Daily Fix, April 29

by

What else but the “Royal Wedding”?

*Prince William of Wales married Kate Middleton in a ceremony in Westminster Abbey. Collectively, they will be known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. CNN

*Local politico Carl Downing was unfortunately unavailable to watch the wedding in the middle of the night. He explains the reasons on his Facebook page:
*Still searching for the lost Rhodes Mine
*Gonna miss the Royal Wedding because I am heading to the land of Obama’s birth…….Hawaii…what were you thinking?
*Lucky day!!! Jill will have multiple DVR copies of the Royal Wedding so I might get to see it after my trip to the Amazon to count leaves on trees.
*Now I have committed to help James mow his lawn and will never have time to watch the Royal Wedding.
*Apparently I will be undergoing an intervention hosted by Cindie and will miss the Royal Wedding.
*I will be with the team from Jeremy Roberts for Utah County Secretary attempting to correct the ph levels in Utah Lake for the introduction of their Dolphin experience ride and will miss the Royal Wedding.
*I am going to miss the Royal Wedding because I am busy counting pixels on my tv to make sure I didn’t get ripped off.
*I was going to watch the Royal Wedding but I am going to go cow tipping instead.
*I was going to watch the Royal Wedding, then I remembered I need to sew a button on my shirt.
*Things more fun than a Royal Wedding: Eating glass, Mowing the lawn, Being arrested, Being chased by a pitbull, Allergies, The Flu
*I am going to miss the Royal Wedding because I went to Wendover and put my airline ticket money on Green 00.
*I would rather listen to the Friday song for an hour solid than watch the Royal Wedding.

How ’bout you? Did you watch?

Picture snagged off of Google

Advertisements

Tags:

5 Responses to “Daily Fix, April 29”

  1. Jane Hawley Says:

    While I wish Prince William and his lovely bride all of life’s best (and surely they will have nothing less), I went to bed and did not view the “pomp & circumstance” on my television screen. 30 years ago I stayed up all night “gob-smacked”, watching Charles wed Diana. I was yet in my infancy of understanding those historical roots of my American heritage.

    Now I find this outlandish tax-payer funded event a giant disgrace. America exists today because of the sacrifices of our brave British ancestors who left their homeland to seek freedom of worship, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They fought and died in the great American Revolution trying to wrest themselves and their posterity away from the grip of Britain and her Monarchy in order to establish a government “for, of and by the people”. Perhaps we have forgotten this pivotal and historical event and the subsequent liberties it has provided each of us.

    $30++million is the initial estimate of cost for this Royal Wedding. It’s a high price to pay for one family’s “pomp & circumstance”. How much good could $30 million do to relieve the tax-burden of British citizens who are experiencing severe economic conditions like we are here? Many are outraged. These subjects, (yes, they are referred to as “subjects”) are paying an oppressive 50% of their daily earnings to heavy taxation which sustains their elitist government with it’s lavish lifestyles and expenditures. This is an outlandish burden on the backs of tax payers who have little or no say in how it’s spent.

    How many of our British ancestors who paid a heavy price to escape the rule of the Monarchy, who fought or lost loved ones in the American Revolution would stay up all night and watch this “royal event”? I dare say, “none”.

    Additionally, I must say that I am ashamed of all the American businesses who will advertise and profit from this British wedding which has become an all-night world-wide, over-rated, televised event. They whore themselves in pursuit of the almighty AMERICAN dollar.

    93-year old, Dr. Paul Jarrett, retired surgeon and WW II Veteran, expresses many of my sentiments on the “British Royal Wedding” (read below) I thank him for his great wisdom and his service to our nation in keeping the flame of liberty burning brightly.

    Please read on…

    Janie Hawley
    of British Isle descent

    From: Paul Jarrett
    Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 8:33 AM
    To: Paul B Jarrett
    Subject: A Mystery

    All of the excitement over the upcoming Royal Wedding has once again caused me to wonder why the British maintain the Royal Family at such great expense with no apparent benefit.

    Initially the British Sovereign ruled over the Country. He or she had power of life or death and the Royal will was the law of the land. They were not very likeable nor should they have been emulated! The subjects received something even if they did not like it.

    Today the only power of the King or Queen of England is in whatever the position accomplishes in the way of a “Bully Pulpit”. Billions are spent on maintaining numerous castles, servants, kitchens, stables, garages, kennels, coaches, changing of the Guard, weddings, coronations, funerals and on and on, which accomplishes nothing except preserving protocol and ceremony. If you were the most celebrated Hematologist in the World, you would not be able to find a difference between Royal blood and the blood of the last highway man who went to the gibbet!

    The antics of the Royal Family over the years have not been exactly regal and it would appear that there are hangers-on who have run out of ribbons to cut, and they keep growing.

    It is not necessary that I understand why the British wish to preserve this anachronism, that is their business, but it is a mystery to those who never bowed to any living person and are aware of the Law of Diminishing Returns.

    How many congenital hernias could be repaired at what this Royal Wedding will cost? Their business, right? Unless you are ruptured. Meanwhile my invitation to the Royal Wedding has not arrived. Must be a break-down in the Postal System. I suspect it will come by special courier riding a white horse, and the trumpets shall sound!

    PBJ

  2. Don Says:

    Unfortunately the REAL birther question didn’t get followed up on. Congrats for them “forcing’ him to “release” his birth certificate. Shame on them for not following up now that they have the proof that he’s not eligible. As a NON natural born citizen of the US he can’t hold the office of president. His father was not a citizen. As “side” show as this all might seem to most, it is just another BLATANT disregard for the documents that created this great nation and the freedoms we now (have left) enjoy.

  3. JBT Says:

    Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

    No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

    Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    1. Anyone born inside the United States

    Hawaii became the 50th state on Friday, August 21, 1959. President Obama’s birthday is August 4, 1961. Also see the following:

    § 1405. Persons born in Hawaii

    A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

  4. P. Keith Hart Says:

    The wedding was fantastic!

  5. Terry Bench Says:

    Hey, Holly, shouldn’t your next post be informing us about the outcome of Utah County convention yesterday and how you and your friends lost — and those opposing amnesty won!! HB116 will be repealed and you know it!

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: