Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $33,495
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 38%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by William Wallace

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Pope fears Bush is antichrist, journalist contends - Church - journalist Wayne Madsden

    12/10/2004 12:43:23 PM PST · 89 of 92
    William Wallace to editor-surveyor
    Antichrist means "in place of Christ."

    Wow are you smart!!!!!!!!!

    Anti means "a person who is opposed to something." The phrase you are misremembering as in the place of Christ is "alterus Christi."

    So according to your logic, if the Vicar of Christ is the anti-Christ, that would include all of them including Christ's hand-picked successor Peter!!!!!!!!!!

    So Peter was the anti-Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow!!!!!!!!! Who'd ha' thunk it dude???????????????

  • Pope fears Bush is antichrist, journalist contends - Church - journalist Wayne Madsden

    12/10/2004 12:17:18 PM PST · 84 of 92
    William Wallace to BibChr
    You have far more respect for the Pope than I, then. He's the head of the RCC. Nothing he says could surprise me. Well, if he said, "All our made-up doctrines are damning nonsense; from now on, we must preach the pure Word of God alone, the grace of God alone, the glories of Christ alone! Oh, and I quit!" — that would surprise me.

    Dan, you might want to pick up a book called "Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice" by Philip Jenkins. I haven't read it, but have read another book of his (Hidden Gospels) which debunks the loony heresies of groups like the Jesus Seminar. I was impressed with Jenkins' scholarship and insights. I mention this because your comments seem to reflect an animosity toward the RCC bordering on prejudice. And prejudice is usually rooted in ignorance. This isn't meant as a slam at your intelligence - you're obviously a bright guy, but I'm skeptical about where you're getting your information about the Catholic church that causes you to show such disrespect toward such a brilliant and saintly person as John Paul II. Ronald Reagan wasn't a Catholic, but held the Pontiff in the highest regard. Ditto Margaret Thatcher. Do you think you know him better than they did?

    One can certainly find plenty of fodder for despising the Catholic Church. It has LOTS of enemies in the world. Didn't Jesus say to his disciples that the world hated Him and would HATE them as well? Tellingly the world doesn't hate the left-leaning "mainstream" Protestant churches. Indeed the world praises the likes of Bishop Spong (oxymoron) and the Jesus Seminar scholars (ditto) and the National Council of Churches. Doesn't that tell us something?

    Who does the world utterly and virulently hate most of all? I'd say it hates both the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelical Christians. That suggests to me that Catholics and Evangelicals share something in common and that "each other" is not the real enemy of our shared faith.

    Catholics believe the Pope is deserving of respect because he is the legitimate successor to Saint Peter, head of the universal (that's what catholic means) church established by Jesus Christ as recorded in Matthew 16:13-19. Jesus specifically entrusted Simon/Peter with the care and feeding of Christ's flock. John 21:15-17.

    These passages are the Biblical basis for the primacy of Peter, the doctrine of apostolic succession and how Jesus envisioned the continuation of His work and teachings after His Ascension. Tellingly, Jesus didn't say to Simon, you are Peter (Petras in Greek, Cephas in Aramaic, which mean rock) and upon this rock I will write my Bible. Rather, He said upon this Rock I will build My Church. Which means the Church (with Peter as its head) and not the Bible that is the pillar and bulwark of the true faith. 1 Timothy 3:15. (Funny how Catholic Scripture begins to look when you look at the Church's actual teachings and writings of the Church Fathers instead of the Jack Chick comics strawmen.} While you might reasonably disagree with the Catholic Church's interpretation of Scripture on the above points, you cannot reasonably contend that its interpretation has no basis in Scripture. I'm not so sure the same can be said for the two principal Protestant doctrines: sola scriptura and sola fide.

    Sola scriptura is mentioned nowhere in sacred Scripture. It is therefore unscriptural and self-contradictory since the Bible never says 'follow the Bible only.' If you profess to follow the Bible only, then you aren't following the Bible because the Bible doesn't tell you to do that. Further, not one of the Church Fathers from the earliest days of the Church through the end of the Patristic era professed anything like sola scriptura. Rather, the doctrine originates from the time of the Reformation. So if sola Scriptura isn't one of those made-up doctrines you so deplore, please explain why we see no evidence that anyone from Jesus Christ Himself to the Apostles to the Church Fathers to the great doctors of the Church ever professed it.

    Sola fide is even worse as it actually goes against the explicit teaching of sacred Scripture. James 2:18-26. Interestingly this passage is the only place in the New Testament where the relationship between faith and works is explicitly discussed and it says rather unequivocally that we are justified by works and not by faith alone (empasis mine). James 2:24. Then, in case we missed it, James reiterates two verses down: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead." James 2:26. That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement for sola fide. Which raises the question, whose "made-up doctrines are damning nonsense" anyway? It wasn't any of the Popes who thought up this one. :-)

    My point here isn't to claim we're right and you're wrong on issues that have divided Catholics and Protestants since the Reformation. My point is simply to show that the Catholic Church isn't as unbiblical as you might think and that Protestant doctrines may not be as biblical as you've heretofore assumed.

    I believe it can be demonstrated to any fair-minded reader that the teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church are consistent with what the Church has always taught for 2,000 years. The teachings of the Church aren't (and shouldn't be expected to be) static, but rather develop organically over time. That's because the enemies of the faith are constantly promulgating new false teachings that simply weren't issues when the books of the New Testament were being written. Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth about issues and disputes affecting that community. He didn't venture any thoughts on The DaVinci Code. As Chesterton famously explained, there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. The Bible doesn't enumerate, much less attempt to refute every conceivable wrong angle. As the written Word, it simply points to the living Word as the only place at which one stands. But where do we go from there?

    I have a fondness for those admittedly tacky bracelets with the letters "WWJD". They are great because they remind us to ask the question and usually the answer will be self-evident. But there are times when I've asked the question but had no clue to the answer. Looking to the Bible doesn't always give the answer because the Bible alone does not and cannot supply unambiguous answers on a myriad number of questions and moral issues that its authors never faced. So if it ever becomes necessary for the Church to tackle the idiotic DaVinci Code heresy that Jesus and Mary Magdelene had a secret love child, a Bible only approach won't suffice. Clearly the Bible doesn't say that Jesus and Mary Magdalen were married, but it doesn't say they weren't married either.

    If you study the history of what you call "made-up doctrines" promulgated by the Catholic Church, you'll find they were always in response to some new heresy or false teaching that threatened the lambs and sheep entrusted by Christ to Peter's and his successors care. And they weren't "made-up doctrines [that] are damning nonsense," but carefully and prayerfully and thoughtfully considered doctrines derived from sacred Tradition in union with sacred Scripture to refute some "damning nonsense" that attacks from a new angle in order to make us fall down.

  • The Holy Grail: Fact or Fiction?

    11/30/2004 8:59:06 AM PST · 69 of 69
    William Wallace to mamelukesabre
    What difference does an old relic make for christianity?

    relic worshipping is paganism.

    The earliest Christians thought otherwise, as evidenced by the eyewitness account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who learned the Gospel at the feet of John the beloved disciple.

    “The centurion then, seeing the strife excited by the Jews, placed the body in the midst of the fire, and consumed it. Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.”

    Martyrdom of Polycarp

    Ironically, it was the pagan and Jewish enemies of Christ's Church who vehemently tried to prevent the "worship" of Polycarp's bones by his companions and fellow disciples. Here you are, nearly 1,900 years later, flogging the same strawman. :-)

    “But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, "lest," said he, "forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one." This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow-disciples!”

    Polycarp taught his charges well.

  • ZOT! This Website Is AntiChristian!

    11/17/2004 3:03:21 PM PST · 200 of 248
    William Wallace to sophia_3rd_orbit_on_andromeda
    I missed your original postings. FWIW sorry you got zotted. The Viking kitties cause us to lose much quality entertainment.

    Judging from your summary of the content of your pulled threads, I would have guessed you were a Democratic operative pretending to be a Christian in a feeble attempt to dampen the Evangelical vote for Bush.

    That would have actually made sense.

    But Democratic operatives would have better things to do now than crying over pulled threads (like crying over the election results and plotting how best to undermine GW's second term, for starters). So I'm forced to conclude that -- as farfetched as it seems -- you were actually sincere in your attempts to persuade other conservative Christians to cast write-in votes for Jesus Christ.

    Rather than trying to debate the merits of such an . . . uncoventional strategy or try to understand the thought process(es) involved, I just want to know one thing:

    Have you placed a bid on ebay recently for a partially-eaten grilled cheese sandwich that looks like this?

  • Things To Say To Democrats After Bush Wins

    11/05/2004 8:24:59 AM PST · 132 of 149
    William Wallace to Rippin; Dad was my hero

    Kerry lost? Does this mean Christopher Reeve won't be able to walk again?

  • Ann Coulter's Pie Assailants (Names, Photos of Ineffectual Girly-Man 'Rat Cowards)

    10/22/2004 1:06:19 PM PDT · 158 of 206
    William Wallace to KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
    Courtesy of Anywho:

    Smith, Phillip E
    11600 E Irvington Rd
    TUCSON, AZ 85747

    Wolff, W Todd [proud parents presumably]
    2307 W Catalina View Dr
    TUCSON, AZ 85742

  • Is Obama overconfident? Check out latest ad

    10/20/2004 11:47:59 AM PDT · 38 of 51
    William Wallace to RedBloodedAmerican
    2. Buy EV a new car.

  • In Illinois Senate Race, Obama 64% Keyes 20% (Republican support below 50%)

    10/08/2004 1:04:56 PM PDT · 57 of 103
    William Wallace to The Ghost of FReepers Past; Texas_Dawg
    There are two men in the race. You know what they say, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." If you are on the worldwide web helping LG bash Keyes, you are by default promoting Obama's campaign.

    So when President Lincoln was criticizing McClellan handling of the Army of the Potomac, he was by default promoting Lee's campaign???

  • In Illinois Senate Race, Obama 64% Keyes 20% (Republican support below 50%)

    10/08/2004 1:00:59 PM PDT · 56 of 103
    William Wallace to BillyBoy
    If I posted on the Florida threads gloating that Betty Castro was gonna win and Martinez is a right-wing lunatic and a national joke, Luis Gonzalez would hit the abuse button so quick the thread would be zotted in a blink of an eye

    Your analogy is seriously flawed. Now, if you posted on a Florida thread that Larry Klayman was "a national joke", then your analogy would be quite apt. But if you did that, Luis, Poohbah and the others who predicted this disaster wouldn't be pushing the abuse button. They would be agreeing with you.

