Skip navigation



    • ikabod
    • Posted April 28, 2010 at 4:02 pm
    • Permalink

    A law of this type that requires people to prove their citizenship, is a bit uncomfortable for me to support. Yet at the same time with Arizona’s boarders more like a warzone. I cannot blame them. The left continues to scream racism and fascism. Yet with anything to with enforcing immigration law they offer no alternatives. Other than open boarders or amnesty. If the Federal gov’ment is not going to enforce the law. What else is there for the people of Arizona to do? California’s immigration problem are similar. I don’t care where one comes from. Follow the law, go through the process.

    • Steve T
    • Posted April 28, 2010 at 5:54 pm
    • Permalink

    Ikabod –
    I tend to agree with you,… but something further I suggest –

    By all credible accounts I have heard discussed, this Arizona law was written with strong reverence to recent Supreme Court approved rulings on established parameters of “reasonable cause”, and other related parameters.

    Those who are having ‘feel bad issues’ with this new law, and related bleeding-heart misaims ought to, I suggest, put some of their ‘skin in the game’.

    How-? Simple,… drag your idealistic rear-ends to live in Southern Arizona, live in a rural homestead, among the flow and risks of the two-legged infesting migration of armed ‘coyotes’, with their drug-hauling illegal’s in tow, and experience the life & death consequences of what that implies over many weeks, months and years in that condition.

    Ted Kennedy, John [I served in Vietnam] Kerry, et-al, never did expose their New England – elitist rear-ends to this-! This includes the RINO John McCain-!

    The over whelming majority of us do not live near these border regions, so it is easy to be more critical of Arizona’s new law.
    Most of us reading this take for granted that no physical threats from foreign borders will harm us, yes?

    Those 70% of Arizona citizens have my 100% support-!

    I am thinking of gifting some folks near the Southern Border some .308 HPBT long range ammunition-!

    • Max
    • Posted April 28, 2010 at 6:02 pm
    • Permalink

    Bull’s-eye, Zack. According to the progressive, rarely (if ever) are things as they seem. Fortunately for the rest of us however, they are (by virtue of having thrown off the shackles of stultifying tradition) able to discern with gnostic spectacles the real meaning of things and events.

    • Steve T
    • Posted April 28, 2010 at 7:13 pm
    • Permalink

    Look at the symbol on Alex’s shirt-!

    Is this a symbol for some “progressive” Berkley person(s) who has both sets of female & male ‘equipment’ -?

    • Tetsuo
    • Posted April 28, 2010 at 8:07 pm
    • Permalink

    Hahahahah, you’re terrified of some imaginary Mexican invasion? Call me when Mexico is pointing 700 missiles at you and constantly threatening to end your nation’s existence in public, then maybe we’ll talk.

  1. Nice touch with the O in the wall frame in the background… And pretty spot on considering the logos for missile defense and the nuclear summit recently!

  2. Over here, EVERY CITIZEN has to carry their official ID card at all times under penalty of law. It’s the size of a typical credit card. It’s no big deal really.

    • Steve T
    • Posted April 29, 2010 at 12:20 am
    • Permalink

    Honestly, you are aware there are many other ways one country can pose harmful actions to another, without pointing missiles & such conspicuous actions (?).

    The reaction of the Mexican government to this law in Arizona is louder than a scalded dog & a stuck pig, together in stereo.

    I encourage you to read a recently posted article;
    ‘How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens’ — by Michelle Malkin

    Specific and well-defined accounts of the brazen hypocrisy of the Mexican government, on the issue of illegal immigration, are well known and have been discussed in the conservative media and talk radio over the past few years however,… our lame-stream media conveniently ignores this topic.
    (who is surprised-?)

  3. Ikabod: As Byron York reminds us in yesterday’s Washington Examiner: “We are… confronted routinely by people of all stripes asking to see our driver’s license. When we board an airplane, we are asked to produce a government-issued photo ID, usually a driver’s license. When we make some credit- or debit-card purchases in department stores, we are asked to produce a driver’s license. When we enter many office buildings, both private and government, security guards often ask us to produce a driver’s license. When we go to doctors’ offices and hospitals, we are asked to produce a driver’s license. When we check into hotels, we are asked to produce a driver’s license. When we purchase some over-the-counter drugs, we are asked to produce a driver’s license. If we go to a bar or nightclub, anyone who looks at all young is asked to produce a driver’s license. And needless to say, if we have any encounter with police or other authorities, we are asked to produce a driver’s license.”

    More here:

  4. Steve T– I like your fine (albeit challenging) suggestion to liberals up in arms over the request that HSHBs (Holy & Sacrosanct Human Beings– i.e., non-whites) be asked, when suspicion arises, to show their ID. “Go live near the border and see what’s going down,” you intelligntly suggest. Still, I doubt that even this would sway them. Liberal/leftists cling to a religion in which non-whites are guilt-devoid, no matter what crimes they perpetrate. They’re a kind of sacrosanct eternal “victim of Whitey,” hence no murders, rapes, kidnappings, drug-smugglings, et al which they perpetrate can really be seen as all that bad.

  5. Max: For sure; where would the rest of us benighted types be without the sagacity of the condescending left?

    I’m surprised they haven’t all by now evolved permanent eyeglasses-perched-at-the-ends-of-their-noses a la Carl Levin as a genetic sign of their professorial superiority.

  6. Steve T: [“Look at the symbol on Alex’s shirt-!”] You need to evolve more. Alex is merely reflecting up-to-the-minute leftist revelations regarding male and female interchangeability. His sweatshirt commentary is profound and thus way over our heads.

  7. Tetsuo: Please read this and contemplate it before laughing off the threat of an “imaginary” Mexican invasion:
    “The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California’s prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces.”

  8. Scott: Thanks for noticing the “Hope” sign in the background, picked up by Allison at a recent yard sale of some Berkeley neighbors. Given the Obamist tendency to find signs of hope and change in Muslim states (and states of mind) which the rest of us see as incorrigible, it seemed only right to conflate Hope with Islamism.

    • Jamie
    • Posted April 29, 2010 at 9:26 am
    • Permalink

    I am constantly amused by the tongue-clucking pundits on TV aghast at the new law in AZ… They can’t imagine what it’s like to live in an area where you can’t leave anything outside for fear the locusts will come thought and strip everything. People can’t leave their homes for any length of time or else it will be occupied by drug runners and/or illegals. What about their rights?

  9. Jamie: Comparing illegals to locusts may be both racist and insectist. Careful, you’re in Obama’s America now…

    • ikabod
    • Posted April 30, 2010 at 7:24 am
    • Permalink

    Frankly I don’t think this is really about allowing or disallowing immigrants into the US. This is a fear from the left the certain freebee’s and entitlements will be taken away from those who do enter illegally.
    Tetsuo: Unless I’m not mistaken I don’t believe the Mexican government has anything to worry about our or anyone else’s nuclear armed missiles raining death upon their populace. Your misrepresentation of Americans fearful of an Mexican “invasion” is overblown. Yet at the same time i will point you to a nifty little “progressive” group that is more than happy to work out a deal that hands over the majority of the southwest to the noble “brown” peoples. But don’t take my word for it check out the demands of “La Raza” Various la raza dream maps show the US broken in two with some mythical happy place called Aztlan. Fear of an Mexican invasion? Hardly, yet the cost of this so-called free movement between boarders is costing Tax paying Americans (yes even Mexican Americans) plenty.

  10. Ikabod: Yeah, how ideal would that be: the La Raza dreamstate of Aztlan, sprawling across our west and southwest and destined inevitably to be overrun with the same corruption currently debasing and destroying untold thousands of lives in Mexico. Oregon would become the new Arizona, with the disaster at the border simply transferred north a ways.

    • Matt
    • Posted May 4, 2010 at 12:44 pm
    • Permalink

    [Steve T wrote:Is this a symbol for some “progressive” Berkley person(s) who has both sets of female & male ‘equipment’ -?

    Such a symbol could be interpreted in any number of ways, but generally speaking, yes, that is a symbol for hermaphrodites, or people with ambiguous genitalia (not necessarily “both sets”). It could also be a symbol for intersexed persons or those with Gender Identity Disorder (transgender). Please note that while you might find the genitals of a hermaphrodite disgusting, they have no control over how they were formed just as you had no control over the same issues.

    • Steve T
    • Posted May 4, 2010 at 2:17 pm
    • Permalink

    I understand perfectly, if someone was born with both sets of equipment, they would have my sympathy, as with any other birth defect however, I distinguish something totally different, and that is the mindset of wearing something like this ‘on your sleeve’, or worse, the assertion that surgical altercation towards this end is another “legitimate” lifestyle.
    I believe folks who do the latter are disturbed.

    I can perfectly understand a person wanting to have a hermaphrodite condition altered to one sex, or another.
    I am among the very un-PC culture who believes folks who want to sexually alter what otherwise is a normal male of female condition, to something else (a guy who wants to half female, etc), these folks have certain mental health issues.

    Now, this and similar assertions (ref: homosexuality being another form of mental illness) have prompted some very unpleasant exchanges on this blog.

    I think these disagreements can be civilly discussed here – despite the fact that the “compassionate” progressive culture has already established restrictions on this expression of such idea’s. One example is that they have deemed this type of open assertion so offensive that it is grounds for being dismissed or severely discipline at universities, such as UC at Berkeley, UM (Ann Arbor), and many other state collages.
    In the K-12 public schools, a youngster can easily find himself in ‘sensitivity training’ prison for God-knows how long.

    So, if someone wants to use the term “homophobe (ic), homophobia” we can have some ‘fun-with-Latin’, to prove what a nonsense term this ignorantly contrived word is.
    Not to mention the tactic of labeling someone’s view as “phobic”, as opposed to having a reasoned debate.

    • Matt
    • Posted May 4, 2010 at 3:19 pm
    • Permalink


    I can see where you’d be unsettled by someone wanting to be ambiguously gendered after being born with normally functional parts. Curiously, I feel inclined to ask, how do you feel about people who want a full change from male-to-female or vise-versa?

    It is my understanding that persons born with ambiguous genitalia usually want nothing more than to pass as either male or female in general society, and a vast minority of people want to get in people’s faces about their questionable gender (here’s looking at you, Jeffree Starr). However, there are those who would prefer to have the ambiguous genitalia with which they were born, yet they still tend to identify with societal gender norms as much as the average person.

    The mental health of such persons is an interesting question. Typically, someone who is mentally ill is not fully capable of functioning without some sort of impairment, correct? Assuming you agree with that broad definition (if not please feel free to correct me), then I feel that I should inform you of the fact that patients receiving gender reassignments must go through an extensive program that, in many ways, proves their mental health (financial stability, for example, is a requisite). Changing physical sex is not about sexual arousal for most people, but making their bodies reflect who they feel they are and allowing them to truly live their desired societal role. Interestingly, people desiring such a surgery often desire to be the opposite gender from as young as 18 months (generally its display begins at a young age, so it would be completely fair to question a 40 year old man who wants to become a woman out of the blue).

    I don’t feel compelled to troll or flame, because, as you said, such things can be civilly discussed and may as well be, because anyone can turn on CSPAN and realize that arguing solves nothing.

    • Steve T
    • Posted May 4, 2010 at 11:18 pm
    • Permalink

    I sincerely believe those who want a sex reassignment have some “issues”. Questions of mental health seem to be a terrain of gradual changes, with a few cliffs where some folks can take an extreme change, quickly.

    It strikes me that those who developed these surgical protocols were answering a question that few people were asking, sort of like the concept, “build it and they will come”.

    I will offer a prediction: sooner or later, immunologists will solve the problem of cross-species tissue rejection (such as what prevents putting a pigs liver in someone needing a new liver) — and then, beginning somewhere (I wager in San Francisco), someone is going to come forward and express the passionate plea that he feels he was really born with the identity of a wolf, and try to get the taxpayers to pay for an extensive series of tissue transplants, tail attachment and the whole exhaustive series of surgeries that will give him the facial and other characteristics of a wolf.

    In addition to sex-change procedures, city employee’s in San Francisco can have their appearance surgically changed into any number of other animals, compliments of the taxpayer.
    Yes, I consider such a hypothetical person is battling a ton of mental health issues.
    As you mention Matt, “…making their bodies reflect who they feel they are and allowing them to truly live their desired societal role.”
    Key phrase you and they use, “…they feel they are”. Well, human feelings are fleeting, fickle, and more persistent ones are the subject of endless journals in psychology.

    There are battling debates whether homosexuality is genetic or from nurturing. Those in the gay community who want to promote their lifestyle better get religion and pray to high-heaven it is not a gene.
    Why? Simple, many young (heterosexual) couples will quietly have their sperm, eggs, or artificially made embryos tested, and guess what?… the prospect of their son with a Liberace type lisp, or a daughter being like Chastity Bono is going to quietly pursued them to skip to the next prospect, and many little ‘gay genes’ will circle the drain. Note the exercise of “pro-choice” here?

    Folks like Dr. Laura, and a long string of lesser known doctors have cited vast references that homosexual leanings result from a mix of weak sex identity, distrust of men/women, a dysfunctional family life, and a damaged father figure.
    I have known, beginning from my earliest collage days, a continuous number of folks who were homosexual. In time, I often came to learn about their life & times when growing up, and most every one of them spoke of these sad and very unpleasant circumstances in their family.

    A number of independently produced biographies on notable folks like Elton John, Boy George, Liberace, George Michael (and others I cannot recall at the moment) hint at, or out rightly betray a common thread of several of these dysfunctional influencing factors in their childhoods.

    One aspect that is totally blacklisted by the mainstream media are the chronic health consequences in the homosexual community.
    One old-fashioned expression reads something like this; ‘if nature says you ought not do something, you shouldn’t do it.

    I reference these quotes below.
    For those who have the stomach to read in depth the sordid health details, put “homosexual health problems” in a search engine. You will find these, and tons more on the subject.

    Semen has immune-suppressant activity that increases the chance of sperm fertilizing a woman’s egg during vaginal intercourse. If released in the rectum, however, semen makes this already vulnerable tissue more prone to both infection and the development of cancer – rectal carcinoma in MSM results from infection with a highly carcinogenic strain of HPV (Diggs, 2002).
    Reduced life span
    A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:
    • “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assump¬tions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.”
    Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of hiv Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
    The Food and Drug Administration’s explanation of why homosexual men are banned from donating blood as evidence of the dangers of homosexual sex. The FDA reports:
    Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence … 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors …. Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 [which] causes a cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

    • Matt
    • Posted May 6, 2010 at 10:00 am
    • Permalink


    It’s funny you should mention people wanting to become animals, because they already exist and thrive (if you can call it that) on the internet. Look up “furries” if you dare; in short, practitioners feel some degree of affinity towards anthropomorphic animals (ranging from a simple fandom like I may have for a television show to a full blown sexual fetish).

    That aside, I’d like to weigh in with the “nature versus nurture” for homosexuality. It’s entirely possible that it is fully one way or the other, but it is more likely a genetic predisposition that gets triggered by the events you cited. Not everyone experiencing those issues turns out homosexual, but as you said, it’s an undeniable trend. In terms of shorter lifespan, I feel it’s important to consider the size of the samples; heterosexuals are a vastly larger pool than homosexuals, and the aforementioned patters of abuse may lead to poor life decisions in general that shorten their average lifespan. The real difference is, again, numbers: where heterosexuals have the population size to even out the effects of individuals dying young from stupid decisions, homosexuals are clearly lacking.

    In terms of gender-disordered people feeling they are misrepresented by their bodies, I reiterate that this feeling develops as early as 18 months and is persistent throughout the person’s life. I don’t know about you, but I’ve certainly wondered what it would be like to be a woman and as you said, that thought was fleeting. Most people who receive sexual reassignment surgeries (I’ll say “most” because I can’t prove “all”) display this problem up until they receive their surgery and are often completely satisfied by it, regardless of how well their individual society accepts them.

    Finally, the quote at the end of your entry strikes an odd chord with me. Yes, general nature-based wisdom tells us that a male and a female copulate and raise young together, but that does not hold true throughout the entire animal kingdom. The male/female dichotomy always leading towards the females caring for the young is really only displayed in the mammalian line; plenty of birds and fish have different strategies for mating and caring for young. Jacanas, for example, mate by a single female controlling a harem of males, which is more or less the inverse of the lion’s mating strategy. Some species of fish have males who look and behave like females and even get other males to try and mate with them. Female fruit bats tend to live in hollow trees in large groups that exclude the males, and often lick each others’ genitalia to bond with each other. There is truly a remarkable number of ways animals mate, both socially and procreationally. I avoided the text-book examples of seahorses and bonobos cause let’s face it, everyone knows about them by this point.

    • Steve T
    • Posted May 6, 2010 at 12:07 pm
    • Permalink

    Regarding the assertion that animal behavior that seems to mimic homosexual behavior, is truly animal homosexual behavior, I will defer to an in-depth explanation that answers this.

    And – the author specifically refers to bonobos within his this;

    Notice: the articles at this site are heavily footnoted and referenced. It strikes me these folks have done their homework, thoroughly.

    Two excerpts;
    Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal “homosexuality,” “filicide” and “cannibalism” are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
    — Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts
    To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.
    Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
    Third, an animal’s instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal’s behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.
    In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]
    At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal’s instinctive impulses result in cases of animal “filicide,” “cannibalism” and “homosexuality.”
    Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:
    Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance–in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who’s boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]
    Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:
    Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent…. And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]
    Other animals engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

    Taken from:
    The Animal Homosexuality Myth
    by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: