June 6, 2008
Obama/Hillary 2008
"I think Hillary will be Obama's VP on the Democratic ticket; and, if so, they'll win the White House!"*
--Original quote by the Grub Street Plumber
Whew! Glad to have that off my chest.
*Obviously I hope this doesn't happen, but I do think that it will.
Posted by Carl at 12:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 18, 2007
America is not a democracy.
NPR and one of Sotheby's vice presidents, David Redding, get it wrong: America is not a democracy; no matter what wikipedia might say. (Sotheby's also here.)
"There are new laws and then there are old ones, really old ones: say, the Magna Carta, for example...It's considered one of the most important legal documents in the history of democracy."
(Host, NPR, "All things Considered," December 18, 2007.)
So far, so good. But then:
"In return for their allegiance, the king ceded to the barons various rights. All kinds of ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution owe a debt to the Magna Carta."
(Margot Adler--or here; Show: IBID.)
Hmmm...Maybe that's how Americans gained freedom! We ceded our allegiance in return for rights.
David Redding continues:
"I still believe the most important thing about Magna Carta is it's mythic significance: we can point to a time, we can say this is where freedom and liberty began, this is the antecedent, the progenitor of the great documents of freedom of our country."
(Redding; Show: IBID.)
Let's hope that, considering his accent, NPR merely took what he said out of context; as they do with so many other things. Let's hope Mr. Redding meant "this is where British freedom began." What Mr. Redding said? It agrees not with our own Declaration.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
(Text here)
Our "separate and equal station," our being "created equal," our "unalienable rights"; , we are given entitlement to these, and they all are derived from"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
He said so himself.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
(Gen 1:1.)
"God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
(Gen. 1:27.)
Even the "atheist" Thomas Paine understood that the "rights" of mankind originally came from God, declaring that we were "originally equals in the order of creation." (Paine, Common Sense, 1776.)
But the Constitution itself denies the lie of democracy, declaring:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."
Can someone please explain for me, then, why these people, and so many other learned people, persist in referring to America as a democracy?
It just ain't so.
Posted by Carl at 9:40 PM | TrackBack
October 29, 2007
"The hopes for freedom...rest with the legislative branch of our governement." --Al Gore.
""This is the greatest country on the face of this earth; and the hopes for freedom and the viability and efficacy of self-government rest with the legislative branch of our, of our government in this day and time."
(Emphasis Mine; Source YouTube.com video.)
[Loud, annoying, game-show like sound] ...WRONG. C'mon former Vice-President-Al, Just what the heck do you think self-government means, anyway? Sounds like you might need more than just science lessons.
And besides, if what you're saying's true: we are friggin' doomed. Doomed, I tell ya.
Posted by Carl at 10:54 PM | TrackBack
July 19, 2007
Mayor Jim Naugle
Go here to vote for, or against, the Mayor. (Scroll to the bottom-left of the page.)
"Should Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle resign for making repeated comments that gay and lesbian residents have found offensive?" (South Florida Sun-Sentinel-dot-com.)
I voted for him.
Money quote: "Poll results not scientific"
Really? Your internet poll ain't scientific? Dur.
Other links to the same story:
From the San Francisco Bay Times
From [UN] Equality Florida (Their money quote: "REPORT DISCRIMINATION." here Top Right; lol.)
And here's an interesting tidbit: [UN]Equality Florida -- the people who want discrimination REPORTED -- they are supported by you and me; that is, if you pay taxes; and sorta through what could possibly be termed a money-funneling or money-channeling scheme*. (*Not intended to represent an actual legal term; a mockery.)
Here's how.
Some American Citizens work. Of those who work ALL pay some form of tax. This money, when once pilfered by our so-called representatives, is then divvied up betwixt numerous sycophants. Somehow, and in all seriousness only God and the Devil know how; but somehow, in 2003, nearly one-million dollars is given to the Dade Community Foundation. Remember, now, these are our tax dollars. Anyways, the Dade Community Foundation then gives somewhere between 10,000 and 24,999 dollars to [UN]Equality Florida.
Viola!
Without knowing it, WE THE PEOPLE have promoted this foolishness.
Now ain't that sweet?
(Couple more links after the jump...)
Continue reading "Mayor Jim Naugle"
Posted by Carl at 12:09 AM | TrackBack
February 13, 2007
"Sergeant Jason Hess wants a personal apology from Discount-mats.com..."
...and as far as I'm concerned, he should get one.
Faisal Khetani, replying to Mr. Hess' question about shipping mats to Iraq had this to say,
" From: contact@discount-mats.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:44 PM Subject: Re: Feedback: from discount-mats.comSGT Hess,
We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.Bargain Suppliers
Discount-Mats.com
Discount-Mats-dot-com
Story Link1
Story Link2
Story Link3
Story Link4
Found via Shock & Blog.
Posted by Carl at 1:05 AM | TrackBack
February 7, 2007
Abortion, "Gay Marriage," and the Ten Commandments.
I was stunned to learn today that abortion, "Gay Marriage," and the Ten Commandments are being used to "garner votes." Of course, this was even more stunning, for obvious reasons. But that is beside the point.
What is to the point is this.
That a politician wants to garner any vote, much less my vote, is irrelevant.
That some people--ahem, Mr. James--seem to believe family values are "defined by our families, is absurd. It's like saying that cowboys developed their highly romantic "cowboy-ish philosophies" because they lived out west. And just what the heck are family values anyway? Oh, that's right. Family values is only a buzzword.
"Buzzwords are typically intended to impress one's audience with the pretense of knowledge. For this reason, they are often universal. They typically make sentences difficult to dispute, on account of their cloudy meaning." (Link; Emphasis Mine.)
Well, that clears that up. Let's rephrase a quote from Mr. James now, shall we?
"Ourfamily values(updated text) sasdnvxcuoweyzzdd are defined by our families, not by our political leaders. Unfortunately for all of us, certain politicians have made abortion, gay marriage, and the Ten Commandments political footballs -doing injustice to how we should deal with these issues. These issues are being used to garner votes..." (Link)
Abortion is not a political issue. It is, as I have said, a matter of life and death.
"Gay Marriage" is not a political issue. Like lying, sodomy, homosexuality, or being gay is only an abomination. (Homosexuality=Lev. 18:22; Lying=Prov. 12:22)
The Ten Commandments themselves, are not a political issue. The historicity of their place in American Society is undeniable; although now, it is true, they have lost much of their former significance.
Jobs, education, and security; these things mean nothing without morality. And it is the height of either stupidity, or wickedness to pretend otherwise.
Posted by Carl at 10:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 22, 2007
CHART and Gov. Bredesen.
Governor Bredesen, along with these and these goobs, want to ban smoking at the blessed Waffle House, among other places.
Maybe he thinks it's unsafe. If that's so, I say we should simply burn down these dangerous restaurants.
Posted by Carl at 10:17 PM | TrackBack
January 4, 2007
Keith Ellison and the Qur'an.
Keith Ellison's oath on the Qur'an will be meaningless. Worse. For him, it will be/is false, and a thing contrary to his 'bible.'
"Let not those among you who are endued with grace and amplitude of means resolve by oath against helping their kinsmen, those in want, and those who have left their home in Allah's cause..." (Qur'an, An-Noor vs. 22)
Should those who fight against Americans come in the name of Allah, they are the enemies of America and are the people against whom Keith Ellison must not take an oath; but they are the people from whom he must defend our Country, by virtue of his oath to defend the Constitution.
And besides, how does one go from being reared as a Roman Catholic to becoming a Muslim? I will completely ignore how he said Farrakhan was not an anti-Semite; and how he wants a seperate state for blacks (scroll 1/4 way down); or how he defended a lady who said "Jews are among the most racist white people."
Yeah. Jews are racist.
Posted by Carl at 11:15 PM | TrackBack
Some SMOKE-FREE pics for your blog.
(Here is the real ad.)
Don't believe the assertion?
"A woman who has her first child after the age of 35 has approximately twice the risk of developing breast cancer as a woman who has a child before age 20."
"A woman who has her first child around age 30 has approximately the same lifetime risk of developing breast cancer as a woman who has never given birth."
Link here.
Post Script: Okay maybe the rubes previously mentioned--last post--don't want to ban smoking nationwide--though I'm sure they'd love to--but they sure as heck wanna ban it at Waffle House.
Posted by Carl at 10:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
SMOKE-FREE TENNESSEE: START 2007 OFF RIGHT: CONTACT YOUR SENATORS NOW!
These, these and these rubes want to ban smoking in the United States, and right here in Tennessee! I knew it would happen. More later.
Posted by Carl at 10:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 12, 2006
'Women’s Day.'
When one is writing a thing—whatever it may be—it is quite important that one should declare, at the genesis of the thing, what one intends to say and what one does not intend to say. Thus, what is not intended is this. I do not here argue that “women,” in general, should be refused an holiday. What I do argue, however, is that it should not take the place of “Mother’s day.”
Whenever a child is brought into this world, somewhere a mere woman becomes a mother. By “mere woman,” I mean simply a female member of the human race. It is quite true that she may be a mechanic. It is equally true that she might become a member of Congress. In fact, only a fool would deny that women in general are physically capable of many, if not most of the jobs which men perform. And even though there exist undeniable differences between the sexes, there is an absolutely inequality; women, however, hold the balance of the power.
A single father can fix lunches for children; he cannot be, nor replace, a mother. A man may fix dinner every night of the year; and still, he cannot supersede the role of mother. A man may act as a mother would act; he is still not a mother.
