Ahmed’s Bomb Clock

Well now, lest I be accused of being a little harsh on a poor 14-year-old American (sic) boy, I direct my readers to the following article on young Ahmed Mohamed:

Reverse Engineering Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock… and Ourselves.

The author does us a favor by reverse engineering Ahmed’s clock, which is not an original creation at all.  Instead it is retail alarm clock disassembled and placed into a “pencil case,” which really looks like a hard suitcase.  It is 100% certain that this Moslem did not build a clock at all, did not invent anything, and has not displayed any engineering prowess by doing this.  All he managed to do was to take the thing apart.  In fact, his electronics knowledge would seem to be questionable, given that he placed a transformer right next to the snooze button.  For those of you who don’t work with electricity regularly, a transformer is an electronic component that either steps voltages up or down (or isolates circuits).  In a power supply, one side of the transformer will have household AC line voltage, which is why you don’t usually place this component out in the open.

Ahmed didn’t build anything…

One has to wonder the motivation for doing this.  I knew a youth back in 8th grade who did a science project on lasers, and claimed he built a laser using his mother’s ruby ring.  He had no pictures or documentation whatsoever. It is actually impossible to build a laser from a ruby ring, and anyone who knows a little about lasers can tell you that.  The poor lad came from an unstable family and couldn’t come up with a science project, so he presented a delusional fantasy instead.  Perhaps young Ahmed thought that he could pass this off as his own clock.  Or perhaps he thought it would be amusing to bring in a fake bomb and scare the pants off of his fellow students.  Who really knows?

Meantime the police and school administrators would seem to have done the reasonable thing.  And as I said before, when you see Moslems carrying suitcases of electronics, get out of there.

Of course, the larger question of why there are so many Moslems in heartland America is left ignored by this author.  It is the same question I asked when the Chapel Hill attacks took place.  Why are there Mohammadens in Chapel Hill anyway?  Why are they in Irving?  And what are they doing?

If you want the answer, just listen to this Imam.  This isn’t bigotry or racism.  It comes straight out of their own mouths.  They are here to conquer and to build a new Caliphate.  And the man in white says, “take ’em in.”  Grand times we live in.

Wacka Flocka the Aristotelian Thomist

I’ve certainly never heard of rapper Wacka Flocka, nor do I expect his mouth dispenses much wisdom, but in a first here at MS I am going to quote a rapper:

“You are who you are when God made you, not who you became after he did,” the rapper said. “That’s how I just feel. You rebuking God, man. God didn’t put them feelings in you, man, that’s the Devil playing tricks on your mind. That’s a test from God. If you can’t outbeat that one task and you believe that, then you’re going to believe everything else.”

Unwittingly Mr. Flocka is on to something substantial here.  He is rebuking existentialism without even knowing what it is.  This is a popular topic for me, but allow me to review.

There is a world which really exists outside of the confines of your little mind.  It existed before you came into being, and it will continue to exist after you leave this world.  However much control you may think you have over your life, and however much control you do have over your life, ultimately you exist as a part of a larger world outside of yourself, over which you exercise only partial control.  Now you may think that you have exclusive jurisdiction over, at least, yourself, but you do not.  Sure you can control some things about yourself, like what you eat or wear, when you go to bed, etc.  But you came into this world in a time and manner completely out of your control, in a body that you had no ability to choose.  Boy or girl, tall or short, brown eyes or blue, black or white, these were determined for you decisively.  The fact that you were born a human being, and not a gopher was decided without your permission.

Existentialists believe that existence precedes essence.  That is, as Sartre put it, a man is what he makes of himself.  That this is absurd didn’t seem to dawn on the man, but the idea is central to the insanity of our age.  Only if we believe this can we try to say that a man is a woman and a woman a man.  And this is exactly what this degenerate rapper is pointing out.  God made us a certain way.  Our essence precedes our existence.  It’s too bad that this man who covers himself with tattoos and uses a false name doesn’t follow this to its logical conclusion, but it does go to show that even a man who can barely form a sentence is well aware of reality and its nature.

And Mr. Flocka finishes with my own favorite point!  If you believe something so patently false as the idea that you can be a member of the opposite sex (nota bene:  opposite!), why then “you’re going to believe everything else.”  Exactly.

