RESTORE the REPUBLIC
Current mood: optimistic
Category: PATRIOTIC News and Politics

In 1787, shortly after the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a woman interested in the proceedings approached Benjamin Franklin. "Well, doctor," she asked, "what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" The venerable champion of American liberty replied, "A republic, madame, if you can keep it."

The so-called "public representatives" of today have very little respect for the constitution, and for the rule-of-law. Very few of them honor their oaths to uphold and defend the constitution.

The public doesn't help this problem. We have very little knowledge of the threats to our constitution, and to our liberty and freedoms here at home. We don't realize that the by undermining our constitution, we lose individual freedoms and liberties. And even those who DO realize that our so-called representative undermine our freedom and liberties, very few care enough to demand a change; to demand that they act accordingly; and to see that those we put into positions of power will not abuse this most sacred of agreements between the people and their government.

If you are one of those who does not care, and who will not act, then this won't mean much to you. But if you DO care about the loss of our freedom and liberties, if you DO want to restore our constitutional republic, then there IS a public representative who upholds your beliefs, and who DOES uphold the oath he has taken to defend the constitution.

RON PAUL is running for the presidency, and needs your help. It may not surprise you that there's been a major media-blackout of his campaign. This makes perfect sense when you understand that the media is controlled largely by the same groups of people who are dedicated to the corruption that exists in our system of government.

Forget party lines. The two-party system is a sham. Each time Americans are fed up with the destructive policies of one party, they flock to the other party for salvation. Then the party who now has the power again continues the same destructive policies as the previous administration.

Don't choose a party - choose an individual. Vote for an individual who truly represents you, because if you can't have that, then choosing a public representative is meaningless. The choice between the lesser of two evils is no choice at all.

Stop being a good Republican.
Stop being a good Democrat.
START being a good AMERICAN.

For a brief and powerful look at Ron Paul's message, see the following videos. Each of them shows Ron Paul's responses to questions at each debate:

For a longer introduction, I HIGHLY recommend this interview at Google in Mountain View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

And for more interviews and national media coverage, go to FreeMe.tv: www.FreeMe.tv

I donated to Ron Paul's campaign today, and will do so again next month. I hope that YOU have a public representative you believe in enough to donate. And I hope for the sake of all Americans that they are dedicated to restoring our constitutional republic.

**CLICK HERE TO VOTE**
www.RonPaul2008.com
www.DailyPaul.com

With Love to you All
Daren

Currently reading : Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children By David Harsanyi Release date: 18 September, 2007

9:04 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

The Way of dictatorships
Current mood: angry
Category: News and Politics

This Is the Way of Dictatorships
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/061006Dictatorships.htm

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator."

~ George Walker Bush, 2000

Was this a really a joke? Back in 2000 many thought so. But was George in jest? Maybe there was more to that remark than bad taste. Maybe it was a private prank on the American people.

That was then, but this is now: It's not a joke anymore. It's reality.

With the help of three posturing Senators and a spineless, corrupt Congress, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 has been imposed upon the Republic. For those still in the dark, under this law George W. Bush has the full power not only to decide who is a threat but also to order his Praetorian Guard to haul the suspect away to whatever end. Neither courts nor Congress nor citizenry have legal recourse or protection from the wrath of Emperor George.

George W. Bush got exactly what he wanted. George Walker Bush is a dictator.

Things will become a lot easier for him from here on. Of course in Bush's "mind," he is still busy "protecting us."

But, we all know that the real purpose of the law is to protect Bush from Americans. From opposing views, Bush shields himself; to dissent he is deaf. This is how he has always run his administration. Thou shalt not disagree.

This is the way of dictatorships.

Who will be the first innocent American to fall prey to this heinous new law? Who will be the first citizen to be arrested under George's orders, tried (maybe) under a Military Tribunal and then disappear?

That poor soul will be painted as a threat to American security. Any American loyal to the Republic and the US Constitution who is possessed with the courage to be vocal will be a threat to Bush. Those who speak out are always the first to be quieted.

This is the way of dictatorships.