Now some people in our modern society have come to the conclusion that Mother’s Day “really should be Women’s day”; and this, for numerous reasons. “Women are professionals, they work hard every day,” they say. To which, by way of questions, I make an answer. Are mothers unprofessional? Do mothers work lazily? I find it strange that the author who is quoted makes the admission that, in his house at least, women get but one day of thanks for being “psychologists, doctors, chefs, nurses, carpenters, painters, wives, [and] mother[s].” And, while I cannot positively declare it to be so, I have it on good authority that my mother was never a carpenter.
But this banter is somewhat beside the point. For the whole point of the author seems to be summed up succinctly in his statement that “we should marvel at how women serve us not only has sic mothers, but as leaders and visionaries.” Which begs the question, of ‘Mother’s day” then, what is the point?
If we are to celebrate the vision and leadership of women as they act in various occupations and positions, governmental and otherwise, why in the name of all that is called Holiday should we call it Mother’s day?! That is, if we are to honor on Mother’s day every Trish, Deena, and Sherry—and that simply because she chanced to be born a woman—then why in the holy name of Noah Webster should we denominate it “Mother’s day?” But, I suppose, I might be fabricating arguments for the renaming of the day, in accordance with what I suppose the author intended. (And please to observe, dear reader, I am not attacking the author merely what I suppose he intended, viz., his philosophy of Mother's Day.)
No, no. Emphatically NO! I say. If mere women must have a day to recognize that, being no longer in voluntary submission to husband and family in accordance with Divine precept, they are now enslaved by a thing much more foolish, their boss; so be it! Give these silly women their own day, who think that working for Bosh, Bosh & Bosh eight to twelve hours a day is much more important and laborious than molding the minds of their own children. I do not say agree with them. Not only would that be heretical, it would be the very definition of lunacy. (How can teaching other children two-plus-two be a important career, while showing your own child the universe is small?) But, as I have said, give these women who find that being a wife and mother is something less than being a lawyer; give them their day.
But do not usurp the Day on which we honor those who held in a higher esteem than their own private ambitions, our upbringing. Do not, I say, pretend it is one and the same thing for a woman to be a legislator or a mother. It is not. Anyone may perform the duties of a mechanic or doctor; but, to her child, only one woman can be a mother.
Viva la Mother’s Day!
Posted by Carl at 1:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 9, 2006
Baleful politicians.
Women must hold public office if their simple existence is to have any meaning whatsoever. They must not merely seek these offices; no, they must have them! As one in touch with reality, this position I wholeheartedly maintain.
Too many are the politicians who believe that women should “stay home and cook,” whether they actually stated thus or not. And it is the height of absurdity to suppose that women should be allowed to choose to rear their children themselves. It is a practice quite contrary and, dare I say it, abhorrent to the course which nature intended. Anyone who disagrees with my position, contradicts all the data which is currently available. Thus, once again, I affirm that a woman who is not in business or politics is, herself, quite a useless member of society.
Commonsense dictates that even if it be but as a secretary, such a position held in a private office is infinitely more useful than that of a mere wife. Families, which come in numerous forms—two sisters and a cousin, for example; families, I say, are better left to rustic yokels, and other lower life forms. Scarcely would I belabour the point, however if one would but consider this carefully, they would soon discover that not one important thing in society has been brought about by families in general, nor wives in particular. Thus it is quite archaic for any current member of society to suppose that a woman should aspire to the glaring prison of wedlock. (Even the name itself foreshadows what is coming.)
Every citizen of Hamilton County is quite aware that the values of the district 8 incumbent are glaringly extinct. There is only one person—for I am fearful of saying ‘man’ lest it be construed to demean women—but, there is only one person dedicated to the final emancipation of women.
If we would not have our daughters be sentenced to a life of misery; if we would not imprison our women to slavish men; if we would keep our little girls free from a servile existence; the choice, come the election, is quite clear.
Posted by Carl at 9:32 PM | TrackBack
April 30, 2006
The Honest Politician.
Once upon a time there was an honest politician; he was promptly murdered.
Posted by Carl at 12:58 AM | TrackBack
The Deputy and the Congresswoman.
One day, in the House of Representatives, a Congresswoman was observed to beat a poor man and take his wallet. As the blood poured from his wounds, the poor man cried out for justice.
Just then a Deputy came up and accosted the Congresswoman who, not then being in transit from or to her business—for she did none—was liable to arrest.
“Madam, you have taken this man’s money, and, by all that is Just, I demand that you give it back!”
Although she was quite unaccustomed to being thus addressed, she had a ready wit and quickly responded.
“Sir, what are they paying you for upholding the law?”
“Three-thousand dollars per month.”
His answer pleased her so well that she returned the wallet and assailed the Deputy, taking his wallet in the process.
It is much better to steal from the rich.
Posted by Carl at 12:56 AM | TrackBack