Democrats running on Soak the Rich platform again? When are you "liberals" going to learn? Every time you vote for more socialism and welfare, you end up stealing from your kids, the rich that you envy and fear contesting with, have already secured THEIR profits, and they've got their eyes on YOUR wages. I know this, because it happened at least ONCE before, on a grandiose scale.

Heh, I wasn't there, but the headlines before the 1913 Federal Reserve and 1914-1916 Federal Income Tax Act, which later came to be known as the 16th, (unratified) ammendment.

It was sold to the public (who at the time was sick of bankers and super rich manipulators of the "free market") as the silver bullet to Soak the Rich of their wealth via a Lenin/Marxist "progressive income tax" only for those with over 4000 USD incomes (in 1914, 4000 USD was roughly 150 thousand of 1990 dollars and 200 thousand of today's dollars, as a point of interest).

Irony of course is that all those people that were going to "lose their robber baron shirts" setup bulletproof trusts, and then had congress change the rules for such trusts and foundations, only a few years later.

You might remember some of the last names, Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Schiff, Morgan, Chase, Warburg, Kuhn, Loeb, lots of them.

By the time others, like Henry Ford caught on and set up theirs, it was already hard, and people like you and me, had already been shut out of that loop.

Be very careful what you vote for, because each time you "vote largesse for yourself from the public treasury", you only end up helping someone else to your hard earned property. They will always find a way to loot your pockets, under the pretext of helping you loot theirs.

Why was Clinton so hated by the country people who voted for anyone but his side?
Why did Kerry throw the fight in 04?
Why were sudden school shootings right before the 06 elections?
Why did they stop?
Why was there no mention of the good sides of the crime in DC (i.e. the regular beat cops are suggesting the rescinding of the DC gun ban, to let criminals face a rearmed populace (it'll likely be a blood bath with criminals learning that while cops have to figure out who the bad guy is, the victims rarely have difficulty knowing who to take down when they are assaulted. The [edit] chiefs of police and rulers of DC [/edit] are against it, but they're politicians, and if the gun ban went away, there would be less for them to campaign for. The citizenry that isn't brainwashed is certainly sick of all this crap.) [edit] Actually, the citizenry that isn't brainwashed is not only sick of this crap, but they've moved out of the general DC area, much like I did. [/edit]

A high percentage of my essays this year have dealt with Freedom of Religion issues, or more accurately Freedom FROM Religion issues. The Religious Right would have you believe that the Christian faith is under attack in America from various and nefarious quarters and that something must be done to stem this tide. I see no evidence of such attacks, but rather an attempt by the Christian Right to hold on to a privileged status for Christianity above other religions in America.

Fox News recently questioned viewers whether Keith Ellison, the recently elected congressman of Muslim faith, should be allowed to be sworn-in with his hand on the Koran instead of the Bible. Response was quick and negative. I couldn't help but feel the question shouldn't even have needed to be asked. How can we live in a country with true religious freedom if we only have the choice of the Bible as a stand in symbol for fidelity and truthfulness? One can imagine the stink this same group would make if there were a move to ban the Bible from being used for swearing-in ceremonies.

As a matter of record Keith Ellison dropped his request to be sworn-in on the Koran -- one can only imagine the death threats he and his family received over the matter.

And it isn't just an uneducated and intolerant Joe-Six-Pack on the street decrying Ellison's request to be sworn-in on the Bible, but people like columnists Dennis Prager of Townhall.com who recently appeared on MSNBC and who writes in his column "America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on." Wow, you can't get much more authoritarian on this issue than that. I for one would rather live in a country where the inductee, not America, decides what book they (any public official) take their oath on.

Just like Creationism has the gussied-up surrogate "Intelligent Design" to try and keep religion in schools, Christianity has the relatively new surrogate of "Judeo-Christian Values" as in "This country was founded on Judeo-Christian Values" to try and maintain its privileged status in law and government.

