Why I Favored Hillary

•June 7, 2008 • 2 Comments

With Hillary Clinton’s concession, it seems that Barack Obama has become the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidential race. There was a point in time when I supported Obama over Clinton. However, that changed a while ago. You see, when discussing the primary elections with someone, I mentioned that I favored Obama. “Why not Hillary Clinton?” I was asked. “Because she’s a woman?”

Then it hit me. The reason why I supported Obama over Clinton had nothing to do with Clinton’s disingenuousness. It had nothing to do with with her shady tactics. It had nothing to do with her voting record. It had nothing to do with her claims that, if provoked, she would nuke Iran. It had nothing to do with the number of people who vehemently hate her, making her a less viable candidate. It had everything to do with her gender.

You see, like most women, Hillary Clinton is female. This is why I, at first, disliked her. In our manocentric phallocracy, women are discouraged from participating in politics. They are sometimes seen as less rational and more emotional than men. What if she goes shoe shopping instead of signing laws and protecting national security? What if she paints the White House pink? What if she falls in love with Vladamir Putin? I must have been subliminally thinking these things. Why else would I not support a candidate who happens to be female?

So, with great sadness, I morn the loss of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate. Maybe someday our nation will be able to see past petty things like gender and elect a president solely because she is a woman.


A Case for the Legalization of Treason

•June 5, 2008 • Leave a Comment

In the United States of America, we claim to have affection for the Founding Fathers. We celebrate their birthdays. Their portraits grace statehouses and elementary school classrooms. Their intentions are considered in the interpretation of the Constitution. Yet, no matter how much we profess to revere them, we fail to honor our Founding Fathers in one important respect. The very thing that the United States was founded upon is against the law; that is, treason.

When the Fathers of our nation came together and saw the horrible atrocities of British taxation, they did the only sensible thing: violently overthrow the government. Even though this revolution is celebrated today, a modern day revolt against the government would probably result in a sentence of death. How can this be? How can we so dishonor our great heritage?

That is why I propose a constitutional amendment that not only makes treason legal, but requires all citizens to commit treason under penalty of law. The punishment for being caught not levying war against these United States shall be at most five consecutive death sentences (fair punishment for dishonoring our great nation). I, of course, propose the amendment instead of raising an army to usurp power because such a revolution would be illegal.

Congress, please do your part to legalize and enforce treason, the very foundation of our government. It is what the Founders intended. And anyone who disagrees with me is a traitor.

On a related note, I would like to propose adding the visage of one of our nations’ greatest men, Benedict Arnold, to a denomination of our currency. In addition to leading the fledgling United States to victory in several battles during the Revolution, he committed treason by plotting to hand over West Point to the British. By becoming a traitor, Arnold was reaffirming the ideals that America was founded on. He deserves to become part of the Pantheon of great American heroes.

It’s Time to Accept Obama for His Secret Islamic Faith

•May 23, 2008 • 27 Comments

There is something that candidate for Democratic presidential nomination Barack Obama has been hiding from the public. Let’s look at the facts: his father was a Muslim, he was taught in an Islamic school and his middle name is Hussein. It doesn’t take an Imam to figure out that Mr. Obama is a secret Muslim.

Now, many Americans are worried about the faith Obama is hiding from us. Perhaps he’s actually an extremist posing as a moderate secret Muslim who’s posing as a Christian. Perhaps he’s going to try to destroy our nation from the inside.

This is nothing but sheer xenophobia. It seems that in this post-9/11 world, many Americans are still wary of those of the Islamic faith. It is time for them to wake up and see the truth. Only a very small minority of Muslims are extremists who advocate violence; most are just average people.

Now, America was founded on ideas of religious tolerance and freedom. This is a nation where a man is free to secretly practice the Islamic faith, should he choose. And, besides, we all dwell on the same earth, under the same sun; we all breathe the same air; we all were born and we all will die. Shouldn’t we learn to embrace our fellow man, be he Christian, Buddhist, Taoist or secret Muslim?

America is a great melting pot. All sorts of different cultures come together to make our country what it is. We ought to be able to accept a political candidate whether or not he covertly practices the Islam. I say that it’s time for our nation to accept presidential hopeful Barack Obama for the secret Muslim that he is.

DaVinci was no Darwinist

•May 22, 2008 • 6 Comments

As it seems that not one person has submitted a sound argument on why Evolutionism is absolute truth for my contest, I think it would be appropriate to point out yet another reason why Darwin’s theory is wrong. Of course, this is not to dissuade all you dogmatic atheistic Evolutionists from submitting your amusing “proofs.”  Rather, it is to bring people to the light of undeniable truth.

Consider this: not one of the many geniuses throughout history (such as Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Leonardo DaVinci, etc.) developed the theory of Evolution until Darwin came along[1]. Why is it that none of these great minds came up with the same theory independently? Obviously, it is because they did not believe it. Issac Newton, who created the theory of gravity and invented calculus, was a Christian and did not believe in Evolution. It’s rather odd that Charles Darwin, a man with no other theories to his name, should come up with Darwinism instead of one of history’s great geniuses. It gets even more suspicious when you learn that this Darwin fellow considered himself to be an agnostic late in life. Perhaps Mr. Darwin created Darwinism to promote his Atheistic lifestyle.

But, before the publication of On the Origin of Species, there was another book that had been circulating for thousands of years that also claimed to know of the origin of species. This book was embraced by many of the great geniuses of Western society. You may have heard of it; it’s called The Bible. And unlike Darwin, who only has Darwinism to his name, the author of this book created the greatest thing of all; everything. Mull over that, Evolutionists, and then see if you can still make a valid argument for Darwin’s “great” theory.

Attention Darwinists – Prove Evolution and Win Big

•May 21, 2008 • 13 Comments

Back in his pre-federal prison days, the venerable creation scientist Dr. Kent Hovind made a wager that if any Darwinists could offer empirical scientific proof of Evolution, he would pay them $250,000. The fact that not a single Evolutionist has come forward and claimed the good doctor’s prize proves that the “theory” of Evolution is simply an atheistic religion masked as science. I mean, the terms of his wager are simple: prove beyond doubt that these five major tenets of Evolution happened without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

A rather simple task if Darwinism were true and not simply an atheistic religion. Of course, some Godless “scientists” have claimed that the contest is nonsense, since only number five has anything to do with Evolution, the theory of Evolution has nothing to do with God, declaring something to be absolute truth is not scientific and the five criteria are unprovable. This is an obvious scientific smokescreen. Whenever someone challenges the rigid belief systems of Science, scientists always come out with various arguments on why they are wrong. It’s the oldest trick in the book.

Well, it’s time to disprove Darwin once and for all. I am offering $25,000,000,000,000,000 to any Darwinist can prove to me that Evolution (which is simply the Godless occurrence of the five points listed above) is undeniable truth. The evidence must be completely watertight and completely objective (i.e., no subjective sense organs can be used at any point in your scientific inquiry). Your proof must be submitted to me in a comment on this posting by July 1st, 2008 Anno Domini. If no Darwinists can provide rock solid evidence of Evolution by that date, the money will not be rewarded, Darwinism will be officially discredited and the King James Version of the Bible will universally be accepted as the inerrant word of God and, therefore, absolute truth.

Well, you Godless Darwinists, good luck in proving your dogmatic atheistic religion. You’re going to need some divine intervention to pull this off!

Slow to update – a haiku

•May 20, 2008 • 1 Comment

It has been quite long

Since I have made a new post.

Damn you, writer’s block.

The FOX and the CROW

•May 13, 2008 • 1 Comment

One day, a rather sly FOX saw a CROW sitting in a tree, holding a piece of bread in her mouth. The FOX, filled with greed, decided to trick the CROW into letting go of the morsel. Said the FOX:

O, MADAM CROW, you have such beautiful plumage and look so majestic! If only I could hear your beautiful voice, I could deem you the QUEEN of BIRDS!

Full of vanity, the CROW let out a loud caw, dropping the bread. After devouring the snack, the FOX said:

My dear CROW, your voice is lovely, but your wit is lacking.