Rejecting your predetermined gender is ultimately a rejection of God, because it was God who decided when, where, and how you would come into the world, with a little help from your parents of course.  If you say He made a bad decision, then you are questioning the eternal architect of reality, and reality itself.  And then, nothing is really real.

Ahmed walks into a school…

The Left’s hero of the hour is one Ahmed Mohamed, a 14 year-old boy who was arrested for bringing a hoax bomb to school.  Except, you see, it wasn’t a bomb, but was simply a clock that young Ahmed constructed from parts as an electronics project.  The cacophony of left-wing pundits and opinionists tells us what an outrage–outrage!–it is that the police stereotyped a Moose-lim youth as a bomb-builder because, well, that sort of thing is just never done by Moose-lim young men.  Young Ahmed is now a star, hailed as a hero in Silicon Valley and being invited to the White House for his clock-building.  (Your humble blogger is still awaiting his invitation for his work…)

In defense of the Irving, Texas police, allow me to cite an incident from my own early twenties.  You see, young Mors Sanctorum was an avid electronics hobbyist who used to build similar projects in his father’s basement in between looking for his own place to live.  One day your humble blogger’s father came down and looked at young Mors’ array of wires and components, and said “you better not let your landlord into your apartment or he’ll think you’re building bombs!”  I would point out that I am white as a sheet and bear a clearly Anglo-Saxon name, so my father cannot be blamed for mistaking me for a Mohammaden.  The wires and parts and projects I had constructed were enough for him to make the connection.  So it’s not implausible that if young Ahmed were instead young Stevie and brought such a device to school, the same thing might have happened, especially in a day when school shootings and violence are not unusual.

Still, let us go with the Left’s assumption that our Mohammaden youth was “profiled” because his name was “Ahmed Mohamed.”  So what?  For some of us old enough to remember, Mr. Mohamed’s last name was the first name of a man who flew a 757 into the World Trade Center.  It is the name of the child rapist and false prophet who founded a wicked religion that is menacing the West and threatening our existence.  (A threat with which, unfortunately, we seem willingly to cooperate.)  Young Moslem men blow themselves up with their lovely refrain of “Allahu Akbar!” quite regularly, both in the West and in the battlefields of the Middle East.  And a young Moslem walks into school carrying a jumble of wires and electronics in a suitcase…  Goodness, if it were my call, the bomb squad would be rolling.

The multiculturalists are showing pictures of Ahmed’s family as though it were the most wholesome Texas family you could ever see.  Why there’s mom and grandma, wrapped head to toe in their hejab…  Oh, wait.  Nobody seems to ask the question:  What on Earth these people doing in Irving, Texas anyway?  Why on Earth is place like Irving, nearly fifteen years after the attacks of September 11th, playing host to a bunch of burqa’ed Moslems?

Just your average American family?

As I point out in nearly every article on the subject, my own small little suburb is simply crawling with women in hejab.  Even five years ago I never, ever saw a woman in a headscarf here.  Now, I see more than I can count, and even women in full burqa.  Why, in the GOP debate last night, did the candidates for the supposedly conservative party not mention this full scale invasion in their discussion of immigration?  Or the fact that Barak Hussein Obama is planning to take 100,000 more Moslem so-called refugees into the US, basically a small city?

Here is my prediction:  In 5-7 years, Ahmed Mohamed, having been radicalized at a Cambridge mosque, will walk into the MIT cafeteria with a bomb of his own construction.  The last thing his friends will hear before the flash is “Allahu Akbar!”

Meanwhile take some advice:  If you see a guy named Mohammad coming at you with a suitcase with wires sticking out of it, run the other way and ask questions later.

True to Self

A copy of the alumni magazine for the University of Washington, a school which I did not attend, reached my hands the other day.  Thumbing through it I said to myself, “surely I will find something to object to in here.”  And sure enough, page 18, was a full page spread followed by an article all about the so-called transgender students who are attending UW.  This sort of article is a growing phenomenon with the advent of Mr. Bruce Jenner’s recent change of appearance, and I have written extensively about our collective gender-confusion in the past.   Allow me to belabor some points.

The title of the article was “True to Self,” with the word “True” given in extra large type.  The cover picture for the article is of a Mr. Hoy (real first name unknown), who is rather ludicrously photographed from above wearing a bow in his hair and a white skirt, with a rather fetching purse.  Apparently lost on the writer and editor of the article is the fact that there is nothing true at all about the picture.  A young man presenting himself as a female is being exactly the opposite of true, namely false.  Actually, I suppose this point isn’t lost at all, but rather, the word “true” was selected and emphasized particularly to emphasize that in our time, night can be day, black can be white, and men can be women.  They use the word again in the text of the article, referring to another confused youth, this time a male impersonatrix, who “changed his name to reflect the truth of his gender identity.”  The truth of this young lady’s gender identity is that she is, in fact, a woman.  But the goal of this entire movement is to further the destruction of objective reality, and thus the constant use of the word “truth” in reference to an obvious falsehood.

Sorry honey, you aren’t pulling it off.

Meanwhile the magazine tells us that many poor transgenders are denied “medically necessary” transition money.  As if it is ever medically necessary to jack oneself up with hormones and then lop off one’s penis and get breast implants.  What exactly is “necessary” about that?  This same male impersonatrix, apparently trying to calm people’s minds about her mental imbalance, says “I haven’t fundamentally changed.”  Well, of course not!  You can put on men’s clothes, lop off your breasts, and call yourself by a man’s name, and not really change anything “fundamental.”  Listen sister, fundamentally you’re still a chick.

The entire article refers to these poor souls by the incorrect pronoun, which means that the authoress is lying to her readers.  Lying means saying something the opposite of what you know to be true.  She knows who is a boy and who is a girl, and is willingly stating the opposite of what she knows to be true.

This entire movement has grave practical consequences beyond these troubled individuals.  When a female impersonator gets hired in your office and you are told to call him “her”, you are going to be forced to accept the lie, and lie yourself, or else lose your job.  And God forbid your wife or daughter gets stuck with some dude-in-a-dress when she goes to the ladies’ room.

But beyond the practical, there is simply the dementia of our age, the same dementia which asks us to believe that two men can be married, that people can be divorced and remarried, and that sex isn’t for procreation.  When the very idea of truth is obliterated, and people have lost touch with reality, then you can lead them to do anything you want.  And that’s the truth.

Picture a Marxist

A recent episode is instructive of the dementia of our age.

A rather pretty young woman by the name of Charlotte Proudman goes out and makes herself look especially pretty, and hires a professional photographer to make her look even prettier, and then uses the picture for her LinkedIn profile.  I am not usually a fan of short-cropped hair styles, but she has a rather attractive look even if her hair is a bit helmet-like.  She clearly spent a good time styling it.

The said young lady sends a LinkedIn invite to an older male barrister (as they are called in England), who calls her picture “stunning” and says that she “wins the prize for best LinkedIn picture I have ever seen.”

Unprofessional?  I suppose, although of course, as a traditional sort, I don’t think women should be working alongside men anyway except in limited roles.  But, I am a professional in the modern age and like all professionals, I must make certain concessions to professionalism, and not commenting on women’s appearance is one of them.  The man’s comments were not necessarily sexual in overtone, and may have simply been polite or avuncular.

The girl admonished the man, not for being inappropriate, but for “objectifying” her and being “sexist.”  This 27-year-old youth then goes on to parrot the garbage she learned in her many years of education, so-called:  “The eroticisation of women’s physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women.”

It reminds me a bit of a rather crude cartoon a boss of mine once had on his door.  It was a picture of a woman in a plastic surgeon’s office, saying “I want you to make them so big that I have to yell at men to stop staring at them.”  Indeed, in this case we have a picture of a woman who goes out of her way to make herself beautiful, and then gets mad when someone notices she’s beautiful.

Moreover, she is trotting out good old Marxist theory, as she learned in college.  When you hear the word “power” used by anyone other than an electricity executive, you know the speaker has been indoctrinated by Marxism and its tendency to reduce all human relationships to power relationships which need to be equalized.  Calling her picture “stunning” is hardly erotic, and men noticing the physical beauty of the weaker sex is not the modern invention of power hungry patriarchs, but is as old as time.  (Remember why Menelaus invaded Troy?)  But the poor girl can only see this as an injustice that needs, not only a personal response, but a broadcast to the whole world.  And in our day and age, this means she gets to advance her career on BBC while the poor elder barrister is embarrassed in front of the entire known universe.

