Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Idiocy Enshrined

This is what happens when inmates run the asylum:

MESA, Arizona — Officials at an Arizona school suspended a 13-year-old boy for sketching what looked like a gun, saying the action posed a threat to his classmates.

Administrators of Payne Junior High in nearby Chandler suspended the boy on Monday for five days but later reduced it to three days.

Chandler district spokesman Terry Locke said the crude sketch was "absolutely considered a threat," and that threatening words or pictures are punishable.

Isn't it dumbfounding? If the above picture is offensive, then I submit that watching Bugs Bunny is the equivalent of viewing a snuff film.

In a morally confused society, wanton evil is explained away and tolerated, while benign actions are condemned like witches in seventeenth century Salem. This also reveals how foolish, ethically infantile people like this Terry Locke character become school district spokesmen.

I see this as a sign of the feminist agenda's nihilistic touch. The child received punishment not for committing an egregious act, but for being a normal teenage boy. What young male has not drawn pictures of guns, or played cowboys and Indians? Heaven forfend that he owns a gun and fires it on occasion. This is the same mindset that transforms little boys into drooling dullards (courtesy of Ritalin) for daring to fidget in their seats after hours of sitting in a classroom, listening to a "teacher" drone on and on about global warming's destruction of the speckled howler monkey's untainted ecosystem.

When I was thirteen, my parents bought me a single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. Though it vexed me so, I somehow made it to adulthood without killing anyone, or even maiming them just a little bit.

Functionally Illiterate

What a sad and pathetic commentary of the state of our country:

One in four adults say they read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday. Of those who did read, women and seniors were most avid, and religious works and popular fiction were the top choices.

"I just get sleepy when I read," said Richard Bustos of Dallas, a habit with which millions of Americans can doubtless identify. Bustos, a 34-year-old project manager for a telecommunications company, said he had not read any books in the last year and would rather spend time in his backyard pool.

Wow, that's deep. Pun intended.

The Bible and religious works were read by two-thirds in the survey, more than all other categories.

At least this is a good sign that many have their priorities straight, when it comes to reading material.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

A Master of Vo-cab-lee-ary

A few days ago, Vox posted about Houghton Mifflin's "100 words every collectivist drone should know," or some such thing. I thought I'd take a crack at defining a few:

bowdlerize: crushing w/ a very large rock.

ziggurat: a rodent that runs in zigzagging patterns.

chicanery: another term for the feminist movement.

enfranchise: opening a McDonald's restaurant.

equinox: when everyone has a hard-knock life.

evanescent: when you smell just like Evan.

fatuous: obese.

hegemony: a garden kingdom.

homogeneous: an exceptionally intelligent "gay" person.

hypotenuse: an uneducated guess.

impeach: the act of peppering someone with fruit.

incontrovertible: a non-ragtop automobile.

irony: metallic taste.

jejune: month that comes after memay.

kowtow: ancient bovine martial art.

paradigm: twenty cents.

photosynthesis: feng shui hanging of framed photographs.

supercilious: when Superman has a bout of the giggles.

taxonomy: what the government would like to pass more legislation favoring.

vacuous: the newest Dirt Devil model.

winnow: a minnow whose husband died.

See, publik skewel learnt me gud!

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Something Like an Admission

Yesterday, Bush met with Larry and Curly of Canada and Mexico in Quebec on the matter of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which some believe is a precursor to a North American Union. Notice how the government invents happy names for questionable policies. Congress could pass a law tomorrow, demanding that all Christians be rounded up and put into concentration camps; no doubt it would be dubbed the "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" Act.

At a news conference after the meeting, a Fox News reporter asked them some direct questions:

"As you three leaders meet here, there are a growing number of people in each of your countries who have expressed concern about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This is addressed to all three of you. Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union? Are there plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all three countries? And do you believe all of these theories about a possible erosion of national identity stem from a lack of transparency from this partnership?"

Bush offered a three-paragraph response without answering the questions put to him:

"We represent three great nations. We each respect each other's sovereignty. You know, there are some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples. I just believe they're wrong. I believe it's in our interest to trade; I believe it's in our interest to dialogue; I believe it's in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people.

"And I'm amused by some of the speculation, some of the old – you can call them political scare tactics. If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate. I'm here representing my nation. I feel strongly that the United States is a force for good, and I feel strongly that by working with our neighbors we can (sic) a stronger force for good.

"So I appreciate that question. I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place. It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about."

There's nothing of substance in his entire retort. We have dripping arrogance, yes; we have ridicule; we have a misrepresentation of the reporter's questions; we have false accusations. What we do not have is a straightforward answer. Mr. Bush, no one said relations are harmful. No one said they were against trade. No one laid out a conspiracy. No one asked you to "prove" anything. You had a chance to nip uncertainties in the bud, if this amalgamation isn't moving forward; instead, you opted for BS artistry. Imagine my surprise.

When you're asked a question--a question voicing concerns with facts backing them--you have an obligation to answer it for the sake of those who put you in office--those you supposedly represent. If we wanted a haughty, elitist snot in the White House, we'd've written Hillary's name on the ballot long ago.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Putting Drunken Sailors to Shame

Here're a few examples of events that have transpired in Iraq, courtesy of U.S. government efficiency:

DynCorp was paid $43.8 million for building and storing a residential camp that was never used, including $4.2 million on VIP trailers and an Olympic-sized swimming pool that were not authorized.

Parsons Global received a contract in 2004 to construct 150 primary health care centers at a cost of $243 million. After $186 million had been spent, only six centers were complete. The contract was terminated, with the contractor required to complete only 14 more.

Bechtel lost its contract for the Basrah Children's Hospital when a $50 million project had reached a cost of $98 million and was about a year behind schedule.

I'm sure one could write a whole book listing nothing but stories like these. The silver lining is that all this blown money came straight out of the taxpayers' pockets. Isn't it comforting that Uncle Scam is putting our funds toward nonsense like this, when it would serve us better as kindling at the hearth? The people involved in such colossal waste should hang their heads in shame. It's criminal, and it's the kind of behavior that would land each of us in jail, if we put it into practice. Of course, when you have a limitless monetary supply, there's no such thing as living beyond your means.

(references taken from John Duncan's Washington Report)

Sunday, August 19, 2007


A quarterly newsletter I receive from my district (east TN) congressman, John J. Duncan, Jr., makes some interesting (and unsurprising) revelations about the defeated amnesty legislation:

In a typical week, we receive between a thousand and two thousand letters, emails, or postcards and roughly the same number of phone calls in our four offices put together. Roughly half will be about the bills or legislation, and about half will be from constituents who need some type of help or information. In all my years in Congress, I have never even come close to receiving as large or lopsided a volume as I have on immigration. In addition to all those who have called or written our offices, many, many others have expressed their opinions to me at meetings and events of all types throughout the District. The calls, letters, and comments from our constituents ran more than 50 to 1 against the bill in the Senate or any effort toward more liberal immigration. (emphases mine)

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

The Holy Spirit

One area in which some Christians tangle is the doctrine of the trinity. Particularly as to the nature of the Holy Spirit. I've never understood this conflict, as scripture is crystal-clear on the subject. In essence, it's a matter of whether or not you've read and believe the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is referenced in scripture in ways that make no sense, unless he is an individual personage. For example:

--Isaiah 63:10 talks about the Holy Spirit being "vexed."

--1 Corinthians 2:13 characterizes the Spirit as a "teacher."

--Ephesians 4:30 admonishes us not to "grieve" the Spirit.

--John 14:16 and John 14:26 both refer to the Holy Spirit as a "Comforter." In 14:26, Jesus uses the pronoun "he" in describing the Spirit.

--John 15:26 differentiates between all persons of the Trinity, and shows Jesus using the term "whom" in speaking of the Spirit.

--John 16:7 again describes the Spirit as a "Comforter," and with the pronoun "him" from Jesus' own lips.

--Matthew 28:19 again treats Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate persons.

--Mark 13:11 talks about the Spirit "speaking."

--Luke 2:26 tells us the Holy Ghost can "reveal."