Will it be a highly visible critic? Will Keith Olbermann be framed and fired? Will Cindy Sheehan be arrested… again; this time to be shuffled away to Guantanamo for keeps? At the very least, Camp Crawford has to be an eyesore to Bush. Those in power always consider protesters threats.

What about the great lampooners? How about Bill Maher or Jon Stewart? Maybe Stephen Colbert will be the first. His sense of humor seemed too much like the truth to the press corps gathered in Washington DC last spring:

"Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions and you people in the press type them down. Make, announce, type. Just put them through a spell check and go home!"

In Bush's world would Mark Twain be safe upholding the tradition of poking fun at the President all and sundry and thus enjoy his Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression? Doubtful. To paraphrase the late Joe McCarthy – Are you now or have you ever been making fun of George W. Bush?

This very moment, is the White House drawing up a list entitled "Enemies of Bush"? Are you on it? I probably am.

Will journalists who report the truth about the Bush regime simply cease to appear in print? Will Internet sites hosting dissent be shut down? Will the FCC play a role? Will LewRockwell.com be shut down in the interest of "national security" simply because his site has been critical of Bush?

This is the way of dictatorships.

The voices of reason, debate and dissent will be silenced. They will be replaced by voices of those who are not "stumped by morality." The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights will cease to protect US citizens from tyranny. "Elected officials" (oxymoron) will be nothing more than cringing servants of The Master. The courts will be nothing more than rubber stamps for the Will of Bush.

This is the way of dictatorships.

Ordinary citizens will display the American flag not out of pride but from fear lest they vanish overnight. Americans will be careful to be seen as "with Bush" rather than against Bush. The artificial, paranoid fear of terrorists will be replaced by a very real fear of our own government. And finally, when everyone speaks in hushed tones of "disappeared" people whom once they knew, will it dawn on Americans what a precious thing they have traded for the "security" of George W. Bush?

This is the way of dictatorships. Welcome to The New American Century.

4:20 PM - 4 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

Government Sponsored Terrorism
Current mood: determined
Category: News and Politics

Alright, it's time to start getting involved again in the fight for truth, freedom, liberty, justice, and the American way.

The enemy threatening American freedom and liberty is not the islamic extremists that you've been lead to believe. In fact, evidence often shows that the people who are labeled as terror threats are often controlled by government intellegence agencies. The general public only receives the initial terror threat warning in the news, and they never receive the following reports that show intellegence agencies actually created the threat in order to carry out this theater of attack and defense. They need the threat of terror in order to convince We The People that we need them to protect us.

This lie is a serious threat to our freedom.

They used the threat of terror to pass The Patriot Act, which legalized unconstitutional methods of law enforcement on the American People. This is why the Supreme Court has ruled against it.

They used the threat of terror to militarize our police force. We've gone from peace officers to men in black ski masks.

They use the threat of terror daily to condition you to believe that they are protecting you, while they rob you of your freedoms.

They're using the threat of terror to try and pass legislation legalizing torture in our justice system.

They're using the threat of terror to set up secret prison locations. Anyone remember the internment of honest and innocent Japanese civilians during and after WWII? Concentration camps are not a new concept in America.

They used the threat of terror to wage war on Iraq when Afganistan became a failure.

They're now using the threat of terror to try and wage war on Iran now that Iraq has become a failure.

They're saying that they will stop at nothing, that they will go into any country they need to in order to stop the threat of terror.

They're telling us that this is a war that may never end.

In order to erradicate the threat of terror, we need to start seeing the war on terror for what it is.

It's a psychological war on the American people. It's a form of control and manipulation used to scare us into submission. Terror has become their form of justification with a universal attachment. And just like the fascism, naziism, and communism, it has been created, funded, and sponsored by criminals in our government as a means of fear and control over the citizenship.

Watch TERRORSTORM free online at google video

InfoWars.com

4:20 PM - 5 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

AMERICA DECEIVED: What you don't know about 9/11
Current mood: angry
Category: News and Politics

This ia an AMAZING documentary that compiles information about the events on 9/11, the lengths the government went to in order to hidefacts, and prevent investigations, and the possibility of their advance knowledge and responsibility for the acts. Much more definitive than Farenheit 9/11.

After the information you can make up your own mind.

I recommend them both, but if you only watch one, make it the first edition.

The videos are 61 minutes and 83 minutes respectively. So I would not recommend them for work.

Loose Change 9/11:

First Edition

Second Edition

4:20 PM - 9 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

My Self-Inflicted Injury

4:20 PM - 7 Comments - 5 Kudos - Add Comment

A Viable Alternative - Re: Polyamory in the News
Current mood: thoughtful
Category: Romance and Relationships

A friend told me that there were two separate articles yesterday in a Bay Area newspaper regarding polyamory. I'm trying to get a hold of those particular articles, but I wanted to also share this news story I found online. Tollerance and Acceptance is growing for alternative relationships. People are beginning to realize that monogamy is not right for everyone, and Polyamory is becoming a viable alternative to for many people will not restrict their love to one. 
****************************************

From www.insidebayarea.com
Two articles on the same story:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_3299936?source=rss
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_3299764

East Bay a hot spot for polyamorous community
Hayward trio's relationship falls somewhere between swinging and polygamy

4:20 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Non-Monogamy
Current mood: thoughtful

Merriam Websters defines monogamy as: " 3 : the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time. " <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=monogamy">source</a>

For most, this is the only acceptable type of emotional/romantic/sexual relationship. We're conditioned by society to believe that monogamy is the way. But for many people who practice monogamy, there is cheating, deception, and lies, and most commonly, this dishonesty originates from one's desire to have another mate, whether it's strictly sexual, or emotional.

Human Emotion is not something we can control. We can only examine it and experience it. Human Attraction, whether it be emotional, spiritual, or sexual, cannot be controled. It too, can only be examined and experienced. And in experiencing and examining human emotions and attractions, I see that I am not naturally a monogomous person.

Alternately to monogamy, Polyamory is the condition or practice of having more than one mate during a period of time. There are many differences between polyamory and other non-monogomous types of relationships. The two biggest differences are LOVE and HONESTY. A person who lies and cheats on their partner is neither monogamous or polyamorous. A person who "swings", or has sexual, non-emotional relations with other partners, is certainly not monogamous, and is not considered polyamorous by most of those practicing poly lifestyles. A polyamorous person has relationships with more than one person which are loving/emotional/romantic/sexual, and does so honestly and acceptedly without resorting to lying and cheating. This is what places polyamory aside from other non-monogamous relationships. Having multiple partners, but those who you love and are committed to, and doing so openly and honestly with the consent and understanding of all parties involved.

Obviously, human emotion will conflicts with these ideas. Jealousy, Fear, Insecurity; these all make it very difficult for us to conceptualize our partner loving another. But human emotion also conflicts with monogamy. Committing to one partner does not prevent us from desiring or loving others.

I'll continue getting philosophical about all of this, and want others to share their own ideas with me. But here's a short list of ideas I wanted to share that help to explain why I am not monogamous.

Because I deeply love many, many people.

I will always appreciate the beauty of others.

Our capacity to love others is not limited.

My commitment to my partner does not change my desires for others.

It's not necessary to forsake one love for another love.

Relationships don't end - they change.

I will love a person no less because of their love for another.

I cannot control the emotions or the actions of others.

I want honesty in my relationships.

I want every relationship I have to be whatever it will be.

One relationship should not be hindered because of another relationship.

For all of these reasons, and more, I am not monogamous. Not because I don't believe in monogamy, but simply because it is not the way I wish to maintain my relationships. And I share this with all of you, because many people cannot successfully be monogamous. But instead of accepting their natural emotions and desires, they traumatize themselves and others through pain and suffering. Be honest with yourself and your loved ones.

Please share your thoughts.

