The Start of the Revolution's Journal (original) (raw)
The Start of the Revolution's Journal [Most Recent Entries][Calendar View] [Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded inThe Start of the Revolution's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Friday, April 27th, 2012 | |
|---|---|
| _4:08 am_[esuety] | NO DELETE! Оригинал взят у  dotspiral в next entry( Read more...Collapse )Оригинал взят у mariamagdalena в дженнифер и кортни кокс отдалились( Read more...Collapse )Оригинал взят у nezaniatoe_imia в previous entry( Read more...Collapse )Оригинал взят у dotspiral в previous entry( Read more...Collapse )Оригинал взят у dotspiral в монолог...продолжается - audi представляет r8 v8 limited edition( Read more...Collapse )Оригинал взят у dotspiral в монолог...продолжается - духовность прекращает воздействовать на людей( Read more...Collapse )Оригинал взят у mariamagdalena в мария магдалена святая блудница - мальчик получил конечность в 13 лет( Read more...Collapse )Оригинал взят у dotspiral в монолог...продолжается - сирийская оппозиция: 200 человек были убиты с начала акций протеста( Read more...Collapse )Оригинал взят у ni4toneslishkom в previous entry( Read more...Collapse )Оригинал взят у nezaniatoe_imia в глава швейцарского центробанка подал в отставку( Read more...Collapse ) (Comment on this) |
| Sunday, July 13th, 2008 | |
| _11:02 am_[revolutionnow05] |
Karl Rove Left the Country! The Raw Story Infowars So far these are the only two sources I can find that is reporting on this news. After refusing to testify before congress and claiming "executive privilege" (which was later voted down 7-1) Karl Rove decides to suddenly leave the country on a "long planned trip".....ugh yeah right...like that just slipped his (or his lawyers) mind? Bullshit! Conyers has given him 5 days to comply before taking "all other appropriate recourse" So is he just buying time before he can create another lie or did he leave for good knowing he has to take his secrets to the grave? This intrigues me and makes me mad enough to spit! ( Read more...Collapse ) (1 Comment |Comment on this) |
| Tuesday, October 30th, 2007 | |
| _3:40 am_[kongressemen] |
МАРШ ПРОТИВ РОСТА ЦЕН. Марш против роста цен! Станция метро «Горьковская», 3 ноября, сбор с 11- 00 Марш гражданского сопротивления! Марш против роста цен! Марш пустых кастрюль! Марш против политических банкротов, опустивших страну по уровню коррупции на 143 место в мире! Марш против чиновничьего беспредела и милицейского произвола! Марш за нормальную жизнь для наших стариков, наших родителей! Марш за наших детей, за их будущее! Только от нашего гражданского мужества, от нашей сплоченности и солидарности зависит судьба страны. На нас с надеждой смотрит Россия! Думай! Если в пору сбора урожая цены выросли настолько, какими они будут зимой и весной? Выходи, покажем властям пример гражданского сопротивления, скажем «Нет!» очередному ограблению народа! **Выходи на улицу, будь с Народом!**Марш против роста цен - протестная акция несистемной оппозиции. Благодаря экономической политике руководства страны, стоимость основных продуктов питания возросла за 2007 год на 50-80% по самым скромным оценкам. Мы протестуем против бездействия власти, не способной остановить повышение цен.Организаторы Марша: Андрей Дмитриев, Сергей Гуляев.Акция не будет носить предвыборный характер. К участию в мероприятии будут приглашены все оппозиционные организации Санкт-Петербурга при условии отказа от призывов голосовать за партии, допущенные к участию в выборах. Марш будет носить мирный характер и пройдет строго в рамках закона. Марш против роста цен санкционировали. Время и место сбора те же. Маршрут следования: м. “Горьковская” – Кронверкский проспект – Кронверкский мост – Заячий остров (Петропавловская крепость). (Comment on this) |
| Friday, November 3rd, 2006 | |
| _12:01 am_[badnewswade] |
My candidate for American Of The Year: Mike Stark Mike Stark is the fucking MAN! This blogger tried to ask some inconvienient questions of his elected representative and gets "tossed to the curb" for his trouble. And it all gets caught on tape.Youtube search:http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mike+stark&search=SearchNote that in classic neo-Soviet American media management stylee there are two videos of this circulating - one cut one, promoted by most of the media which makes it look as if Stark is some dishevveled wierdo, just walking up to the Senator's entourage and hassling him, and another one promoted by the renegade network MSNBC, which starts with him being shoved around, glass rattling, then he's grabbed by his shirt and shoved some more. then, punch drunk as it were, he asks very mildly why he can't talk to the Senator, bumps into two thugs who are blocking him, (no doubt dizzy from the jostling he's already endured) and then they get really violent...The full story is on a video linked here: http://www.charlottesvillenewsplex.tv/home/headlines/4545351.htmlStark's website: http://www.callingallwingnuts.comCurrent Mood:  chipper (Comment on this) |
| Wednesday, October 25th, 2006 | |
| _5:53 pm_[badnewswade] |
Can I Interest You In Some Kool-Aid? Ever wondered where the phrase "to drink the Kool-Aid" comes from?http://www.archive.org/details/ptc1978-11-18.flac16Warning: This is the most disturbing audiotape you will ever hear. It is quite simply a tape recording of almost a thousand people having a quick Tony Blair-style, rigged "debate" about it, then being murdered.Notice how somehow everything is the fault of someone else. Also note the victims' own sycophantic applause for their killer. This is because they administered the poison themselves, starting with their own children.Kill everyone! (clapclapclapclapclap) Let's all commit suicide! (clapclapclapclapclap). One or two people speak up against it, of course, but they are soon put down thanks to that old knock-out combination, clever words and the herd mentality.They keep talking about being "the advance guard for Socialism" and how it's an act of "revolutionary suicide". The same words, with minor variations, again and again, like talking points or something.The conspiracy theorists (including some people in the then-Soviet Union) say it was part of a mind-control conspiracy, I don't know about that but it really does prove how easy it is to manipulate people into doing just about anything; it's almost like a dress-rehearsal for this decade, if that doesn't sound too melodramatic. All the ingredients are there; the pretence of a "debate", the instant put-down of any dissent by the very people the dissenters were trying to save, the ubiquitous heavily-armed guards, almost-unanimous support for suicide, even the use of political jargon echoes the "defining ideological struggle of the 21st century".Eventually all you can hear is music, basically because everyone is dead and the only things still moving are the machines- the music machine and the tape recorder.Fucking hell! (Comment on this) |
| Friday, October 6th, 2006 | |
| _12:34 am_[rev_mac] |
Ah, it is finally a new day! new post time! Consolidation of Power Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. – Thomas JeffersonThe consolidation of power in this country has been a forward moving event, Jefferson saw it in his day and it has only accelerated. The death nail in many respects can be seen as the civil war, this marked the end of states rights and the domination of the central government. Further advancement of the consolidation of power occurred following civil war to perhaps the next great usurpation during WWII, and very clearly during the nationalistic furor of the fifties in response to communism. We are now facing a consolidation of power the likes that put all of these others to shame.While many hold President Bush responsible, he is only one man and not the instrument of power of the people, he is an administrator. Congress is the instrument of the people and has consistently abrogated its responsibilities' to the people of this country. While many of the actions of the President are deplorable, they can only occur with the consent of Congress, either active or passive. As our representation in this government, the actions of Congress are the consent of the people.Since the events of 9/11 there has been a directed drive to consolidate power. The Orwellian Bureau of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act and the unrestricted capacity of the Executive to tap phones are but examples of this. The Joint Declaration for the Authorization of Force in Iraq, Congress gave one man the power to make the decision, Again we see Congress giving one man the power to make the decision in regards to the application and meaning of the Geneva Convention. The Senate is considering a bill to make the Flag an inviolate national symbol, subtending its meaning to Union and making it a symbol of a government. The Senate was looking at providing additional authority for the President to call upon and make use of the National Guard at his whim. H.J. Res 26 this is a great proposed amendment to the Constitution, not only will it quadruple the number of elected Representative in congress (plus the cost to the American people) by allowing for the election of three alternate representatives. Now the part I like best: "SECTION 4. Whenever a majority of the elected Alternates of a Representative transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that such person is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office of Representative, that person's highest-ranked Alternate shall immediately assume the powers and duties of that office as Acting Representative. Thereafter, when the Representative transmits to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no such inability exists, he shall assume or resume the powers and duties of the office of Representative." Wow, now there is an idea, just throw the elected guy out because you say so, then you can vote in his place and by the time he gets back in place, he can not change a thing. Who the hell are these people and why are we voting for them?Don't focus your attention of the President, LOOK at Congress these are the people who are suppose to be standing up for you and me. It doesn't look like they are. I am not sure of their specific reasons, but it is clear their loyalties lie somewhere other than with us. Perhaps it is their party, perhaps it is to the government and not its people or perhaps they are just afraid to be responsible for their decisions. Time for a change, time for a new direction, throw them all out and start a new with people who care about what is best for all of us, not the Republicans, not Democrats or not the government. Current Mood: relieved (Comment on this) |
| Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 | |
| _5:03 pm_[rev_mac] |
Military Commissions Act of 2006 S. 3930 Vote record Here is the Senate Vote on the Military Commissions act of 2006:http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259 U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the SenateVote Summary Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 3930 As Amended ) Vote Number: 259 Vote Date: September 28, 2006, 06:37 PMRequired For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill PassedMeasure Number: S. 3930Measure Title: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.Vote Counts: YEAs 65 NAYs 34 Not Voting 1Vote SummaryBy Senator NameBy Vote PositionBy Home State Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Allen (R-VA), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Nay Bayh (D-IN), Nay Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burns (R-MT), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Chafee (R-RI), Nay Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea Dayton (D-MN), Nay DeMint (R-SC), Yea DeWine (R-OH), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay Frist (R-TN), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Yea Jeffords (I-VT), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Lott (R-MS), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea Santorum (R-PA), Yea Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Not Voting Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea Talent (R-MO), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay (Comment on this) |
| _10:27 am_[rev_mac] |
An Interesting e-mail I received this email a little while back, the request is to forward it to everyone in my address book, this is an ad hoc address book, so I thought I would share it with all of you. In the Original email all the answers were “d“and highlighted in red.From: Joseph E. Haines To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:39 PMSubject: Fw: Subject: REGARDING PROFILING...JUST THINK ABOUT THIS! Profiling Please pause a moment, reflect back and take the following multiple choice test. The events are real. So are the answers highlighted in red Do you remember? 1.1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by? a. Superman? b. Jay Leno? c. Harry Potter? d. a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40? 2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by? a. Olga Corbett? b. Sitting Bull? c. Arnold Schwarzenegger? d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 ? 3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:? a. Lost Norwegians? b. Elvis? c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women? d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40? 4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:? a. John Dillinger? b. The King of Sweden? c. The Boy Scouts? d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40? 5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:? a. A pizza delivery boy? b. Pee Wee Herman? c. Geraldo Rivera? d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40? 6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was mmurdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:? a. The Smurfs? b. Davey Jones? c. The Little Mermaid? d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40? 7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:? a. Captain Kidd? b. Charles Lindberg? c. Mother Teresa? d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40? 8 In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:? a. Scooby Doo? b. The Tooth Fairy and The Sundance Kid? d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40? 9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:? a. Richard Simmons? b. Grandma Moses? c. Michael Jordan? d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40? 10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:? a. Mr. Rogers? b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems? c. The World Wrestling Federation? d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40? 11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:? a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd? b. The Supreme Court of Florida? c. Mr. Bean? d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40? 12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:? a. Enron? b. The Lutheran Church? c. The NFL? d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40? 13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:? a. Bonnie and Clyde? b. Captain Kangaroo? c. Billy Graham? d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40? Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatic’s intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling. Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, get the message . As the writer of the award winning story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does." Come on people wake up!!! Keep this going. Pass it on to everyone in your address book. Our Country and our troops need our support. Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God. (3 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Monday, October 2nd, 2006 | |
| _7:37 pm_[rev_mac] |
A Poem I have Gone and Had to Much of ItBy Revolutionary “Rev Mac” McNamaraI sat down beside a tree, amidst a beautiful summer dayResting my eyes and my weary body for a bitUpon waking I found that I was aloneThe country I loved no longer grewIt shriveled and turned in upon itself A tortured caricature of once had beenI was truly aloneAll of those who stood beside me and believed as I didLong since dead and buriedTheir hopes, their dreams and their warnings unrememberedForgotten in the centuries that have gone byLeft for ashes of a spent fire in the rush forward to a modern societyDeep in the wilderness; in my woodsWhere the Laws of Nature are the only ones that hold ruleI stood aloneLooking into the ashes of what wasThe fire is not spentOne ember remains, a fragile thingOne ember is all that is neededTo light the torch For the long walk homeIn the gathering darkness and the cold winds of the coming winterThe torch burn bright and hot Its name is libertyThe darkness is complete No moon, no starsThe winds are merciless and cut to the boneCresting a hill, in the distance the faintest of lightsThe hue of which is unmistakableI must hurry home (Comment on this) |
| Friday, September 29th, 2006 | |
| _7:48 pm_[rev_mac] |
one more today: Geneva Convention and Terrorism Wow, Have you read senate Bill 3930, what a piece of crap! I will admit it is ten times or more likely 100 times better than the Patriot act, it still is one piece of legislation that belongs in the toilet. It allows the Executive the power to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Convention. Now understand that they are the ones responsible for carrying it out. Further it gives them what amounts to a retroactive “get out of jail free card”. Nice, sounds like the Government of old King George (the one we rebelled against), read the Declaration of Independence, laws to protect his officials. Well, I sent of a email to my Senators telling that I didn’t like it and not to vote for it, not much chance of that. Go here http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type in S 3930 in the Search bill text box select bill number read S.3930.ISFor or against it go here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and find your senator an let them know!!! (1 Comment |Comment on this) |
| _5:33 pm_[rev_mac] |
Fear “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty” Thomas Jefferson.Do the people fear their government? I, for one do not fear my government, distrust perhaps, understanding that they may take my liberty and even my life for my views, this is not fear it is a simple understanding of the consequences of one’s actions. Many people do fear the government at many levels. This of course is not the worst of it. The thing that bothers me is that the government instills fear in the people about the world around them, robbing them of their proper place in society and responsibility. After all do you really believe the government can protect you? Can they offer you security that is greater than the security of liberty and society? Remember you are first and foremost responsible for your own security and as a member of society you are next bound to the security of all those around you. There can never be enough police or military to be in all places at all time in order to protect you. It is far more like that you or I will be there than the police when someone needs assistances.The function of the police and indeed of government is not to prevent crimes or acts from occurring, but rather hold those responsible for such acts accountable. Governments’ job is to protect our liberty, but liberty over time has the tendency yield to government. The current state of affairs with the “War” on terror is to instill a nationalistic fervor, to justify the consolidation of power under a war time footing. We are not at war, Congress declared no war. Wars are between states, are terrorist organization now states? How can we carry on a war with people who do not follow the rules of war? This is rhetoric to motivate and terrify people. Anyone with power is not to be trusted, the more power they have the less they should be trusted. While, the people we are giving our rights up to might have the best intentions and indeed, may even execute these intentions flawlessly, what about the next person who holds that power? To reference Thomas Paine, remember that virtue is not hereditary.As Jefferson saw so many years ago, we are well down the road that will lead to this country’s destruction, first the consolidation of power and then corruption, it is indeed a necessary consequence. I will stand by liberty, as I have always done and most likely as things are going die by liberty’s side. (Comment on this) |
| _4:59 pm_[rev_mac] |
Moral Authority It is interesting to note the moral decline within a society. I am not referring to individual personal morals. Rather, I am looking at effects of group morals as related to the civil structure of society. Morality, after all, is the choice to do what is right, this applies to personal beliefs and to the function of a citizen in a society. This point is very important, the two are very different and hold different criteria. Personal morality is based on personal beliefs, these are subjective and only apply to the individual that holds those beliefs. Civil morality is based on objective standards that apply to all, each and everyone. Many civil moralities mirror personal moralities, such as truth or not stealing, but the standards by which these apply are objective. Additionally, civil morals pertain to the responsibility of being a citizen. These are either defined or implied within the social contract of a society or civil state, in the United States these are defined by the Constitution and equivalent agreements of the several states. This should by no means or rational include laws, to once again cite Jefferson in part, “…law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” The ultimate objective definition of civil morality in a free state is that of Rightful Liberty.It is very easy and natural for an individual to see that his will is right or more appropriately correct. An individual’s particular interests may speak to him rather differently than the common good. The state of absolute and natural independence may at best cause the individual to view such acknowledgments as gratuitous and at worse an attack upon his values. The acknowledgement or acceptance of which, will do less harm to others than any reward that might be received, for the individual still possess the authority to act in accordance with his will, personally. This when view in relation to the Maxim of Civil Right: no one is constrained by action chosen for themselves, this applies to the individual but when applying this to others, you are not making a choice for yourself but rather making a choice for the entire group, of which you are only a part. Hence we return to the Rightful Liberty as the only criteria for objective decisions in relations to choices made for the entire group (all citizens). Moral Authority is derived from respect, moral authority can not be claimed but must be granted by others. This is true for personal, religious and civil morals. Respect is not granted based on words in a book or ideas but rather on actions. These actions must be reasonable and forthright and they must meet a need or address a purpose. The moral authority of a free civil state is vested in the sovereign and defined by the objective principles of Rightful Liberty: An “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” – JeffersonThose who would substitute their personal morals for public morals are tyrants. Those who would substitute their religious morals for public morals are tyrants and devoid of faith. Laws do not make people moral, it substitutes punishment for choice. Fear of punishment is not the choice to act right. Those who would use the tools of tyranny have given up on reason, their own personal integrity, and any semblance of respect for others. Without respect for others, we can not garner any respect from others; only fear. (Comment on this) |
| Thursday, September 28th, 2006 | |
| _7:56 pm_[rev_mac] |
Prejudice is Liberty Prejudice is liberty, it is an act of choice, anyone who seeks as an end to force an other not to be prejudice is trying to invoke their will over an other person, this is not liberty. Before you shake your head and stop reading are there any groups you don’t like, let us say, the Nazi or the Ku Klux Klan? Chances are you are prejudice, you can justify it any way you want, but the simple truth is that if you hold an individual who belongs to such a group as anything less than an equal you are exhibiting prejudice. Now, holding the individual responsible for their words and actions is a little different.Is prejudice unjust? No, not in and of itself, it is the application of prejudice that may (and often does) result in injustice. When prejudice is applied as a deciding factor in consideration of another person’s individual rights it is unjust. Not undertaking activities with a group of people, when such choice is available (as opposed to not allowing someone to participate) is not an injustice, ignorant or stupid perhaps but not unjust. The act of not participating does not limit or impact the individual rights of those who are participating, where as excluding a person does violate their individual rights. Prejudice is a function of group mentality. Groups while comforting as a result of association of the familiar, they have a tendency to cause separation within society. This happens from within the group by isolation and from outside the group through generally the concept of fear. This is not to say all groups cause separation within a society.This is not to say that prejudice is a good thing. The idea of “when such choice is available” does not allow for an open ended choice but rather is extremely confining in its application. It might apply to not going into certain businesses or attending events but it is not a choice in housing, hiring or any other action that you have to perform to an individual. This is something along the line of the idea of being “civil” to someone. This requires a degree of externalization. I am not going to belabor this point as most who are prejudice will not do so.Jefferson said, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Additional he said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” In the context of this piece, some times you may have to put up with assholes, if you want liberty for yourself.Additionally, it is worth noting that a prejudice is in most case a minority and should have its rights protected as any other. This does not extend to acts that injure the rights of others. In a open society is better that extremist voice are allowed to be heard or would have them plot in silent darkness and commit vile and unspeakable acts? "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." – Lord John Morley. Laws do not end prejudice they offer punishment but may force it into silence or at best raise awareness. The Sea of Liberty is turbulent, and sometimes we must yield our personal beliefs when doing so do no harm to us, other than our sensibilities. (Comment on this) |
| Tuesday, September 26th, 2006 | |
| _7:30 pm_[rev_mac] |
Same Sex Marriage and Homosexual Marriage from a Sovereign’s Point of View This is a topic I find interesting and the import of it has more meaning than most are willing to acknowledge. I will not be using the term gay in reference to this discussion as I find it to be a euphemism that does not aid in the discussion, I personally find that all marriages should be gay, if not there is something very much wrong, if you are not happy and joyous when you marry it is likely that things will only get worse. Homosexual is a well defined term and there is no ambiguity in the reference, and this is valuable to the discussion among the sovereign.The term same sex marriage and homosexual marriage are use frequently as interchangeable, here I will separate the terms and hopefully in doing so, reveal the substantive matter of rights. Homosexual marriage is an instance of same sex marriage, but it is a specific instance and not the general case. There are several points I will to present before you in regards to same sex marriage, homosexual marriage and the general case of marriage.Let us begin by establishing a reasonable basic definition of marriage; marriage is the union of two individuals under the law and often an authorizing external agency (think church). Therefore, reasonable definition of same sex marriage is not difficult to come by and I believe most people will agree it is the case of two individuals of the same gender who are joined in a union under the law and perhaps by an authorizing external agency. Now, I am sure many will now site the fact that marriage in basic definition should be between a man and a woman, but this use of language comes about primarily after the suggestion of same sex unions. It is very clear the only difference in the two definitions is one of gender. Now let us understand that as a member of the sovereign I can only speak to civil law and not to religious law, the two are and must remain separate. The principles of liberty, equality and justice are the foundations of United States of America. This idea of liberty so long a forgotten idea, what does it really mean, I must defer to a master on the topic; “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” – Thomas Jefferson Hmmmm, a tyrants’ will, that bears remembering. On equality, again Tom is the man! “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” There is nothing like reading a good quote from Declaration of Independence. Do I really need a quote from a Revolutionary on justice, perhaps but it is sufficient here to say, justice is the quality of being fair. I can not see how the marriage of two individuals of the same gender impacts the equal rights of those around them, however the denial of their marriage is a violation of their liberty, that is the unobstructed action according to their own will. Further this action does not represent any harm to the function of society (in particular the function of the civil state). Please feel free to point any reasons that I might have missed. Now on to equality, if we are indeed all born equal and that if equality under the law is a ideal of this Nation how can the subjugation of any one individuals rights be considered equal? It, of course, can not. The subjugation of individual rights pursuant to an other individuals personal beliefs is tyranny, and opens the door to the same abuse of the rights of anyone else. Justice, is it just or fair to exclude any portion of our society, is it really then a society or the rule of tyrants over their subjects? The matter of same sex marriage must be decided on objective principles not subjective principles. Personal believes, religion and tradition are all subjective in nature, being bound only to those who believe them and then only on an individual basis. You may make the choice for yourself but you have not authority or right to do so for anyone else. The objective criteria for these decisions must be based on the function they serve with in the civil state and must be evaluated on the effect they have on the state. These are defined by the Constitution. If it can be shown that marriage between two individuals of the same gender renders them a threat to the state or restricts their ability to function as a citizen of the state, it may be considered, but I am not aware of any such examples that would justify the restriction on anyone’s liberty.Homosexual marriage is a specialized instance of same sex marriage, and let me point out now, that I am opposed to any law that would specifically authorize Homosexual marriage. Those cheering and those booing should understand the reason for this before you caste the die of me. There is only one group that I might entertain the idea possesses rights and that would be the whole of society, rather it is individuals that possess rights and not groups. The application of rights to a group is a violation of the rights of every individual not belonging to that group. So this would take the form of one injustice layered upon another injustice. They do not balance out. The matter of homosexual marriage is a clever deception levied on the people by both side in this debate and in truth has no place in the discussion. The simple fact is that an act committed between two consenting adults within the privacy of their own home is no ones business but their own, this is call privacy or if you will personal privacy. If you are going to go around sticking your nose into other people’s bedrooms, you condone anyone sticking their nose into any aspect of your life. If you wish to be the bedroom police how far will you take it? Will you self-appoint task take you to outlaw every sexual position but the missionary position? How will you enforce this? Cameras in every bedroom? Then there is always the bathroom, how about some cameras there too, cameras in every room, and since you have them everywhere you might as well look for other things that offend you, like not showering before bed or brushing your teeth the wrong way. The absurd places the “justified” case into fuller perspective, where do you stop, who says when to stop? Privacy is just that, that which is private and if that private thing does no harm to others it should not be any one else’s business.Now let us look at what being married really means for a moment. When you are married the state acknowledge a bond or union, and this may be bound up in a religious ceremony. The fact that the state and the authorizing external authority provide a sympathetic relationship should not be viewed beyond the reasoned constraint of the relationship. It is first and foremost a convenience, one may be married in a civil ceremony, by a justice of the peace or what not, marriage is not defined by religion even thought religion has a definition of marriage. If you are divorced, the state recognizes your termination of the union, in most case the church does not, you are required to get a nullification of some sort. So in this we can see the separation already exists in relation to civil and religious marriage. Of Civil Unions, this is currently being used as separate but equal, for equality to prevail on this all marriage must in civil context be considered civil unions, and recorded so in law. And then you might if you wish define marriage as a being related to an authorizing external authority. I find this a convolution and totally with out merit based on end results, but the path is valid. I would find it easier to simple define marriage as the union of two individuals, that former gives rise to yet another interesting issue, that if it is an authorized external agency that provides the criteria for marriage, who is to stop homosexuals from forming their own church, and thus getting married as well as civil united? It is a war of deception and semantics, dancing around the fundamental issue of equal rights and liberties. It is time to focus on the heart of this issue and not the lies and rhetoric of tyrants, whose moral authority is bankrupt and as a result their only recourse is to deprive others of their liberties in the name of morality. I am a member of the sovereign, I guard my liberties with great jealousy, even the ones I do not avail myself of, and in being so jealous I must guard the liberties of all others less I fall before my own precedent. The truth of this issue is that homosexuals do not have a right to marry, that individuals do, this applies the law equally and sustains liberty for us all. (Comment on this) |
| Sunday, September 24th, 2006 | |
| _8:51 pm_[rev_mac] |
A Sunday Sermon: Why are you here? “Why are you here”, is question that has plagued mankind since we began to reason. But, this generality is not what I speak of, it is something more specific. I see a great deal of compliant about what is wrong, indeed part of the function of this forum, there is very little on why these things are wrong; yes you can speak of injustice or inequality but what do you mean? Do you expect others to simple understand and believe; to accept your words or those of others as correct, just and the truth without reason, without why. What is the underlying principle, equality and justice are not absolute, they are perspectives, without a foundation from which to build upon, each will take their own meaning and no rational discussion can be had. History has taught us that successful revolutions are not based on opposition to something, though it is clear that this is the most common motivation. Rather successful revolutions are based on a great ideal. Without a substantive idea of what will replace that you overturn invites a return to that which was, a simple exchange of those in power. Revolutions result in uncertainty, disorder and fear and people tend to desire regularity, order and security and will turn to who ever offers it to them. I am not trying to tell you what to think, it is more than enough responsibility to think for myself and I will not be responsible for you in that regard, but what I am trying to tell you is to think. Think deeply, think richly and think completely, see the mean and see the ends, then offer those thoughts up to the rest of us. In doing this we can find common ground, the establishment of true fundamental principles.So the sermon ends, THINK! I will get down from the high horse, shimmy down the pedestal and walk down the stairs of this tower back in to the wilderness, to my hill and continue shouting into the wind. (Comment on this) |
| Friday, September 22nd, 2006 | |
| _6:23 pm_[rev_mac] |
Let’s strip search our teenagers! Here is a great idea, it will help fill the ranks of the educators in the public school system with highly qualified and very motivated people. This wonderful bill in the house offered up by the Honorable Geoff Davis of Kentucky is called The Student Teacher Safety Act of 2006. It would require and school receiving federal funding to have policies allowing teachers and school officials to search students on the suspicion they may have drugs. These warrant-less searches allow for the any student, at any time to be searched in the form of pat-downs, bag searches, or strip searches depending on the administrators interpretation of the law.HR5295 was actually approved by the House of Representatives. That’s a third of the way to being law. Where does the Federal Government derive the power to impose such laws? The simple answer is does not, the complex answer is under the 14th Amendment and the idea of incorporation (not substantiated in the US Constitution). This action violates local sovereignty as related to the Constitution in Article X (the 10th Amendment): The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This is blackmail by the Federal Government.Further it should be noted that children must have a legal guardian present during such actions. These actions serve no legal purpose, as any evidence gathered without a warrant (due process) is not valid in a court of law. We do however all no that these legal constraints are not placed on the school in relation to administrative actions (such as expulsion). Hmmm, did your Congressional Representative vote for this Bill? Mid terms elections are coming up, if this isn’t a good reason to question who to vote for there are plenty of others. Remember Revolution By Vote. (Comment on this) |
| Tuesday, September 19th, 2006 | |
| _10:02 am_[rev_mac] |
A Forced March to a Homo Society A topical subject brought to the forefront by current events? A constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage? Oh, Please don't make me sick! Look at the constitution and understand what it is, it is a social contract, and for those who wish to do some social engineering, do me a favor and look at the Eighteenth amendment, you know, while you are at it try Twenty-first amendment. If you can not learn from the past you are a dumb ass.A Homo Society you may make it mean what you wanted to mean. The forced march does include homosexuality how could it not, but the Homo Society, I am worried about is a homogeneous society. One devoid of character, of spirit and will; a putrid gray world of LeGiun's The Lathe of Heaven, is this where we are going? Where we all dress and think the same, where we all believe the same thing. In the putrid gray world there is only one real crime that is non-conformity. It may seem contradictory to many that I maintain a homogeneous society weaken the society as a whole. It would appear that the very nature of society is to create uniform understanding and order. This is indeed true on the most basic level, for we come together to protect ourselves and by necessity all others under a fair and just system, but it can not be at the expense of the individual, the very basis of our society. We, by an agreement with ourselves, are bound to a common goal and this provides strength and stability, and difference as represent in individuals provide for flexibility and growth. The differences give rise to discussion, argument and debate, and far too often today excessive emotionalism. New ideas and perspectives are the result, offering a more complete view of the common good. Excessive emotionalism interferes with a constructive dialog. In recent years I have noticed the tendency to attempt legislation personal morals. This is a bad idea, as if I need to say it but I will, does Taliban ring a bell? The concerns of a civil society are societal morals, the only true and objective measure of any citizen. Morals in a civil state are not comprised of individual morals but rather in context to the obligations to society. This is indeed represented in the idea of separation of church and state, this is to be understood in the frame work, that no subset of the civil organization can place a code of conduct on a different subset or individual that is not bounded in the responsibilities and duties as represented in the function of the state itself. In this, we have to each his own, unless it negatively effects another individual. Be an individual, let your voice be heard! Do not merely accept what is offered but choose what is in right, be a sovereign. I enjoyed this oneUsed with permission of the author (Comment on this) |
| Monday, September 18th, 2006 | |
| _10:08 pm_[rev_mac] |
Political Parties Verses the Sovereign Political parties were once a good thing just as unions were, but both have changed in character to such an extent that they offer no real benefit to society in general and are the source of many problems based on the structure of our governmental systems. It should be obvious to everyone that groups do not engender equality, but rather are a source of inequality to all those who do not belong to that group. Groups also act as a concentrator of power, really this is a secondary abstraction of the idea of power. Our first obligation should always be to society (which is a special group consisting of everyone). Society has no rights except for those possessed by the individuals that comprise it; therefore no subset of society may possess any more rights than society itself. In actual fact, the rights of any group are only the rights of the individuals who are members of that group. It may be further reasoned that, groups possess less rights than the individuals who comprise it, as it represent a concatenation of power, which is in conflict with society.The formation of groups within a society weakens individual authority, creates inequality, interferes justice and promotes deception among its members and those who are not. The fewer the groups the greater the inequality, the greater the number of groups the closer the state of equality, with equality being restored when the number of groups equals the number of individuals in a society. In the Unites States we effectively a three party system; Democrats, Republicans and everybody else. I would even reduce this down further based on the strong insular nature of the current expression of the parties, to a two party system; the Republicrats and everyone else. My rather harsh view of the existing two party system is based on the fact I see no real difference between the Democrats and the Republican other than minor deceptive issues, at least someone like the Libertarians offer a distinct direction, this is called leadership, even if I don’t agree with all their views. Now, what does this all have to do with the Sovereign? It has a lot to do with me, I am a Sovereign. Or more properly speaking I am a member of the sovereign. Being a sovereign is a lonely job, just like being a principled revolutionary, and the pay is even worse. Political Parties have evolved to the point where they give the appearance of sovereignty. They offer one stop shopping for pre-thought out dogmas. You don’t have to think for yourself, the responsibility of every sovereign, after all these people are what smarter than you, spend all day reviewing the issues or simply know what is best. Now if these people are so damn good, why is this country so damn screwed up? Because we allow a few people to make the important decisions for us, for what ever reason.Do you really know what it means to be a sovereign? Voting does not make you one of the sovereign, it may give you the appearance of control, but if you are voting for the lesser of evils, you are still voting for an evil. I have done so in the past, I bear the responsibility of my choices. You must vote for what is in the best interest of all; a clear, reasoned and enlighten choice. We must all strive to understand the principles that we claim to believe in, these are not just words on a page they are the living embodiment of what it means to be an American. When we cease to live them, the fall of this country is not far off. (Comment on this) |
| Sunday, September 17th, 2006 | |
| _6:11 pm_[rev_mac] |
Of Citizens, Subjects and Sovereigns Are you a citizen? The question arises because most people take for granted that they are citizens, but most do not understand the fundamental import of the term. If we go back to the creation of a society, we see a society takes shape by individuals in agreement (for the common good) this creates a moral and collective body; a public individual. This body is composed of all those who can vote, and from this common cause society derives its will, character, power and life, the name given to society is a political body or Republic. Individuals who belong to this political body refer to it as a State when it is passive, the Sovereign when it is active and a Power when it is compared to other political bodies such as itself. Those individuals who belong to the political body are collectively known as the People. Individuals in the singular are known as citizen and in the plural citizens. Citizens have two separate characters, one is that of Subject; as it implies, being subject to the laws of the state or under the laws, and the other character is that of a member of the Sovereign; the active sharing of power. It is important to distinguish between the terms. Land may make a country, but Citizens make a state.We can see that the act of individuals coming together by agreement for the common good creates a public body and each person in making a contract with himself is now bound in a double capacity as a member of the sovereign and a member of the State. In the capacity of sovereign he is bound to the individuals and in the capacity of being a subject of the state to the sovereign. The maxim of civil right; no one is constrained by actions chosen for themselves, does not apply to the Sovereign, as you are not making a choice for yourself but rather incurring a choice for the group of which you are only part.Public deliberation is sufficient to bind the Subjects of the state to the Sovereign; the Sovereign can not be bound to itself, it is fundamental against the political body for the Sovereign to impose laws upon itself that cannot be contravened. The Sovereign or political body exists as a singular individual, and this individual makes an agreement with himself and just as with the maxim of civil right cannot be constrained by actions chosen for themselves. No law can be binding of the body of the people itself, not even the social contact. The Sovereign derives it existence solely from the social contract. It can not bind itself to do anything derogatory to the original act, for example, to alienate any part of itself or to submit to another Sovereign; to do so would invalidate the agreement. Without the agreement or social contract the Sovereign does not exist. Once a society take form, any offense against one of its members is an attack on society and an offense against society can not occur with out the members taking exception to it. Duty and self interest oblige members of a society to give each other help and all individuals should seek to combine to increase their capacities for the benefit of all; as related to the advantages those capacities. “The Sovereign, being formed wholly of the individuals who compose it, neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs; and consequently the sovereign power need give no guarantee to its subjects, because it is impossible for the body to wish to hurt all its members. We shall also see later on that it cannot hurt any in particular.” –Rousseau The relationship between the subjects and the Sovereign is different, despite having common interests; subjects have no security that the Sovereign would complete their endeavors with out some means of assuring of their fidelity. This assurance can be seen in our social contract (the Constitution) in the form of The Bill of Rights; this assures the subjects of the State the commitment of the Sovereign. Each individual, as a man, may have a particular will contrary or dissimilar to the general will. His particular interest may speak to him quite differently from the common interest (good): his absolute and naturally independent existence may make him look upon what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous contribution. The loss of which will do less harm to others than the recompense he receives. Regarding the moral person who considers the State as a fictional person, because it is not a man, he may wish to enjoy the rights of citizenship without execution of the duties of a subject. The persistence of such an injustice could result in the death of the body politic. It should be understood that the political body or Republic being see as an individual defines the relationship between a singular citizen and the political body; a one to one relationship as with any other citizen.A crucial part of the social contract is implied in its undertaking that provides the effective power to the agreement, anyone that refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled by the entire collective body to do so. This means that he will be forced to be free; by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. The clarification of this is that while anyone has the right to disagree with the general will, they are bound by their agreement with themselves to abide by it. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimizes civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses. Stop by for a visit: http://www.starsandbarsflag.us/CCSP/revolution/rev%20idea/revideas.htmCurrent Mood: Revolting (Comment on this) |
| Wednesday, August 30th, 2006 | |
| _1:52 pm_[dragonsallie] |
i've spent a lot of time alone since returning from Africa, but i guess i needed to understand what exactly had been going on in me and around me in order to understand where i'm headed to next.i'm sick of consumerist america. people don't want to accept that they contribute to a world where the majority of countries and peoples are enslaved by corporations in order to bring cheap goods to your suburban home. today's younger generations are babysat by the household TV, which teaches them to only think about what they want to buy or what new clothes or gadget they *NEED* to have. where do see young people being taught how to appreciate trees dancing in the wind? or, more imporantantly, when are young people taught HOW to THINK? oh, they're taught WHAT to think, but not how to. schools focus on what the kids should memorize, not how the kids can develop their brains so they can figure out what is what. our schools are teaching our kids to become brainwashed, simply accept what you're told. watch FOX NEWS and accept it, don't question it. and those crazy people who protest againt the war? FOX NEWS says they're equivalent to terrorists, so that's what they are. they're mentally deranged. ignore them.it's frightening. our society is blinded by flashy idols and life-draining gagets that that take our money and disturb our energies. all of our "convieniences" clutter up our minds and cause our anxiety, restlessness, despair, and impatience.seriously, i was so upset and out of place once i returned from africa i was ready to sell everything and go live with the Hopi Indians, or any indians. but i have a path i'm suppose to travel, and i have these gifts for a reason. and all i can do is try to live the best i can. there's no exact answer or solution, and there's plenty of good i can do just by doing what i do.i want to excercise and meditate regularly, i want to go to beach almost every day, i don't want to drink the way i have been (i want to only in rare celebration with friends, and then only in moderation), i want to be happy wherever i am doing whatever i am doing. i don't want to be living in constant anxiety anymore, constantly worrying that i'm not doing the most productive/important thing i could be doing at this very moment... i wear myself out, and in the end i lessen the greatness of what i AM doing b/c i'm thinking too much about what else i COULD be doing. it's silliness.when i was in africa, i began to grow in harmony with action and daily existence. i was where i was, i was doing what i was doing, and i was who i was. nothing's perfect, but perfect in what it was. and i've been searching for that place again, now back in the madness of my home life. being exactly where you are can seem so distant sometimes. but that's where it is the best. (Comment on this) |
[ << Previous 20 ]