--Luke 3:22 informs us that the Spirit descended in the bodily form of a dove to Jesus. Yet again, scripture distinguishes here between the Trinity's members.

--In Luke 4:1, the Spirit "leads" Jesus.

--Acts 5:3 reveals Peter criticizing Ananias for lying to the Spirit.

--Acts 5:32 calls the Holy Ghost a "witness."

--Acts 13:2 characterizes the Spirit as "speaking" to Paul and Barnabas.


I can go on, but I think the point stands on the above verses' merits. I believe Christians who question the Holy Spirit's personhood should reexamine scripture for themselves and discover that the Bible is not vague or unsatisfying in its elucidation of this matter. If the Spirit merely is the power of God, how can we vex or grieve an inanimate force? How can it teach and comfort us? How can it speak or reveal truths to us? How can it appear in physical form? How can it lead, and how can we lie to it? How can it be a witness? Why does scripture include the Spirit with Jesus and the Father, as a unique individual? And most important of all, why did Jesus Himself use terms in describing the Holy Spirit that we utilize solely in referring to people?

This is a controversy without legitimate dispute. I know we live in a time when dogmatism is the gravest perceived sin of religious people; yet sometimes people are dogmatic because the answer is obvious. The situation is as simple as: have you read the relevant scripture for yourself, and do you believe what it says? If you do so with prayer and meditation, you'll reach the only reasonable conclusion scripture allows.

Thursday, August 9, 2007


I want to expand upon a point I made in the comments section recently, because it's one far too many people fail in grasping. When interpreting the U.S. Constitution, we cannot limit ourselves to the text alone; we must take into consideration the intent behind the words: what was the goal or end the authors were trying to meet? If we neglect this obligation, we create a comfortable zone for misinterpretation.

For example, let's take the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The local militia was a volunteer organization, peopled by free individuals who owned guns. They formed this body for the protection of their homes and families against Indians, road agents, etc. The militia was not an arm of the government. Rather, it was a communal effort. We know this by examining history. Militias as understood by the Founders don't exist at present in most states. Ignorant people who know little about the Constitution and even less about the time in which it was drafted claim that the National Guard is the current equivalent. Wrong. National Guardsmen are government employees, beholden to bureaucratic whims. They usually serve their respective states; but in some cases--the current Iraq fiasco being one--the federal government takes hold of their reins. The neighborhood watch movement bears closer resemblance to militias than the National Guard.

All of this leads me to my point: if militias don't exist, now, and we cannot contextually examine anything outside the Amendment's textual confines, we soon draw (or become susceptible to) the conclusion that the right to bear arms is defunct, obsolete. However, if we study history and the writings and speeches of the men who cobbled the Constitution together, we realize that they understood the Amendment as covering individual rights, for purposes of self-defense and taking action or making a stand against a corrupt, overreaching government. But this reality doesn't dawn upon us by reading the Amendment; it becomes apparent by knowing our history and the intentions behind the words.

Constitutional constructionism doesn't mean enslaving oneself to the phrases of the document; it means reading the words and abiding by the original intent behind them.

Don't Hate Me Because I'm Beautiful

After a nice dinner of dog chow mein at my favorite local Chinese restaurant, I cracked my fortune cookie and read these words:

"Rarely do great beauty and virtue dwell together as they do in you."

My wife rolled her eyes, but she knows deep down that truer words were never spoken.

(Speaking of virtue, Chinese cuisine probably is the one redemptive quality of that ideological cesspool).

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Citizens and Aliens II

I thought I'd continue the last post by appending relevant quotes on immigration from the Founding Fathers:

John Adams: (Referring to public office applicants) "Among the number of applications..., cannot we find an American capable and worthy of the trust? ...Why should we take the bread out of the mouths of our own children and give it to strangers?" (Letter to Sec. State John Marshall, Aug. 14, 1800)


Benjamin Franklin: "The importation of foreigners into a country that has as many inhabitants as the present employments and provisions for subsistence will bear, will be in the end no increase of people, unless the new comers have more industry and frugality than the natives, and then they will provide more subsistence, and increase in the country; but they will gradually eat the natives out. Nor is it necessary to bring in foreigners to fill up any occasional vacancy in a country for such vacancy will soon be filled by natural generation." ("Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind and the Peopling of Countries," 1751)


