Okay, time for some racist Rush quotes!
“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”
“Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” (19 Jan 2007 show)
(To an African-American female caller) “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” (Rush admitted this one, but claimed he didn’t mean it “that way.” Uh-huh.)
“I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.” (September 2003. This one got him fired from ESPN as a commentator.)
motivemagus said: “Okay, time for some racist Rush quotes!
“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”
“Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” (19 Jan 2007 show)
(To an African-American female caller) “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” (Rush admitted this one, but claimed he didn’t mean it “that way.” Uh-huh.)
“I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.” (September 2003. This one got him fired from ESPN as a commentator.)”
ANandy reacts: After three hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks a year for twenty-some years of talk on radio and television as well as many public appearances, if one can find five objectionable statements one is really trying hard. One might reconsider one’s definition of racism.
When one is fired as a television commentator for stating an opinion but another is retained after gross moral indiscretions, don’t cite television as the standard. Your duplicity is evident.
The reason libs object is that Limbaugh has had real impact on the national dialogue, causing many to question the old, tired liberal platitudes and truisms from their lap-dog media.
How does someone hate someone so much and continue to listen to them daily? I don’t have time to listen to Limbaugh so I can’t realistically comment on what he says. However, when I do have a few moments to listen to the radio, if I don’t like what I am hearing I change the channel. Similar to when I don’t like a TV show, I change the channel. I just love people who say I cannot stand a show (be it radio or TV) but almost never miss one. Too much!!
Jag, Wiley Miller explains the ‘Rush’, ‘Glenn’, etc phenom here http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2009/10/14/
As far as why people listen - some people can’t stand to be alone with themselves. Some respond by listening to music, some by reading a book, others by stoking their anger at perceived injustices.
Reconsider racism, ANandy? No need, I think it’s quite clear. If your argument is that Rush simply made a few mistakes over a lengthy career, well, everyone makes mistakes. However…
A pattern of mistakes is indicative. Not apologizing for obviously racist remarks is also indicative. Blaming other people for calling him out is also indicative. And I didn’t even cite the “Barack the Magic Negro” issue!
I object to Rush because he is an obnoxious liar pretending to provide news but who will in fact say anything to get ratings – and has admitted as much recently. Notice that? And indeed he has had a powerful impact on the media – a negative one. Of course I object to this bloviator contaminating the media and corrupting national debates – not to mention the way he is running the Republican Party.
I really do not need anyone to explain anybody to me. That is not the point. Whether it be a conservative, moderate or liberal is not the point. Whether it be a radio talk show, sports show or newscast is not the point. Whether it be a comedy or dram doesn’t matter. My point is, if you don’t like a show - don’t listen.
motivemagus said: “…I object to Rush because he is an obnoxious liar pretending to provide news but who will in fact say anything to get ratings…”
ANandy responds: Then I must object to you as an obnoxious liar, as Limbaugh has NEVER represented himself as providing news; he has always represented his activities as entertainment media.
While you’re sampling that bit of crow, educate yourself on the difference between racism and bias.
To label others, who have demonstrated biased attitudes racists, is libelous, a lie.
Before you irresponsibly throw out accusations, research the subject. “The Magic Negro” was a reference by Spike Lee, later picked up in an opinion article written by David Ehrenstein in March, 2007 in the L.A. Times. A subsequent parody was used by Limbaugh. So what?
Those who are quick to see racism in others are most likely racist themselves.
Herblock, who was a great political cartoonist, I think their annual award is named after him, was asked “Isn’t the point of a political to make people angry so they will act?”
No he said, a political cartoon should make people think so they act.
OBAMA would give them some money…fire the coach…give everybody a beer and the take control…he does things the Wright way….at least Rush does it the right way…..how do Jackson, Farakand, Wright and Sharpton get exempted from the racist label? NARC-M. national association of racist clergymen
bigg3469 said: “Geez lighten up you Righty UpTighties!! Rush buying the St Louis Rams is Almost like PeTA buying the entire Kentucky Fried Chicken Franchise it’s just plain wrong! & With the “Emperor of the Righty-Up Tighty wingnut WASP regime” thinking of buying the Rams, Carroll Rosenbloom is spinning 1040’s in his grave!”
ANandy replies: When some serious dialogue comes along, bigg idiot trots out the usual liberal patronizing belittling template, right on cue.
Sheesh, up here, we wouldn’t let Don Cherry own the Montreal Canadiens and as much as french-canadians can’t stant Canadians (hates just about everyone in the hockey business that’s neither an american or english-canadian) and he’s not as bad as Limbaugh.
so nomad. I went to your site and watched 2 Black women quote Al Sharpton and call Rush a racist on MSNBC……I learned more about you than about Rush…if that’s how you define Racist and don’t include the oh so reverend…Jackson, Farakand, Wright and Sharpton…I’ve reached a new level of understanding of ‘double standard’ vision…as far as the MSNBC thing goes you have my sympathy….in the old Roman Catholic definition you have Vincible Ignorance.
That’s funny, ‘cause I saw two people relying on hearsay to form their subjective and biased opinions about a man they know nothing about. They then tried and convicted this man from their bully pulpit based on said opinions.
Based on my observation I beleave that Vincible Ignorance applies to you.
Sort of a silly argument going on. Let Rush buy in if he wants. What should I care? If sponsors go away because he’s obnoxious or racist or anything else, well, that’s the market, no? If his players decide they don’t want to be on his team and try to get out Dodge as fast as their contracts allow, well, that’s business. If the rest of the owners think he’s too big a lightning rod and want nothing to do with him, not my problem.
However, he got dumped, which I suspect is exactly what he wanted – now he’s a martyr.
The cartoon is accurate ~ Rush is a racist. Pure and simple. No matter his party affiliation or his profession. This is not about anyone else other than the racist…Rush Limbaugh. He is the most racist, mysognistic, hate filled man on television. Why, we, Americans permit him to spew his venom on people of color, women, the disabled, well it is beyond me. He IS A HATEful man…making $400 M a year to keep the other extermists excited. $400 M a year!!!
Are you speaking of my assemblage of Lib “bone-age”? I found a “hopeful monster” that proves evolution; It’s a dog with a horses’ hind end, Canis megarump. Ask fennec what an “hopeful monster” is if you do not know.
BCS, A “hopeful monster” is the object of a theory evolutionists have come up with to explain why there aren’t any transitional organisms in the fossil record. A complete new organism , genetically different from it’s parent is born spontaneously in an epochal blink of an eye.
Actually, this type of theory seperates the syncophant scientists of other areas of expertise from the true evolutionary scientists. Is it just one scientist you need, Dr. Canuck? Here’s three:Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt, Stephen J. Gould. Here’s an excerpt from an article by Dr. Duane Gish:
How desperate the situation really is was betrayed by Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt and others over 40 years ago when they proposed what they themselves called the “hopeful monster” mechanism, which in its most extreme form, as put forth by Schindewolf and Goldschmidt, resulted in the suggestion that the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg. They suggested that the major evolutionary advances have taken place in single large steps. They believed that these drastic changes were caused by systemic mutations which affected early embryonic stages, with automatic reconstruction of all later phases in the development of the effected organism. This suggestion was met with open derision by neo-Darwinists (proponents of slow, gradual change). The idea has received support recently, however, from Stephen J. Gould, one of the main spokesmen for evolutionists in the U.S. today. In his 1977 article, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, “ Gould not only admits that the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, but he also asks the question (asked by creationists ever since Darwin), of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? For these reasons Gould suggested that eventually Goldschmidt would be largely vindicated.
Here’s another link from Anthony which demonstrates how the lack of transitional fossils necessitates the discovery of “quick” evolutionary models:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/14/darwinopterus.dinosaur.fossil/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
Pterodactyl fossil fills gaps in evolutionary taleexcerpts:
“Scientists say a very rare find of some 20 fossilized pterodactyls has produced the first clear evidence of a controversial theory of evolution…The combination of features indicates that the primitive pterodactyls evolved relatively quickly, and that certain groups of features changed at the same time…Traditional evolutionary theory suggests that one feature – a tail for instance – would slowly evolve over time… The researchers say more study is needed to substantiate the idea of that evolution could occur relatively quickly, and that whole parts of a plant or animal’s body could change at once…The fossils indicate Darwinopterus was about the size of a crow, with long jaws, sharp, pointed teeth and a flexible neck…”
I’m just the messenger, Canooky, your accepted origins myth has holes in it so large you can sail the HMS Beagle through it. Notice how the CNN article points out these archaeologists have “produced the first clear evidence of a controversial theory of evolution…” in their new finds… Sounds “hopeful”. :^P
There isn’t any “science” in the evolutionary theory. That’s why they keep looking for plausible excuses for finding zero transitional fossils or organisms.
Here’s your “science”, and it hasn’t changed in an 120 years:
“Gee, a frog is like a snake but less like a snake than a lizard, and even more like a newt…but definitely not like a squirrel or a giraffe. Therefore, the frog and the newt share a common ancestor…And the lizard and snake share a common ancestor, which probably shares a common ancestor with the frog and newts’ ancestor.” And so on. And this is supposedly proven by the fact that a certain bird has shorter -beaked relatives on the other side of an island.
And here’s the clincher, I’m going to trust the Man who claimed He was God’s Son and I’m going to judge Him by the words he spoke. Thank you.
Actually, and you would do well to consider it…He didn’t say anything about evolution. Nor did he in-validate any of the Old Testament; which includes the Creation Story. I have to assume that the God who “calls things that are not …” into existence, does not need help from a non-existent biological process. It is a veritable biological “alchemy” to which you and your ilk maintain your loyalty to.
Actually the “hopeful monster” theory is about one species propagating offspring with all-together different genetic information. That is why Goldschmidt and Schindewolf thought of it in the first place: to explain the lack of transitional fossils.
Am I talking to adults or children here? Gravity? In case you are serious I think gravity comes under the heading of Natural Laws: These laws are demonstrably evident and always true. God is a super-natural being and is not subject to Natural Laws as the Creation is.
dsscheibe over 14 years ago
Obviously Lalo is a moron who’s never listened to Rush. People who see racism every where they look when there is no are racist them selves.
nomad2112 over 14 years ago
Alcaraz, isn’t it about time you join the human race?
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
Okay, time for some racist Rush quotes! “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?” “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” (19 Jan 2007 show) (To an African-American female caller) “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” (Rush admitted this one, but claimed he didn’t mean it “that way.” Uh-huh.) “I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.” (September 2003. This one got him fired from ESPN as a commentator.)
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Yo, the MahaRushie himself! The Doctor of Democracy don’ wan’ no slacker team… (Unless he can get it cheap wit-out a scene.)
ANandy over 14 years ago
motivemagus said: “Okay, time for some racist Rush quotes! “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?” “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” (19 Jan 2007 show) (To an African-American female caller) “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” (Rush admitted this one, but claimed he didn’t mean it “that way.” Uh-huh.) “I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.” (September 2003. This one got him fired from ESPN as a commentator.)”
ANandy reacts: After three hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks a year for twenty-some years of talk on radio and television as well as many public appearances, if one can find five objectionable statements one is really trying hard. One might reconsider one’s definition of racism. When one is fired as a television commentator for stating an opinion but another is retained after gross moral indiscretions, don’t cite television as the standard. Your duplicity is evident. The reason libs object is that Limbaugh has had real impact on the national dialogue, causing many to question the old, tired liberal platitudes and truisms from their lap-dog media.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
La poco cucaracha has been hiding in the dirty laundry…
charliekane over 14 years ago
What commentator is Nandy talkin’ about? Bill O’Reilly?
jag72 over 14 years ago
How does someone hate someone so much and continue to listen to them daily? I don’t have time to listen to Limbaugh so I can’t realistically comment on what he says. However, when I do have a few moments to listen to the radio, if I don’t like what I am hearing I change the channel. Similar to when I don’t like a TV show, I change the channel. I just love people who say I cannot stand a show (be it radio or TV) but almost never miss one. Too much!!
PlainBill over 14 years ago
Jag, Wiley Miller explains the ‘Rush’, ‘Glenn’, etc phenom here http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2009/10/14/
As far as why people listen - some people can’t stand to be alone with themselves. Some respond by listening to music, some by reading a book, others by stoking their anger at perceived injustices.
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
Reconsider racism, ANandy? No need, I think it’s quite clear. If your argument is that Rush simply made a few mistakes over a lengthy career, well, everyone makes mistakes. However… A pattern of mistakes is indicative. Not apologizing for obviously racist remarks is also indicative. Blaming other people for calling him out is also indicative. And I didn’t even cite the “Barack the Magic Negro” issue! I object to Rush because he is an obnoxious liar pretending to provide news but who will in fact say anything to get ratings – and has admitted as much recently. Notice that? And indeed he has had a powerful impact on the media – a negative one. Of course I object to this bloviator contaminating the media and corrupting national debates – not to mention the way he is running the Republican Party.
jag72 over 14 years ago
I really do not need anyone to explain anybody to me. That is not the point. Whether it be a conservative, moderate or liberal is not the point. Whether it be a radio talk show, sports show or newscast is not the point. Whether it be a comedy or dram doesn’t matter. My point is, if you don’t like a show - don’t listen.
ANandy over 14 years ago
motivemagus said: “…I object to Rush because he is an obnoxious liar pretending to provide news but who will in fact say anything to get ratings…”
ANandy responds: Then I must object to you as an obnoxious liar, as Limbaugh has NEVER represented himself as providing news; he has always represented his activities as entertainment media. While you’re sampling that bit of crow, educate yourself on the difference between racism and bias. To label others, who have demonstrated biased attitudes racists, is libelous, a lie. Before you irresponsibly throw out accusations, research the subject. “The Magic Negro” was a reference by Spike Lee, later picked up in an opinion article written by David Ehrenstein in March, 2007 in the L.A. Times. A subsequent parody was used by Limbaugh. So what? Those who are quick to see racism in others are most likely racist themselves.
kennethcwarren64 over 14 years ago
Herblock, who was a great political cartoonist, I think their annual award is named after him, was asked “Isn’t the point of a political to make people angry so they will act?”
No he said, a political cartoon should make people think so they act.
This is not a good political cartoon.
Magnaut over 14 years ago
OBAMA would give them some money…fire the coach…give everybody a beer and the take control…he does things the Wright way….at least Rush does it the right way…..how do Jackson, Farakand, Wright and Sharpton get exempted from the racist label? NARC-M. national association of racist clergymen
tecolote over 14 years ago
Who is this Rush guy anyway?
ANandy over 14 years ago
bigg3469 said: “Geez lighten up you Righty UpTighties!! Rush buying the St Louis Rams is Almost like PeTA buying the entire Kentucky Fried Chicken Franchise it’s just plain wrong! & With the “Emperor of the Righty-Up Tighty wingnut WASP regime” thinking of buying the Rams, Carroll Rosenbloom is spinning 1040’s in his grave!”
ANandy replies: When some serious dialogue comes along, bigg idiot trots out the usual liberal patronizing belittling template, right on cue.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 14 years ago
Sheesh, up here, we wouldn’t let Don Cherry own the Montreal Canadiens and as much as french-canadians can’t stant Canadians (hates just about everyone in the hockey business that’s neither an american or english-canadian) and he’s not as bad as Limbaugh.
ANandy over 14 years ago
Edgar regularly attends seance sessions to be able to know what others are thinking.
What has this to do with the issue?
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
Ken Warren, nice quote from Herblock
d_legendary1 over 14 years ago
When are you gonna start, Nomad?
Very true Ken. Its like telling us the sky is blue…
nomad2112 over 14 years ago
Sure, here’s the portrait of a rabid racist … .
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=GdSUkU4zDkMagnaut over 14 years ago
so nomad. I went to your site and watched 2 Black women quote Al Sharpton and call Rush a racist on MSNBC……I learned more about you than about Rush…if that’s how you define Racist and don’t include the oh so reverend…Jackson, Farakand, Wright and Sharpton…I’ve reached a new level of understanding of ‘double standard’ vision…as far as the MSNBC thing goes you have my sympathy….in the old Roman Catholic definition you have Vincible Ignorance.
nomad2112 over 14 years ago
That’s funny, ‘cause I saw two people relying on hearsay to form their subjective and biased opinions about a man they know nothing about. They then tried and convicted this man from their bully pulpit based on said opinions.
Based on my observation I beleave that Vincible Ignorance applies to you.
lisagrinning over 14 years ago
striper77 I’m sorry.
cdward over 14 years ago
Sort of a silly argument going on. Let Rush buy in if he wants. What should I care? If sponsors go away because he’s obnoxious or racist or anything else, well, that’s the market, no? If his players decide they don’t want to be on his team and try to get out Dodge as fast as their contracts allow, well, that’s business. If the rest of the owners think he’s too big a lightning rod and want nothing to do with him, not my problem.
However, he got dumped, which I suspect is exactly what he wanted – now he’s a martyr.
nomad2112 over 14 years ago
More information …
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_search_for_the_wikipedia_l.html.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxLUI33rj0E&feature=player_embeddedRuthMGlenn over 14 years ago
The cartoon is accurate ~ Rush is a racist. Pure and simple. No matter his party affiliation or his profession. This is not about anyone else other than the racist…Rush Limbaugh. He is the most racist, mysognistic, hate filled man on television. Why, we, Americans permit him to spew his venom on people of color, women, the disabled, well it is beyond me. He IS A HATEful man…making $400 M a year to keep the other extermists excited. $400 M a year!!!
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
puppy, when did your apparent fetish for bones appear? Want to lie down on the sofa and tell me about it?
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Are you speaking of my assemblage of Lib “bone-age”? I found a “hopeful monster” that proves evolution; It’s a dog with a horses’ hind end, Canis megarump. Ask fennec what an “hopeful monster” is if you do not know.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
OK, what’s a “hopeful monster” puppy or fennec?
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
I smell a rat…a Canadian rat!
BCS, A “hopeful monster” is the object of a theory evolutionists have come up with to explain why there aren’t any transitional organisms in the fossil record. A complete new organism , genetically different from it’s parent is born spontaneously in an epochal blink of an eye.
cdward over 14 years ago
puppy, are a creationist? I always thought you actually respected science. Or am I missing something?
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Actually, this type of theory seperates the syncophant scientists of other areas of expertise from the true evolutionary scientists. Is it just one scientist you need, Dr. Canuck? Here’s three:Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt, Stephen J. Gould. Here’s an excerpt from an article by Dr. Duane Gish: How desperate the situation really is was betrayed by Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt and others over 40 years ago when they proposed what they themselves called the “hopeful monster” mechanism, which in its most extreme form, as put forth by Schindewolf and Goldschmidt, resulted in the suggestion that the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg. They suggested that the major evolutionary advances have taken place in single large steps. They believed that these drastic changes were caused by systemic mutations which affected early embryonic stages, with automatic reconstruction of all later phases in the development of the effected organism. This suggestion was met with open derision by neo-Darwinists (proponents of slow, gradual change). The idea has received support recently, however, from Stephen J. Gould, one of the main spokesmen for evolutionists in the U.S. today. In his 1977 article, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, “ Gould not only admits that the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, but he also asks the question (asked by creationists ever since Darwin), of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? For these reasons Gould suggested that eventually Goldschmidt would be largely vindicated.
Here’s another link from Anthony which demonstrates how the lack of transitional fossils necessitates the discovery of “quick” evolutionary models: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/14/darwinopterus.dinosaur.fossil/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
Pterodactyl fossil fills gaps in evolutionary tale excerpts: “Scientists say a very rare find of some 20 fossilized pterodactyls has produced the first clear evidence of a controversial theory of evolution…The combination of features indicates that the primitive pterodactyls evolved relatively quickly, and that certain groups of features changed at the same time…Traditional evolutionary theory suggests that one feature – a tail for instance – would slowly evolve over time… The researchers say more study is needed to substantiate the idea of that evolution could occur relatively quickly, and that whole parts of a plant or animal’s body could change at once…The fossils indicate Darwinopterus was about the size of a crow, with long jaws, sharp, pointed teeth and a flexible neck…”
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
I’m just the messenger, Canooky, your accepted origins myth has holes in it so large you can sail the HMS Beagle through it. Notice how the CNN article points out these archaeologists have “produced the first clear evidence of a controversial theory of evolution…” in their new finds… Sounds “hopeful”. :^P
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
There isn’t any “science” in the evolutionary theory. That’s why they keep looking for plausible excuses for finding zero transitional fossils or organisms. Here’s your “science”, and it hasn’t changed in an 120 years: “Gee, a frog is like a snake but less like a snake than a lizard, and even more like a newt…but definitely not like a squirrel or a giraffe. Therefore, the frog and the newt share a common ancestor…And the lizard and snake share a common ancestor, which probably shares a common ancestor with the frog and newts’ ancestor.” And so on. And this is supposedly proven by the fact that a certain bird has shorter -beaked relatives on the other side of an island. And here’s the clincher, I’m going to trust the Man who claimed He was God’s Son and I’m going to judge Him by the words he spoke. Thank you.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
mirror-time, Fennec.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Actually, and you would do well to consider it…He didn’t say anything about evolution. Nor did he in-validate any of the Old Testament; which includes the Creation Story. I have to assume that the God who “calls things that are not …” into existence, does not need help from a non-existent biological process. It is a veritable biological “alchemy” to which you and your ilk maintain your loyalty to.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
…which he revealed in his Holy Scripture.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Fennec, you don’t get it: Men have been written by God.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
God made the limbic system.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Actually the “hopeful monster” theory is about one species propagating offspring with all-together different genetic information. That is why Goldschmidt and Schindewolf thought of it in the first place: to explain the lack of transitional fossils. Am I talking to adults or children here? Gravity? In case you are serious I think gravity comes under the heading of Natural Laws: These laws are demonstrably evident and always true. God is a super-natural being and is not subject to Natural Laws as the Creation is.