Serendipity or Predestination

Looking at Mount Rushmore, you'll notice that Washington, Roosevelt and Lincoln look straight ahead but Jefferson is looking up.  Jefferson was sculpted looking up because the granite had a fissure that would have probably caused Jefferson's nose to fall off had he been looking straight ahead.

What was an unfortunate flaw in the granite has become serendipity, because when Jefferson is carved out of Mount Rushmore for being a slaveholder another president can be carved in his place who always had his nose in the air - his natural pose - until his handlers advised him to stop.

You may think it ridiculous to suggest that Jefferson would be carved out of Mt. Rushmore, but the DNC has already renamed the Jefferson-Jackson dinner because both presidents were slaveholders.  You might also say that Washington was a slaveholder, so why not carve out the father of our country.  Give progressives time.  Not only was Jefferson a slaveholder but he created an abridged Christian bible for native-Americans.  He must be doubly hated by progressives.

The erasure of Jefferson from Mt. Rushmore won't happen tomorrow, but what will happen very shortly is the renaming of Mt. McKinley, the highest mountain in America.  It's going to be renamed Denali.  Denali is an Athabascan word meaning "the high one".  In Hebrew "bamah" means "a high place".  And in English Barack Obama means "his highness".

More Ts For Sale

"Designed to a T" Shirt Sale

"Designed to a T" Shirts

Wasn't the Internment of Japanese-Americans a Form of Slavery?

 “This was not a decision that was made lightly. The vote today confirms that our party believes it is important to change the name of the dinner to align with the values of our modern-day Democratic Party: inclusiveness, diversity and equality.”

So said Dr. McGuire of the Iowa Democratic Party while referring to the Jefferson-Jackson dinner.  The dinner named after two presidents will have its name changed because both Jefferson and Jackson were slaveholders.  Good for Democrats.

Here is a suggestion for renaming the dinner.  For a name with similar alliteration and to uphold the Democratic Party's values of "inclusiveness, diversity and equality", rename the dinner the Sanger-Sharpton dinner.  Rolls off the tongue doesn't it?

What could show the Democratic Party's unrestricted inclusiveness more than the embracing of Margaret Sanger, a white baby-killing satanic bitch who believed and worked for the extermination of peoples she considered inferior?  And then, what could show more diversity than mating Sanger with Al Sharpton, a blubbering idiot of a black man that Margaret Sanger would have wanted dismembered in the womb.

It shows the utter derangement of Democrats to fret over slavery conducted in the 18th and 19th centuries while enabling slavery in the 20th and 21st centuries. Slavery is defined as a civil relationship in which one person has the absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of another.   Abortion is slavery having the purpose of ending the life and liberty of another.

One of the Five's Token Progs

On The Five Monday, one of the segments was on the terrible joke-telling of Hillary Clinton.  Geraldo Rivera defended Clinton by pointing out a joke that George W. Bush told about weapons of mass destruction not being found in Iraq and how inappropriate it was due to the Americans who had lost their lives.

Tom Shillue pointed out that Bush's joke was self-deprecating while Clinton's jokes were attacks on others.  Rivera countered by saying that was a "distinction without a difference".

Obviously, Rivera doesn't know what the term "distinction without a difference" means.  Here are some examples of distinctions without a difference:

Geraldo Rivera's Nose and Mr. Potatoheads Nose

Rivera's Exhibitionism and Anthony Weiner's Exhibitionism

Hunting For the King of Beasts

When you're going to hunt and kill the king of beasts, it's important that you use the right bait.  Here are some good baits to apply to the hood of your Range Rover to draw out the king:

BAIT OPTION 1

BAIT OPTION 2

BAIT OPTION 3

After putting one of these baits on the hood of your Range Rover, take your bow and hide immediately.  These baits should bring the king running.  If the king doesn't come, it is probably because he is preoccupied with something that your bait cannot compete with.  If that's the case, you could probably get away with jumping the fence and hunting the country fucker on his preserve.  If that sounds too dangerous, then you have two options:  Wait for the multi-million dollar diversion to end that has the king preoccupied...

...or forget the king and just settle for one of the 320 million beasts that consume their young to grace your trophy wall.

Air Heads

Nature Abhors a Vacuum

Except Between the Ears of Progs

Kerry responds to a Congressman's question as to why the Iran deal is not a treaty:

"Well Congressman, I spent quite a few years trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate, and it has become physically impossible. That’s why. Because you can’t pass a treaty anymore. It has become impossible to schedule, to pass, and I sat there leading the charge on the Disabilities Treaty which fell to basically ideology and politics. So I think that is the reason why."

 Less than 48 hours later, Kerry’s subordinate Henry S. Ensher, the State Department’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (the same IAEA deeply involved in the Iran deal), proudly presented to the IAEA the formal United States ratification of a treaty: the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.

Text in red is excerpted from: 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/422035/kerry-claims-you-cant-pass-treaty-anymore-two-days-us-ratifies-treaty-andrew-c

Personhood or Just Hoods

Bill O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer discussed abortion last night.  O'Reilly stated that human DNA is what makes abortion immoral and indefensible.  That is a position I would not argue against, but if that is your position, then how do you judge the cryogenic freezing of human embryos?  If human life begins at conception, with the merging of female and male gametes, then isn't freezing this human life to the coldest temperatures possible immoral?  Many, if not most, frozen embryos are never implanted in a woman's womb.

Charles Krauthammer "defended" the indefensible by trying to explain how progressives see abortion, a position that Charles clearly does not agree with.  He brought up the vague notion of personhood which he did not define.  Progressives can defend abortion because a fetus - a human preborn - is not yet a "person".

Personhood could be defined as those qualities and attributes that distinguish one human being from another and make humans unique and differentiable.  It's very easy to differentiate me from Arnold Schwarzenegger now, but as two first-trimester fetuses it could be extremely difficult.  But a DNA test would show us to be two completely unique beings.

Using personhood as your "morality yard stick" is a totally arbitrary concept, and one person's personhood may not be another's.  One Princeton professor, Peter Singer, has argued that killing a child up to two years old can be justified because a child under 2 years of age doesn't plan for the future.  The child lives for the present.  This type of valuing of human life isn't limited to liberal professors as witnessed by the murder of Terri Schiavo who was denied fluids until she died of dehydration.  If she had only been able to forecast a future need for a glass of water and expressed that need, she'd have been a human being.

Conservatives aren't going to accept the progressive's personhood argument and progressives will never accept that human life begins at conception.  So, let me offer a compromise.

I propose that humanness be evaluated on the following criteria:  DNA, potential, plasticity, carbon footprint, and net societal value.  DNA simply separates Man from chimp, and if progressives want to say that chimps are human and deserve human rights, we can take up that issue later.  Potential is a measure of the possible future output of a "candidate" for human membership.  Plasticity is the measure of a candidate's options in what direction the candidate's life can take in such matters as education, matrimony, fertility and career, etc.  Carbon footprint is an important issue for progressives so I'm throwing them a bone.  Lastly, net societal value measures whether a candidates contributions to Mankind are a net positive or a net negative.

Using these new criteria, let's choose 3 candidates for human membership taken at random.  A random selection chose Barack Obama, Gina McCarthy of the EPA, and a human preborn in the first trimester.

We'll assume all 3 candidates have human DNA.

A measure of potential shows both Obama and McCarthy on the descending side of a bell curve.  They have shot their wad.  The preborn is on the ascending side of a bell curve whose height is unknowable.

A measure of plasticity shows both Obama and McCarthy to have almost none.  The remaining plasticity of McCarthy may allow her to finish her transformation from Gina to Gene, but there's little plasticity left beyond that.  The preborn has almost unlimited plasticity in the possible directions its life may take.

The carbon footprints of Obama and McCarthy are gargantuan.  That of the preborn are minuscule.

The net societal value of Barack Obama is immensely negative.  If he actually does lead Jews to the ovens, it won't change his negative societal value that much as a percentage.  McCarthy is an imbecile who didn't even know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, and her EPA policies will be ruinous to America's prosperity.  The net societal value of a preborn is unknowable but it is certainly not negative unless you believe a preborn harms a woman's health.

The conclusions of these new criteria are that the preborn should be allowed to live, and the skulls and legs of Obama and McCarthy should be crushed and their guts harvested to feed the cubs of Cecil the lion.