9:05 AM - 14 Comments - 10 Kudos - Add Comment

Accepting Our Bodily Fluids
Current mood: thoughtful

This following excerpt is enlightening. It's taken from an online article on female ejaculation. This excerpt in particular examines the social "norms" surrounding female bodily fluids, and how these "norms" have marred female sexuality, leading to many women's innability to ejaculate, or even comfortably reach climax during intercourse.

Taken From <a href=http://www.the-clitoris.com/f_html/ejacula.htm>www.the-clitoris.com</a>.

Female Body Fluids

Before discussing female ejaculation I will first address female body fluids in general. Our society, as well as most others, views all forms of liquid that are produced by the female body with great disdain. Women are not permitted to openly perform most normal bodily functions; it is not seen as being feminine. Female body fluids are even considered harmful by many; there are societies in which menstruating women are thought to cause crops to fail and livestock to die. This creates a significant barrier to sexual pleasure for women.

Women are expected to maintain a dry pristine appearance regardless of their current physical activity. Mothers once told their daughters it was unwise to engage in sports, as boys would see them sweaty and disheveled and this was seen as unattractive. Today, deodorant and antiperspirant ads drive home the idea, "Do not let them see you sweat." Women are told they need special stronger deodorants made just for them. Tampon and sanitary napkin advertising stresses the products ability to conceal a woman's menstruation from others more than their primary task of absorbing menses. Most women would prefer to have their fingernails ripped out one by one than be seen having an "accident;" menstruating in public. There are girls and women who learn to dislike the idea of urinating in a public bathroom, holding their urine all day until they get home. Are they perhaps afraid to be seen as less than pure by others?

Sweaty men are seen as sexual, virile. Their manhood is measured by their ability to produce large quantities of semen. They write their name in the snow with their urine and see who can ejaculate the furthest. Men making a mess with their ejaculate is seen as unavoidable, normal, and is never questioned. It is even idolized in adult movies. Men can ejaculate on the face, in the mouth, and on and in the body of their partner and it is seen as normal. If a woman gets her body fluids on her partner that is another story, she has made a dirty mess. This is an interesting double standard. If a man can cover his partner with his body fluids, a woman should be able to do the same.

Female sexuality is marred by these unwritten laws. It is hard to relax and enjoy sex if you are worried about sweating heavily or producing too much vaginal lubrication. Women who produce large quantities of vaginal lubrication, sweat, and who ejaculate have been known to avoid sex rather than expose their partner or themselves to these fluids. Since women have no control over the release of these fluids during sexual activities some avoid sex all together rather than risk being seen as less than feminine by their partner. Though a woman's desire for sex may increase during her menstrual period she may not engage in sex during this time because she fears she will make a mess of things and is inherently undesirable. Social mores concerning female body fluids can significantly restrict female sexuality and pleasure.

Before a woman can learn to ejaculate, enjoy ejaculating, and enjoy sex in general she must accept her bodily fluids as normal. She must not question the nature or quantity of her wetness, be it sweat, vaginal lubrication, menses, ejaculate, or urine. These fluids are a normal and natural part of women's lives. There is nothing that is inherently bad about them. A woman cannot allow herself to ejaculate and experience potentially earth-shattering orgasms if she cannot let go when the pressure or urge to ejaculate arises. Ladies, give yourself permission to get wet and messy. Give yourself permission to have fun and enjoy sex.

As a result of the taboos concerning female body fluids, the main motivation behind the studies into female ejaculation appears to be the determination of whether or not the expelled fluid is urine. Some believe that if a woman ejaculates a liquid that is not urine like a man, it is normal and she cannot help it, she is normal. If she ejaculates urine they suggest she has a medical problem and is not normal. Authors who write about the G spot strive to persuade their readers that female ejaculate is not urine. Why this great importance over the exact nature of this fluid squirting from women's bodies? Does it really matter whether it is urine or ejaculate? If a woman gets a thrill out of squirting urine at the moment of orgasm, are we to say she has a problem? Do we mean to take this pleasure away from her? If a woman squirts urine at the moment of orgasm, let her, if she ejaculates uncontrollably, so be it. It is not our place to judge a woman's sexual pleasure.

10:32 AM - 2 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment