Tag Archives: Founding Fathers

George Washington – A Terrorist?!?!?!

George Washington – A Terrorist?!?!?!

So the other day I was working in my office, minding my own business, when I received a text from my 16 year old son. It said, “So apparently George Washington was a terrorist…Screw world civ!” He later said his teacher believed Washington was amazing but, “If you look at the definition of terrorism, the American Revolutionary war would fall into that definition.”

I’m telling you. It is crap like that which makes me wish I was born with just middle fingers.

I text him a short list of the reasons why the American Revolution is nothing like terrorism.   Later that night he said he was the only one in his class who defended Washington, and he believed, was the only one who had a brain in his head. He said he could tell the other students were sucking it up.


For fun I went to the source of all knowledge, Google, and typed “Define: Terrorist.” Google defines it as, “a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.” That obviously didn’t clear anything up so I asked for the definition of terrorism, which read, “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” I’m not sure how anyone with half a brain stem could lump George Washington, or any of the founding fathers into that category.

But then again, I’m not a liberal.

If I try to look at the history of the Revolutionary War through the paradigm of a whiny liberal – the word “paradigm” here is a fancy way of saying “the warped lens in which you view the world,” – (also, for my liberal friends, in the word paradigm, the “g” is silent) the ONLY incident that could vaguely have a terroristic line drawn in comparison is the Boston Tea party. But even that is a HUGE stretch.

If you’re like most American’s, everything you know about the Boston Tea party you probably learned, as a child, from watching “Mary Poppins.” Here is a recap:

Mr. Dawes Jr: In 1773, an official of this bank unwisely loaned a large sum of money to finance a shipment of tea to the American colonies. Do you know what happened?

George W. Banks: Yes, sir. Yes, I think I do. As the ship lay anchored in Boston Harbor, a party of the colonists dressed as red Indians boarded the vessel, behaved very rudely, and threw all the tea overboard. This made the tea unsuitable for drinking. Even for Americans.

“Behaved very rudely” and talking a seventeen year old to strap a bomb to himself and detonating it in a crowded market place are two entirely different things.

Most of the Founding Fathers condemned the Boston Tea party. George Washington disapproved. Benjamin Franklin demanded the “India Tea Company” be reimbursed for the destruction of the tea. Both American and British supporters of American independence, such as Edmund Burke, thought the Tea Party set back the cause.

Meric on three

Even the Founders who defended the raid had class. Paul Revere, who led the raid, exclusively to protest a new British tea tax, made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships. The British sailors from the ships confirmed, none of them were hurt, nothing was vandalized, and the protesters even swept the decks clean after the tea was destroyed.

Still, the raid was considered such an embarrassment to many of our founding fathers, it wasn’t celebrated for another 50 years.

Like I said…It’s a stretch.

“But Danny,” you whine, “what about George Washington?”

Washington was a hero and a patriot. The only negative title you could put on him that might stick is he was a traitor to the crown of England. As a young man he fought with distinction and honor in the Battle of Monongahela where he was so exposed to enemy fire his coat was pierced by four musket balls and he had two horses shot from underneath him. It’s hard to imagine the same person hiding behind a tree, detonating a bomb and then fleeing the crime scene.

One of the examples my son gave me of the “evidence” regarding Washington’s terrorism is when he crossed the Delaware  and surprised, and defeated the Hessian forces. So I guess if an army attacks another army it terrorism?


The Declaration of the Cause and Necessity of Taking Up Arms states, “We, for ten years, incessantly and ineffectually besieged the Throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with Parliament, in the most mild and decent language.” For ten years. TEN. Then when the Founders did the truly revolutionary thing, three years after the Boston Tea Party, they signed the Declaration of Independence. In this document they describe with logic and reason, and in blindingly clear terms, their complaints against the Crown, the rights that had been infringed upon, their earlier attempts for resolution and an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for independence.

“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.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

Those are Jefferson’s words, but Washington embraced them whole-heartedly. Are they the words or beliefs of a terrorist?



LIFEZILLA: Where else can I go to spew my nonsensical diatribe and dumbassery?  My wife and kids stopped listening to me YEARS ago!

isisRights Reagan Quote - Find Young People





You Got Married? That’s So Gay!

So, as much as it kills me (and it does cause me physical pain) I’m going to throw in my two cents on this whole gay marriage thing that is happening in Utah.

If you don’t know, or if you have been living under a rock, on December 20, 2013 U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that the Utah state ban on gay marriage violated the U.S. Constitution.

If you’re new here (you may be the seventh person to find this) I have already brilliantly written my take on gay marriage before, you can find it here.

I’ll try to keep this fresh.


Our founding fathers were obsessed with the separation of powers. They didn’t want the federal government to grow out of control, and so they set up checks and balances. They did recognize there were certain things the federal government needed to be in charge of: making money, immigration, declaring war, you know…stuff like that. To help ensure the restriction on the growth of the federal government they gave us the 10th amendment. It reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In other words, any issue not specifically mentioned in the Constitution for the federal government to have dominion over (for lack of a better word) is up to the states to decide.

Government's duty

Let me illustrate an example of the federal government overreaching its authority. Let’s say there is a small, random state of roughly 3 million people. The people of the state don’t want to have fluoride added to the water. They don’t care if other states put fluoride in theirs, it just isn’t for them. They vote and add it to their states constitution that they are a “No fluoride in the water” state. Sixty-six percent of the voters come out in favor of this resolution. BUT…there are a few dentists in the state who disagree with the will of the people. “How can the state not want fluoride?” they argue. “There is no evidence that it hurts anyone.” So they sue, and find a federal judge who interprets the “everlasting gobstopper clause” of the US constitution as saying the will of the people is wrong. And so the state district attorney immediately starts pouring fluoride in drinking water.

That is exactly what happened with gay marriage in Utah.

“But Danny,” you whine, “not everyone is Utah voted on that amendment, what about the will of the people who didn’t vote?”  This is going to sound super harsh to my butt-hurt liberal friends, but if they didn’t vote, their opinion doesn’t mean squat.

Quick side note:  Is it just me, or does “LGBT” sounds too much like a sandwich?

“But Danny,” you whine even louder, “didn’t the Supreme Court knock down DOMA, thus opening the door to this kind of thing?” (DOMA is the “Defense of Marriage Act – signed by Bill Clinton which defined marriage as between a man and a woman).  Hmmm….not really.  Basically the repeal of DOMA showed that the Supreme Court recognized that defining marriage wasn’t the federal government’s place, that put definition of marriage back to the state.

And later, the same year part of DOMA was repealed, Shelby, the judge from a lower court, said the state couldn’t define it either.

I’ve read quite of bit about gay marriage. I’ve read the arguments for, and I’ve read the arguments against. I’ve even read articles where the writer uses copious amounts of inordinately profuse, abstruse, and perplexing vocabulary. When reading these articles I always think, “Whatever, dude, what-ev-er (or dudette if you are one.)” In my mind very few people get it, on either side of the issue.

Captain Obvious

It’s sad. There are faces involved. The roughly 1,400 same-sex couples who were married in Utah are in limbo.  Are they married or not?  These people are being used as pawns.  I know my butt-hurt liberal friends are going to howl at that phrase, but it’s true.  They are being used as pawns.   The district attorney who authorized the county clerks to issue gay marriage license knew this was going to happen.

In my little brain the real issue here isn’t gay marriage. That is just the face of it. The real issue is States’ Rights.  Sadly, most people (in this case those in favor of the judges ruling on gay marriage) aren’t looking at the big picture. They either don’t get–or they don’t care–that you can’t pick up one side of a stick. They have an issue and if one activist federal judge can overrule the will of the people, to them, the end justifies the means.

To me that is wrong. Good ends should come about from good means.

Think about it.  We live in a representative democracy.   Generally speaking if a law is made from the elected legislators we, the people, are accepting of it.  Almost all of the most decisive issues in the country are brought about judicially.

Whatever your opinion on gay marriage, for it or against it, it should be the voice of the people who decides. We don’t live in an aristocracy, where the smart people tell the stupid how to live.  In the United States, judges don’t have the right, and should stop trying, to invent laws.


LIFEZILLA:  Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice…you probably have boobs.

Piss off




Written in stone

My Team of Writers

My Team of Writers

From this point forward I will refer to the voices in my head as “my team of writers”.  I have two issues my team of writers have been kicking around, but I’m not really sure how to make them mesh into one article.  They have been driving me crazy.  Maybe I’ll make it two articles.  I dunno, we’ll see.

Both issues have to do with education.


We are (what?) seven weeks into the New Year.  And I can list three similar stories that bother me.  The first was when a six year old kid was suspended from school for making a gun with his hand and saying “Pow”.  The second, was when a five year old girl was suspended for 10 days for making a “terroristic threat” for talking to a friend about shooting her with a “Hello Kitty Bubble Gun”.  Yes, you read that correctly.  A gun, in the shape of Hello Kitty, that shoots BUBBLES (Lawrence Welk would have been thrown in prison for life.)  And most recently, last week a seven year old was suspended from school for throwing an imaginary grenade into an imaginary box filled with “something evil” to save the world.

An imaginary grenade into an imaginary box…So he threw nothing into nothing…?  (hmm)

I can completely understand these young heroes desire to fight.  My favorite part about imaginary fighting is the fact you get to thwart evil.  You never get to thwart anything in real life.  I like to thwart.  My advice to these young patriots is to always have a backup finger gun strapped to your ankle in case your two primaries get confiscated again.

Is it just me, or does it sound like the administrators need to grow up?

Last week Dr. Benjamin Carson was at a prayer breakfast with President Obama and said he thought PC (Political Correctness) was dangerous (click here for the awesome speech).  I agree.

The second issue that has been bothering me is about an article I read. Apparently, in Texas there is a web-based system used in 70 percent of the schools state wide to assist teachers with lesson plans.  The system is “built by teachers, designed by teachers.”  Many are concerned that it is difficult for non-teachers to get a look at the program.


One of the lessons for sixth graders “showed different countries’ flags and instructed students to “notice that socialist and communist countries use symbolism on their flags.” It went on to ask students what symbols they would use if they were to create a flag for a new socialist country.”

Many of the other lessons “promoted pro-Islam ideals, or described participants of the Boston Tea Party as terrorists.”

Pardon me Miss?  I believe I ordered my brain-washing on the side.

The whole “designing a flag” thing BUUUUUUUUUUGED me.  But because I had recently had a conversation with a young man about the “Boston Tea Party as terrorist” the article kind of set me off.

For the record.  The Boston Tea party story has always rubbed me the wrong way.  It is part of history.  It happened.  I get that.  But terrorist?  Come on.

Quick review: The Boston Tea party was in response to the Tea Act of 1773.  The Colonists objected to the Tea Act because it violated their rights as Englishmen.  They, rightly, believed they should be taxed only by their own elected representatives and not by a British parliament in which they were not represented. “No taxation without representation.”

I remember being taught the Tea Party was the catalyst that started the Revolutionary War.  Hmmm…not really. In fact it probably set the whole thing back.  It really dispirited both American and British supporters, like Edmund Burke.

George Washington disapproved of the destruction of the tea, and Benjamin Franklin demanded the India Tea Company be reimbursed (they were).  Samuel Adams defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse, you know like…voting — were unavailable.

Many of the founding fathers considered the raid an embarrassment.  The Boston Tea Party was not celebrated for another 50 years.

Not one person was killed.  Paul Revere made sure to replace a lock that was broken during the raid and severely punished a man who stole some of the tea for his personal use (HEY…just like the terrorist of today who paid for the rebuilding of the…er…oh…forget it).

But kids today are taught that this great country was made from the act of terror.  Come on.  It took three years before our founding fathers engaged in their truly revolutionary act: The signing of the Declaration of Independence (for perspective the iPad was originally introduced three years ago in April).

In that document, they set forth, in clear terms, their complaints with British rule, their earlier attempts at resolution, and an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for independence from the crown.  I remember a few years ago reading the Declaration of Independence to a group of Boy Scouts.  It was almost a spiritual experience.

Are these things being taught in your school?  I dunno if they are in mine. But at least we can sleep well knowing we are safe from six year olds with imaginary guns.

LIFEZILLA:  This Valentine’s day tell your lover the three little words she (or he)  has been dying to hear: “I love Lifezilla”.