (Every Tribe Entertainment) chose to cast an openly homosexual actor and activist, Chad Allen, to portray Saint. Some Christians are opposed to the movie on the grounds that the decision to cast Chad Allen in the role of one of the missionaries was a poor and/or thoughtless decision. Others don’t have a problem with the casting.

I must admit that I am one of those who has a problem with the casting. It is not because I think that a “Christian” movie should only have “Christian” actors – I recognize that as long as we’re in this world, we’re going to rub shoulders with unbelievers. As far as that goes, none of us is free from sin, so the level of sanctification of the actors involved is not what should be a casting determinant. My problem is with the very apparent incongruity of the casting decision. Even those who see nothing wrong with casting Allen to play the part of Saint would have to admit that such a casting decision is perhaps at least a wee bit incongruous. Why is this? Because Allen, as an openly homosexual activist, stands in opposition to what Nate Saint lived and died for – the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Homosexuality is fundamentally at odds with Scripture, and Allen, as an unrepentant homosexual, cannot reconcile his lifestyle choice with Scripture. It would be akin to casting Madonna in the role of the real Mary – just a wee bit incongruous, because Madonna is at odds with the Mary of Scripture.

I’ll stick to reading the book, I think.

Song of the South

Yesterday I got to watch Disney's "Song of the South." (I didn't ask questions regarding the origin of the DVD, but the quality of the picture was more than watchable, albeit substandard.) I remember seeing the movie in the theater when it was re-released in the early '70's, but unfortunately Disney doesn't have any current plans to make it available to the general public for today's generation. They continue to kowtow to pressure from special interest groups that insist on smearing the 1946 Disney classic as "racist." Like many others, I guess I am simply too benighted to see what the fuss is about.

You can find out more information about "Song" here. I didn't realize (until yesterday) that Hattie McDaniel was in the movie, but then I saw "Song" long before I had even seen "Gone with the Wind."

Intolerance in the name of Tolerance

In case you're interested in checking out Dr. Dobson's clarification - here it is. Nothing like the MSM's rushing to judgment and withholding facts to present a slanted picture of the guy they're trying to skewer. Of course, what else can you expect from the MSM? (Removing the problematic items from the We Are Family Foundation’s Web site was a nice touch. Just flush it down the ol' memory hole, Winston, and that solves everything.) And this is all done in the name of "tolerance." As has been pointed out by others, the liberal idea of "tolerance" extends solely to those whom the liberals approve. Conservatives are evidently so far out there that their views are not worthy of consideration. "The Golden Rule" is not a liberal motto.

Can anyone explain to the Left that true tolerance involves respect for the people with whom you disagree, and not merely those sycophants in your own cozy coterie?

Target's (Un)Christmas Spirit

With Target's persona non grata treatment of the Salvation Army bell ringers, there is a temptation to cast the powers that be at Target as either Ebenezer Scrooge or the Grinch. However, upon reflection I note that there is a fundamental difference between Target execs and their proposed literary counterparts. In one word: Repentance. In both stories, our protagonists displayed a 180-degree change of heart, and it is this fact that endears these stories to us. Target, on the other hand, shows absolutely no sign of even suggesting that such a change is necessary and/or desirable - and that's hardly the way to endear Target to its customers. (Note to Target execs: Business 101 - It is easier to maintain customers than it is to win back those you've offended.)

So, if Scrooge and the Grinch are out, what other literary archetype can we use to represent Target? My suggestion is the dissimulating King Herod. "When you find the child, let me know where he is, so that I may worship him too" - all the while he was plotting to destroy the child, along with any other toddlers who happened to fit the bill. Yep, sounds like the unChristmas spirit to me: Pretend to celebrate, and destroy the foundations of what you're supposedly celebrating.