Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Three Monkeys

Lots of news last week: Haiti’s earthquake, Scott Brown’s victory, the Pentagon report on the Fort Hood Massacre, and the beginning of the Geert Wilders trial in Holland. Three out of the four stories pertain to Radical Islam. Only Haiti doesn’t, but it and the Massachusetts election drowned out coverage of the last two stories.

One of the many facets of Scott Brown’s upset win was what his Democrat opponent Martha Coakley, said about the Afghanistan’s Taliban in their debate. Even though the Taliban has been killing American soldiers in Afghanistan for years, and at a accelerating rate, Coakley said: “They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.” That is astonishing ignorance in someone vying to become a US Senator during wartime. The scary fact that she almost won makes me wonder: How many other high officials in our government are that stupid? A big clue is in the Pentagon’s report on why Major Nidal Hasan shot forty-something people at Fort Hood. It looks like the answer is quite a few of them are - perhaps even most.

When I was a little boy, I had a recurring nightmare in which I was in the back yard of our suburban Boston home being chased by a monster. My father was cooking at his grille but didn’t even look up. I knew my father could defeat the monster if he would only look and see what was happening, but he never did - and that’s what scared me the most.

Now I’m afraid that way again, only this time it isn’t a dream. The Pentagon report on the Fort Hood Massacre, says columnist Diana West, “is 86 pages long and doesn't mention the words ‘Muslim,’ ‘Islam,’ ‘jihad,’ ‘Sharia’ (Islamic law), ‘Koran’ -- despite the fact that we know, among other things, that the killer, who initiated his massacre with a cry of ‘Allahu Akbar,’ was a Muslim inspired by Islam to perform an act of jihad as sanctioned by Sharia derived from the Koran.”I’m afraid. I’m very afraid. As I wrote last November: “After US Army Major Hasan openly admired Muslim suicide bombers, declared the US an ‘oppressor’ of Muslims, asked an al Qaeda recruiter what he could do “to further the Jihad,” shouted ‘Allahu Akbar!’ while he gunned down forty-three US soldiers. President Obama said: ‘Well, look, we -- we have seen, in the past, rampages of this sort. And in a country of 300 million people, there are going to be acts of violence that are inexplicable.’ Inexplicable? We’re in deep trouble.”

Then, three days after the Christmas Pantybomber burned out his crotch trying to blow up Northwest Flight 253, Obama said Abdulmutallab was “an isolated extremist.” Then, last week, the Pentagon again pretended Radical Islam had nothing to do with the Fort Hood Massacre.

Some of us look for the truth. Some of us run from it. Others of us claim there’s no such thing. Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders went on trial last week for rubbing the painful truth in the faces of his countrymen. He made a film called Fitna in which he quoted sermons made by Radical imams (clerics), and quoted from the Koran as well - juxtaposing these words with images of Radical Muslim attacks. Then he compared all this with quotes from Mein Kampf - Hitler’s autobiography. The similarities were obvious, painful, and apt. No one questioned their veracity. Radical Muslims threatened Wilders with death if he released the film, but he released it anyway - knowing he would have to spend every minute of every day under armed guard for the rest of his life.What did the Dutch government do? Did it root out the radicals in its midst? Did it offer protection to a member its Parliament threatened with death? No. Incredibly, it charged Wilders - one of its own - with hate crimes for “offending” Radical Muslims with their own words! I wish I were making this up, but that’s what is happening. Last week, the Dutch government started laying out its “case” against Wilders. If convicted of “hate speech” for telling the truth, Wilders faces two years in prison and fines of 18 thousand Euro, or about $25,000.

Multiculturalism trumps truth in Holland - and in the rest of old Europe as well. Radical Muslims are killing us, but we mustn’t hurt their feelings. It's as if we had do discuss fighting Hitler's Germany without mentioning the evils of Nazism.

The truth is - there is evil in our midst once again. It threatened western civilization twice during the 20th century in the form of fascism and communism. Both times we ignored it, then appeased it, until it got so bad that tens of millions died before it could be subdued. We listened to wimps like Neville Chamberlain and ignored leaders Winston Churchill until it was almost too late. Then "sophisticated” and “nuanced” intellectuals ridiculed Ronald Reagan for calling the Soviet Union “The Evil Empire.” Then they scoffed at George W. Bush for calling Syria, North Korea and Iran “The Axis of Evil.” Now the USA, the UK and the EU are the three monkeys of “See no evil, Hear no evil, and Speak no evil.”
Those monkeys seem to have originated with an 8th century Chinese proverb, declaring: “If we do not hear, see, or speak evil, we ourselves shall be spared all evil.” But we won’t be spared until we pull our hands away, look Radical Islam in the face, and call it what it is.


Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work, Tom

Harvey in North Baldwin

Irregardless NH said...

The title of Tom's latest cant -"Three Monkeys" - seems a thinly-disguised, racist jab at the current President.

Way to go, Educator McLaughlin, in setting a sterling example for the young minds you mold.

How proud you must be....

Anonymous said...

I NEVER would have made that connection, but "Irregardless NH" did---who's the racist? Good job Tom!

Irregardless NH said...

Anonymous wrote:

"I NEVER would have made that connection"

And I'm surprised because why?

Anonymous said...

The prevalent current blindness and ability to ignore the obvious has been summed up well by Tom. Our leader's refusal to learn from history is painfully apparent. I was there when Hitler rose to power; I heard Churchill speak; later, I agreed with Reagan and saw the face of evil as did George Bush. Is everyone blind, or have we turned into a nation of ostriches with our heads in the sand? Not believing something does not make it disappear...

Harry said...

Yes, Tom, Evil forces exist in the world. We are at WAR with them, which can hardly be labeled as turning a blind eye.

Anonymous said...

Mr or Ms Irregardless, please tell us what you really believe in.
Deny that these things happen and it is just a coincidence that they are done primarily by Muslims or believers in Islam if you prefer. They dont like us very much and it has little to do with race. Actually the word bigotry would better apply. They don't discriminate in their attacks, theirs is a religious war and they kill everyone without regard to
anything. If you happen to be too close, you die. As far as the racial aspect of this is concerned it all started long before Mr. Obama became President and for better worse will likely continue long after.

Please find yourself another excuse, your not so thinly disguised attacks on those who disagree with you is just another version of racism and bigotry.

pinko said...

This screed would have been far more enjoyable if it had been illustrated with some of Tom's extensive collection of gay porn.

Anonymous said...

Tom was upset that he couldn't find any photos of Muslim men clad in leather because these Muslim countries, like all great countries, have cracked down on such "sinful" behavior!

Anonymous said...

I think Sgt Schultz would be a better theme.

"I see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing."

I can only hope America wakes up from this dizzy circling the rim in trying to appease everyone while ignoring reality before it goes down the toilet drain.

Anonymous said...

Again...we are at WAR with this evil. When the USA "wakes up", what should we do instead of fighting this war?

Show Low Yaqui said...

"Let us be aware of applying our intellects to condoning evil or to making ourselves into 'splendidly wicked people'... We cannot afford such blindness to history and such naivete as to embrace the morality of the cool." Roger Shattuck, writing in the Atlantic, Jan 1999.
"While we are conditioned to think of evil as something that comes wearing a Snidely Whiplash moustache or speaking in a Darth Vader voice, it is more often a banal thing hiding in plain sight, in the incremental moral compromises, failed humanity and grandiose self-image of ordinary men. Until their fury breaks upon us as a clap of thunder in a summer storm." Leonard Pitts, April 2009. and, "To tolerate evil is to accommodate,to accommodate is to appease, and to appease is to concede defeat." F. Forsythe, in "Avenger".

Educator McLaughlin is right on! Thanks, Tom!

Show Low Yaqui

Anthony Tiani said...

The worship of Obama by liberals pales in comparison to the worship of Reagan by conservatives.

Anthony Tiani said...

Can we ever have a rational debate about this without it turning into a hyperbole-off?

Continually using the word "evil" GROSSLY oversimplifies the matter and turns it into some Christian mythos.

Tom McLaughlin said...


If the murder of 12 million innocents by Hitler's Nazis, the murder of 40 million innocents by Joseph Stalin's communists, the murder of 50-60 million innocents by Mao's communists, and the murder of tens of thousands of innocents by Radical Muslims isn't evil . . .

Then what the hell is?

Anonymous said...

Well then if you are judging "evil" by numbers dead then these radical Muslims are over a THOUSAND times less evil then those others you mentioned.

Ralph said...

Just in case anybody here feels a lack of information concerning the history of mohammedan terror from Muhammad to Bin Laden, you will find some of the facts HERE

But if the apologists of islam among the commenters here wish to continue spouting disinformation and nonsense - don't let facts get in your way! As usual!

Thanks for the good work, Tom.

Ralph said...

Ralph, who here are you claiming to be an "apologist of Islam"?

What "disinformation" has been posted?

Can you answer or are you just full of hot air?

Anonymous said...

Ralph, are you talking to yourself?

Harry said...

Tom, when you brought up "evil" groups and mentioned how many they have killed, why did you exclude Radical Christians?

The numbers they have killed, from the crusades through the extermination of Native American populations and killing of "witches", up to their more recent terrorist attacks on abortion clinics put them right up there with Hitlers death toll.

Oh, year, I forget...your radical agenda is more important than facts and truth.

Anonymous said...

When did "Agenda" become a bad word?

Harry said...

I didn't say it was a bad word.

Ralph said...

To the various "anonymous" and false flag commenters:

Anonymous said...
"Well then if you are judging "evil" by numbers dead then these radical Muslims are over a THOUSAND times less evil then those others you mentioned."

is nonsensical disinformation.

And you know it.

Anonymous said...

No Ralph, because IF you are judging evil by the amount of murders, then it is a FACT, not "disinformation".

Ralph said...


You are entirely right. That is exactly why I suggest you get the facts and numbers throughout history for the past 1400 years. My link is a good start, although Wiki has (as we all know) a pro mohammedan bias.

It is, unfortunately, a common mistake, to think that the past 20 (or 60, depending on ideology) years are the whole story. We are only experiencing the latest battle in a 1400 year old war.

Ralph said...

Irregardless NH said...
"The title of Tom's latest cant -"Three Monkeys" - seems a thinly-disguised, racist jab at the current President."

You just CAN'T be for real, baby!

This is comedy, right?

But hey, let me help your racist phantasies along a little: don't you think they also look a bit like Haitian refugees? Hun?

Oh man, Tom is such a racist indeed!

Harry said...

You are right, Ralph, both Christians and Muslims have been killing in the name of religion for centuries. I would love it if there were no Muslims in the world. I would also love a world with no Christians. Think of all the bloodshed that would be saved over who's god is "real".

Ralph said...


It is a pity that you don't know where you belong. That disease is widespread in our day.

Moral relativism though, will kill you!

If you personally don't want G-d in your life, I understand. You are free to choose your actions. But you won't be free to choose the consequences.

What I do NOT understand (and maybe you can enlighten me here?), is why your hate of G-d makes you feel compelled to become an apologist for islam.

Can't you speak about your aversion against islam without mixing in lies and exaggerations about the Christian faith? This is NOT a rhetorical question!

DAWN said...

The difference between Christianity and Islam (besides the belief in Jesus) is the Muslim can kill us if we DON'T convert and the Christian is willing to die himself if it will convert another.

Violence is NOT the Christian way. If a radical "Christian" (I say that loosely) kills...say... an abortion doctor he's going AGAINST his leader (Christ). But if a Muslim kills a Christian or any other infidel he's doing it with the blessing of his leader (Mohammed).

Christ said the world will know we are his disciples by the love we have. No love? No Christ. Know Love? Know Christ.

Christ died for us. What did Mohammed do?

Harry said...

Ralph, I never said I hate god. I do believe in a higher power, a god if you will, but it is not the god you chose to believe in.

When have I "apologised" for Islam? I think that Islam has been used for more bad than good. My opinion, no apology.

What did I say that was a lie or exageration about christianity?

And come on Dawn, get off the christianity high horse. There are LOTS of examples in the bible calling for blood, and you know it...oh wait, you have some explanation for why "god's word" in the Old Testament "doesn't count".

You can pick and choose through all religious books to get whatever message you want out of it. If you go to the National Geographic site they will tell you that scholars say that the Koran is a book of peace too.