    BTW if Keyes' critics represent a "useful idiot Obama Cheerleeding Squad" because they criticize Keyes, then Alan Keyes himself must be a useful idiot member of the Kerry-Edwards cheerleading squad given his numerous gratuitous swipes at Bush-Cheney.

    Why is it unconservative to attack someone who by your own standard is "a useful idiot for Kerry-Edwards?"

  • What's wrong with this picture?

    05/26/2004 1:17:06 PM PDT · 72 of 87
    William Wallace to Luis Gonzalez

    Tourist Guy is missing.

  • Democrats wooing dumbed down Catholics

    04/20/2004 1:53:53 PM PDT · 20 of 20
    William Wallace to Polycarp IV
    Thus, we have the dumbing down of already lukewarm Catholics to the mental level of a Texas armadillo (not that I intend to degrade the hairy bellied armadillo's intelligence).

    You know, a little Botox to smooth out those ridges might improve the armadillo's self-image.

    See what it did for John Kerry:

    Before . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .After

  • How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?

    04/20/2004 1:17:09 PM PDT · 179 of 304
    William Wallace to Luis Gonzalez
    I guess my primary concern is by what power (and by what reason) could government deny "married couples" access to readily available, over the counter birth control.

    The Connecticut legislature got together circa 1958 and voted it into law. I don't know the reason. The court didn't mention it in the opinion.

    Here are the relevant sections:

    Section 53-32: "Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned."

    Section 54-196: "Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender."

    The Griswold decision is here.

  • How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?

    04/20/2004 11:54:39 AM PDT · 174 of 304
    William Wallace to Luis Gonzalez; spunkets
    Are you saying that there's no such thing as a right to to privacy, or that this right was wrongfully used to justify the "right" to abort?

    Of course there's a right to privacy; it just isn't in the Constitution. The Supreme Court discovered a previously unknown new Constitutional right to privacy in Griswold within the “penumbras” of certain amendments in the Bill of Rights. As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.

    Having invented a Constitutional privacy right out of whole cloth, the Court then "interpreted" this right to require overturning a local law against selling contraceptives to married couples in Griswold, and five years later, to strike down laws restricting or prohibiting abortion in all 50 states in Roe v. Wade.

    Whether the laws in question are good or bad is beside the point. In order to overturn those laws, it was necessary for the Supreme Court to say they were unconstitutional. They did so only after a tortured process of discovering a new Constitutional right not expressly found in the text of the Constitution and then interpreted this privacy right in such a way as to find a Constitutional violation. The approach is so transparent and the arguments applied so disingenuous that it’s clear they first decided what the result should be, then came up with a way to reach the preferred result.

    Legislatures pass all sorts of laws. Some laws are stupid. Some laws are bad. It isn't the Supreme Court's job to overturn or rewrite stupid or bad laws, but to decide cases and only when it’s absolutely necessary, to strike down unconstitutional laws. Otherwise, the Court is simply rationalizing the substitution of its own non-existent legislative authority for the legitimate law-making authority of the appropriate legislative body authorized to write the law.

    What the Supreme Court did in these cases is equivalent to an umpire overturning a manager's decision not because it was illegal, but because the umpire thought the manager's decision was foolish. Imagine if an umpire during the deciding game of the American League Championship announced that he was overturning Grady Little's decision to leave Pedro Martinez in the game. Imagine the umpire justifying his bizarre actions by claiming that the umpire thought Little's decision was foolish. The outcry and furor would be immense and the umpire would immediately be fired. Why? For starters, because everyone knows it's not his job to make managerial decisions. Even if most people think Grady Little's move was dumb and the umpire's was smart, no one would tolerate an umpire substituting his non-existent managerial authority for Little's legitimate authority. More importantly, an umpire’s interfering in the manager’s authority undermines the umpire’s own legitimate authority because an umpire is supposed to be impartial and acting to correct the mistake of one of the teams is decidedly partisan act.

    The problem is crystal clear when we use an example like baseball. But few question when the Supreme Court does basically the same thing on the judicial playing field.

    Now wait a minute William, the fact that the government may have wrongfully denied rights to citizens for decades does not translate into the fact that the government was right in doing so. Women were denied the right to vote for 120 years after the creation of the nation, and blacks for the same 189 years that the government wrongfully gave itself the "right" to deny access to birth control to citizens.

    The context of my statement was in response spunkets' claim that there was an "absolute right to birth control." I was simply pointing out that if this was an absolute right, it’s odd that no one ever thought it was for most of our nation’s history. The history of voting rights doesn’t refute my point because there isn't an absolute right to voting either. Otherwise felons, non-citizens, infants and mental patients would all be permitted to vote.

    I think it's absurd to speak of a "right" to birth control, much less an absolute right. It’s like saying you have a “right” to Play Station or Xbox. No one disputes that you can buy video games, but it seems decidedly odd to me to frame the purchase and enjoyment of Final Fantasy as the exercise of an absolute right. At best, birth control is arguably loosely related to healthcare. Is there a "right" to healthcare? Is there an *absolute* right to healthcare?

    To say that someone has an absolute “right” to something implies that someone else has a responsibility to provide it unless the right is self-executing, like free speech. (BTW free speech rights aren't absolute either. Otherwise you could shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater or publish planned troop movements to our enemies.) Condoms and IUD's don't grow on trees, they cost money, so someone else has to pay for them if they were an absolute right and you couldn't afford them.

