What a Party!

From The Federalist E-Digest:

As John Kerry ended his speech last night, here is what America -- and the world -- heard on CNN as DNC Convention Director Don Mischer orchestrated the final fainfare: "Go balloons, go balloons! Go balloons! I don't see anything happening. Go balloons! Go balloons! Go balloons! Standby confetti. Keep coming, balloons. More balloons. Bring it- balloons, balloons, balloons! We want balloons, tons of them. Bring them down. Let them all come. No confetti. No confetti yet. No confetti. All right, go balloons, go balloons. We need more balloons. All balloons! All balloons! Keep going! Come on, guys, lets move it. J*sus! We need more balloons. I want all balloons to go, g*dd*mmit. Go confetti. Go confetti. More confetti. I want more balloons. What's happening to the balloons? We need more balloons. We need all of them coming down. Go balloons- balloons? What's happening balloons? There's not enough coming down! All balloons, what the hell! There's nothing falling! What the f*** are you guys doing up there? We want more balloons coming down, more balloons. More balloons. More balloons."

I can't wait to have professionals like this running our country!

The Joys of Public School

In Billings, Montana, a 10-year old girl was forced to participate in a sexually explicit study at her school. The survey asked questions about genital growth and development.

The school district assured the girl's mother that an opt-out form had been sent home. But she claimed not to have received one. The mother spoke with the principal, making it clear that her daughter would not participate in any more surveys of this nature, but two days later, the child was forced to undergo another such survey.

Folks, if this offends you and makes you angry--GOOD! That's exactly what it should do. I can't imagine why anyone would want their child in public schools. Those who do should expect more of the same filth in the future.

Unholy Doings in the Holy Land

Whoever said speech is free?

An Open-Door Policy that Leads to a Closed Casket

An independent border-watch group, American Border Patrol, demonstrated our government's preparedness for killers sneaking into our country, by having two of its members spirit a briefcase across the border,from Mexico to the U.S. The briefcase was a fake WMD.

Their entry went undetected.

At this time, I'd just like to publicly thank the Department of "Homeland Security" for its competence, and its decision to take illegal immigration and terrorism seriously.

Cartoons: Then and Now

When I was a kid (no dinosaurs did not still walk the earth), cartoons actually had meaning. Don't get me wrong. I realize some were stupid and silly. But these seemed in the minority. Most had strong morals underlying the fun. Heroism, honor, integrity, courage in the face of evil, kindness, mercy--these were just a few of the traits exhibited. Even the Looney Tunes cartoons had witty, sarcastic dialiogue, designed not just for the amusement of children, but also adults.

I have two neices and three nephews, and I spend a lot of time in their presence. So cartoons often drone in the background. Occasionally, I pay attention to what I'm watching. Most of today's animated tv shows are frivolous and stupid, with no values or morals at all. Few elevate the finer virtues of humanity. All too often, they degrade and appeal only to the lowest common denominator of society. They revel in potty humor and vulgarity, or in the sheer joy of being a complete fool. They use inappropriate language and wallow in the grotesque. A few examples: Ed, Edd, and Eddy; Fairly Odd Parents; Courage the Cowardly Dog; Johnny Bravo; Grim and Evil--I could go on and on.

A few good cartoons still play, but most are reruns from years ago. The garbage has spilled out of the landfill and taken over kids' tv shows. All the more reason to turn the tv OFF.

Secession and the Constitution

Was secession constitutional? This is a sticky question, tackled by many folks over the years. I have no simple answers, but here's my take on the subject:

Since Lincoln admitted his paramount concern was keeping the Union together, determining the legality of secession is extremely important. Answering this question will shed light on the rightness or wrongness of launching the Civil War.

Shortly after Lincoln's inauguration, some senators and representatives made separate proposals to amend the Constitution in a way that would outlaw secession. As Walter Williams asks in his article from December, 2003, why was this necessary, unless secession was legal at the time?

In addition, Williams states:

But there's more evidence. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers.

There's more evidence. At the 1787 constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, in his revised "The Real Lincoln," provides abundant evidence in the forms of quotations from our Founders and numerous newspaper accounts that prove that Americans always took the right of secession for granted. Plus, secession was not an idea that had its origins in the South. Infuriated by Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the first secessionist movement started in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and other New England states.
 
Interesting points, no?

Admittedly, the Constitution allows for putting down insurrections and rebellions, and prohibits states from entering into confederations--but all of these criteria refer to states which still are part of the Union. The Confederate States of America considered themselves no such thing. They left the Union and became a separate country. This distinction must be understood. Rebelling within the framework of the United States of America, or making treaties and entering leagues with other nations while part of that Union, and breaking off from the Union altogether, are separate and very different things.

So an assumption that secession was legal existed up to-- and even after-- Lincoln's inauguration. Proposed amendments prohibiting its legality failed, never making it into the Constitution. From the beginning, the Union of the states, and the entering of those states into the whole, had been voluntary.

Was Lincoln right to wage war against the South and keep the Union together at all costs? Was the Confederacy wrong in seceding? I don't know the answers to these questions. Both are debatable, since we have no alternate timelines to visit for comparisons and contrasts.

But from a strictly Constitutional and legal perspective, I believe Lincoln was wrong in using the federal government's power to preserve the Union forcibly. Put another way, regardless of your view regarding the South's reasons for seceding, its parting with the U.S.A. was lawful and Constitutionally protected.

Demo-Ditty

Democrats just can't let the 2000 election go. They're still complaining about supposed uncounted votes. What a surprise!

Recount! Recount!
That's our cry!
'Cuz in '04
 it's do or die!
Tally the votes
and rake 'em in!
Vote three, four times--
just win, win, win!
Can't let Dubya
sit on our throne.
Won't throw the Right
another bone.
So swarm the jails,
crack-houses, too,
shelters and bars,
even the zoo!
 
Illegal aliens, sign right here.
Kerry will kiss your arse next year!

Art Defined

"All great art is the expression of man's delight in God's work, not his own."
 
--John Ruskin, Victorian art critic and social commentator

I just thought this was an excellent and succint definition of that which makes art transcend the merely mundane, becoming an amazing spectacle to behold.

Compare this description to what is currently considered "art." Quite a contrast, huh?

I'm a Lowly Insect!

According to its statistical report, I''ve moved up in the world, from an Insignificant Microbe, to a Lowly Insect, on The Truth Laid Bare.  Viva la evolution!

I'm overcome with emotion. Sniffle.

HALOSCAN!

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Isn't That Nifty?

Planned Parenthood, our country's exemplar of moral fortitude, now has its own clothing line. The inaugural item for sale: a t-shirt that says, simply:

I HAD AN ABORTION

Saying women should have the right to abort unborn children is one thing. Openly showing pride in such an act is another.

I believe the word "demonic" best describes PP's new idea.

 

American Pride

Isn't John Kerry a truly great American?

Always willing to help his fellow man. And you thought he wasn't a patriot!

What is Truth?

That's a question for the ages, a question most people have pondered at one time or another. Philosophers have devoted untold weighty tomes to the subject, and Pontius Pilate made this inquiry of Jesus.

My definition is simple: Truth is that which is known to all humans, undebatable in its surety; the seed of certainty that God has planted in each of our hearts; the spindle upon which the whole world turns, and our anchor in times of puzzlement. We can rely on it, just as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Just as sure as God loves us, and involves himself in the affairs of humankind. That is truth. I hope my feeble definition sheds a little light.

That said, I've often heard the secular argument that truth is simply what "society" has decided to live by. But one finds no satisfaction in this belief, since it brings unsolved problems to the table, and dredges up more questions than it answers.

For example, why did society choose certain mores, and reject others? If society runs more smoothly utilizing these beliefs, what is the explanation for this? And if, indeed, time and practice proves these rules good and useful, are they not at least tethered in truth?

To dig a little deeper, and to choose a different angle of attack against this rationale, let me make one important point very clear. There is no such thing as "Society."  This is a simplistic misnomer. Humanity is not cobbled together in one grand community. Humanity finds itself fractured into numerous societies (plural), separated by geography, religion, culture, language, and other factors. These individual societies differ drastically, yet all find certain beliefs collectively true.

Just to use one illustration, no human subgroup anywhere believes in the general virtue of murder. A universal denunciation of this sin exists amongst all racial, national, and regional groups.  Should we believe--as the secularists do--that this is a colossal coincidence, or should we accept that mankind has the ability to know and comprehend truth, that this is a perfect example of that understanding?

"Walk Like a Man. . ."

har har har! So the Theory of Evolution is true, after all! Hyuk!

What's next, kicking back in a smoking jacket with a nice cigar?

John Edwards, the Brilliant

From WorldNetDaily: Presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards says foreign leaders are "frustrated" with President Bush and want to see a new face in the White House – though he says they won't say so directly.