I for one start to shiver anytime someone in government talks about values, ignoring aside the numerous incidents of hypocrisy from those extolling the need for government to do something about them, because generally it means giving up freedoms and being coerced in to some kind of groupthink, most generally Christian groupthink, because lets face it, Christians are the majority in America.

One has to admire a well crafted phrase like "This country was founded on Judeo-Christian Values" though, it is just burgeoning with positive connotation words like: values, founded and country. It even has boasts pseudo-inclusionism by hyphenating Judeo and Christian, a pair of words I believe is also used subliminally to evoke JC as in Jesus Christ. To a Christian ear such a phrase can only sound self evident. What I see is as self evident though is that the struggle for freedom on all quarters continues, least we no longer be able to pursue Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as we choose.

Submissiveness's Role in Sustaining Homosexuality as an Evolutionarily Adaptive Trait

For decades there has been a debate about the root causes of homosexuality. One camp favors nurture, one camp favors nature. For the nature camp it has always been problematic explaining how homosexuality is adaptive and sends it genetic legacy forward. This is also a problem for the nurture camp, because if homosexuality is maladaptive then strong defenses against it should occur even if nurture plays a factor in its expression.

In centuries past there was less debate; homosexuality was outlawed; tolerantly accepted; or in some societies like ancient Greece considered just one variation of human sexuality to be pursued or not as long as it didn't interfere with siring an heir.

About 10% of the male population in America identify themselves as being homosexual with some studies citing as many as 1 in 3 males having had at least one homosexual encounter. With this high an incidence there must be some evolutionary explanation.

Many men who don't consider themselves homosexuals engage in male on male sex under certain circumstances; prison inmates for instance. In a prison setting dominant males force or coerce less dominant males into providing sexual release. Much the same has occurred in other all-male settings throughout history. I doubt the modern Navy has a much higher occurrence of homosexuality than any other sector of modern society, but it was definitely a feature of ancient seafaring life.

Most of the evolution that led to modern man occurred before the written word, teasing out the sexual practices of our Neolithic ancestors might be less than straightforward. Polygamy has been common all through recorded history. It would not be hard to imagine alpha males hoarding all the reproductive age females during most of the ascendancy of Homo sapiens. Where there are alpha males there are also beta males and gamma males and a system arises to determine dominance. Submitting sexually to more aggressive males probably allowed males lower in the caste system to survive and possibly procreate at a later date. Even future alpha males would have to had make it through the challenging time of adolescence before developing a physicality allowing them to survive not being submissive. Given millennia of evolution it is a possibility the anus adapted to accommodate the male penis and even derive pleasure from the experience so as to make submission more likely, lessening the risk of serious physical harm from being forced to submit.

All this is prelude to speculating that the evolutionary installed tripwire for homosexuality is male submissiveness. This would explain why homosexuality seems to have genetic and developmental environment components. Males raised in households with dominant mothers and passive fathers have a higher expression rate for male homosexuality. I suspect there is a tendency to learn submissiveness in this environment, which in turns then triggers the desire to please and submit to other males. Neither genes nor environment would be absolute in determining the final sexual orientation, but would work in concert. There would be males genetically predisposed towards submissiveness that nurture in such a way that they do not become homosexual. Some males would be dominant by genetic heritage, but nurture in such a way that they become submissive and more likely to become homosexual.

Not all homosexuals are submissive, homosexual couples often (mostly?) have a dominant male and a submissive male. It seems unlikely passivity is the sole determining factor in determining homosexual tendencies. We have already given examples where dominate males in all male situations will demand sexual gratification (the prison settings or ancient mariner settings we cited earlier). Beta males of our very distant ancestors may have used forcing sexually submission of lower caste males to maintain their right to succession when the current alpha male dies, ages, or becomes injured. It probably would also make them more attractive to lower caste females that would engage in sex with them when given unobserved mating opportunities. I have no figures, but this would be predictive for the dominant member of a homosexual pair to being more likely to engage in bisexual behavior.

Our sexual preferences are probably not totally hardwired at birth. This would be adaptive in that taking on whatever sexual role society offers (whether officially approved or not) and probably leads to the best overall compromise between opportunities to mate versus survival.

This still does not address what adaptive value there would be to totally submissive males that would never engage in heterosexuality voluntarily. And yet ironically the most vocal self-avowed homosexual males often seem the most obsessed with female culture and expression. Many females, especially young female are attracted to submissive, androgynous, non-threatening males. In this case the female may more often initiate the sexual liaison even though the submissive male is less naturally attracted. It is easy to imagine male homosexuals trying to perform an act of reciprocation for their close female friends even though it is not a natural act for them. This provides and evolutionary path forward even for the most submissive males. Given this would be a direct lineage, even if it were a rare occurrence, would probably factor in with equal or greater force than other kin-support theories I have seen use to explain the persistence of homosexuality in Homo sapiens.

I am not a psychiatrist, evolutionary biologist, archeologist, or sociologist so perhaps these speculations are naive and flawed, but I haven't heard these particular speculations put forward as and explanation for the expression and evolutionary persistence of male homosexuality in society. If this theory were true (and I will leave that for others to determine) it would answer whether homosexuality is a sickness or maladaptive -- the answer to both would be a firm no. It also puts nurture and nature on near equal footings.

One prediction of this theory is that modifying behavior to induce submissiveness should be accompanied with an increase in homosexual expression, though this effect would be less pronounced once the subjects have passed puberty and sexual preferences have solidified. It would be hard to perform this experiment directly in an ethical fashion, but it should be possible to find statistical evidence for it. The dominant female mother household having more homosexual male children would already be one example cited in the literature on the subject supporting this view.

I don't know with what accuracy rate people who claim to be able to identify homosexuals in a crowd are actually able to do so. It is not impossible though that there are body-language clues or even voice-pitch clues that point to submissive tendencies which then might be used as rough predictors.

I have not speculated on factors that would lead to female homosexuality, but they probably have some of the same components as speculated for male homosexuality. Except for all but the most dominate of female lesbians the tendency towards lesbianism seems less set in stone. It could be that female sexual preferences are less hard wired than in males, in which case the old saying: "Homosexuals are born. Lesbians are made" may be more than a little bit true. Some adaptations that benefit males would probably express in females as well as long as they simplified genetic expression and didn't decrease reproductive opportunities too unduly.

This is something for you geeks to read up on besides "The Creature From Jekyll Island" (which is a documented and thorough research of the "Federal" Reserve Central Banking System.)

America Freedom to Fascism

Or get it from their site if you prefer DVD (Google prevents download of this movie and keeps resetting its "views" counters and forcing it to stay at the bottom of the dogpile.)

I have even done the research for you, now just go watch and read.

So I am surfing through Locus Online and look through the new books that are being released. Appears MAPPA MUNDI, Justina Robson's second novel. Well, since Locus states that the book is an "SF novel, about software that can read and write into the human brain, seen as a curative by some, a mind-control device by others" I procede to Amazon to check it out and to grab the ISBN number so I may mooch it.

There is one customer review for the book. The review is 5 (out of 5) stars. Harriet Klausner really likes this mystery, and WOW she is currently THE #1 reviewer on Amazon. What the hell does that even mean?!!

I must investigate. It would seem that for Harriet to succeed in reviewing novels she would need to be able to write well in easy language that everyone can understand. She must review ALOT. Her reviews must help those that are looking for books to buy.

Now, I thought that perhaps another requirement for success in reviewing would be that the woman would rate books appropriate to their worth, quality and enjoyment. Apparently not. I go now to a link that says: "See all 12417 reviews." What? Harriet Klausner has read 12,417 books? And remembered and absorbed enough about all of these books to write reviews? Maybe Amazon is incorrectly counting her number of reviews?

Well, lets take a small journey and look at a small, short list of her more recent reviews:

• Heat Signature: A Novel by Lisa Teasley -- Rated 5 stars -- strong psychological drama -- October 5, 2006

• The Accomplice (Felony & Mayhem Mysteries) by Elizabeth Ironside -- Rated 4 stars -- This is as much a garden tea party as a mystery -- October 4, 2006

• Haunting Olivia by Janelle Taylor -- Rated 4 stars -- wonderful second chance at love thriller -- October 4, 2006

• Sweet Revenge (Revenge of the Sisterhood) by Fern Michaels -- Rated 4 stars -- Sisterhood VENDETTA -- October 4, 2006

• Kidnapped: A Novel (Irene Kelly Mysteries) by Jan Burke -- Rated 5 stars -- excellent -- October 4, 2006

• Going Home by Harriet Evans -- Rated 4 stars -- interesting English character study -- October 4, 2006

• Finding Noel: A Novel by Richard Paul Evans -- Rated 5 stars -- terrific allegorical tale -- October 4, 2006

• A Peach of a Murder: A Fresh-Baked Mystery by Livia J. Washburn -- Rated 4 stars -- entertaining who done it -- October 4, 2006

• Played by Barbara Freethy -- Rated 4 stars -- terrific romantic suspense -- October 4, 2006

• Give Him the Slip by Geralyn Dawson -- Rated 5 stars -- wonderfully romantic Holy Terror of Texas thriller -- October 4, 2006

• Parallel Heat by Deidre Knight -- Rated 5 stars -- complex "Parallel" military science fiction romance -- October 4, 2006

• Love, Lust and Pixie Dust by LuAnn McLane -- Rated 4 stars -- three interrelated paranormal romances -- October 4, 2006

• Once Upon a Spring Morn by Dennis L. McKiernan -- Rated 5 stars -- magical fairytale -- October 4, 2006

• Greywalker by Kat Richardson -- Rated 5 stars -- satirical fantasy mystery -- October 4, 2006

• Glass Houses: The Morganville Vampires, Book I (The Moganville Vampires) by Rachel Caine -- Rated 5 stars -- enthralling coming of age supernatural tale -- October 4, 2006

• A Dangerous Love by Bertrice Small -- Rated 5 stars -- action-packed erotic historical romance -- October 4, 2006

• The Secret Heiress by Judith Gould -- Rated 4 stars -- fine contemporary romantic thriller -- October 4, 2006

• Murder, She Wrote: Three Strikes and You're Dead (Murder, She Wrote) by Jessica Fletcher -- Rated 5 stars -- local baseball murder case -- October 4, 2006

• What Matters Most by Nicole Bokat -- Rated 5 stars -- interesting relationship drama -- October 4, 2006

• Conservatize Me: How I Tried to Become a Righty with the Help of Richard Nixon, Sean Hannity, Toby Keith, and Beef Jerky by John Moe -- Rated 4 stars -- delightfully funny exposé on those who are right -- October 4, 2006

• Just One Sip by Katie Macalister -- Rated 4 stars -- three amusing and interesting vampiric romantic fantasies -- October 4, 2006

• Ghouls Just Want to Have Fun by Kathleen Bacus -- Rated 4 stars -- amusing lighthearted mystery -- October 4, 2006

• Love on the Ropes by Pat White -- Rated 5 stars -- fun wrestling romance -- October 4, 2006

• Sign of the Cross by Chris Kuzneski -- Rated 4 stars -- action-packed Christian conspiracy thriller -- October 4, 2006

• Dance of the Gods (The Circle Trilogy, Book 2) by Nora Roberts -- Rated 5 stars -- excellent romantic fantasy -- October 4, 2006

• Rumble on the Bayou by Jana Deleon -- Rated 5 stars -- excellent romantic police procedural -- October 4, 2006

• Hawk's Pursuit by Constance O'Banyon -- Rated 5 stars -- terrific western romance -- October 4, 2006

• Savage Tempest by Cassie Edwards -- Rated 4 stars -- for fans of the author -- October 4, 2006

• Queen of Fashion: What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution by Caroline Weber -- Rated 5 stars -- terrific look at Marie Antoinette through her fashion -- October 4, 2006

• The Keeper by Sarah Langan -- Rated 5 stars -- dark scary thriller -- October 4, 2006

...and so on. About 66 reviews were posted on October 4th, each one about 300 words in length, for a total of about 20000 words. Practically a novel in itself. More were posted on October 3rd. I can only assume that the 12,417 reviews is a proper count.

In summary, I believe that this reviewer is inhuman, or rather, multiple people, with some sort of agenda. Feel free to do your own analysis. Contact Amazon. Does this whole "top reviewer" ranking system on Amazon seem broken?

Of course, following this rant, a quick google search turned up a multitude of links to speculation about Harriet. Try it yourself!

Of Mints and Rays

Radiation good??

Any religion that needs to silence dissent or disagreement through intimidation, coercion, or violence, is tacitly admitting its message is too weak to stand on its own.

Any religion that is at odds with the interpretation of scientific facts, is too concerned with matters of the physical plane and not concerned enough with matters of truth, beauty, humility, and humanity.

Any religion that insists that all its tenants and teachings handed down from one generation to the next are literally true and that all other religions are false or incomplete, is not only indulging in hubris and intolerance, but is also likely the source of suffering somewhere in the world.

Any religion that glosses over questions and doubts with the answer, "all that is needed is more faith" lacks true answers despite whatever solace its believers may find.

Any religion that draws lines or assigns roles based on race, sex, or parentage, fails to see that the spirit transcends these.

Any religion that needs miracles to support the words of its prophets, is a religion whose God is capricious in whom he reveals his truth to.

Any religion that demands societal laws reflect and reinforce its own moral codes denies that free will is one of God's gifts.

Any religion that has leaders that are strident is a religion most likely led by hypocrites, whom even if they believe their own words, rarely follow them.

Any religion that labels being an apostate as one of its highest crimes is a religion that fears anything approaching true discussion, accommodation, or intellectual challenge.

Any religion that makes threats about what will befall its followers in the next life for deviating from dogma buys its followers' belief with fear.

Constitution Party

Best part is that while I'm not nearly as religious as some of the individuals that comprise said party, at the very least they are trying to return control of US citizens' lives to themselves, instead of to the overburgeoning bureaucracy that resembles my homeland on the Former Soviet Bloc, than to the United States of America that were once their own sovereign nation/states united as a federation/republic, but still retaining their states' rights (which was abolished by the lovely 14th ammendment) (do recall that the Constitution(as well as the Declaration of Independence) both reserve the right of the people to abolish or alter the government).

Wiretaps, draconian gestapo departments of fatherland/homeland protection, dictatorial unitary executive decisions, massacres of people after thorough defamation in media (Kevin Mitnick's plight under Clinton, slaughter of Branch Davidians, current administration's torture camps destroying american citizens lives and then "discovering" that they truly aren't terrorists, but rescinding their citizenship makes them unable to "petition government for redress of grievances" (First Ammendment/Bill Of Rights). Not to mention that torturing American Citizens violates the 8th ammendment (cruel/unusual punishments) and the 9th ammendment (any other natural rights of a free man shall not be inflicted upon by legislature because of omission in original Constitution).

Last of all, I had a previous argument with a fellow here, about the 14th ammendment not hijacking the nation, despite the fact that our government has turned into a nanny state ever since then, with "departments" and "bureaus" and "agencies" sprouting up all over the place to fleece the people of their hard earned wealth. Perhaps when reading up on the 14th ammendment, one should contrast it with the 10th ammendment, Powers of the States and People... it prevents the Federal Government from usurping more power to itself from states or people by redefining the process by which the Federal or State governments are to operate. In fact, as the United States is a Union of a number of states that had previously won their independence from a tyrannical parent nation, the right to rebel against a new tyrannical government would've been preserved, not denied. The founding fathers knew this, but sadly they were no longer alive to see their brainchild gutted by Abe Lincoln's legislators.

But then again, as the Amendment XVIII - Liquor Abolished tells us, our "legislators" and "law makers" do just that, CONSTANTLY make laws, instead of discussing what course we should take, they keep wasting paper, ink and our money to constantly usurp more power from the people.

Either way, I've abandoned the old two parties because they're both a big joke, a big lure, and nowadays, they only serve to split up the people of this country and make puppets of us. I've left those losers, perhaps you should too:

Constitution Party, Find your state representatives

I understand this story probably will not post on this particular message board, but I hope at least my journal readers will give it a read and check out the site attached.

I haven't offered many political opinions online about the war in Iraq, which I'm not quite sure qualifies as a war by classic definitions because it isn't currently be fought against any organized government or country (at least any that claims credit). But I have come to believe that going into Iraq was a huge mistake, but once having had been made can't be so easily corrected. There are a few recent rays of light however, staged withdrawal debates are now common and it seems certain that withdrawals to some degree will occur by the November elections.

Add to this hopeful news from Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki who has offered a proposal aimed at accelerating Iraqi take over of Iraqi security. Key to this proposal is a suggestion of an offer of amnesty for those that have participated in the insurgency, but not committed war crimes against Iraqis.

Democrats had been the most vocal about setting timetable for withdrawal (BTW, I am not a "timetable" proponent, but probably am an accelerated staged withdrawal advocate). So it was with great dismay as I listened to Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan say "the idea that Iraq should even consider talking about amnesty for people who have harmed those responsible for their freedom 'unconscionable'" on Fox News this last Sunday. He also went on to say, "For heaven's sake, we liberated that country." To which I would have to say of course one man's liberation is another man's occupation. And just to wrap himself in the flag a little tighter he continued on with "We got rid of a horrific dictator. We've paid a tremendous price." I guess our "terrific price" is more important than the terrific price the Iraqis have paid. How dare they with their mere 40,000 civilian dead be for a plan that diminishes violence when with over 2,500 American service men have died?

More importantly why are those who have already died so much important than those both American and Iraqi that might be saved if the plan actually did have the effect of dampening sectarian violence? This plan achieves America's stated goals of having a self-governing democracy in place and disengages us from the fighting. To my way of thinking we would be dishonoring those who have died by ignoring this chance at success, the success they were supposedly fighting for. We'd be throwing this all away -- all in the name of revenge. To veto Iraq's amnesty proposal outright would damage America's image abroad, show that we are not about saving civilian lives, and show we are not for allowing an actual free autonomous Iraq.

Embrace the amnesty I say. How better to show our values to the insurgents than granting mercy to them -- mercy being a quality we so often (perhaps hollowly) state separates us from them.

I feel sorry for the women's rights movements. All they managed to do was enslave women to the workplace as well. Now you all can die of an equal or greater heart attack and cancer rate, suicide rates are up, and overall you've gained what you wanted. Equal rights. Perhaps you should have campaigned for EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FIRST... After all, your votes no longer matter. And perhaps, instead of campaigning and shouting liberally at the tops of yer lungs, ye should've read yer Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Voltaire, Locke, etc.

Ye've had many thinkers who paved the road for free thinkers to know what they need to change the world.

What they forgot to mention is that Self Respect, Free Thought, Independence and Self Reliance are not the same things as Political Correctness and Self Esteem. Given a choice, I've abandoned those (PC and SE). Too many panzies acting as fathers, and too many fatherless or motherless sons and daughters these days. While I"m sure it presents a self esteem picture "I'm doing the best I can and showing my child independence" ask yourself this.

How? By going to the workplace, missing his or her best days and hours, and punching a clock like an inmate doing his or her labor detail daily? For what? A pittance of cash? Bah. For a few meager physical gains? Truly we have lost our way and become mired in greed.

But it has always been the case. The revolutionaries were few and far between, even our vaunted founding fathers and their revolutionary buddies were a scant 5% of the colonial populace, and maybe 10 to 15% of the rest were supportive...

The good path isn't always easy to tread. And I mean not to be too harsh, I mean simply that an example is provided to one's children by one's actions in the workplace/businessplace not just at home and PTA meetings. My father was and is a business owner and a restless man who can't sit still for 5 minutes. For a long time I hated him, I wanted nothing more than a job, where I would take orders and be lazy. And now, YEARS later, he's old and I'm taking up the torch, and I can feel no greater pride in him and my mother, since they both fought hard, were often self employed and worked their arses off. But at least they were free to dictate the pace of their lives. That inspired me more than all the speeches and all the rhetoric, all the sermons and all the schoolbooks. They were the generals of the last war, now they are passing the torch on to us, and for better or worse, lets make a world our children can live and contest in, to grow lean and strong, not fat and lazy. (I should know, I've battled overweight issues for years, but I won, without meds and without heavy diets, lots of gym time, lots of road time.)

I'm not preaching, I'm bitching. Whoever listens, feel free.

And no, I'm neither sexist, nor feminist, neither am I a misogynist. I love women. I just wish you would all remember what made you so wonderful. Hint: YOU ARE NOT MEN, STOP TRYING TO BE. We men are bad enough in large enough numbers, perhaps you should not try to become so much like us. And do try to separate the roles of father and mother. Kids need both a healer and a drill sergeant. Without either, they grow up weak and complacent, and end up serfs.

You want to raise citizens (read Thomas Jefferson for a GOOD definition, also read the bill of rights) not serfs. Yet many today raise serfs, not men, not women, not citizens. Just mere serfs...

I hope that changes.

From KUT-FM Austin

Listen to the Townes Van Zandt special.

Or just plain stupid? I mean c'mon, it takes outright breaches of the Constitution for anyone to even take note of it? Jeezus, a guy gets impeached for lying about getting a blowjob, (not NAFTA and the WTO which he REALLY should've gotten strung up for, since its treason against the people of EVERY nation, not just ours) but our current "guy in the sky" gets the easy treatment, "because he wasn't under oath".

Might I remind you of this?

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The above is known as Article II Section I of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!!!

Strange that he took that oath, George B, did, and yet he violated half the bill of rights. Not that our nation doesn't already have a FINE line of violation of the right to peacefully assemble (most pacifists are seen as traitors and "national security threats") but they've also done away with the right to be secure in our persons, papers and property. (4th ammendment). We should've been the ones getting armed, not the government. It is US Citizens duty to bear arms and be responsible for their/OUR own safety. Where the hell do we get off thinking that 30k/year cops are going to throw their lives away to save ours which are "priceless"?? If we don't do it, they don't give a rats ass, they're safer giving speeding tickets.

What kind of losers and cowards have we become, that we can wage war on some make believe enemy, and throw away the very constitution that our forefathers fought for, and that has been chipped away by the rich bankers and their puppets since then, because that constitution was supposed to remind us that we are BORN free and equal, but if we let the tyrants rule forever, then we are naught but slaves, and the constitution naught but paper.

They've finally revealed that they've been profiling and databasing our phonecalls. How soon do you think it'll be when they'll reveal that they've recorded them all as well? I mean, originally it was international calls, then only AlQuaida SOB's, now I assume millions of "innocent" Americans are guilty? Or perhaps we're not so innocent after all, we're letting them shit on our Constitution.

I wonder what it will take to remind Americans that WE WERE THE TOP OF THE WORLD... WE WERE THE ONLY NATION TO ACTUALLY AND REALLY HAVE A SAY IN OUR GOVERNING, BECAUSE WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOVERNMENT, OR AT LEAST ITS SOURCE OF POWER, US, WE THE PEOPLE, (and not the military industrial, pharmaceutical, oil, or banking complexes).

I must ask you, my "fellow" americans (at least those of you with enough IQ to be perceptive of this mess we're in) "what the hell is going on in our nation and the world?" and "WHY in blazes are we standing for it?"

Bah, I used to think slashdotters were enlightened but most of you don't even, have not even, EVER sacrificed anything of meaning, nor have you actually read that document that our founding fathers left us. If you had, you'd be all out in the streets, reminding those in power that it is their "privilege" to be in that position and their "duty" to "uphold" the Constitution first, and the laws second. Protecting the Constitution also means one AVOIDS ammending it for the sake of their religion.

Who am I kidding. George finished getting rid of our jobs and the value of our money, now everyone will run to the Democrats and Hillary will finish us off by taking away our guns, the rest of our privacy, and skin us alive to sell to the rest of her banker buddies.

What we need is a third party. And one with teeth (and at least 1/3 of the senate. We need a party that remembers what Jefferson said.

"Given a government without free press, or a free press without government, I prefer the latter." ~Thomas Jefferson.

Judging by the fact that the press is run by huge corporations that are subsidiaries or owned by people who have ties (financially) with the likes of GE, Raytheon, etc, why would anyone expect them to do REPORTING, instead of just PARROTTING press releases?

I can understand old Turkmenbashy in Turkmenistan (our ally by the way, they have oil) who is a complete totalitarian, he MAKES the news, and deals harshly with those who disagree... but this country isn't Turkmenistan. Why are politicians writing our "talking points" ?? Why are we letting them? Where are the hard core americans, banding together to resist the bullshit? Where have all the Americans gone to?

People used to ENVY us, now they FEAR and HATE us... how can we have so easilly let politicians throw away all the goodwill we once had? Why do we let them tyranically rule US and the world? All it takes is voices, all that would have to happen is for enough people to remember that americans were the original REBELS... we were the ones who couldn't shut the hell up or sit down in class. We were those who inspired millions of people to move here, not to make money, but because they wanted to be free. (Money was once made of gold, too, and it had intrinsic value, but that is all gone too, as we all know

"The easiest way to cripple a country is to debauch its currency." ~Lenin (yeah the commie)

I'd say our "federal" reserve system has debauched our once mighty currency quite well. But as long as the "economy" is healthy, it doesn't matter HOW MANY human lives, Americans, foreigners, the whole damn planet gets sacrificed to the beast.

Yeah, Christians, your Beast is just that, the world economy, it speaks all our languages, and all who oppose it alone or with arms, are killed off by it. Amazing that you're not opposing it.

Now, back to Jefferson, he was no Anarchist, but he certainly envisioned a government kept in check by its people. Something ours hasn't been in a VERY long time. Our government keeps us in check, by sending our jobs overseas, oppressing other countries so its people flee here to take whatever work they can, and then they turn us against those immigrants and keeps our attention away from the ball.

What SCARES me is that you people really DO fall for all of it. Take the damn pill and get outta the Matrix, I'm lonely out here!!

As if the Bush Administration didn't already have their hands full with various coverups, and other things to keep us Innocent Americans (tm) safe from International Terrorism [(c) 9.11.2001 Usama bin Ladin], they are now besieged by the accursed liberal media.

Steven Colbert upsets those "liberal sissies" at a White House press banquet. Watch it * HERE. */a>

Nobody seems to care about the Constitution, or the State of our Federation of Representative State Governments, so instead, here's a change of pace:

Ultimate Showdown

Its about superheroes, villains, everyone from Chuck Norris to Godzilla, to Abe Lincoln and Carebears.

Watch it, if you're old enough to order a beer, this will make that beer shoot out your nose as you laugh yourself silly. WIth all the stress lately, we could all use the laughter