L'AMOUR ARGENTINOISE

As is often the case in the Washington, D.C. area, when driving, I find myself listening to my preferred traffic station on the radio. It is a station that tosses in weather reports, sports news, local & world news, interviews and commentaries between traffic updates. The people one encounters on it can be amusing. One such is "Dave," who is a commentator.

He had gone to theatrical lengths to build up the "macho" image of Richard "Dick" Cheney to make the point that if such a "real he-man" saw nothing objectionable about homosexuals openly "being homosexual" in the U.S. Army, how could mere mortals object.

I had offered a modest correction to this sham by noting that Cheney's daughter was a Lesbian presently enjoying connubial bliss with her bride-partner and that Cheney's wife was alleged to be an author of "hot Lesbian pulp novels." She allegedly used a nom de plume. My point was that "Dave's" peon to the manly Cheney might be overstated. Perhaps Mr. Cheney has a Village People's standard of manliness. Give him a rifle for a prop, and he's ready for the stage.  Mere mortals might even be more macho than the former Veep.

Comes now again old "Dave" to comment theatrically about the decision of Argentina to make "same-sex" marriages legal and fully equal to those of "opposite-sex" marriages. "Dave" carefully built the image of the fiery Latin lover, who was the incarnation of heterosexual love, for the listener to consider. He mentioned the Tango, while sensuous Latin music played in the background. As an aside, he marvelled at this legal decision being accepted in a Roman Catholic country. Doesn't "Dave" know that priests' lead and the faithful follow?  

Generally speaking, "Dave" seemed to be saying that the "Dark Ages" of heterosexual love and marriage were finally evolving into a warm, tolerant "All Love" environment. After all, weren't sodomy and fistf--king just another kind of love?  If that's good enough for the U.S. Army, Dick Cheney and Argentina, why would anyone object?

I have pointed out in blogs - not necessarily this one - that, if same-sex marriages were given legal status, such "married" couples would certainly adopt children. Since they do not normally reproduce according to natural procedures, their best course for continuation and even population growth reside in persuasion and abuse of innocent children placed in their care. In the latter case the abuse would begin in the mind of a child through "broadening," through a coercive "understanding" and through "lessons" in tolerance.

Incidentally, political power usually is a function of wealth, military power or effective block-voting. Numbers can mean clout. 

As the Masonic culture in America demands that all travel the four roads to harmony - Liberty, Fraternity, Equality and Tolerance, "same-sex" couples, whether married or not, should find the law bulldozing away all opposition. There will certainly not be any from the Masonically infiltrated, "shell-christian" congregations, who despise discrimination as breaking the Law of Equality. Whether Roman Catholic priest or Protestant minister, the sermon is the same: "Get down and get it on!"

Incidentally, Admiral Mullen stated that the entirety of his military service included service with homosexuals. I don't believe that he ever explained exactly how he knew that they were homosexuals. Did they know that he was a heterosexual? Does he know?

I guess that it is inevitable that American soldiers will be bringing home a whole new category of "war brides." 

D.C. REPS DECLARE CONCEPTIONAL STATEHOOD

On the frontpage of Technorati for April 7, 2009, was a citation from an article, which read: "The D.C. Council voted today to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, on the same day that Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex unions...." (Emphasis added.)

Since the District of Columbia has many well-educated residents, who tend to be interested in political matters, the wording above is most likely not arrived at by accidental misusage. Further, since the whining legend on license plates issued to cars and other motor vehicles by the District of Columbia make plain to all but the absolutely obtuse that the political leadership understands that the District of Columbia isn't a state of the union but merely the territorial seat of the national government. If these politically interested residents of D.C. wanted to live in a state of the union, all they need do is move to Maryland or Virginia, both of which are only a few miles away.

These are arrogant people. Arrogance and misplaced anger are the two most recognizable traits of residents of the District. They are often apparent when promoting a self-serving cause. Hence, it's not lack of intelligence but disfiguring traits that engender obvious misstatements, such as above cited.

The expression "other states" suggest that the District of Columbia is a "state of the national union." It suggests that there is parity between it and "other states." It is an arrogant "reach" and false comparison.

Although the District of Columbia is not a state of the national union, meaning the United States of America, it is a "state" of the United States. This strange situation came about after a series of deliberations around the turn of the 20th century by the Supreme Court which were collectively called the Insular Decisions. In these series of cases the Court decided that there were three United States. One was the national union of sovereign states. Another was the U.S. represented as a Sovereign among other nations. The last was the United States as a municipal power which exercised "exclusive Legistive Power" through Congress over the Seat of Government, military bases & depots, territories and enclaves. In the latter "United States" Congress functions as the exclusive sovereign, unlimited by the Constitution, or by other branches of government.

By craft and facile terminology our leaders have been able to extend the municipal power of Congress over the citizens of the sovereign states by extending them "privileges," acceptance of which would then effectively waive one's constitutional protections. By this means national law was largely replaced by public policy, which benefits were granted to its "subjects" by the sovereign Congress, rather than "Unalienable Rights" bestowed by God. For the same reason everywhere in every formerly sovereign state, the federal government asserted the primacy of its law. This is the same as asserting its jurisdiction.

No one seemed to care one way or another. The prevailing idiom is: I don't care so long as I get my share. This is pretty much the message in "gangsta rap."

However, one can't really expect to fairly reap more than one sews. Hence, Americans have become rather morally loose. This brings us back to the residents of the District of Columbia. You can't get much looser than these folks. Besides being one of the few jurisdictions with rising levels of AIDs, these brainy Sodomites and their supporters have taken to falling on the streets to block traffic in protest against the ravages of this disease, which is peculiar to proponents of aberrant sexual practices. From this starting point a secondary wave of victims is created.

One of the leaders of the D.C. Council, a Mr. Graham (not known to be a blood relative of Donald Graham, son of Katherine Meyer Graham, the late owner of The Washington Post Company), publicly expressed himself as incensed at the comment of a Montgomery County, Maryland, politician at a public forum that included the word "aberrant" in regard to homosexuality. Needless to say, Mr. Graham is a proud homosexual and publicly-elected D.C. representative. He, his friends, his allies and his supporters not surprisingly are in favor of "gay marriages" or, at a minimum, "same-sex unions."

Therefore, when on the occasion of this supremely unwise and cruel legislation being enacted in Vermont, as it had been in a few other states, this event also offered the D.C. Council an opportunity to support this legislation in principle but also to word it in such a way as to suggest peerage between the sovereign states of the national union and the District of Columbia, seat of the national government. Proponents of "Gay equality" and "states' rights" for the District of Columbia could join forces behind the Council's vote of "recognition." They could be confident of media reportage being favorable.

In a nation ravaged by venereal diseases and tattoos, the signs of outlawry are visible on the very skin. Could their legislation be less bold?