    Whose job is it to provide free birth control to those who cannot pay for it? If no one has such an obligation, and you agree you only have the “right” to obtain whatever birth control you can afford free of interference from the government, then you've qualified it, so it's no longer absolute.

    I assume that by absolute right to birth control, spunkets means an absolute right to *effective* birth control. After all, a right to defective condoms, for example, clearly isn't much of a right. There is no 100% effective form of birth control, so I don’t see how anyone can have an *absolute* right to something that doesn't even exist.

    I didn't get a chance to answer spunkets' post to me from last night. He seemed to assume he considered the source of our rights to be the "sovereign will of the individual." I was going to say that wasn't obvious since when Jefferson wrote all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain rights,” he assumed a very different source for our right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    I noticed that in subsequent posts, spunkets seemed to be saying that rights derived from the sovereign will of the individual or the Creator are basically the same thing. I disagree. As an example of the former, I would include rights mentioned in a document the Declaration of the Rights of Man. As an example of the latter w/b the rights Jefferson spoke of. I believe Danton, Robsepierre & Co's list was rather different from Jefferson's “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Even if they're both speaking of the same right, the meaning is entirely different precisely because they originate from different sources.

    To say that the Creator is the source of certain rights means we deny to governments or to the mob the authority to issue or take away these rights. By contrast, whatever rights the "sovereignty of the individual giveth, the same individual can taketh away. Soviet citizens were legally granted with most of the rights and privileges we enjoy as American citizens, plus lots of other rights and privileges we don't even claim to possess. The rights of Soviet citizens were bestowed by “the people” and they were frequently arbitrarily stripped by “the people” as well.

  • How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?

    04/19/2004 4:25:56 PM PDT · 134 of 304
    William Wallace to Askel5
    OK I will stick my two cents in from time to time. Forewarned. ;-)

    I've actually had folks condemn homosexuals (not their place to do, btw, only homosexuality is to be condemned) even as they assert that their practice of birth control -- by which they purposefully exclude absolutely the Creator from the process -- is somehow acceptable to God.

    Yes, they can be infuriating. My problem is, I can't seem to peg the holier-than-thou apostates without myself turning into a holier-than-the-holier-than-thou-apostates in the process. Love the sinner, hate the sin is a lot harder than it sounds. Most of us end up loving both or hating both. I'm guilty of both errors, but working on it. I guess that's the first step.

  • How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?

    04/19/2004 4:04:30 PM PDT · 131 of 304
    William Wallace to FormerLib
    Thanks. My wife was actually concerned how'd I'd react to one of the parts being voiced by Ellen Degeneres. I told her that unless her character launched into a lecture about lifestyle "choice", she really needs to lighten up!

    LOL thanks for the heads-up. I had a similar experience re: the Acts of the Apostles on DVD with James Brolin playing Peter. It took a bit of work to suspend disbelief.

  • How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?

    04/19/2004 3:43:15 PM PDT · 121 of 304
    William Wallace to Askel5
    Thank you askel.

    LOL I'm still one post behind everyone else. Gotta learn to type/proofread faster.

    On my way to buy Finding Nemo right now.


  • How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?

    04/19/2004 3:39:05 PM PDT · 120 of 304
    William Wallace to Askel5; FormerLib
    I missed your follow-up posts to formerlib and his last responses. You explained your position far better than I could and appear to have corrected whatever misunderstanding there was. Sorry for butting in.

    BTW, welcome back! :-)

  • How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?

    04/19/2004 3:25:56 PM PDT · 117 of 304
    William Wallace to spunkets
    The right to birth control is absolute and is retained by the parents that make up the family.

    There's no such thing as a “right” to birth control, only a sundry variety of techniques/devices of varying effectiveness for preventing pregnancy.

    For starters, there is no judicially recognized “right” to birth control. The Supreme Court struck down laws banning the sale of contraceptives to married persons on the basis of a suddenly discovered “right of privacy” somewhere within the “penumbras” of the Bill of Rights, not on a “right” to use birth control per se. That happened in 1965, so it's a curious species of “absolute right” that wasn't even asserted for 189 of our nation's 228 years of existence.

    If there was an absolute “right” to birth control, then you should be able to exercise it without restriction on an otherwise deserted island save you and a member of the opposite sex. After all, there are no laws or other people around to infringe upon the exercise of your absolute right. I think you'll find your claimed “right” to be guaranteed only if you refrain from having sex or one of you is unable to reproduce. That doesn't sound like an absolute right to me.

  • How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?

    04/19/2004 2:58:32 PM PDT · 114 of 304
    William Wallace to FormerLib; Askel5
    It appeared that you were suggesting that we could not prohibit "homosexual marriage" without making some move against childless heterosexual couples. If you were attempting to make some other point by introducing them into the discussion, I seem to have missed it.

    Respectfully, I believe you did miss askel's point. I don't believe she is making an apologia for homosexual marriage generally or painting a moral equivalence between homosexuals and married couples who are unable to have children. I think what she's saying is, there is not all that much difference between a homosexual couple wanting to get married versus a heterosexual couple who regard marriage as a living arrangement terminable at-will and children as a decision or lifestyle choice. Both put their own selfish interests first and foremost. Both act in defiance of God's will and the natural law.

    As Peter Kreeft says, the Bible contains the world's oldest and simplest sex instruction manual, with only two simple rules: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” and “Be fruitful and multiply.” IOW, no sex outside the sacrament of marriage, but within marriage -- the more, the merrier.

    There is a sinister relationship between the condom distribution mentality and the abortion-on-demand mentality. The U.S. Supreme Court understood this if only subconsciously, when it found a married couple's “right” to use contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut in the same imagined “zone of privacy” that later justified abortion as choice under Roe v. Wade.

    Married or unmarried couples who use contraceptives implicitly assert a “right” to engage in sex without any responsibility for bearing and rearing children, who are the natural consequences of sexual activity. Since contraceptives don't always work, couples who experience pregnancy after contraceptive failure inevitably consider themselves justified to have an abortion. After all, why should they be “penalized” because the contraceptive failed? After all, didn't they acted “responsibly” by using contraceptives in the first place? If you assume the answer to both questions is “yes,” then the decision to abort is easily rationalized as a simple correction of a “mistake” that happened only because the contraceptive failed.

    The topic of this thread is how does gay marriage damage marriage. If/when we write the obituary for the notion of marriage as sacred union of man and woman, the scapegoating of homosexuals when we decide to “round up the usual suspects” is both irrational and unjust. It's irrational to blame the recent phenomenon of homosexuals getting married for a slew of pathologies and disturbing trends that long predated the spectacle of Rosie and her new “spouse” exchanging their “I do's” without the necessary equipment to consummate the vows. Their “marriage” is a sham of course, but that holds equally true for anyone with the physical tools but not the intention to honor their vows.

    There's plenty of blame to go around and the “if it feels good, do it” contraceptive mentality and the perpetrators/enablers of the abortion holocaust are good places to start.

    Humanae Vitae was right.

  • Very sad announcement: Our beloved Freeper RJayneJ has passed away

    04/19/2004 8:21:25 AM PDT · 355 of 393
    William Wallace to JohnHuang2; Victoria Delsoul; Luis Gonzalez
    Thank you my FRiends for letting me know of Jayne's passing. This is sad news.

    I got to know Jayne fairly well over the years. She was a wonderful lady, patient and kind, an inspiration and example to others. She had the rare gift to see the best in others, and gently encouraged us to live up to her belief in what we could achieve.

    My condolences to Brad on the loss of his mom. May God bless and comfort you in your mourning. All of us whose lives she touched are diminished by her passing. But our lives were all the more greatly enriched for having known her.

  • Cardinal Egan: Pro-Abort Catholic Pols Are within Their "Rights"

    04/16/2004 2:50:48 PM PDT · 32 of 56
    William Wallace to Coleus
    “Apart from the Faith, there is much controversy over when life begins. Science cannot tell us for sure. Is it a human life at six weeks? At six months? Science cannot tell us.”

    He has it exactly backward.

    Faith does not inform us when life begins. Science does. No creed or scripture verse answers the question when does life begin. Science gives us a single clear and unequivocal answer:

    “Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm fuses with a female gamete or ovum to form a zygote. The zygote is the first cell of a new human being.”

    That isn't a quote from the Bible, but from a medical school textbook: Moore, Keith L., Before We Are Born: Basic Embryology and Birth Defects, W.B. Saunders Company, Toronto, 1989, p. 25. Similar statements can be found in nearly any Biology text.

    According to Dr. Jerome Lejeune, world-renowned geneticist, the idea that human life begins at fertilization “is an experimentally demonstrated fact.” As Dr. Lejune testified in a recent United States circuit court case, Davis v. Davis: “If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it could never become a man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen.”

    Nothing is added to the fertilized egg, except nutrition, oxygen and protection -- indispensible ingredients for life both before and after birth.

  • GOP Spinal Implant for Senate The Toomey-Specter face-off.

    04/12/2004 2:54:36 PM PDT · 6 of 23
    William Wallace to JulieRNR21
    Thanks Julie, I'm already on board.

    Gotta run, but it's nice to see you again.


  • Victor Davis Hanson : Finish It or Forget It

    04/12/2004 1:35:33 PM PDT · 25 of 46
    William Wallace to Victoria Delsoul
    Excellent article. Thanks for the heads-up.

    Note the ever-shifting goalposts from the Kerrypologists:

    The "worst economy in history" blather was mooted by the highest economic growth during the last twenty quarters.

    The "outsourced 3 million jobs" line no longer resonates with jobs on the rise and an unemployment rate similar to that of the "Clinton Boom years."

    Now Kerry's trotting out Jimmy Carter's misery index. Sheesh, I thought that was about as passe as Marx's labor theory of value. (Apologies to Marx for the unflattering comparison to the only president who was ever attacked by a rabbit.)

    We'll know the economy is roaring on all cylinders when they start recycling the "decade of greed" and "trickle down economics" rhetoric.

  • Ants.

    04/08/2004 3:27:46 PM PDT · 206 of 210
    William Wallace to Poohbah; PRND21; RedBloodedAmerican
    This icon jpg thing is for the birds. . . or the cats?



  • America no longer white, united, English-speaking

    04/08/2004 2:59:37 PM PDT · 1,022 of 1,027
    William Wallace to cyborg
    There are a few other freepers who have jpg sigs.

    You'll be seeing a lot more in the next few days. ;-)



  • America no longer white, united, English-speaking

    04/08/2004 2:55:02 PM PDT · 1,021 of 1,027
    William Wallace to O.C. - Old Cracker
    You can't handle the truth!

    We can handle the truth; we just can’t handle “the Gift.”



  • America no longer white, united, English-speaking

    04/08/2004 2:49:56 PM PDT · 1,019 of 1,027
    William Wallace to cyborg
    I just hope I can jettison this icon thingy soon. Maintaining an annoying signature jpg is a lot of work.



  • America no longer white, united, English-speaking

    04/08/2004 2:39:44 PM PDT · 1,015 of 1,027
    William Wallace to cyborg; Jorge
    FYI the duck noire icon is a personal statement -- unrelated to the topic of this thread. ;-)
  • America no longer white, united, English-speaking

    04/08/2004 2:34:51 PM PDT · 1,013 of 1,027
    William Wallace to Jorge
    If it means we will be hearing less from Pat Buchanan, then I'm all for it.

    (still laughing)



  • America no longer white, united, English-speaking

    04/08/2004 2:33:11 PM PDT · 1,012 of 1,027
    William Wallace to cyborg
    To me, race is very political and the concept of race and how someone looks is really outdated. More than anything culture is what is really on people's minds.

    Words-of-wisdom-at-the-end-of-a-L-O-N-G-thread bump.



  • America no longer white, united, English-speaking

    04/07/2004 9:20:45 AM PDT · 976 of 1,027
    William Wallace to TLI
    LOL! Like I said, critical thinking is not your friend. Your #966 proves my point far better than I could have done. Congratulations. Res ipsa loquitur.

    FYI, I never said that bricks are the same as baseballs or that Hispanic is the same as white. That's YOUR erroneous misunderstanding of what others said. Your inability to comprehend simple English, if not feigned, is mind-boggling. If ignorance was money in the bank, you'd be Bill Gates.

    I'll say this again as simply as I can and explain the big words since you seem to be a little slow. The word Hispanic (His-pan-ic: big word meaning of or related to Spain or Spanish speaking countries) refers to a person's nationality (na-tion-al-i-ty: big word meaning what country or part of the world your family comes from). Nationality and race are different (dif-fer-ent: big word meaning they are not the same) concepts (con-cepts: big word meaning ideas).

    If you ever figure out that nationality and race refer to different things, you just might grasp that people of different nationalities can still be part of the same race. So too, people of different races can have the same nationality. That's what we city slickers call "a fortiori reasoning" (a for-ti-o-ri: big Latin word, it means if one thing is true, the other must be true too; rea-son-ing: big word meaning puttin' on yer thinkin' cap to figure out stuff).

    Unfortunately (un-for-tu-nate-ly: big word meaning too bad), the preceding (pre-ced-ing: meaning what I just said) is an oversimplification (o-ver-sim-pli-fi-ca-tion: big word meaning I left out the hard stuff to help a slow poke like you follow it). You see, the term His-pan-ic can refer not only to na-tion-al-i-ty, but also to ethnicity (eth-ni-ci-ty: big word meaning being part of a group of people with common characteristics (char-ac-ter-is-tics: big word meaning features) which may include race and nationality, but other characteristics as well. That may be the source of your confusion (con-fu-sion: big word meaning why you don't have no clue).

    Interesting that you chose images of bricks and baseballs for your nonsensical non-sequitur. I can see how you might think they are the same thing. Based on the cognitive disconnect you've demonstrated repeatedly on this thread, I'd say you are either Reginald Denny or took one too many inside fastballs to the head.

  • America no longer white, united, English-speaking

    04/06/2004 3:37:32 PM PDT · 963 of 1,027
    William Wallace to TLI
    Actually, no one accused you of engaging in pedophilia. I simply noted in passing that you must have a large collection of graphics to draw upon in drawing racial contrasts between Hispanics and whites. If your "interpretation" of facts causes you to construe tangential remarks as accusations of pedophilia, there are sources of help for you. Remember: the pharmaceutical companies are your friends. Unfortunately, critical thinking is not your friend. Much as we'd like to help you overcome your cognitive and perceptual defects, the best we can do is point out your mistakes. We can't force you to recognize them.

    Let's review your errors. You posted a photo of Native Americans from South America and think that somehow demonstrates Hispanics aren't white. As several posters repeatedly pointed out, Native Americans from South America are no more Hispanic than Native Americans from North America are Anglo-Saxon Protestants. That you fail to see this glaring flaw in your reasoning even after it's been pointed out by several people suggests that your screen name should be an acronym for "too little intelligence."

    You might have run across something called a globe or an atlas at some point during your six or more years of high school. Had you paid attention in class, you might have learned that the settlers who colonized what is now called North America came from Western Europe and that the settlers who colonized what is today called South America also came from Western Europe. That would have provided a clue that there was a flaw in your "Hispanics aren't White" thesis. The Rita Hayworth photo should have provided another another clue. It's a simple enough matter to verify that she was Hispanic. Try asking around if you still aren't sure she was "white."

    My apologies if Rita's photo offended you. You must have been offended by it since I only posted two photos and you complained about "offensive photos" -- note the plural.

    As to the second photo, I'm glad you brought that up because I forgot to include the following important disclaimer: any resemblance to persons posting on this thread is coincidence. Glad I was able to point that out. I wouldn't want anyone accusing me of posting information about another poster's identity.

    Besides, you probably moved since that photo was taken. ;-)

  • America no longer white, united, English-speaking

    04/06/2004 11:14:55 AM PDT · 957 of 1,027
    William Wallace to TLI
    A few more pics for your collection:

    NOT WHITE (According to TLI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WHITE

  • America no longer white, united, English-speaking

    04/06/2004 10:45:31 AM PDT · 956 of 1,027
    William Wallace to TLI
    As for "political agenda" and "racial purity". . . huh? I pointed out an inconsistency in a statement.

    You did nothing of the kind. You posted photos of an Indian family and a little blonde, blue-eyed Scandanavian girl (part of your Vast jpeg collection I presume). You continue to insist, even after your mistake has been pointed out repeatedly, that the Indians in the first pic are somehow representative of Hispanics. Which is comparable to using photos of Geronimo and Sitting Bull to "prove" our Founding Fathers weren't white.

  • America no longer white, united, English-speaking

    04/06/2004 7:37:51 AM PDT · 943 of 1,027
    William Wallace to Luis Gonzalez
    Or would you also eliminate dimwits, etc. from your master race's gene pool?

    Eliminating dimwits cannot be part of Buchanan's agenda, Luis. That would be as shortsighted as the National Enquirer telling its readers how they can increase their intelligence.

  • George Bush's secret army (Why Democrats Hate, and Fear, Home Schooled Kids)

    03/17/2004 10:39:31 AM PST · 161 of 214
    William Wallace to Alberta's Child
    In Texas, a parent doesn't have to tell anyone anything.

    Man, I love that state.

    Have you seen Blue Collar Comedy Tour? If not, rent it, you'll love it.

    The opening comic Ron White has a great bit on capital punishment, goes something like this:

    “I'm from Texas. We have the death penalty . . . and we use it!

    “If you kill someone in Texas, we'll kill you right back. It's our policy.

    “In fact, we just passed a new law that says if you kill someone and at least three credible eyewitnesses testify against you, we'll bypass the usual appeals process. No waiting around on death row for 15 years, we'll take you straight to the head of the line.

    “All the other states keep coming up with new ways to limit capital punishment. . . in Texas, we just opened an Express Lane!”

  • The Jews Who Cried Wolf (Hubbub over The Passion)

    03/09/2004 10:54:35 AM PST · 319 of 370
    William Wallace to Victoria Delsoul
    Thanks Victoria. Outstanding article!
  • DON ADAMS UPDATE: Urgent Help Needed on Appeal

    02/26/2004 2:28:48 PM PST · 104 of 208
    William Wallace to JulieRNR21
    .that photo brought tears to my eyes

    Me too, Julie, me too.

  • DON ADAMS UPDATE: Urgent Help Needed on Appeal

    02/26/2004 1:51:59 PM PST · 97 of 208
    William Wallace to Victoria Delsoul; afraidfortherepublic; ALOHA RONNIE; b4its2late; bjs1779; bmwcyle; BobbyK; ...
    Thanks for the heads-up, Victoria.

    Flagging the old Elian list.

  • NYT Letters to the Editor: NYT Readers Support Nader

    02/24/2004 2:08:07 PM PST · 15 of 15
    William Wallace to Luis Gonzalez; RedBloodedAmerican; ohioWfan; Amelia; Howlin; Miss Marple; Poohbah; hchutch; ...
    Stop reproaching candidates who want to offer a choice. If the Democrats [Republicans] had the guts to present an interesting candidate with a difference, they wouldn't be so afraid of a third-party candidate.

    No one can spoil the Democrats' [Republicans] chances but themselves.

    Gee where have we heard this refrain before?

  • Haiti: Victim of Clinton's Old Black Magic

    02/24/2004 8:46:04 AM PST · 19 of 21
    William Wallace to MHGinTN
    Well said Marvin. I'll always believe we were disgraced as a nation when we elected such a lowlife to the highest office and sunk even lower when we failed to remove him. That he's actually admired by so many is positively sickening.

    This story seems bizarre beyond belief, yet nothing surprises when the Clintons are involved.

  • Schwarzenegger Says Foreign-Born Citizens Should Be Able to Run for President

    02/23/2004 4:07:35 PM PST · 123 of 148
    William Wallace to A.J.Armitage; Luis Gonzalez
    Rather, someone said noncitizens can vote. You said they can't, even though they do, because it's illegal, while strenuously insisting that illegal stuff happens all the time (so, nudge nudge, don't get so uptight about a few illegals throwing American elections).

    You misquoted your colleague. What he actually wrote was "You don't have to be a citizen to vote." "Can" and "don't have to be" mean different things, your Clintonian quibbling about the meaning of "can" versus "may" notwithstanding.

    If the statement "You don't have to be a citizen to vote" is construed to mean no more than non-citizens and citizens alike can flip levers in a voting booth, then I agree with that singularly banal proposition. However, if words actually have meaning, then the statement means citizenship is not a voter qualification requirement. In that case, the statement is demonstrably false.

    Luis' reading of the statement is consistent with normal everyday English usage. Your hyper-literal construction is at odds with normal English usage to the point of absurdity. If your style of exegesis was the norm, then a statement like "You don't need a license to practice medicine" would be equally true. . . and equally preposterous as the dumb comment you defended.

    As dumb as the original statement was, it pales in idiocy next to your claim of "ownership" of the English language. (Funny, I don't recall sending you any royalties for the privilege of using YOUR language.) As a matter of logic, it doesn't follow from English being Luis' second language and your first, that his English must be inferior to yours. By the same logic, your English must be even better than Joseph Conrad's, since English was his 4th or 5th language.

    As an empirical matter, it's not even a close contest and the winner is . . . not you.


  • Haiti: Victim of Clinton's Old Black Magic

    02/23/2004 9:44:58 AM PST · 17 of 21
    William Wallace to Luis Gonzalez; Victoria Delsoul; DeSoto; xsmommy; MHGinTN; RedBloodedAmerican; ...
    Clinton Legacy ping . . .
  • Haiti: Victim of Clinton's Old Black Magic

    02/23/2004 9:27:02 AM PST · 16 of 21
    William Wallace to freebacon
    Despite knowing of Aristide’s penchant for necklacing critics, and despite knowing that a CIA psychological profile had identified Aristide as “a psychopath,” President Bill Clinton three years later put at risk 20,000 of America’s most elite troops to remove a pro-American Haitian government in order to re-install this murdering psychopath Jean-Bertrand Aristide as President of Haiti.

    Clinton also rehabilitated Yasser Arafat from hiding in Yemen to serve as a reliable partner for his “Middle East peace plan.” That worked out nicely for Arafat and badly for pretty much everyone else.

    Who says there's no loyalty among psycopaths?

  • Haiti: Victim of Clinton's Old Black Magic

    02/23/2004 8:25:47 AM PST · 14 of 21
    William Wallace to Imal
  • The End of Blackness

    02/20/2004 3:27:02 PM PST · 22 of 30
    William Wallace to mhking
    Thanks for the heads-up, Michael. Excellent article.

    Don't assume all the venomous reviewers on Amazon who self-identify as black really are black. White liberals think spewing ugly racial epithets is ok as long as they're directed at black conservatives (witness Clarence Thomas and Condelezza Rice). Per their twisted logic, pretending to be black gives legitimacy to their race-baiting.

    I will be sure to pick up Debra Dickerson's book after reading such "reviews."

  • A Stealth Stake Through The Left's Heart

    02/20/2004 11:34:03 AM PST · 63 of 63
    William Wallace to DMZFrank; spodefly; Victoria Delsoul; MHGinTN; .30Carbine
    Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary.

    Good posts, thanks.

    The problem is all three branches have been complicit/derelict in their constitutional duty.

    Congress routinely exceeds the scope of its lawful authority, and only Scalia and Thomas call them on it.

    Judges routinely distort the plain meaning of the Constitution to circumvent the will of the people in cases where no constitutional rights are infringed. Congress has the constitutional authority to rein them in, but refuses to use it.

    The executive branch routinely violates the constitutional rights of citizens in the enforcement of laws that are often unconstitutional. Magistrates will rubber-stamp no knock warrants against law-abiding citizens on the basis of anonymous drug tips and the judiciary could care less about the flagrant disregard of your 4th Amendment rights. But try getting a surveillance warrant on suspected Al Qaeda terrorists.

    It's a "pot kettle black" situation if one branch suddenly called the others on their wrongdoing.

    The judiciary are the worst offenders since they declared themselves constitutional arbiters of the actions of the other two branches of government. It's also the easiest to fix. Replace Ginsburg, Stevens and O'Connor with three more judges like Scalia and Thomas and they will not only put a stop to judicial overreaching, but rein in the other branches' constitutional abuses.

    Since the infamous Roe case, Republicans have held the presidency (and power to nominate federal judges) for 20 years to the Democrats' 12. The Democrats controlled the Senate through 1994, but no longer. Why does the judiciary continue to lurch leftward?

    One reason is that the American Bar Association has a de facto monopoly on the judicial vetting process. The process is reminiscent of the show trials in the old Soviet Union where the prosecutor and defense lawyer both presented 'evidence' against the accused. Result: Soviet trial outcomes tilted heavily toward convictions followed by internal exile. Similar things happen when judicial nominees are vetted only by a leftist legal group: the pool of nominees gets skewed to the left.

    There is a crying need for a group the Federalist Society or similar organization to counter the left's monopoly on the judicial vetting process. A conservative screening group would restore balance to the judicial nominating process and help put a stop to the judicial insanity we're seeing across the country.

  • A Stealth Stake Through The Left's Heart

    02/20/2004 7:42:02 AM PST · 62 of 63
    William Wallace to GeronL
    They are black-robed tyrants... they may take away our rights for a short time but they will never take our freedom!!!!!!!!!! OK, I'll calm down.


  • Outsource the work of our economic advisers

    02/20/2004 7:34:29 AM PST · 326 of 849
    William Wallace to Fledermaus; Texasforever; Luis Gonzalez; Dane
    I enjoyed your posts on this thread.

    I hope this won't be construed as a personal attack.

  • A Stealth Stake Through The Left's Heart

    02/19/2004 10:22:30 AM PST · 43 of 63
    William Wallace to .30Carbine
    "There will be a happy ending: the chaos let loose by Roe will give way to restored justice." Amen.


    “We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?”