Just read it. There's a reason the Emperor is my Blog-Father!

Oh yeah, and don't forget to come back and leave a comment. I know it's largely my fault for turning to martial arts blogging these days, but it does get a little lonely around here when I come to read the comments!

RWR

Some good reading that I'm doing today:

Hawk: 20 Basic Truths You Can't Talk About in America Anymore
Hawk: 5 Lies the Donks Told to Sell Oblahmacare
Hawk: 20 Hottest Women in the Conservative New Media

No no no. I have not become a RWN junkie again. My next post is far more important. Read that link SLOWLY.

RWR

Here's a big part of the reason conservatives keep hounding both Democrat and Republican alike:

NSA Wiretaps

NSA Data Mining

When shit like this is happening, there's just too much damned government.

This isn't just Oblahma and Bush. This shit goes back to Carter and Nixon ... and beyond.

This is what government does. The question it brings up is why Americans keep voting for it.

RWR

Well the GOP primaries were this week, and since I no longer identify as one of THEM, I did not vote. Just as well. We all knew the outcome anyway.

Honestly, it wasn't so bad. Really. What purpose would my voting serve? I live in a state where a big government liberal is demonized as a "right-wing extremist" on a daily basis. Hell, it was no use commenting on the death of a well-established Senate criminal here. He will likely be replaced with someone worse.

So we either get four more years of the fat man, or we get worse.

Bury old Frankie face down so he can see where he's going.

The good thing about all the nastiness going on in this country is that it will force Americans to stand up and fight.

If there are any guns left, that is - or people eligible to own them. Pretty soon it will be a crime to walk out your front door without a license to do so!

Sorry for not being my usual uppity self this morning. I've been watching the Phillies. LOL!

RWR

... yet again.

Well not completely.

I've taken on yet another blog, but this time it's completely out of the political spectrum - it involves one of my hobbies.

It's also local to my town, so you won't be seeing much about it here.

There have been a lot of setup plans and updates surrounding it, and that is why I am quiet these days. We should be able to see things picking up in the not too distant future. There's just too much to be done to abandon the cause!

Hang in there friends!

RWR

... for now.

Look for their own version of violation of the Constitution in the near future.

RWR

Well boo fucking hoo.

As if any of us gives a flying fuck what you think, Mr. Obama.

If you want to cut back on gun crime, how about you do something productive to that end instead of willfully lying and standing firm against people's God-given and Constitutionally protected rights? The shit you support won't do squat to stop murderers from doing what they do. A properly armed citizenry will.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. Obama. We see through your foolishness. These gun grabs and restrictions serve one purpose and one purpose only. They are an attempt to keep law-abiding citizens from coming after YOU when it's time to aggressively stand up to your oppression. It's not about protecting the innocent. It's about protecting the guilty.

It's about protecting politicians who can't get their grimy paws out of people's bank accounts and wallets. It's about protecting real criminals who murder and steal while punishing innocents for exercising their rights. It's mostly about protecting politicians who are so busy looking for ways to intrude into areas they don't belong with impunity.

For using the victims of violent crime as political pawns, THEY are the ones who should be ashamed. No need for Stephanie Taylor (of the so-called "Progressive Change Campaign Comittee") to publish the roll call vote. I'm going to do it right here, right now.

Yeas (54)
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.
Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.
Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del.
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine
Sen. Christopher Coons, D-Del.
Sen. William "Mo" Cowan, D-Mass.
Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.
Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.
Sen. Angus King, I-Maine
Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D.N.H.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo.
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

Nays (46)
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark.
Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas
Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.
Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb.
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.
Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev.
Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.
Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.*
Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.
*Reid voted no as a procedural move so that he would retain the ability under Senate rules to bring up the measure again should supporters believe they've mustered enough votes to secure passage.
Source: U.S. Senate

Oh, and just in case a LOTE or three comes along, note your sweetheart McCain in the YEA column. Just sayin'.

RWR

Update: The Emperor responds to Mr. Obowtome the way only he can. Read it.

Margaret Thatcher
1925-2013

The free world has lost one of its great champions. "The Iron Lady", the last of the three world leaders responsible for bringing down the Evil Empire, has succumbed to a stroke.

Now it's time to wonder: Will she be given her due respect?

RWR

Victor Davis Hanson posted this today. I could not believe my eyes. The ENTIRE ARTICLE was bullshit; not a single correct assumption. Usually conservatives will get SOMETHING right.

What the fuck?

There will be no more $1 trillion deficits.

No. Instead there will be deficits in excess of $10 and $20 trillion. There are no real deficit hawks in Washington.

President Hillary Clinton or President Marco Rubio will tell us that cutting spending and living within our means is the new cool.

President Hillary Clinton will tell us that we need to "invest". There will be no President Marco Rubio any more than there is a President Barack Obama. Like Obama, he is ineligible for the office. Even if he should ascend to power, he will likely be Bush II. He may tell you cutting spending and living within our means is the new cool, but his actions, like Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush before him, will prove that he is lying.

Obamacare may remain in name, but in fact most of its provisions will be discarded or amended.

Expect Obamacare not only to remain in name, but to be expanded beyond your wildest dreams. If you don't see the liberal pattern by now, you are one stupid ass. They talk up a phony problem, create a phony solution that makes the problem worse, then come up with an even worse phony solution that makes the problem yet worse, then expand on those phony solutions. A debt crisis isn't going to make Hillarycare/Romneycare/Obamacare any different.

They will still praise green energy as the way of the future, but they will not continue the massive subsidies to substitute it for far cheaper fossil fuels.

If we are lucky, they will continue the massive subsidies. It sure beats the alternative, which is their taking over the energy industry. Make no mistake about it. This is how these people think.

Do not expect the same level of increases in disability and unemployment insurance and in food stamps.

Expect even greater increases in these. The whole point of these programs in the first place is to get everyone on them so that they can justify taking people's money to pay for them and to line their pockets.

The two parties will disagree over the contours of this chronically weak economy, but not over the fact of its weakness — or soon, even its causes. Most Americans will not wish to continue down the road to Italy or Spain.

The two parties will disagree very little. The cause of the chronically weak economy is the failure of the American people to stand against government intrusion into their financial lives. They simply don't care, and Spain will be of no consequence. Just look at the erosion of liberty over the same period of time. No outrage over that either. Most Americans will simply accept their newfound poverty, just as they are accepting their bondage.

Obama’s economic record will be dispassionately acknowledged to be similar to that of Jimmy Carter. But, unlike Carter, Obama will remain a mythical figure in liberal circles.

Unlike Carter? Jimmy Carter is a liberal icon; he is practically worshipped as a god. The same is true of Obama to the exact same degree.

I cannot remember ever reading such crap from a so-called conservative. Hanson you have NO clue when it comes to these matters. How is it that you have a job and so many Americans don't?

RWR

Nelson, GA has made gun ownership mandatory.

With a key caveat that there is no penalty for non-compliance, of course, therefore preserving the right of the people NOT to keep and bear arms if that is their choice.

I do want to be clear on that part of the issue: In the same way that nobody should be hindered in any way from exercising this right, no one who chooses not to should be forced to.

It is the POSSIBILITY that a citizen is armed that is the great protection. No one has the right to know one way or the other, including the government. The council had better not be keeping records of what people have. That would take away the element of protection against an oppressive government.

An interesting provision of this ordinance is that each head of household must own a gun and ammunition to "provide for the emergency management of the city" and to "provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

This seems very similar to Sage's militia proposal, which I really like, and it is consistent with federal law, that requires every able-bodied male to be armed so as to participate in the Militia.

My only gripe with it is that in making personal armament mandatory, the council is violating the rights of those who choose not to arm themselves according to this ordinance. Should it ever be enforced, it will be just as wrong as taking taking the guns from those who do choose to do so.

RWR

... or at least access to your personal data.

Better stand against this if you think you might like to live in a free country someday.

RWR

This has been posted in a few places. I'll give The Emperor the link. LC Light29ID posted this in its entirety, something that just doesn't happen at the Rott. I am doing the same. This shit is just too important to edit.

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.+

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority cannot take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortu nate ly. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't these people understand?

The government is going to have some problems now getting guns for themselves. Seems there is a list of gun manufacturers that are standing up for us by refusing to sell their products to government entities that snub the Second Amendment. Patriots take note. The District of Criminals may not be able to sustain its unfair advantage indefinitely.

Freedom always wins in the end.

RWR

A recent trip down memory lane revealed this post from November 2006. In it, I Fisked a post over at DU where one known as "The Witch" posted the following:

Dear dismayed conservatives:

I hereby make these promises to you.

We will protect your lives and livelihoods.

We will listen to and respect your beliefs.

We will never try to force you to change your religion, sexual orientation, or first language.

We will do our best to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

We will have no tolerance for corruption and cronyism, even in our own party.

ESPECIALLY in our own party.

We will never tell you that you are unpatriotic.

We will never tell you that your opinion doesn't count.

We will never waste your lives for power.

We will hold our leaders to a high ethical standard and when they succumb to lust for power, WE WILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

If we forget this, please, please, please, remind us.

We need you to do this. You are America as much as we are.
Let's go.

 I figured it might be a good opportunity to check the liberals' actions over the last seven years to this person's "promises".

We will protect your lives and livelihoods...

If bombing American citizens inside the United States with drone attacks and without evidence or a trial is protecting our lives, and taxing the shit out of America's employers forcing them to lay off employees is protecting our livelihoods, then I'd say they are doing a great job.

We will listen to and respect your beliefs.

Forcing employers to provide insurance coverage for things they don't believe in couldn't possibly amount to living up to this promise. Either they didn't listen or they didn't respect. Oh and how about those of us who believe the Constitution should be followed to the letter? Have our beliefs been listened to and respected? I think not.

We will never try to force you to change your religion, sexual orientation, or first language.

Well they succeeded here, but the context of the original comment insinuated that conservatives had done this when they had not.

We will do our best to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

By disrespecting people's aforementioned beliefs and using their money to buy condoms for school kids. Wow. Have they made any attempt whatsoever to repeal Roe and send the issue back to the States where it belongs? That's what we have been asking for. We just want each jurisdiction to have its own choice one way or the other.

We will have no tolerance for corruption and cronyism, even in our own party.
ESPECIALLY in our own party.

The Democratic Party could write books about cronyism and how to get away with it. You think the Republicans are into cronyism? The Donks have gotten away with more cronyism than the Republicans ever dreamed of. Doesn't make the Republicans right. Just makes the Democrats more wrong, and you more wrong for suggesting your party might do a better job on this issue.

We will never tell you that you are unpatriotic.

Wrong. We were told we were unpatriotic when we stood up against Oblahmacare and other Donk foolishness.

We will never tell you that your opinion doesn't count.

You didn't have to. Your willing accomplices in the LOTE party did that for you.

We will never waste your lives for power.

Well I'd say the guy who was killed in the drone incident might disagree.Our livelihoods are DEFINITELY being wasted for power.

We will hold our leaders to a high ethical standard and when they succumb to lust for power, WE WILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

With what consequence? The poster boy for lust for power has been sitting at the top of the food chain since January 2009, personally guilty of violating just about every promise you have made. His lust for power is reflected by YOUR party's leaders in both the House and Senate, and in capitol cities all over the country. How did you hold them accountable? By re-electing them, of course. Nice job, Skippy.

If we forget this, please, please, please, remind us.

Consider this post your reminder, dumbass.

Republicans and Democrats are a power-thirsty lot, even if the Democrats are worse. I wonder if "The Witch" really believed this when she posted it. I doubt it. I also doubt she has any clue how badly her promises have failed. She's probably just sitting around singing Kum-Ba-Ya with the rest of them

Pfft.

RWR

It would sure be nice ...

But I really don't think the CIA has the ability to mutate people's genes or force them to smoke or do anything else that causes cancer.

In fact, Chavez was truly a cancer on the body of humanity, especially of South America. Interesting how this is coming from Iran, isn't it? The very same people who would execute Chavez as an infidel for being Catholic are revering him as a martyr. This just goes to show how serious these asswipes are about their "religion". More proof that it's not at all about religion but about killing anyone who openly disagrees with them.

“Hugo Chavez is alive for justice, love and freedom,” Ahmadinejad wrote. “He is alive for faith and holiness of human being. He is alive for the nations that are alive yearning for the establishment of independence, kindness and justice.

“I have no doubt that he will return alongside all the righteous and Jesus, and the only remainder of the righteous generation, the complete human being, will come and help the nations with the establishment of peace, complete justice, kindness and evolvement.”

This from a guy who encourages people to brutally behead people for believing in Jesus. And Hugo Chavez, a bloodthirsty dictator, is supposed to represent justice, love, freedom, independence, kindness, and peace? This guy is preaching to the uneducated. Chavez stood hard and firm AGAINST all those things every day of his miserable life. He deserves no such eulogy. Much more appropriate just to toss his wasting body into the ocean for the sharks to eat.

Well, if the sharks would bother. If not, just let him float around out there until he decomposes. For all he was worth as a man and a human being, it would be poetic justice.

RWR

Predictably, liberals all over America are actually mourning the passing of Hugo Chavez. So to make life easier for all around election time and other appropriate occasions, I'll be posting the list right here of all the names as I see them. If you see any that I have missed, put 'em in the comment area with a link. I doubt there will me many, if any, surprises, but you go on record in favor of that nasty evil fuck, you're getting listed here if we see it.

The following are publicly mourning or saying nice things about this freedom-hating lunatic scumbag:

ABC News
The Atlantic
Bloomberg TV
Ex-POTUS Jimmy Carter (D)
Foreign Policy Magazine
Ex-Rep (MA-8) Joseph Kennedy II (D)
Larry King
The Los Angeles Times
Michael Moore
The Nation Magazine
The New York Times
Sean Penn
Rep. (NY-16) Jose Serrano (D)
Oliver Stone
Univision
The Washington Post

I want every name and/or organization on this list that can be found.

I also encourage boycotts of all of them and for those holding public office, their ouster.

This cannot be tolerated.

RWR

Hugo Chavez is dead.

Before I go do my happy dance in the streets, I'll remind everybody to watch Oblahma's reaction. No doubt he'll be "consoling" the Venezuelan people for their "loss". The libs will be mourning "the loss of a great leader".

Conservatives take note: anyone taking a conciliatory tone with regard to this is NOT a friend of this country or of anyone who believes in freedom. Watch and learn. Do not tire. Do not falter. Do not fail.

Now for that happy dance ...

RWR

This in today ...

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush won’t confirm he’s a candidate for the next presidential race, but he sounded like a White House hopeful Monday, declaring his party in need of leadership.

I'm declaring his party in need of more than leadership. It's in need of a complete overhaul, and that includes kicking the likes of Jeb Bush to the curb forever.

Two words for ya, Jebbie old boy ...

DON'T BOTHER.

RWR

This guy should be President Paul Jacob's veep:

Kurt Schlichter

'Nuff said.

RWR

Ok, so I was wondering, and maybe you "Tea Party Republicans" can answer this if you still come around: How is the move to change or replace the Republican Party that you guys declared would begin on Novermber 7th coming along?  Have you put together a set of demands or guidelines that you will follow in making decisions about the party?  Have you even considered a platform?  I haven't heard or seen a thing.

By now, I would think you would have at least had discussions on the matter that would have led to some sort of preliminary platform, or at least some sort of ideological declaration.  Where are you guys in the process?

November 2014 is not getting any further away, and 2016 is also approaching.  If you expect to have any impact at all on these upcoming elections, you need to get your asses in gear.

Of course, this is all going exactly as I predicted.  "Tea Party Republicans" are all talk, just like the rest of the Republicans.  Talk a good game and expect people to believe you, then just roll along with whatever the Democrats demand.  That's what being a Republican is all about, and it's why I have left the party, or to put it more accurately (as Reagan did), the party has left me (if it ever gave two shits about me to begin with).

This is why the Tea Party has no chance of succeeding as long as it tries to find a home with the Republicans.  The GOP will continue to use the Tea Party to try to squeeze out a few extra votes, but it will never be truly enough to gain any power for itself.  It has been exposed as a fully-controlled extension of the Democratic Party.  It's all one big party now, folks, and has been for a long time.  It's only now becoming clear enough for those of us who came late to the party to see it.  Electing a Republicans somehow manages to get you a huge chunk of the Democrat agenda, even if you give them a majority.

It's time for a reset.  Americans need to stop paying attention to the politicians of today altogether and revisit the times and conditions that brought about this great nation.  We went to war with the world's most powerful superpower over much less than we are experiencing today.  Either Americans are blind and/or stupid, or they simply don't cherish their freedom.  Taking what you are supposed to have for granted doesn't mean you have it.  You must focus on defending it, especially when those you have placed in the position of doing so are failing dismally.

We are SUPPOSED to enjoy:
* Freedom of Religion
* Freedom of Speech
* Freedom of the Press
* Freedom of Personal Armament
* Rights of Personal and Property Security
* Rights of Due Process and against Double Jeopardy and Self-incrimination
* Rights to Counsel and Speedy Trial by Jury
* Protections against Cruel and Unusual Punishment
* Protections of Undeclared Rights, and the
* Right to Local Supremacy.

ALL of these rights are currently under attack.  Where is the uproar?  Where is the revolution?  Where are the "Tea Party Republicans"?  Where are Jefferson, Madison, and Adams when you need them?

When "Tea Party Republicans" consider addressing these issues, I will consider taking them seriously.  So far, only the Libertarian Party seems to have any clue.  That's why I ran there.  I'm still open to a modern Federalist movement, but it's pretty clear there aren't enough Americans who care to get anything going.

So again I ask "Tea Party Republicans": How is the move to bring about REAL CHANGE coming along?

RWR

This is what you get with Democrats and Republicans in office. As if these people had nothing better to do. It's also why Texas has a part-time legislature, I'm sure.

SMH

RWR

I have always identified as a Catholic, even at times when the Church and I have been at odds.  It wouldn't seem to jive with my general distance from organized religion - after all, what religion is more organized than the Roman Catholic Church?  I respect and admire the Pope as a leader, but refuse to follow him blindly.  He isn't God.  Heck, I don't even blindly follow God.  I recognize that no religion is perfect, and in fact that none are even close; but I also recognize that the truth is nowhere near anything you or I or anyone else (including any church) is likely to comprehend anyway.  Much of what was written down about Jesus, for example, was mere oral tradition for hundreds of years prior.  There is no way these stories can be 100% accurate, even if they started out as the divine word of God.  There have been discoveries that have been concealed from the public that shed light on these things.  Scriptures omitted from the Bible have been denounced by the Church unfairly, and archaeological finds have gone completely unreported until much more recently.  The Church has always been particularly stubborn about making adjustments to doctrine, so I can understand their ignorance of these things, though I don't particularly agree with it.  Here are some things that I believe that may be at odds with various tenets of Christianity and/or Catholicism:

1. The Accuracy of Scripture

There's an old party game we used to play when I was a kid.  Get a bunch of people and sit in a circle.  The more people you have, the more fun you will have with this.  Choose a place in the circle to start.  Have that person make up a short message, no longer than a short phrase, and have him whisper it into his neighbor's ear.  That person repeats what he heard into the next person's ear, and so on around the circle until the message is finally heard by the last person in the circle next to the starting person.  Let that person say the phrase he heard aloud.  I guarantee it will be different from what the first phrase was, and that the longer the original phrase and the more people in the circle, the more different the result will be.  This game is truly a lot of fun, but think about how different an entire story would be, and how it would change over the course of being passed down for days, weeks, and even years or centuries.  This is what happened with the scriptures.  If you can't trust the accuracy of a few words passed around a circle of a dozen people over the course of ten minutes ... you get the picture.

As such, there must be enhancements or deletions made to the original story by various storytellers, sometimes to make a point of their own.  Other things may have been changed for dramatic purposes.  Some things may have changed without any intent whatsoever.  The possibilities are endless.

2. The Old Testament

Due to even longer periods of oral tradition, most of the Old Testament is purely symbolic.  For example, we are told that Adam was the first man, and Eve was his wife and the first woman.  Somewhere along the line, there is a woman named Lilith, who is supposed to have been Adam's wife prior to Eve.  These stories conflict, as do many in scripture.  Stories such as this, the Parting of the Sea, Noah's Ark, and others may have their origins in older cultures.

3. The Life and Death of Jesus and the Holy Family

This will probably piss off a lot of people, but while I do believe that Jesus actually lived and walked the Earth (archaeological finds during my lifetime prove this to my satisfaction), I believe it to be a much different story than what we get to hear about in church or read about in Scripture.  From virgin birth to physical ascention, I believe that a lot of what we are told is tradition and not history.  Here's the historical Jesus as I see him:

a. Born to Joseph and Mary

In the tomb found in Israel that is believed to have belonged to the Holy Family, Jesus is documented as "Jesus, Son of Joseph".  Since these ossuaries would only have been seen by family members, there would be no reason to document Jesus's ossuary in this fashion unless it were true.  I interpret Mary's being cast a virgin as a reference to her purity of heart and soul, not a reference to her actual virginity.  Most people also know that Jesus was emphatically NOT born on December 25.  This date was chosen by the early church to coincide with a pagan holiday in an effort to attract more people to the cause.  Jesus was likely born in March or April, but there are some reports of his birth occurring in September.  I don't think it matters which is actually true.

b. The Role of Judas

Judas Iscariot may not have been the villain that he is sometimes portrayed to be.  Jesus is likely to have chosen him specifically for the job of handing him over for his suffering for reasons they would have discussed between them.  Why would a disciple among Jesus' most favored do this for a few pieces of silver?  Most likely, Judas was put up to this by Jesus himself so that Jesus could fulfill his destiny.

c. The Crucifixion and the Resurrection

Regardless of the manner of attachment to a crucifix, death occurred much later than the mere three hours Jesus spent on the cross.  This points to the possibility that Jesus' body may still have been alive when it was taken down for burial.  The accounts that suggest that the Crucifixion occurred on Wednesday and the Resurrection on Saturday are not likely.  The reason Jesus was taken down was to ensure burial before sunset, as tradition disallowed handling the dead on the Sabbath.  Jesus may have also partaken of the gall and vinegar that was offered him, which would have sedated him sufficiently so as to appear dead.  Does this opinion turn my status as a Christian on its head?  I do not believe so.  Per John, all that is required of a Christian is to "believe in him".  If belief that Jesus' suffering occurred on my behalf, regardless of whether he actually died or went to Hell, is sufficient, then a Christian I am (and do believe myself to be).  I also believe that it is completely plausible that Jesus' spirit could have left his body while he ws sedated and spent that time in Hell just as we are taught it did.  This is more likely for me than any assertion that Jesus, without being revived, was simply removed at a later time for final burial (he was not likely buried in the family tomb at the time of the Crucifixion).

d. The Ascension of Jesus and the Assumption of Mary

According to what we are taught, Jesus' body ascended into heaven at the final end of his ministry, and that that of his mother was taken to heaven at the end of her life.  While there is no way to know whether this actually happened, it can emphatically be said that if it did, this was not a permanent arrangement.  Ossuaries belonging to both were discovered in the family tomb when it was discovered, confirming that both individuals found their final resting place in Jerusalem.

e. The Marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene and The Family Presence in Europe

Mary Magdalene's remains were also found in the family tomb.  This would not have occurred without either a genetic family connection or a marriage.  Mitochondrial DNA tests showed that Mary and Jesus did not have the same mother and were therefore most likely not brother and sister.  Adoption by Joseph and Mary would be the only other option, and this is not mentioned anywhere.  There are numerous accounts that would point to the possibility of this marriage, however, and an ossuary was found bearing the name of a child and reference to his parentage that would coincide with the marriage.  There are also accounts of the family's presence in Europe at some point.  A daughter (and possibly other children of the marriage) may have remained and lived out her life in what is modern-day France.  The hazy accounts of Jesus' and Mary's burial in Europe are inconsistent with the findings in the family tomb, but any child of the marriage not found in Jerusalem could have lived, died, and been buried there.

4. What all of this means

From archaeological evidence, we can see that Jesus was both a husband and a father.  We know (with reasonable certainty) that neither Jesus nor his mother were permanently physically raised to heaven, and that Mary was most likely not a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth.  Since this conflicts with what the Church tells us, what does this mean with regard to what we are to believe about God and Jesus?

First, it must be understood that even if the Scriptures were once the pure word of God, it is impossible to know what changed over the centuries or how.  Even the Church has changed over these same centuries, despite its efforts not to do so.  You have no way of knowing what Jesus really intended by his words at the Last Supper, for example, and neither do I.

Second, it must be understood that each person must use the information he has in his own way to build and/or reaffirm his faith.  No one has the right to act negatively upon another person due to his beliefs. It is up to you what to do with this information.  Agree or disagree as it suits you without fear of judgment from God or from me.  God is certainly aware of what you believe and why you believe it.  As long as you believe that the suffering Jesus endured two thousand years ago was endured on your behalf, then you are a Christian, regardless of what else you believe.  If you somehow find evidence that Jesus liked tomato juice with his breakfast and find it to be somehow relevant to your faith, then so be it.  If the Jesus of tradition suits you, so be it.  Truth is, it doesn't matter, as long as you believe that he suffered for you.

And that is my point.  It doesn't matter at all.  If Mary's virginity was a mere metaphor for her purity, it should make no difference because her purity was the point to begin with.  A different perspective on Judas doesn't change the fact that he did what he did.  It was his destiny in either case.  Jesus' suffering took place whether he actually physically died from it or not, and a faith that provides for a spiritual soul that can leave the body can certainly leave the living (possibly sedated) body of one chosen by God to serve that very purpose.  His suffering was what saves us, not so much his death or resurrection.  The Ascension and Assumption have only symbolic significance to us anyway, and I personally am more comfortable with a savior who married and had children than one who did not.  Changes in the message from early to modern Christianity are the business of those who choose to or not to embrace them.  It's pretty tough to get a read on what James and Jesus' other early followers really believed.

Learning what I have learned and continue to learn has not really changed much about my faith.  I still identify as a Catholic, even though I seriously doubt the Church would accept my faith as shown here.  My reasons for said identity are more rooted in habit than anything else, and I am fine with that.  Maybe someday I will identify with another sect of Christianity (there are lots of Lutherans in my family).  I am sure that I will be fine with that as well, without any negative feelings toward the Church.

The bottom line is that we all are who we are, and we all believe what we believe based upon our own experiences.  An atheist deserves the same courtesy as a Christian, because he has made his decisions about God using the information available to him.  Of course, he forfeits the benefits of Heaven in making that decision, but since he doesn't believe Heaven exists, it's not a problem for him in this life.  So it also is for the non-traditional Christian, though Heaven does await him.  No one has the right to cram his religion down someone else's throat.  You have all read this treatise of your own free will, and I do appreciate that.  I am generally very private about what I believe in this area, and do keep to myself most of the time.  I will, however, answer those comments with which I am comfortable.  Please be respectful with regard to those I choose not to answer.

RWR

This is why I have hope for America.

Socialists hate communists.  Communists hate fascists.  Fascists hate socialists.

They all hate capitalists (or at least true capitalism).

Watching the bickering going on between the Republicans and Democrats is interesting, to say the least, but what's most notable is that there is so much blame going around and so little understanding of what is supposed to be happening.  Both Democrats and Republicans are blaming the other for everything that is wrong with America today - fiscal cliff, divisiveness, etc.  You name it, every Democrat is blaming Republicans, every Republican is blaming Democrats for it.

No one seems to get that they are both right.  Republicans hate Democrats.  Democrats hate Republicans.  Both have had more than enough to do with the Washington power grab that has taken place over the last hundred years, and no one can put down their hatred of the other long enough to recognize that their own party's sorry excuse for a solution ain't so hot either.  This has been going on long enough for all Americans to see that the real solution lies somewhere else.

That somewhere else is not even difficult to find.  It's right here in our own history.  Folks, our forefathers started a war over much less than what we are dealing with now, going head to head with what was, at the time, the world's most powerful military.  They won, and eventually replaced their former mother country as the big kid on the block.

The Constitution has most, if not all, of the answers.  Instead of shying away from it, which has made things worse; instead of changing it in ways that are detrimental, which has made things worse; instead of simply ignoring it, which is probably worst of all, Americans should be standing firm upon it and insisting upon its reimplementation.

In its present form, the Constitution still allows violations of individual liberty that it could easily protect.  Here are a few changes that could be made:

1. AMENDMENT I: Append the following: Nor shall any government place restrictions of any kind upon expression of any kind, especially in the aforementioned areas.

2. AMENDMENT II: ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms (of their choosing) shall not be infringed in any way.

3. AMENDMENT IV: ... and no warrants shall issue, but (by an impartial judge and) upon (clear presentation of) probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4. AMENDMENT V: ... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb (nor suffer additional consequence in another jurisdiction) ...

5. AMENDMENT V: ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation (acceptable to the property owner).

6. AMENDMENT XII: Repeal this.  All it has done is give the President unchecked power.

7. AMENDMENT XVI: Repeal this.  It has given Congress unchecked power to regulate people through the tax code.  Revenues have been and can be raised through other means than taxing the people directly.

8. AMENDMENT XVII: Repeal this.  It has had the effect of a repeal of the Tenth Amendment, taking power away from the States and causing federal legislative government to become a competition for federal tax dollars.

9. AMENDMENT XXI: The repeal of prohibition must be extended to all substances.  The so-called "War on Drugs" has had all of the same negative effects as alcohol prohibition, and must come to a swift end.

10. AMENDMENT XXVII: Append as follows: No individual elected to federal office shall receive a salary in excess of nationwide average income as calculated in the most recent census.

11. (NEW AMENDMENT): No expenditure shall be made, nor law passed, except that which shall benefit all citizens, favoring no individual or state over another.

12. (NEW AMENDMENT): All laws that shall exist at any given time shall be subject to regular annual review by Congress to ascertain whether such laws shall have had the effect of supporting or violating individual and/or State's rights and/or other rights guaranteed the same by this Constitution.  Any laws determined to violate such rights, either in design or in practice, shall be subject to immediate repeal by the Supreme Court.

An amendment addressing these issues would go a long way in re-establishing liberty in America, as well as force the government to work within its means.  There are also provisions that could possibly keep Congress and the courts busy enough to keep them from getting into too much new stuff.

You may ask how it is that I get some hope from this.  You may not agree, but I have to believe that the American people can see the foolishness that is the one-party system that we have.  Anyone with understanding of world history circa World War II can see the eerie similarities between our Democrats/Republicans and the Nazis/Communists/Socialists in Middle and Eastern Europe of that time.  They're all cut from the same mold, but find reasons to hate each other nonetheless.  Furthermore, just as was true in 1945, the solution lies elsewhere - in the arms of freedom and liberty, not in the shackles of government.

Ask yourself: Can you see this?

RWR