She seems to not have much beyond a pretty face anyway, if she has bought into this sort of nonsense and has this kind of desire for retributive publicity.  As I heard said once in Denny’s, “My compliments to the photographer.”

Kim Davis Freed

And so our fearless martyr, Kim Davis, is released from the federal jail to the sound of rock’n’roll, Satan’s favorite tool of evangelization.  Except that the “artists” who created the hideous tune “Eye of the Tiger” were none too pleased with the association of their song to Miss Davis, and filed a cease and desist order.  Ah well, this is what happens when Protestant “pastors” like Mike Huckabee try to make a pact with the devil.  Oh wait, he already did, when he rejected Christ’s True Catholic Church for the Protestant heresy.

In all fairness, Miss Davis might not be responsible for selecting the soundtrack, nor orchestrating the embarrassing rally that it accompanied.  However, her lawyers continue to prattle on about how terrible it is that she is being “forced to violate her conscience,” as though that were the crux of the issue.  Absent from the debate are the horrors of sodomy and the objective fact that two men cannot be married, any more than Bruce Jenner can be Caitlyn.

As humans we have the unfortunate handicap of interfacing with reality through the medium of language, and this deficiency often leads us to believe we can alter reality simply by altering the words we use to describe it.  Thus, we hear so many complaints about the “re-definition” of marriage, as though such a thing were actually possible.  But there is a reality to marriage which cannot be altered by word-smithery, an essence which belongs to it regardless of what language we apply to it.  Thus, one cannot contract a marriage, nor enter into the married state, if one of the parties is deceased.  It simply cannot be done, and even if a law were passed “re-defining” marriage to allow, to coin a term, necrogamy, this law would be a farce.

Larry and Steve, or Kim and Donna, are fundamentally sexually incompatible.  They cannot produce children, ever, by their very natures.  This is totally different from marriage between a man and a woman when one party is sterile;  this is a deficiency in the nature of the sterile party, not essential to it.  Whereas a woman is essentially incompatible of producing off spring with another woman.  As I often say, the mere fact that I even need to explain such things shows the insanity of our age.

However, our age is poisoned with nominalism and existentialism, the former teaching that essences aren’t real, and the later teaching that essence is real, except that existence precedes essence, which of course means that essence isn’t really real at all.  Our lack of understanding of basic metaphysics has led us to believe not that things are what they are, but that they are what we define them to be.  Hence, marriage can be re-defined.  This is why it is fundamentally flawed to say “I am opposed to the re-definition of marriage.”  Say instead, “Marriage must have a male and a female party by its nature.”  (Polygamy does not contradict the nature of marriage, by the way, since it is ordered towards procreation, but has been prohibited by civilization and God for a very long time.)

Protestants of the Bible-thumping variety (a) have little use for philosophy and (b) believe that the individual’s conscience is the measure of faith.  Because they regard Scripture to be the only infallible guide to faith, and all other sources as merely fallible, they rely on individual judgement to determine the correct Protestant sect to adhere to, and have little concern whether someone adheres to this sect or that, just so long as they agree on a handful of “fundamentals.”  Thus, we hear nothing of the objective order from them, and a lot about individual conscience.

Of course, in the post Vatican II-era, we don’t hear much about objective reality from the Catholics either.  And so, our only representative on the scene, Mr. Marco Rubio, an admitted apostate who attends Protestant or Catholic services as suit his fancy that Sunday, was thankfully barred from the pep rally, where he surely would never have stated what needs to be said.

As to Miss Davis, who knows what will happen to her?  She probably won’t be impeached in a state like Kentucky, but whatever does happen, she will likely be a mere memory in a year or so, as we march onward to our Brave New World where men are women, women are men, and to be a “husband” does not require a “wife.”

Angelus Domini Nuntiavit Mariae…

With all of the defeats and misery of the present time, it’s important to remember the beauty of our Catholic faith, which will never be defeated in the end, despite the vicissitudes of the modern world.  Thus, I would like to share this magnificent rendition of Biebl’s Angelus, which should transport you to Heaven for a few minutes.  Enjoy.

Dr. Moynihan on Miss Davis

I know absolutely nothing about Robert Moynihan, PhD, but I can’t think of a better example of the problem I illustrated in my previous article on the plight of Miss Kim Davis.  Dr. Moynihan refers to the imprisonment of Miss Davis, who refused to issue gay “marriage” licenses, as unjust.  According to the law, “she must abandon her own deeply held belief…” (Emphasis mine.)  Miss Davis “has chosen to accept arrest and jail rather than abandon her belief.” (Emphasis again mine.)  Further:  “Kim is the first of many US citizens unwilling to abandon their principles before such an unjust law.” (You probably guessed who added the emphasis.  I presume Dr. Moynihan knows Miss Davis personally, given that he referred to her by her first name.)  One assumes Dr. Moynihan did not receive his doctorate in political science, as he also states the following:  “This case is the result of a wrong and unjust law passed on June 26 by the US Supreme Court.”

As to the latter quote, we all should know that the USSC does not, in fact, pass laws.  The job of the Court is the same as any judicial institution, namely, to apply the laws passed by the legislature (and approved by the executive) to specific cases.  It is not the primary job of the judiciary, by the way, to interpret laws.  This power is a necessary corollary of the power to apply laws to specific circumstances.

That being said, look at the former quotes.  Dr. Moynihan places the entire affair into the realm of the subjective.  Miss Davis shouldn’t be forced to abandon her beliefs;  Miss Davis has her principles.  She shouldn’t be forced, in other words, to violate her own conscience.  Well, who cares what her internal belief system is?  If individual conscience is king, why should Larry the homo county clerk be forced into providing a license to two Catholics?

More gems from the doctor:  “It is important to note that in this matter even some self-described homosexuals have said they oppose homosexual ‘marriage’…”  Why?  Because children have a “right” to a mother and a father.  Well, fine enough, but why on Earth should we care what a few sodomizers think?  What possible merit does their opinion have when considering the objective evil of sodomy?  Why would he even quote such people in an article which also cites St. Thomas Aquinas?

As I stated before, county clerks should not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, not because it conflicts with their personal beliefs, but because it is objectively wrong.  Marriage is a reality in the objective order of things, and as such, has certain requirements.  One of them is that both parties be living.  Another is that the parties be of the opposite sex.  A clerk should not issue these licenses because it is impossible.  The second reason is that the USSC decision is invalid and illegal.

Those are the main reasons, but if you want, here’s a bonus:  Sodomy is a revolting, unnatural, and immoral practice which should be illegal.  At least one party to this act is a victim, and no clerk should be forced to commit people to this perversion.

We will never win this fight until we are clear about our terms.

Transgender health care rules

Remember how, whenever two sodomizers get “married,” we are asked why we should care about their private life?  “Why should you, oh Mr. Religious Conservative, care if Bob and Larry get married?  What’s it to you?”  Aside from the objectively nonsensical idea that members of the same sex can somehow be married (they can’t), remember that the marriage push is the tip of a much larger spear in the LGBT movement which is designed to force you, like it or not, to cooperate with their vice.

Case in point, President Obama has issued “rules” (we used to have laws) instructing the now-nationalized health care industry that they may no longer “discriminate” against “transgender people.”  This means, first of all, that your health insurer will have to start paying for care related to gender re-assignment.  They already pay for hormonal treatments, and while the new “rules” won’t force them to cover sex-reassignment surgery, you can be sure eventually they will.  What a disturbing world we live in that men are dosing themselves with female hormones and then going to a surgeon to have their manhood lopped off.  Actually, what a disturbing world that such self-trauma is covered by “insurance.”

Now keep in mind how insurance works.  If you are a healthy adult, you are paying into insurance that you are not actually using.  Your money goes into a pool that will help cover Christopher’s transition to Christine.  Congratulations, you are paying for this psychopathic mutilation.

The second part of the executive order states that health care facilities will no longer be allowed to bar gender-confused individuals from their “preferred” restroom.  So now, while your wife is using the hospital ladies’ room, she’s going to have to share it with poor old Chuck, a man in a dress who has a few issues with his, er, sexuality, and prefers the company of women whilst doing his business.  Good luck to you when you rush into the ladies’ room when you hear your wife scream, but at trial I recommend claiming your own gender-confusion.

Some schools (schools!) are dealing with this problem by creating gender-neutral restrooms.  This is a non-solution for two reasons:  first, builders create men’s rooms and women’s rooms because they can handle multiple men or women at a time.  It isn’t economical in most facilities to have a large number of single restrooms, and gender-neutral restrooms are that.  (Maybe we have men’s rooms, women’s rooms, and sex-pervert rooms?)  In the second place, the goal of the LGBT movement is to force you to participate in their destruction of objective reality.  It does them little good to have everyone off in their little cubicle when their real goal will be to force everyone into a single, large gender-indistinct room.

As I have said a number of times in the past, ultimately the philosophical absurdity of Nominalism is to blame for this, as well as its offshoot called Existentialism.  Nominalists don’t recognize the reality of essence, and so they think any class of things we recognize (e.g. men, women) are a class merely by name and not because they share any common essence.  This makes the individual the only truly real thing, and hence individual expression trumps any sort of group gender-identity.

This would be less harmful if it staying in the halls of what passes for academia these days, but the advocates of such views are not content with that.  And so, now you are paying for gender-benders to mutilate themselves and letting sex-perverts into your restrooms.

The wrong martyr: Kim Davis

It is a defect of the modern Catholic neo-conservative movement that it fits every news story into its false neo-con “narrative,” without looking or thinking more deeply about what the issues represent.  Case in point is Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who has just been jailed for refusing to marry sodomites.  “Oh, she’s being jailed for being a Christian!  Oh, this is the beginning of the persecution!”  If only!

This author is well aware that a persecution is indeed beginning, but Miss Davis has never made any argument that would qualify her as a persecutee.  Miss Davis, an adherent to the false Protestant sect, is unfortunately poisoned with the Protestant notion that places individual judgement as the highest measure of reality.

Thus, her argument is as follows:  “If I marry sodomites, then I’ll be violating my beliefs, and the government can never force me to violate my religion.”  In other words, the government is forcing her to contradict her own personal belief system, and that is wrong.

However, Miss Davis is a county clerk by choice, and having assumed an office of the government she can naturally be required to perform duties that might contradict her personal conscience.  Is it the job of the clerk, for example, to determine that Suzy Q. and Billy Y. are not to be married, because they are young and immature, and show up at the clerk’s office spontaneously, without having thought it out?  Or, conversely, what about a sodomite who attends an “LGBT-friendly” (false) church, and who refuses to marry Christians?  Why is that not his right if the only standard is our own personal conscience?

Miss Davis couches her point in terms of pure subjectivity, which is absurd.  Of course she, and any other clerk in this country, should refuse to issue such licenses, but they should do so by stating why, in the objective order, such a course of action is impossible:

1.  A male and female party are required to contract a valid marriage.  This is as much a requirement as the need for both parties to be living.  This is not subject to definition or re-definition, since only a male and female party can reproduce.  Two men can no more be married than a mosquito can be a pig.
2. The United States Supreme Court acted illegally by unilaterally declaring that the Constitution says something that it does not, and that the authors of the Constitution never intended.  The justices have no right nor authority to amend the Constitution, for which a procedure is established.

If she made these arguments, she’d likely be in jail nevertheless, but at least for the right reason.  Then I’d be willing to consider her a martyr.  Meanwhile, she is just advancing the argument the subjectivity trumps objectivity, and is hence, a part of the problem.

As long as we are stuck in this rut, we will get silly articles like this CNS piece declaring her a hero.  The author asks: “What compelling reason can there be when gay activists targeting Davis can get a marriage license at any of the 129 other locations in the state?”  As if that’s a great thing?!  Subjectivity strikes again!  Hey, Miss Davis might not be issuing any licenses, but that’s up to her!  Just go to a clerk who’s down with sodomy and you’re fine!

No, once again, a male and a female party are required for marriage to be marriage.  And the USSC cannot amend the Constitution.  Let’s fight the right battle here.