In a world-wide exclusive, the Naked News Department and the Perspective Research team has learned from TMZ that Honey Boo Boo is about to have a safe, stable home free of all convicted child molesters … …., or so vows Uncle Poodle, who says he’ll file for custody if things get bad at Mama June’s.
Sources connected with the family tell us … Uncle Poodle and his fiance Alan have researched the ground rules for winning temporary custody.
They say they have the financial wherewithal to support Honey Boo Boo, and they’re getting a new, larger apartment with a spare bedroom.
Our
sources say … Poodle and Alan are ready to file for temporary custody
if June does not completely sever her relationship with Mark McDaniel.(A
convicted child molester!)They will not ask for permanent custody because they’d like to see Sugar Bear eventually care for Honey Boo Boo … when he gets back on his feet financially.
They are talking trash about S.B. … calling him “an idiot” for hanging out with June.
As for 14-year-old Pumpkin … they have no desire to get custody of her — she hates them.
Read more: http://www.970wfla.com/articles/weird-news-104673/tmz-uncle-poodle-ill-fight-june-12928667/#ixzz3I2tiiDmA
And always remember kids, ya hear about it here first!!!!!!!
——————————————-
Folks, sometimes we get a story that has to be told in its entirety!
(Snopes.com is usually good for a laugh, but this one is over and above the ordinary call of duty!)
UNUSUAL CASE
Scrotum Self-Repair
By William A. Morton, Jr, MD
One morning I was called to the emergency room by the head ER nurse. She directed me to a patient who had refused to describe his problem other than to say that he “needed a doctor who took care of men’s troubles.” The patient, about 40, was pale, febrile, and obviously uncomfortable, and had little to say as he gingerly opened his trousers to expose a bit of angry red and black-and-blue scrotal skin.
After I asked the nurse to leave us, the patient permitted me to remove his trousers, shorts, and two or three yards of foul-smelling stained gauze wrapped about his scrotum, which was swollen to twice the size of a grapefruit and extremely tender. A jagged zig-zag laceration, oozing pus and blood, extended down the left scrotum.
We x-rayed the patient’s scrotum to locate the staples; admitted him to the hospital; and gave him tetanus antitoxin, broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy, and hexachlorophene sitz baths prior to surgery the next morning. The procedure consisted of exploration and debridement of the left side of the scrotal pouch. Eight rusty staples were retrieved, and the skin edges were trimmed and freshened. The left testis had been avulsed and was missing. The stump of the spermatic cord was recovered at the inguinal canal, debrided, and the vessels ligated properly, though not much of a hematoma was present. Through-and-through Penrose drains were sutured loosely in site, and the skin was loosely closed.
Convalescence was uneventful, and before his release from the hospital less than a week later, the patient confided the rest of his story to me. An unmarried loner, he usually didn’t leave the machine shop at lunchtime with his co-workers. Finding himself alone, he had begun the regular practice of masturbating by holding his penis against the canvas drive-belt of a large floor-based piece of running machinery. One day, as he approached orgasm, he lost his concentration and leaned too close to the belt. When his scrotum suddenly became caught between the pulley-wheel and the drive-belt, he was thrown into the air and landed a few feet away. Unaware that he had lost his left testis, and perhaps too stunned to feel much pain, he stapled the wound closed and resumed work. I can only assume he abandoned this method of self-gratification.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/emergent/stapled.asp
———————————————————–
Although the military has been silent about what targets were bombed by two CF-18s during Canada’s first air raids of the war, the U.S. command overseeing operations in the Gulf region released a list of the weekend bombing missions.
Apparently the Canadian CF 18-A’s blew up a dump truck!
“Government sources tell us the target that was hit was deemed to be of strategic importance.”
———————————————
Well folks, the Pope, over the weekend, said that Islam was spread by violence, and now Muslims around the world are threatening violence. [sic]
(CNN) — Pope Benedict XVI has said he is “very upset” that his speech on Islam offended Muslims and expressed his respect for their faith, according to the Vatican.
Vatican spokesman Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said in a statement on Saturday the pope’s position on Islam was unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that the Church “esteems Muslims, who adore the only God.”
The pope is “very upset that some parts of his speech could have sounded offensive to the sensibility of the Muslim faithful and were interpreted in a way that does not correspond at all to his intentions,” Bertone added.
The worst crisis since Benedict was elected in April 2005 was sparked by a speech in Germany Tuesday that appeared to endorse a Christian view, contested by most Muslims, that early Muslims spread their religion by violence.
In his speech, the pope quoted 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus who said: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
The backlash has cast doubt on a planned visit to Turkey by the German-born pope in November. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood said the Vatican’s statement was insufficient and they wanted “a personal apology.”
“We
feel he has committed a grave error against us and that this mistake
will only be removed through a personal apology,” the Brotherhood’s
deputy leader Mohammed Habib told Reuters.
The Vatican spokesman’s statement came as Muslims across the globe
protest Benedict’s remarks in scenes reminiscent of the protests this
year following the publication in a Danish paper of satirical cartoons
of Prophet Mohammed.
Authorities were investigating the motives of Molotov cocktail attacks on three churches in the West Bank city of Nablus, following a day of Palestinian protests against the pope’s remarks. No one was hurt and the churches were not badly damaged.
A group called the “Lions of Monotheism” claimed responsibility for two of the incidents on Saturday morning, Palestinian security sources said.
And in Indonesia, up to 1,000 Muslims rallied in protest at the comments made earlier in the week by the pope, who was citing an obscure Medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam’s founder as “evil and inhuman,” video of the scene showed.
Outside the Palestinian Embassy in Jakarta, police looked on as protesters stood behind the gates waving flags while organizer Heri Budianto shouted, “God is great.”
“Of course as we know the meaning of jihad can only be understood by Muslims,” Budianto told the crowd. “Only Muslims can understand what jihad is. It is impossible that jihad can be linked with violence, we Muslims have no violent character.”
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on Saturday urged the pope to apologize and withdraw his controversial comments, according to The Associated Press.
“The pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created,” the Bernama news agency quoted Abdullah as saying, AP said.
“The Vatican must now take full responsibility over the matter and carry out the necessary steps to rectify the mistake.”
The Moroccan Foreign Ministry on Saturday confirmed to CNN that the country has recalled its envoy to the Vatican for consultations. Morocco, in North Africa, is a Muslim nation.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the pope on Saturday, telling the mass-circulation Bild newspaper that the pontiff had merely been calling for dialogue with other religions.
“Whoever criticizes the pope misunderstood the aim of his speech,” Merkel was quoted as saying, according to Reuters.
“It was an invitation to dialogue between religions and the pope expressedly spoke in favour of this dialogue … What Benedict XVI emphasised was a decisive and uncompromising renunciation of all forms of violence in the name of religion.”
During his address at the University of Regensburg on Tuesday, Benedict quoted 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus.
“God,” the emperor, as the pope quoted, said, “is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature.” (Full story)
A transcript of the pope’s remarks obtained by The Associated Press television network reads: “In the seventh (sura, or chapter of the Quran), the emperor comes to speak about jihad, holy war.
“The emperor certainly knew that Sura 2, 256, reads: ‘No force in matters of faith’. It is one of the early suras, from a time — as experts say — in which Mohammed himself was still powerless and threatened.
“However, the emperor of course also knew the requirements about the holy war that were later formulated in the Quran. Without going into details like the handling of the owners of the scriptures, or non-believers, he (the emperor) turned to his interlocutors — in a surprisingly brusque way — with the central question after the relationship between religion and violence.
“He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’”
‘Ignorance of Islam’
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, in a statement released Thursday, said it “regrets the quotations cited by the pope on the Life of the Honorable Prophet Mohammed, and what he referred to as ‘spreading’ Islam ‘by the sword.’”
“The attribution of the spread of Islam around the world to the shedding of blood and violence, which is ‘incompatible with the nature of God’ is a complete distortion of the facts, which shows deep ignorance of Islam and Islamic history.”
Muslim Brotherhood Chairman Mohammed Mahdi Akef also expressed anger over the pope’s academic speech.
“The pope’s statements come to add fuel to fire and trigger anger within the Muslim world and show that the West with its politicians and clerics are hostile to Islam.”
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday the pope’s comments were “ugly” and said the pontiff should withdraw them.
“The pope spoke like a politician rather than as a man of religion,” Erdogan said in televised remarks, according to Reuters.
“The statements are ugly and unfortunate. The pope needs to take a step back to preserve inter-religious peace,” said Erdogan.
Erdogan was speaking before the Vatican issued a statement saying the Pope was sorry for upsetting Muslims in his lecture.
Criticism was not confined to Muslims. The New York Times said in an editorial on Saturday that he must issue a “deep and persuasive” apology for quotes used in his speech.
“The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly,” the Times said.
“He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal,” it added.
——————————————————
Look kids, we talked about this before, and I am going to give you the quotes from my book “The Plain Truth About God” one more time, that confirms what the Pope said, and if he wants to give me a call for support ……………………………, that’s perfectly O.K. with me too!
After Muhammad’s death, Islam also got off to a rocky
start when warfare was used to spread the faith, and three of the first
four Caliphs died by violence.
The fourth Caliph, Ali, was a cousin of Muhammad and his followers then tore the community in two by claiming that Ali should have been the first caliph by virtue of his blood ties to Muhammad.
A great many differences exist to this day between these two main
sects of Islam, and the distinctions go far deeper than just who should
have succeeded Muhammad.
In fact, it was in the interpretation of the Koran itself that there were already differences between the sects.
There were passages that summarized the things a Muslim should believe. These were too brief however, to be sufficient. And they were also too bare to be satisfying.
Because of this, we find different “creedal statements” circulating amongst the communities of both the Shiite and Sunni’s, as well as amongst the Sufi.
(Who are mystical branch of Islam.)
These became the subject of discussion and commentary until in time they grew into different Islamic theologies.
This led to a condition within the faith where almost anyone could at one time or another consider a person of another sect to be a non-believer and heretic.
One result of this was that Islam developed its heretical sects, and so part of the task was to distinguish orthodox belief and practice as opposed to various schools of heretical teaching.
(The similarity between this and the situation between the Catholics and Protestants is not mere coincidence, but the result of the schisms that can develop between different groups of similar beliefs!)
Perhaps what Islam needs is a “Reformation” along the same lines as the upheaval of the Catholic Church by Martin Luther.
As we said, Islam became highly divisive right from its inception when it split into the Sunni, Shiite, and Sufi sects.
Add to this the fact that Islam was spread through war and conflict as opposed to the philosophy of “love thy neighbour” that was the foundation of Christianity, and we have a religion that is ripe for dissension and conflict.
Then, on top of the divisiveness amongst the practitioners of Islam, we can see how the faith slides still further with the triumph of fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran in the 11th century.
This resulted in the triggering of major conflicts amongst the
population of the region and then the gradual decline of Islamic, and
then by default, Arab civilization.
(In other words, was it based on a religion that advocated the expansion of its ideals by force, or was this the manipulations of a politically dominant group whose aim was to establish a religious justification for Arab imperialism?)
Then, once the Arabs had acquired a sizable empire—a coherent religion was necessary in order to hold that empire together.
(Note: in the long run, over the centuries, the main purpose of any religion, once it had gone beyond the “sect” stage, was to perpetuate itself and also act as a glue to hold the empire together.)
So once again, was the religion in place and acting as the fuel for Arab hegemony, or was it the glue that was manufactured “after the fact” to hold the whole empire together.
This is a question that will never be answered as it is now lost in the mists of time.
However, we can draw certain inferences from it.
One of the facts that we have to consider is that the main driving force behind Islam is that it was bound up in war and aggression from its very inception.
As a result, no matter how close or far from the intended message of the Koran it was, portions of it were always used to justify an Arab extremist and expansionist view.
History has now given us an almost unbroken string of militant Islamic movements from the “Assassins” of the 11th-12th century to the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers.
(Even if he was technically a Persian and not Arab.)
The crusades were the first catalyst that got Islam to “rally round the flag” in Middle East terms, and the second was the Mongol invasion shortly after that.
Arab society became full of hatred to both Eastern and Western invaders and the early result of this was the emergence of Ibn-Taymeyah as one of the first Arab extremists.
The fourth Caliph, Ali, was a cousin of Muhammad and his followers then tore the community in two by claiming that Ali should have been the first caliph by virtue of his blood ties to Muhammad.
These
people came to be known as the Shi’a or Shiite sect, while the great
majority of the followers of Muhammad, who claim that succession does
not rely on blood ties, are known today as the Sunni.
A great many differences exist to this day between these two main
sects of Islam, and the distinctions go far deeper than just who should
have succeeded Muhammad.There were passages that summarized the things a Muslim should believe. These were too brief however, to be sufficient. And they were also too bare to be satisfying.
Because of this, we find different “creedal statements” circulating amongst the communities of both the Shiite and Sunni’s, as well as amongst the Sufi.
(Who are mystical branch of Islam.)
These became the subject of discussion and commentary until in time they grew into different Islamic theologies.
This led to a condition within the faith where almost anyone could at one time or another consider a person of another sect to be a non-believer and heretic.
One result of this was that Islam developed its heretical sects, and so part of the task was to distinguish orthodox belief and practice as opposed to various schools of heretical teaching.
(The similarity between this and the situation between the Catholics and Protestants is not mere coincidence, but the result of the schisms that can develop between different groups of similar beliefs!)
Perhaps what Islam needs is a “Reformation” along the same lines as the upheaval of the Catholic Church by Martin Luther.
As we said, Islam became highly divisive right from its inception when it split into the Sunni, Shiite, and Sufi sects.
Add to this the fact that Islam was spread through war and conflict as opposed to the philosophy of “love thy neighbour” that was the foundation of Christianity, and we have a religion that is ripe for dissension and conflict.
Then, on top of the divisiveness amongst the practitioners of Islam, we can see how the faith slides still further with the triumph of fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran in the 11th century.
This resulted in the triggering of major conflicts amongst the
population of the region and then the gradual decline of Islamic, and
then by default, Arab civilization.
With this in mind we can look back to about 620 C.E. when Mohammed started on a campaign of dominance.
Here in less than 100 years Arab tribesmen, riding on horseback,
emerged out of the Arabian deserts to conquer Syria, Mesopotamia,
Persia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya and Spain.
The great question we have to ask here is whether the Arab armies
were fuelled by religious fever during their expansion; or was the
religion “spiced up” after the 350 years where it was not documented
properly.(In other words, was it based on a religion that advocated the expansion of its ideals by force, or was this the manipulations of a politically dominant group whose aim was to establish a religious justification for Arab imperialism?)
Then, once the Arabs had acquired a sizable empire—a coherent religion was necessary in order to hold that empire together.
(Note: in the long run, over the centuries, the main purpose of any religion, once it had gone beyond the “sect” stage, was to perpetuate itself and also act as a glue to hold the empire together.)
So once again, was the religion in place and acting as the fuel for Arab hegemony, or was it the glue that was manufactured “after the fact” to hold the whole empire together.
This is a question that will never be answered as it is now lost in the mists of time.
However, we can draw certain inferences from it.
One of the facts that we have to consider is that the main driving force behind Islam is that it was bound up in war and aggression from its very inception.
As a result, no matter how close or far from the intended message of the Koran it was, portions of it were always used to justify an Arab extremist and expansionist view.
History has now given us an almost unbroken string of militant Islamic movements from the “Assassins” of the 11th-12th century to the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers.
(Even if he was technically a Persian and not Arab.)
The crusades were the first catalyst that got Islam to “rally round the flag” in Middle East terms, and the second was the Mongol invasion shortly after that.
Arab society became full of hatred to both Eastern and Western invaders and the early result of this was the emergence of Ibn-Taymeyah as one of the first Arab extremists.
The Plain Truth About God is available at: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1499513178
——————————————————–
AND ONE MORE TIME: JIAN GHOMESHI ON A DATE!
No comments:
Post a Comment