"I was, just a few weeks ago … in Brussels at a NATO meeting with a whole group of NATO ambassadors and hearing their perspective on this," he told CNN's Larry King on his program last night. "I just believe that these countries around the world, whose cooperation and alliances we need, believe that in order for them to have a fresh start with America, we're going to need a new president to do that. Now, they're not going to want to say this very vocally, of course, but the reality is that in order for us to re-establish old relations and to establish new relationships, I believe we need a new president."
 
Continued Edwards: "They didn't say that directly. What they said was they're very frustrated with the way this administration has dealt with them.
 
Can you believe this clown? Hey, John, you ambulance chaser, I just have one tiny comment:

WHO CARES!!!

Last time I checked, we don't elect our leaders on the basis of what some leftist twit in France or some other snob-world country says. We are a sovereign nation, and we will not have our leadership dictated to us by those who envy or hate us. Don't like it? Then get the heck outta here! I'll help ya pack with a smile on my face.

By the way, John, I'm sure that's not a whiff of bias I smell, right? Couldn't be, since you're running for vice president on the Democrank Party ticket. Nah, didn't think so.

Sad But True

Let me share a true story with ya.

My mother works as an RN at a local hospital. She has told me many stories of her tough experiences, but this one may shed some light on the issue of what happens to our tax money (i.e., income stolen by the gov't.)

A couple of days ago, she spoke of a boy who came here from Mexico, illegally, and got a job doing construction work. He has no family in the states, and speaks not one word of English. After being in the U.S. for over two years, he suffered a head injury on the job. Emergency transports brought him to the hospital. The government got involved, and decided to send him back home--but only after paying every penny of his medical expenses, including his treatment at an expensive rehabilitation facility, which specializes in head trauma victims.

Now for a second story.

The hospital received another patient with a head injury. This time, it was a little girl from Virginia, and her accident caused brain damage. The doctors who cared for her assured her insurance provider (medicaid) that the services of a rehabilitation center were needed direly. But her provider refused funding of such therapy, so she now has to forgo this needed, beneficial care.

Just to sum up: The first case involves an illegal immigrant, who received complete taxpayer-funded care for his injuries. The second involves a girl born in the U.S., who cannot receive the same quality of care. Is something wrong with this picture?

Don't get me wrong. I'm against our government confiscating money from taxpayers and then using it to pay for anyone's medical expenses--American citizen or not. This is what I like to call legalized theft. But regardless of your take on that issue, I believe we can all agree that taking care of someone who shouldn't even be here--while refusing to care properly for our own--is reprehensible. Thus you have your wonderful, just government at work, folks. Isn't that grand?

Potty Rage

First Road Rage, now Potty Rage. What'll they think of, next?

Express Lane Rage, of course. When you go to Wal-Mart, better go packin', bub.

A Time to Sing?

Arab women stand by and joyfully sing their hearts out as black women are raped by militia members.

This is happening in Sudan, right now. Can you believe this?:
 
During an attack on the village of Disa in June last year, Arab women accompanied the attackers and sang songs praising the government and scorning the black villagers.

According to an African chief quoted in the report, the singers said: "The blood of the blacks runs like water, we take their goods and we chase them from our area and our cattle will be in their land. The power of [Sudanese president Omer Hassan] al-Bashir belongs to the Arabs and we will kill you until the end, you blacks, we have killed your God."

The chief said that the Arab women also racially insulted women from the village: "You are gorillas, you are black, and you are badly dressed."

The Janjaweed  (a government milita group) have abducted women for use as sex slaves, in some cases breaking their limbs to prevent them escaping, as well as carrying out rapes in their home villages, the report said.

Pickled Russian Airline

This story cracked me up. Apparently, some drunken male flight attendants roughed up a passenger, for complaining about lousy service.

Does this little tale validate or decry the stereotype that Russian=sot?

John Kerry and Aborted Principles

Recently, Kerry made these remarks:
 
"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist...who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." 
 
Folks, this is called moral relativism. What's right and true and pure and good for me, may not be for others. His statement offers no hint of a universal truth, no mention of what abortion entails. Why is abortion wrong? Because a human child's life is being terminated? If you believe that, the question is: How could you not vote against it? With his own words, Kerry has proven that he is not a man of principle. He admits his intention of continuing to vote in favor of a practice he finds repugnant.  To make matters worse, he blanketly indicts his fellow Protestants and Jews as groups which are pro-abortion.
 
This has nothing to do with separation of church and state. It has everything to do with what is morally right and wrong. If science can prove conclusively that the termination of a pregnancy is the killing of an unborn child (and this has been done), then it's not a matter of opinion or religious conviction. It's a matter of fact. Putting political expediency above truth does not a virtuous leader make. Quite the opposite.