But arguing about which book is more violent is silly to me. Meditate, listen within, and you will find the true words of god.

DAWN said...

"And come on Dawn, get off the christianity high horse. There are LOTS of examples in the bible calling for blood, and you know it..."

you only say this from ignorance. You have no idea from which you speak. Christianity didn't start UNTIL Christ. Christ said thru his word that we are to live peaceably, as much as it is with us, with all men.

As an example, when Christ was arrested in the garden, Peter sliced off the ear of a guard. Christ healed the man on the spot even knowing he was being arrested and subsequently killed for nothing. That was to be our example as well.

The Koran is filled with killing the infidel (any who do not follow its teachings) and is done so with the blessing of it.

The wars in the OT were wars. There was no individual violence condoned of by God. Some of the recording of the OT was just that, a recording of history. It doesn't condone violence. In fact the book of Leviticus is quite clear that punishment was for all who took vengeance on their own.

For example, King Saul was hunting King David to kill him. David was running for his life. During one encounter David was hiding in a cave when Saul came in to "relieve" himself. David was close enough to kill Saul but did not. Instead he cut off a piece of his garment proving later he could have killed him if he wanted to.

Suppose this was a Muslim story instead? How would this have been different?

DAWN said...

"Meditate, listen within, and you will find the true words of god."

Are you a Buddhist?

Sorry, but this advice you gave is from the pit of hell.

This goes right back to the garden in Genesis "did God really say?"

"You can be as gods"

Anonymous said...

Dawn, there are a lot of really disturbing things in the Old Testament. Genocide, infanticide, slavery, polygamy, objectification of women... all not only occurred but often appear to be sanctioned by God, even commanded. Consider this example:

This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. (1st Sam 15:2-3)

Spin it however you want, you may be fooling yourself, but not others.

Anonymous said...

My advice is from the "pit of hell". Honestly Dawn, you want your religion respected but you go blasting this?

And didn't Jesus say something similar, something to the effect of "the kingdom of heaven is within"?

Am I a Buddhist? No, but if I had to choose an organized religion they certainly seem to have the best advice and be the most peaceful. How many people have been killed in the name of Buddhism as compared to Christianity?

My guy is the Dalai Lama though. I'm not into him as a religious figure, I just think he is incredibly wise and a wonderful role model.

DAWN said...

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel"

but...the rest of the story. Do you know what the Amalekites did? You might want to brush up on your history. In fact, I'm sure if you did, you would agree with God on this one.

The only one doing any fooling is you..but you're not fooling me. You're not a bible scholar. If you were, you wouldn't be saying these things because you don't know the whole story. Which site did you get this from?

"How many people have been killed in the name of Buddhism as compared to Christianity?"

Well how many Christians are there in comparison to Buddhists? But please keep in mind that many killed in the name of Christianity doesn't make it a Christian thing to do. Most of the time they were going against their leader. BTW I don't believe the crusades had anything to do with genuine Christianity. As a Christian I'm appalled at what happened during those times. That had more to do with power and greed than it did walking the Christian walk.

DAWN said...

"there are a lot of really disturbing things in the Old Testament. Genocide, infanticide, slavery, polygamy, objectification of women... all not only occurred but often appear to be sanctioned by God, even commanded

Some God commanded some he didn't. Why is it those who wish to bash Christianity go to the OT? Doesn't make sense. Why not the NT?

Keep in mind much of the OT is history and laws. God didn't command polygamy for instance. Marriage was always about one man and one woman. God allows us to have free will. Some took many wives and because of it paid the price. They all had serious family issues. While it wasn't his sovereign will it was his permissive will allowing us to do so. We end up paying the price later. We can't blame him for what we choose to do.

Doesn't seem to stop us though.

p said...

Dawn - I thought the Old Testament didn't apply any more - but here you are, pulling it out of the cafeteria lunch line - and quoting Leviticus!

How convenient that Leviticus applies when you want to justify bigotry, but it doesn't apply when it comes to mixed fiber garments or shellfish.

What a handy system of beliefs!

Anonymous said...

Dawn, whatever the Amalekites did, it is totally irrelevent. There is no crime that members of the Amalekites could have commited that called for their CHILDREN (and animals!?!) to be brutally murdered. Do you believe that US soldiers should have gone into Germany after Hitler was defeated and murdered the women and children?

Any excuses for this come directly from the pits of hell.

Jim said...

@ the previous Anonymous

Just curious...Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

DAWN said...

"Dawn - I thought the Old Testament didn't apply any more - but here you are, pulling it out of the cafeteria lunch line - and quoting Leviticus!"

"How convenient that Leviticus applies when you want to justify bigotry,"

Where did I quote Leviticus? What bigotry? You need to be a little bit more articulate in your attacks here. Because you're not making much sense.

DAWN said...

"Dawn, whatever the Amalekites did, it is totally irrelevent. There is no crime that members of the Amalekites could have commited that called for their CHILDREN (and animals!?!) to be brutally murdered."

Again, you haven't a grasp of the whole situation.

God waited for centuries while the Amalekites and other Canaanite groups slowly filled up their own cups of condemnation for their sinful behavior. God never acted rashly against them. His grace and mercy waited to see if they would turn from their headlong plummet into self-destruction.

These nations (Amalekites and others) were cut off to prevent the corruption of Israel and the rest of the world (Deut 20:16-18). When a nation starts burning children as a gift to the gods (Lev 18:21) and practices sodomy, bestiality and all sorts of loathsome vices, the day of God's grace and mercy has begun to run out.

Just as a surgeon cuts off a gangrenous limb, even if they cannot help cutting off some healthy flesh, so God must do the same. This is removing cancer that could infect all of society and eventually destroy the remaining good.

In some cases God uses pestilence, hurricanes, famine, diseases or anything he wants. In this case he used Israel to reveal his power.

Individuals share in the life of their families and nations. As a result we participate both in our families' and nations' rewards and in their punishments. This will involve some so called innocent people. If the women and children had been spared in those profane Canaanite nations, how long would it have been before a fresh crop of adults would emerge just like their pagan predecessors? We cannot claim omniscience but God can. Only God can see the future.

The question is why was God so opposed to the Amalekites? Did you know they were the most savage and brutal of all Canaanite nations?

It really does help to know the rest of the story.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, you are making excuses for the slaughter of INNOCENT children. That is sickening. Despicable. This mentality, where the slaughter of innocents is excused because supposedly it is sanctioned by god is disgusting. So why did god create these children if he was just going to slaughter them? Real smart, loving, and forgiving god there, huh?

I don't even know how to talk with you knowing you support baby killing in gods name, it just doesn't get more evil than that.

Once again, the more I see what religion does to people the more I detest it.

Such a shame that people can't trust themselves to know that child killing is wrong, but need some book to convince them that sometimes baby killing is ok.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and your excuse just doesn't cut it in regard to the killing of the animals as well. What, were the mules going to start an uprising if they weren't needlessly slaughtered?

Your imaginary god is a real sicko.

Anonymous said...

And what about the excuse that god was seeing the future and needed these children killed because they would one day emerge as bloodthirsty pagans. ALL of them were going to turn into killers. And how would this happen if instead of murdered they were brought back and adopted by these "lovely" christian families?

And if god was seeing into the future and having future murderes and sinners preemptively slaughtered, why then did he not have Hitler slaughtered as a child?

Your excuses don't hold water. The slaughter of babies and children is ALWAYS wrong.

Jim said...

@ the previous Anonymous

Just curious...Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

Anonymous said...

Hello Jim...I am against abortion.

DAWN said...

@Anon..that's why you're not God. You haven't the slightest indication what it would take to be God. You want a God that you can wrap your mind around. The God I worship is loving, merciful and faithful. He's also a God of patience and justice.

God said his ways are NOT our ways and our ways are not his. He doesn't look at age like we do. He is spirit. He looks at the spirit, the inward, not the outward appearance. God sees the past, present and future all at once. He's not bound by time like we are.

In the case of the evil wicked people we were talking about he gave them hundreds of years before he made a move. This was a severe but just punishment.

No one is going to stand before him and say they weren't given a chance. No one. You will hang your head guilty as charged and you will have no one to blame but yourself.

It's funny how many think God is a wicked God when they read some of the OT accounts while they ok the slaughter of millions of babies who never had a chance to live outside the womb at all.

Anonymous said...

"...while they ok the slaughter of millions of babies who never had a chance to live outside the womb at all."

Outrageous statement coming from someone who condones the slaughter of babies and children!!!

"The God I worship is loving, merciful and faithful."

Than the god you worship is not the ruthless, vengeful, god of the bible.

I feel dirty even communicating with somebody who approves of the baby slaughtering.

DAWN said...

"Outrageous statement coming from someone who condones the slaughter of babies and children!!!"

now that's just slander. Who said I condone this? I'm just explaining Jewish history to you and the rest of the story to whichever Anon started this subject of the evilness in the OT.

What happened way back then had a specific purpose to it. You have no idea why do you? Evil had to be dealt with in a severe way back then.

Let me ask you, is it merciful for a surgeon to ampute a diseased limb to stop it from spreading to the rest of the body? Or is he just being mean also?

You're speaking from which you have no understanding.

BTW...I am VERY pro-life.

Sam Busher said...

Dawn, you're a moron. You must be Tom's wife.

Andrew said...

"Amput[at]ing a diseased limb"

I guess that's what the murderer Scott Roeder thought he was doing in carrying out the cold-blooded execution of Dr. Tiller.

The right wing lunatic fringe in this country is the American equivalent of the Taliban--no tolerance for difference

Wendy said...

If we judge a group's evil by the number of deaths caused, which group was more evil--the Europeans who immigrated to North America or the native Americans who were virtually exterminated by the Europeans?

Wendy said...

Tom McL said: "If the murder of 12 million innocents by Hitler's Nazis, the murder of 40 million innocents by Joseph Stalin's communists, the murder of 50-60 million innocents by Mao's communists, and the murder of tens of thousands of innocents by Radical Muslims isn't evil . . .

Then what the hell is?"

Granted, there is evil in all of those, but of the evil for which America is responsible--the near extermination of the Indians, the subjugation of African slaves, the internment of Americans of Japanese descent, the killings of millions of Vietnamese in a senseless war, the killings of tens of thousands of Iraqis in another such war. Not to compare these to Hitler, Stalin or Mao, I grant you that, but American has its own stain of evil. Do you acknowledge any of that?

Tom McLaughlin said...

Wendy asks: "which group was more evil--the Europeans who immigrated to North America or the native Americans who were virtually exterminated by the Europeans?"

It's hard to say. Indians were killing each other in huge numbers before Europeans got here. We don't know how many, but there were over a hundred thousand skulls around one temple that were leftovers from human sacrifices. They were counted by a Spanish priest with Cortes on the way to Mexico City.

Most Indians died of smallpox and other diseases they had no immunity against.

Do I acknowledge any of the cruelty of past? Yes, but it was the Spanish, British and Americans who abolished slavery.

Anonymous said...

Dawn is off her rocker! Comparing a doctor saving a patient to the mass slaughter of innocent babies?!?

I hope you don't do any babysitting lest "god" asks you to do something for him.

Tom McLaughlin said...

I like women, and I'm faithful to one.

Andrew said...

Apropos of evil . . . from Ecclesiastes ch. 9:

"All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath.

This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead."

The reality is that Obama is a person of good will doing his best as he sees it for the country, and and so are John Boehner, and John McCain and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell. All of them sincerely believe in what they are doing. And, it might be said, so did Hitler and Stalin, etc. And yet what the Dems and Repubs are try to accomplish is not intrinsically evil--maybe misguided, maybe not, but there is potential for betterment in all of their aspirations, whether it be in health care, or the economy.

Yet we--meaning all of us of all persuasions--persist in ascribing evil intentions to those with whom we disagree. Why can't we stop doing that? Why can't we who disagree with each other at least acknowledge good will in each other?

Andrew said...

P.S. I was for No on One last fall, and believe that the right to marry the adult whom you love and who loves you is a civil right. However, I grant the Yes on One faction the sincerity and good faith of their belief that marriage must always be between one man and one woman for traditional, religious and moral reasons. It's a disagreement that is deeply rooted on both sides, which explains the strong feelings both ways, but there is logic and reason on both sides, and reasonable people of good will could espouse either viewpoint.

Tom McLaughlin said...

Yes Andrew. We vote and we abide by the results. That's our system. I didn't like the results in 2008, but I have to accept them and hope for different results in 2010 and 2012. I won't take up arms as long as the Constitution is upheld as all elected officials swore and oath to do.

Yes, Hitler and Stalin thought they were good guys. So did Mao, and so does Ahmadinejad. As responsible voters in a republic, we're obligated to learn from history. We had to learn the hard way that Hitler's racist totalitarianism is evil because it imposed itself on others violently and against their will. Stalin's communist totalitarianism did too. So did Mao's. So did Pol Pot's. More than a hundred million died.

Ahmadinejad is a totalitarian Islamofacist nutcase who believes that by wiping out Israel with a nuclear weapon, he will bring the 12th Imam - the Mahdi - out of the well where he's been for 1000 years. Ahmadinejad believes that, even though millions will die, Allah will know his own and the 12th Imam will preside over a thousand years of justice and peace.

Ahmadinejad believes he's a good guy. It's up to us to know he's a dangerous nutcase who will unleash evil upon all of us. Once nukes start flying in the Middle East, none of our lives will ever be the same.

We can sit around and wait for it to happen, or we can put the squeeze on him now. Trouble is, neither European leaders nor American leaders are willing to be tough enough to do what it takes to squeeze him. Most of them still think they can negotiate with him.

Israel realizes this, so it will act on its own to avoid annihilation. It could happen any day.

Harry said...

Hey wimpo Tom, what is up with your avoiding your "Hateful" thread?


Your white flag of silence is acknowledged!

Anonymous said...

"Outrageous statement coming from someone who condones the slaughter of babies and children!!!"

Dawn replied:

"now that's just slander. Who said I condone this?"

CONDONE (definition)

to give tacit approval to:
to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.

So what is it Dawn? Are you now saying you DON'T pardon or forgive god for ordering the slaughter of babies? Are you saying you disapprove of his ordering the babies slaughtered?

Face it, you condone the slaughter of innocent babies. Sicko.

DAWN said...

To the last Anon:

"Answer not a fool according to his foolishness, lest you also be like him."

"I guess that's what the murderer Scott Roeder thought he was doing in carrying out the cold-blooded execution of Dr. Tiller."

if you're trying to lump me in with him you're wrong. I vehemently disagree with what he did. That's taking individual license which is totally unbliblical.

As far as I'm concerned both were equally wrong in God's eyes. They were both trying to play God. There's only room in this world for one God.

Anonymous said...

I'm not trying to lump you in with Roeder, I'm lumping you in with anybody that condones the slaughter of babies and children.

Do you agree with that insane lump of garbage Pat Robertson who claims that the Haitian babies (and the rest of them) died because of a pact haitians made with the devil?

Religious nuts are scary people!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mack said...

@ last triple anon:

Pat Robertson is totally right. The other voodoo central - New Orleans - got it a few years ago. Haiti just now. It's obvious, isn't it.

Where do YOU live, again?

Mack said...

Oh and Anon:

Anybody who calls a fellow human being a "lump of garbage" shows his true colors and a mentality of concentration camp capo!

No diff, I guess, between a religious and an atheist nut, hun?

Anonymous said...

Yeah Mack, calling somebody a "lump of garbage" is JUST like killing people in concentration camps.

Don't you have the mentality to come up with something that makes sense?

Mack said...

Ok, Anon, I'll spell it out for you:

Calling somebody a "lump of garbage" makes the object of that observation less than human. You could also call it "subhuman". In most totalitarian systems that is the justification and overture to industrialized genocide.

It does require a particularly nasty mindset but, then again, that is what you would expect of the Left and its intellectually challenged representatives.

Mack said...

@ Anon again:

you seem to agree with me on the voodoo thing. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the Voodoo thing is a good joke, I'll give you that!

About the "lump of garbage" thing, you must REALLY think that Tom is Hitler himself when he uses all those degrading terms of his!

I'm glad you were back to the funny wisecracks again with the harping on the Left for a "nasty mindset"!!!!

Who knew that Tom was a closeted liberal also, what with all his nastiness!!

Give it up Mack, you are weak.

Stephen Casper said...

Dawn, there is a simpler truth as to why the bible claims that god ordered the slaaguhter of innocent babies...because the men who invented the religion did so to give them "divine approval" of their agendas, which included killing their enemies down to the last man, woman, and child.

Andrew said...

Back to the topic of the column if that is permissible . . .

For Obama to seek dialogue with Ahmadinejad is just not the same as Chamberlain capitulating to Hitler on the cession of the Sudetenland. It just ain't comparable. Obama has shown all of the grit one could expect in prosecuting the war in Afghanistan which is where we should have concentrated our fire all along.

Tom, the world is too complicated for us to take out every semi-unhinged dictator.

And radical Islam exists--is dangerous and needs to be opposed and dealt with. But we can't win that war through killing alone. Most Muslims want the same things we want--security, a decent life. The radicals are a small but admittedly growing percentage. We strengthen the lunatic radical fringe by killing. For every suicide bomber we kill, we create ten more. Killing them is not a long term solution. Destruction of our enemies may be necessary in the near term for our protection but it isn't a long term strategy and any reasonable person will recognize that. What we need to do is to win the support of the peaceful majority. We're making progress in Pakistan, where the government finally seems to be acknowledging its own responsibility in the war against Muslim terrorists.

Obama's quest for common ground offers the best long term solution. We have to keep our guard up, but we can still signal peaceful intentions. Ahmadinejad may be unhinged in some ways but he is also a canny politician, and if we can start the wind blowing in the direction of moderation, he may respond. What do we have to lose, really?

Anthony Tinai said...

Tom, since you and other conservatives implore us to listen to our military leadership, I thought you might find this interesting.

KING: If you ask the White House about this, it highlights -- they say it's not just the president, it's not just Attorney General Holder, that General David Petraeus says he believes a public trial at a federal courthouse is the best way to do it so that it's not an al Qaeda recruiting tool.

That Secretary Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration at the Defense Department, also they believes a trial in the federal court system is preferable to a closed trial in the military commission. And that the CIA operatives leading the fight against these guys in Yemen, in Somalia, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, also believe that if you did it in a closed setting in a military commission it would be a powerful recruiting tool.

If General Petraeus, Secretary Gates, and the intelligence leaders say, do it in court, why do you say that's a bad idea?

MCCONNELL: I simply disagree and so do the American people.

I'm sure somehow sinister liberal abortionists were behind this one.

HardRain said...

I've been reading your blog for two years now.
Your lack of housekeeping in this pig sty has made me delete the bookmark for your blog today.
If you want to keep any conservative readers at all, I recommend registration of commenters and the thorough weeding out of all these leftist trolls.
I don't understand, what you're trying to prove by keeping these brainless shits around.

Anthony Tinai said...

Maybe because Tom isn't afraid of dissenting opinion?

What a weak attack.

Alex said...

I hope that "HardRain" isn't the anonymous from the last posting. If so, you need to learn that what goes around comes around. If you don't like what you hear, it's not okay to cry foul and go home crying. As Mr. McLaughlin would say (probably), "Don't be a wuss".

Andrew said...

To "Hard Rain"

Get over yourself. And wash out your mouth.

SoftBrain said...

Yeah Tom, why do you have to let people come on to your blog and give opinions that are different from yours? You know we don't like to hear what other people think or to read there fancy-pants facts and evidence. We believe what we want and will never change, so why bother! It really bothers me how they point out the mistakes in our logic and try to look at things all rationally. Please keep these scumbags out and let us tell each other what we want to hear - this is America after all!

Preach on Tom, we will be your faithful choir!

Liam Doyle said...

Radical Islam loves that we have so many liberals in this country that defend the actions of Muslims saying that "Islam is a religion of peace" HA what a crock. Haji is laughing all the way through the security check points with his suicide vest on knowing that if someone questions him they are considered a racist, denying a human being his right to just be a Muslim. Wake up! If it makes me a racist to say Islam is a dangerous and radical religion, then I stand to the front of the line to wear that badge proudly. Muhammad was a war monger and his followers soldiers, if Muhammad is al-kamil (the "ideal man") and all muslims strive to emmulate him, then God help us because Muslims will not stop until all infadels are converted or dead.