Thomas Jefferson: "Yet from such [absolute monarchies], we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. Their principles with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us in the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." ("Notes on Virginia," 1782)


Alexander Hamilton: "The opinion advanced [by Jefferson] is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, [italics in original] so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency." ("Examinations of Jefferson's Message to Congress of December 7th, 1801," Jan. 12, 1802)


James Madison: "Our kind reception of emigrants is very proper, but it is dictated more by benevolent than by interested consideration, tho some of them seem to be very far from regarding the obligations as lying on their side." (Letter to Richard Peters, Feb. 22, 1819)


George Washington: "My opinion, with respect to emigration, is that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement, while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body...may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them." (Letter to John Adams, Nov. 15, 1794)

Sunday, August 5, 2007

Citizens and Aliens

In recent comments, Erik and GlennT made observations that have led me to the writing of this post. The question on the table is: does the U.S. Constitution apply to legal and illegal aliens? Having studied the issue, my answer is yes and no.

It's clear to me that Mr. Madison and the numerous Founders who lent their input to the Constitution's formation were drafting a document for U.S. citizens, not those of Mexico, China, England, Russia, or France. This is self-evident, for in the Preamble itself we are informed that:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The document differentiates between citizens and non-citizens. For example, aliens cannot hold the offices of U.S. Representative or Senator. Article I Section 8 bestows Congress with the power to create uniform Rules of Naturalization. Section 9 reveals that Congress may not hinder individual states in allowing the migration or importation of people who meet the states' approval. We're also told that Habeus Corpus may not be suspended, with the exceptions of invasion or rebellion. Question: If 1.1 million illegal aliens entering our borders annually doesn't constitute an invasion, pray tell, what would?

Article II Section 1 informs us that non-citizens may not hold the office of the President. By extension, the Vice President also must meet citizenship requirements, since the possibility exists of his becoming Chief Executive in a time of crisis. Electors must be residents of the states they represent, disqualifying illegal aliens.

The point of the above is to illustrate that the Constitution--and those who molded it--made distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. Non-citizens did not hold the same rights and privileges as citizens.

Let's take a look at the Bill of Rights and its application to aliens. Amendment 1 provides freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petitioning the government. It only applies in part. It's absurd on its face that aliens should have the latitude to become members of our press, initiate assemblies, or petition the government. I have no gripe with extending freedom of religion or speech to aliens.

The Second Amendment deals with gun ownership. The idea that aliens have a right to bear arms within our borders is asinine and conducive to chaos.

Amendment 3 is not applicable to this conversation. Amendment 4 entails search and seizure rights. I believe this applies to aliens, because private property is just that, regardless one's position on a map, and should be held inviolate.

Amendment 5 details due process and just compensation. This extends to aliens, because it harkens back to the natural rights of all men: life, liberty and property, except where due process has run its course.

Amendments 6 (speedy trial, confronting witnesses), 7 (trial by jury in civil cases), and 8 (no cruel or unusual punishment) are relatives of Amendment 5, so they apply to aliens. Amendments 9 and 10 are general statements about the Constitution's nature, and the powers of the states and their citizens.

For length purposes, I'll not deconstruct the other Amendments. We have a mixed bag. When we speak of life, liberty, property and due process, the Constitution sides with everyone in our territories, not just citizens. This harmonizes with a key principle fleshed out in our earlier Declaration of Independence, which states:

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.

Fitting aspects of our Constitution apply to all people within our borders, whether citizen or alien. Outside these parameters, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that other elements in the Constitution should be construed to elevate aliens to the level of citizens. After all, if aliens share all the same rights and privileges as citizens, then there is no such thing as citizenship. This idea is diametrically opposed to everything our Founders held dear.

Thursday, August 2, 2007


Florida now probing Ann Coulter for fraud

I read this headline at World Net Daily, and my first reaction was:

"That must hurt. Just be thankful it's Florida, and not Alaska."

Yes, I have a somewhat tarnished mind.