I might get in trouble for this, but since Twitter's idiotic algorithms have permanently blocked me and the journal in question isn't allowing any comments, I can only express myself here.

Furaffinity, I understand and respect your right as a private website to decide what will and will not be allowed on your property. That being said, I must say that your decision regarding certain Digimon characters is short-sighted and doesn't seem to be based on much critical thinking.

For example, Impmon is based on, as the name implies, an imp, which has nearly always been portrayed as short in stature. Does this mean every imp portrayal is a childlike character?

Gatomon is based on your average domestic feline, which is obviously quite small compared to humans. I fail to see how a fictional creature based on an actual creature's mall size can be considered to have childlike proportions.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. And I dare say that this new rule will do more to drive people away from the site than uphold any moral standard. But hey, you have the right to make a foolish decision. I just hope you realize and are willing to bear the consequences.

I’m sure some of those who’ve been following this particular journal series are tired of me comparing MLP: FIM and MLP: ANG to Digimon. So to those people, you’ll be happy to know I’ll be comparing ANG to other shows in this one.

So, My Little Pony: A New Generation has premiered and honestly, it’s not bad. I'm already fond of the new main characters and I'm delighted to see the fandom seems to be wasting no time in bringing them into art and stories. I’m also delighted to see it didn’t flop as I was somewhat fearing it would. Not only did it not flop, but it’s apparently appealed to quite a few people (maybe even some who are new to the fandom and will now look back to learn more). And while I should’ve known better considering it’s the very first episode, it left me with more questions than answers. It was so much simpler than I thought it would be, mainly in that there isn’t much talk about the FIM generation.

But a few days after seeing it and thinking on it, I realized how many other shows I watched all the way through started out so simple, then went deeper as the show went on. Beast Wars started out as just another good vs. evil battle on some strange planet (bear in mind at the time, I had no idea Stonehenge existed, so I didn’t know they were on Earth). It wasn’t until later in the first season we learned there was more to the planet than met the eye. And it wasn’t until the second season that we finally learned what was at stake in the fight. Spider-Man: The Animated Series started out as just the usual day to day adventures of the main hero. It wasn’t until later that we learned that Spider-Man was being tested in order to save all of existence. And of course Digimon Adventure and Zero Two both started out simple and got more deep as things went on. So I’m keeping an eye on the new show with this in mind.

As I said, the premier of A New Generation has raised a lot of questions for me. Where did those three crystals come from? How did they get separated (I doubt it was by accident)? Why was one of them hidden in Argyle’s home? Why did Sunny Starscout become an Alicorn of all things? What about Canterlot, Ponyville, the Crystal Empire and all the other areas we saw in FIM? So many questions. And hopefully, the show’s creators are aware of this and plan on addressing these questions as time goes on. And who knows? Perhaps we will one day learn that the cause of the three pony tribes splitting up once again was much more serious than simply the passage of time?

Becoming an atheist can open your eyes to a lot of things. You’re no longer afraid of offending some non-existent deity and so you start to really think and question things. Including that non-existent deity you spent so much of your life fearing and worshiping.

I’m fortunate in that I don’t have many people trying to “save my soul” by bringing me back to religion. But the few who do seem to believe that if they simply could prove god’s existence, I would come running back to him and fall down to beg forgiveness.

Unfortunately for them, my atheism has made it a bit more complicated. To put it bluntly, if there was an actual god, I’d more than likely hate him. If said god was the Christian god I was raised on, then I would definitely hate him.

Because without having to fear his wrath for daring to think, I’ve seen what I really am to god. I’m not his family, I’m not his child, I’m not his sheep.

I’m his goddamn pawn. A puppet to manipulate and toy with so he can brag to another deity about how popular he is. A ego stroke.

What brought me to this view? Well, if all that happens is god’s will, then apparently it was god’s will that I be born with my wires crossed. It was god’s will that I seek goals that would be forever out of my reach because it was also god’s will that I be born messed up. It was god’s will that I be denied dream after dream, goal after goal no matter how good I was or how hard I busted my ass to achieve it. It was god’s will that I spend the rest of my life watching other people achieve my goals without breaking a sweat. And it was god’s will that the best I could do as far as employment was small-time jobs that barely pay enough.

And if god deigned to respond to my pleas for why he’s done this to me, I’d be expected to accept “I am the lord your god!” as the sole answer. Because god can do whatever he wants and too bad if I don’t like it. He is above such petty things as my dreams and hopes. He owes me nothing. Anything I want is completely expendable for the sake of god’s will! I’m supposed to accept whatever miseries he either causes me or allows to happen to me, with nothing but the hope he’ll find it worth his time to “reward” me. And of course, if he decides I need to suffer again, well then who cares how I might feel about it.

Fortunately for those trying to bring me back to the flock, god’s existence can’t be proven and therefore I have no reason to feel the anger and hatred his existence would create in me. And fortunately for me, I don’t have to feel like life is pointless because I’m some deity’s plaything.

When MLP: FIM ended, I found myself thinking about Digimon Adventure and Digimon Zero Two quite a bit. Mainly it was because, like a lot of fans, I felt something special to me had just ended and I would never experience it again. I remember feeling that way about Digimon when Zero Two ended. Then along came Teen Titans, Transformers Prime, the Marvel Movies, Star Wars Clone Wars, and of course MLP: FIM to prove me wrong.

Now, I find myself thinking about Digimon because the revelation of the premise of MLP Gen 5 has reminded me of how I felt when I first learned about Digimon Zero Two. I remember being disappointed that the characters we’d followed in Adventure would only be involved peripherally. Then I watched the show and found myself becoming more of a fan of the new characters. I see a lot of that same disappointment towards MLP Gen 5 with the revelation of the premise. A lot of folks are sad and disappointed we won’t be seeing any of our favorite main characters and probably not any of our favorite secondary and background characters (I’m gonna miss Derpy and Discord). I won’t lie; it’ll be strange watching a new Generation that’s set in the same universe as Friendship is Magic, but more than likely without a single familiar character (though granted, we’re only getting teases now. Things could change).

But at the same time, I find myself rather interested in the new ponies and eager to see their adventures. I can already see possible ships and fandom theories on the new characters, and I don’t think it’s too far fetched for the fans to form a new community around them. And something I keep reminding myself is the fact that pretty much all the ponies we fell in love with in Friendship is Magic were all completely new characters. Granted, some like Pinkie Pie, Rainbow Dash and Applejack were inspired by past generation ponies, but they were all given their own unique personalities and stories. And the fandom fell in love with them from day one if I understand things correctly (ironically, discovering FIM after it’d already been on for a while is something else I share with Digimon).

So now I find myself wondering if history might repeat itself. Not so much with what happened with MLP: FIM (I hope a new mass fandom can be born, but I’m not too optimistic at the moment), but with what happened with Digimon and myself. While I think MLP was the superior show, I’m seeing a lot of similarities. When Digimon Adventure ended, the characters had just defeated a major villain who had tried to obliterate both the Digital and Real Worlds. They’d just left a Digital World that had been heavily damaged but was clearly on the road to recovery, with the added bonus of all the heroic digimon who had “died” being reborn. By all rights, everything was great again and the idea that things could go bad again seemed pretty far fetched. Then Digimon Zero Two came along and showed how worse things could get.

So it is with the current premise of Gen 5. When Gen 4 ended, it seemed like Equestria was now a utopia, with all species living in friendship and harmony together. And of course, the villains were the worst they’d ever faced and came damn close to succeeding. So the idea that all species are going to be against each other in the new generation is a bit hard to believe. But hey, been there, thought that, got proven wrong. So we shall see. And if Generation 5 turns out to be even better than Generation 4 (again, thought that was impossible and got proven wrong about a show before), I’m certainly not gonna complain.

Well, today's the third anniversary of the Parkland shooting.

And of course, we're hearing the same absurd demands that have been belched by the politicians and victims since the day of the tragedy.

"We demand more restrictions on people who had nothing to do with Parkland! We demand people who had nothing to do with Parkland be held responsible for it! We demand more laws that serve no purpose except to create more criminals!"

And of course, if you object to such absurd demands, you're heartless. You don't care about the victims. You're morally guilty of the crime. You care more about your guns than you do about innocent lives.

Well, here's one gun owner who isn't afraid to give the only response such people deserve:

Kiss my ass.

Call me whatever you want. Accuse me of being heartless, evil, an ammosexual, etc. Hell, call me a terrorist. I have the best defense against anything you can throw at me: A rational mind. A mind that understands that my moral standing is not at the mercy of another person's actions.

And I'm not the only one.

If, after a rapist were caught, some politician or other windbag with a bloated ego got up and declared that the possession of a penis causes rape and pushed for either controls on them or a complete ban on their ownership, would you get behind him/her?

Would you accuse those with a penis who pointed out they aren't responsible for someone else's actions of caring more about their penises than about stopping rape? Would you call them would-be rapists just waiting to strike?

Would you join a group form demanding penis control?

Essentially, would you actually shut your brain off and go along with the idea that sharing a single characteristic with a criminal makes one just as guilty for that criminal's actions?

Or, would you call such people the screwballs they actually are and treat them as such?

Think about that the next time you hear a gun control gasbag start blowing his usual hot air. The issue is the same.

Wanna know why the mass protests against the new draconian abortion laws fill me with sadness and disappointment? Because they are pro-abortions protests, not pro-freedom protests. There is a difference and it is an important one.

The same people so vehemently objecting to the government wanting to go so far as to throw women in jail for getting an abortion will gladly vote for a new gun control bill, or a higher tax on "the rich", or any other restriction on the rights of those they don't like. And of course, the defenders of the right to own a gun will do the same with a new abortion restriction and "the rich" will do the same with some other right they don't agree with.

This is what happens when rights are separated into groups, suggesting one groups' rights are somehow more important than another's. The idea that rights are universal and that we all have the same rights is somehow alien to too many people, yet that simple realization would end so much conflict and so many violations of rights. See why it's so sad that people don't grasp this?

My mom's often talked about how I was happier back before I was atheist.

Religion wasn't why I was happier. I was happier because that was before I learned how cruel life can be and how painful a constant betrayal of trust can be.

Just to let y'all know, the recent batch of stories I put up aren't mine. They're all from the friend who wants to keep in the shadows. And he and I are almost constantly working on new ones, so hopefully they'll become a semi-regular thing.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmoS.....&index=54]

For all US Veterans, and especially for my father. The greatest thing he fought for was the chance to come back home.

Have you ever read Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series? It's an alternate history series kicked off after the South wins the Civil War, and in addition to being a great read fiction-wise, it also casts some revealing light on the life of blacks in the first couple of decades post-civil war.

It helps to actually read the book series, but here's a bit of a run-down:

Imagine a world where being called "boy", "uncle" and "nigger" is not a taboo act that gets the speaker socially ostracized, but a way of life; where blacks are expected to always remain subservient to whites and are punished by a pro-white society if they don't; where there is plenty of "separate" and no "equal" (and the idea of "separate but equal", much less "equal, period", is unheard of and never suggested); where blacks are regulated to "nigger work" and the better jobs and pay are strictly reserved for whites; where blacks, while not officially slaves, are free in name only; where crimes against blacks by whites are ignored at best or greeted with a "serves you right" at worst, while crimes against whites by blacks are virtually capital crimes. The list goes on and on.

While it can be said that the series is fiction and many of these acts are taken to an extreme for the sake of the story, one need only to look in their history book to understand life for blacks, even after the end of slavery, was full of hardship, so there's an element of truth in the series. It's a real eye-opener, especially when one looks at some blacks nowadays who practically make their living decrying oppression and racism, insinuating that they are somehow in the same boat as the blacks of the 19th and early 20th centuries simply because they were turned down from a job or pulled over for speeding.

Nowadays, blacks are CEOs, politicians, military officers, celebrities, civil service employees, entrepreneurs, things the blacks of previous centuries could only dream of, and yet many of them still claim that racism is holding them back and they aren't treated equally as whites (I still remember my disgust at the cry "The dream has been achieved" after Obama's election, as if blacks had never accomplished anything before that event. And even now, there are blacks out there who will still claim MLK's dream hasn't come to pass). Frankly, it makes one wonder if they really want racism to be gone, considering how much they harp on it in spite of the obvious differences between now and then. And don't even get me started on the measures society goes through today to avoid even the thought of racism (often to no avail); it can certainly be said the races aren't treated equaly, but not in the way one would think.

As a rational man, I'll be one of the first to acknowledge blacks haven't been given the treatment they are entitled to as human beings throughout America's existence, and I despise racism as much as any supporter of individual rights should. But it's rather hard to keep taking the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world seriously when they cry that blacks are still being racially oppressed, yet evidence contradicting them is in plain view. Maybe one day, the evidence will be such that more people, black and white, will be telling them they're full of crap.

I'm constantly hearing from people how evil it is to be selfish, and I'm constantly lectured on how bad I am because I don't seem to care about others (with the person rarely defining the term "care") and because I'm not willing to sacrifice anything in my life to "help others" (ignoring the fact that I'm a volunteer firefighter and EMT). So, let me lay out something to those who make such claims:

You have one person who openly declares that yes, he is selfish, in that he looks out for his own interests while leaving other people alone. He asks nothing of others except that they respect his right to live his life as he wishes, so long as he doesn't initiate force against others, a courtesy he grants to others. Yes, he does demand that he be allowed to keep all the fruit of his labor because, after all, it was his time, energy and intelligence that earned it, hence he fully believes that he has a right to it and recognizes no one else's right to it unless they had a hand in helping him earn it. Though he may find the views of some people wrong, he doesn't seek to impose his views on others and is generally indifferent to what others believe so long as they do not force their beliefs on him. He rejects the idea that anyone else is responsible for his needs and wants or that he is responsible for the needs and wants of others, and he backs up his words with action by paying his own way in life.

Next, you have another person who believes that anyone who doesn't work to better the lives of the poor, or doesn't donate to his community, or believes that they owe nothing to their fellow man, etc is immoral. Not only does he believe them to be so, he feels it is his duty to punish them for such beliefs and force them to follow what he believes is moral, taking action to do so either on his own or petitioning others (ie, the government) to do so on his behalf. He tolerates no opposition to his views and no half-measures; you either fully believe what he believes or you're immoral, regardless of what your actions (hence, if you donate your time to your community because you selfishly enjoy it and not solely for the good of others, you're still wrong).

Who is the immoral one here? The selfish one who simply wishes to be left alone and live his life as he pleases (again, so long as he doesn't initiate force against others), or the "unselfish" one who has aligned with some "moral cause" (which most of the anti-selfish crowd seem to flock to) and insists other people follow his views, punishing them if they don't do so?

Just a little food for thought.

Well, as much as I wish it wasn't true, dear leader's bold new idea of the government's role in the life of the individual got the green light from the Supreme Court.

It is with great amusement that I watch the supporters of the smokescreen Obama hid behind cheer and pat themselves on the back, assuring themselves that all will be well (they remind me of that naive woman who declared "Now I don't have to pay my mortgage or put gas in my car" after dear leader was elected), as if a politician's decree can somehow move heaven and earth and will only be used for what said politician says it will be used for (after all the lies our government and governments around the world have been caught in, it amazes me that there are people who still take them at their word. It amazes me even more when those people once called the government on such lies). Meanwhile, what the government really accomplished with this ruling glides below the surface, unseen by the people who will one day suffer under it.

Newsflash, boys and girls! The government just got handed a "do whatever I want and get away with it" card in regards to using its power to tax as a means of controlling the lives of individuals. And the fact that it was something as private as your health that was used to push it means there is little, if any, limits to what part of your life is now open to government control. If the government can fine you for not taking certain actions in regards to YOUR health, what other parts of YOUR life can it control? Someone, please convince me that isn't what the ruling has opened the door too. And please, don't make a fool of yourself by saying "The government says it won't do that".

Every action, every good, every service is now open to government control. They can fine you for not keeping your money in a certain bank; they can fine you for not participating in a certain government crusade; they can fine you for not using a certain service or buying a certain product and they can fine you for using a certain service or owning a certain product, etc etc etc. The list of what they can through this new power is so long it boggles the imagination. You don't think it can be done, that it's somehow beyond their ability to have that kind of control over you? Well, just look at any totalitarian dictatorship past or present for proof that it can be done.

As this knowledge hits me, it makes me wonder what people who saw what the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Saddam, and all the other dictators who have preached "Don't think. Follow me and I will lead you to glory and prosperity!" for what they really were and woke up to find them in that position of power were thinking on the day those men finally came to power. What were they thinking, what were they feeling, what were they planning on doing about it? People will say I'm blowing things out of proportion. They will call me a fool and mock me...but I'm not the kind of person who says "It can't happen here" based solely on wishful thinking.

Dictatorship has finally come to America. We might not see it today or tomorrow or next year or even five years from now. We might not see it under Obama or his next successor or two or even five, but the door has been opened. The legal standard has been set, and it's only a matter of time as to when it will be put fully into play. And to those who are now unwittingly cheering this new control, may reality be merciful the day it wakes you up to what has truly come to pass.

I came across this on a forum and I just had to pass it along because it's such a perfect example of my quote "Let 'em learn the hard way, 'cause teaching them is more trouble than they're worth."

John G. Is 63 years old and owns a small business. He's a life-long Republican and sees his dream of retiring next year has all but evaporated. With the stock market crashing and new taxes coming his way, John assumes now that he will work to his dying day.

John has a granddaughter. Ashley is a recent college grad.. She drives a flashy hybrid car, wears all the latest fashions, and loves to go out to nightclubs and restaurants. Ashley campaigned hard for Barack Obama. After the election she made sure her grandfather (and all other Republican family members) received a big I told-you-so earful on how the world is going to be a much better place now that her party is taking over.

Having lost both roommates, Ashley recently ran short of cash and cannot pay the rent (again) on her 3 bedroom townhouse.. Like she has done many times in the past, she e-mailed her grandfather asking for some financial help.

Here is his reply:

Sweetheart, I received your request for assistance.

Ashley, you know I love you dearly and I 'm sympathetic to your financial plight. Unfortunately, times have changed. With the election of President Obama, your grandmother and I have had to set forth a bold new economic plan of our own...."The Ashley Economic Empowerment Plan." Let me explain.

Your grandmother and I are life-long, wage-earning tax payers. We have lived a comfortable life, as you know, but we have never had the fancier things like European vacations, luxury cars, etc.. We have worked hard and were looking forward to retiring soon. But the plan has changed.. Your president is raising our personal and business taxes significantly. He says it is so he can give our hard earned money to other people. Do you know what this means, Ashley? It means less for us, and we must cut back on many business and personal expenses.

You know the wonderful receptionist who worked in my office for more than 23 years? The one who always gave you candy when you came over to visit? I had to let her go last week. I can't afford to pay her salary and all of the government mandated taxes that go with having employees. Your grandmother will now work 4 days a week to answer phones, take orders and handle the books. We will be closed on Fridays and will lose even more income.

I'm also very sorry to report that your cousin Frank will no longer be working summers in the warehouse. I called him at school this morning. He already knows about it and he's upset because he will have to give up skydiving and his yearly trip to Greenland to survey the polar bears.

That's just the business side of things. Some personal economic effects of Obama's new taxation policies include none other than you You know very well that over the years your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in cash, tuition assistance, food, housing, clothing, gifts, etc., etc. But by your vote, you have chosen to help others -- not at your expense -- but at our expense.

If you need money now sweetheart, I recommend you call 202-456-1111. That is the direct phone number for the White House..

You yourself told me how foolish it is to vote Republican.. You said Mr Obama is going to be the People's President, and is going to help every American live a better life. Based on everything you've told me, along with all the promises we heard during the campaign, I'm sure Mr. Obama will be happy to transfer some stimulus money into your bank account. Have him call me for the account number which I memorized years ago..

Perhaps you can now understand what I've been saying all my life: those who vote for a president should consider the impact on the nation as a whole, and not be just concerned with what they can get for themselves. What Obama supporters don't seem to realize is all of the money he is redistributing to illegal aliens and non-taxpaying Americans (the so-called "less fortunate") comes from tax-paying families.

Remember how you told me, "Only the richest of the rich will be affected"? Well guess what, honey? Because we own a business, your grandmother and I are now considered to be the richest of the rich. On paper, it might look that way, but in the real world, we are far from it.

As you said while campaigning for Obama, some people will have to carry more of the burden so all of America can prosper.. You understand what that means, right? It means that raising taxes on productive people results in them having less money; less money for everything, including granddaughters.

I'm sorry, Ashley, but the well has run dry. The free lunches are over.. I have no money to give you now. So, congratulations on your choice for "change." For future reference, I encourage you to try and add up the total value of the gifts and cash you have received from us, just since you went off to college, and compare it to what you expect to get from Mr. Obama over the next 4 (or 8) years. I have not kept track of it, Ashley. It has all truly been the gift of our hearts.

Remember, we love you dearly....but from now on you'll need to call the number mentioned above. Your "Savior" has the money we would have given to you. Just try and get it from him.

Good luck, sweetheart.

Love, Grandpa

How amusing it will be, in the near future, to watch those who decided that they had a right to enslave those who provide them with the ability to live their indulgent lifestyle discover the price of their action.

A little note before I start this; when I ask "by what right", I mean both as an individual and as part of a group. People do not gain or lose rights by banding together, therefore whatever is wrong for an individual is also wrong for a group.

You believe firearms are dangerous. Very well, you have the right not to buy one. By what right do you prevent me from owning one?

You believe gasoline-powered automobiles are bad for the environment. Very well, you have the right to drive a hybrid, battery-powered vehicle, or walk. By what right do you force me to do the same?

You believe gay marriage is wrong. Very well, you have the right to be heterosexual. By what right do you prevent me from marrying who I choose?

You believe the poor should be taken care of. Very well, you have the right to use your own money and devote your own time to taking care of them. By what right do you force me to do the same?

You believe hunting is wrong. Very well, you have the right not to hunt and can even use your own money to make a private reserve. By what right do you prevent me from hunting?

You believe making money is wrong. Very well, you have the right not to make any. By what right do you prevent me from making money?

By what right do you get to decide how much taxes I pay?
By what right do you get to decide what the money I make goes to?
By what right do you get to decide how much I pay the workers I hire?
By what right do you get to decide how much I charge for the product I create or the service I provide?

I could go on, but I'm sure you're starting to get the idea.

It's the question people rarely ask when they are forced to do something against their will. It's the question that's never answered by the environmentalists, the gun-grabbers, the people against gay marriage, by anyone who tries to force their views on others. Why don't they? Because the fact is, no person has the right to force their views on others (if they did, who would have the right to force what ideas on whom?).

Why is it so important? For one, have you ever asked yourself by what right someone forces you to do something against your will, something that causes no actual PHYSICAL harm to anyone else? Have the people who tried to force you ever given you a logical reason why they can do such a thing? Have they ever told you why it is right to follow their beliefs, but wrong to follow your own? If they haven't, how can what they do be moral? And if it's not moral, why do you allow it to happen? And if you allow it to happen, what's stopping the person from forcing you to do something worse?

If you don't stand up for your right to be free to do whatever brings you happiness so long as you don't use force on others, then the other person has no reason to respect it. The first step towards making them respect is by asking BY WHAT RIGHT!


And to those who would answer these questions by saying "Because I have the bigger club", know that by doing so, you are renouncing your own right to be free from physical force. One cannot rationally and morally demand his/her rights be respected, yet take part in or advocate the violation of the rights of others.

It is with great amusement that I remember the hooplah expressed by the democrats after the 2008 election; the cheering crowds, the swooning woman gushing how her personal responsibilities no longer applied, the sneering arrogance towards Republicans. It’s amusing, because now I’m pretty sure a lot of them are wishing the Republicans still held a bit of power in Congress, just so they’d have someone to blame when their plans didn’t go as well as they’d thought.

Dear leader and his cohorts are now learning the curse of an almost complete monopoly on the government; you not only have to produce results, but also face the consequences when it those results don‘t work out. And let’s face it, politicians, especially democrats, are a lot better when it comes to attacking their opponents than they are at satisfying voters, at least for the long-term (short-term patching is no problem, though they are fast running out of band-aids). The democrats can no longer point to Republicans as the great evil (“Bush caused the recession” is fast losing steam) when they hold all three branches of government.

Since they can’t use their usual trump card, they’re forced to choose one of two things (actually, they have three choices, but the third is a fate worse than death to them); either tear up the Constitution and turn America into a police state or try to bully their opposition into shutting up. They can’t seem to accomplish the former, so they’re choosing the latter, which only makes them look like a bunch of spoiled brats who can’t get their way. Plus, since they spent the past eight years trumpeting opposition to the government as the highest form of patriotism, they’re bringing their hypocrisy out in plain sight. What goes around comes around, no?

You really gotta wonder who they think they’re fooling by doing a complete about-face from the past eight years. Of course, their victory might’ve caused an early assumption that their power would be unchallenged, or they were betting on Obama’s race being some magical “thou shalt not criticize” commandment to everyone (one good thing about Obama‘s election is we get to demonstrate what equality really means). If the economy wasn’t so bad and our elections so close to have the rules thrown out by the very people breaking them, I might be a bit more confident about the future.

Of course, rest assured that democrats are doing their best to bring about the other choice. I mean, Obama’s already elected his own personal goons (called czars) who answer only to him, he’s trampled over the Constitution since day one, he’s moving Big Brother into just about every sector of the private sector he can, the list goes on and on. And as the economy continues to worsen, government will get even more desperate. When the chips are down, Big Brother’s first concern is always Big Brother, plus they’ll have quite a few “incidents” to justify their seizure. And frankly, the American people are becoming more and more lazy when it comes to protecting their freedom.

But for now, they still have that pesky Constitution and that annoying little organ everyone has (and some even know how to use) called a brain. Elections are just around the corner, and while there’s been word that Republicans might win back a majority of seats, frankly, I’m not overly optimistic (I’m not expecting free elections to be around then), nor do I feel that it would be a good thing at this time. More on that later.

Sorry rats, but you guys did win the election after all, so now you have to accept your prize and all the responsibility that comes with it. Who knows, maybe you’ll surprise me and show some intelligence and respect for the Constitution, but I’m not betting on it. In the meantime, do try and grow up and at least make us think you’re adults who can handle criticism.

That was my first thought when Obama "won" the election. After eight years of being somewhat supportive of the president, I now get to see what it's like being one of his critics...and frankly, I'm not the least bit surprised by what I'm seeing, though I am disgusted.

All through the Bush years, the democrats could never find anything nice to say about him, could never let one thing go that could be used to attack him (one thing I'll always admire about Bush was how he just let it run off his back. All his other flaws aside, the man had great humility). And the whole time, we kept hearing about how it was free speech, how it was patriotic to dissent, how anyone who disagreed with them was fascist. And now, with them unfortunatly back in the saddle, we get to see their hypocrisy, for they have shown themselves to not be the party of tolerance as they like to claim.

Suddenly, we can't criticize the president because it's doesn't help the situation we're in (I seem to recall that being a popular phrase after 9-11 and the Iraq war); suddenly we're supposed to stop being freedom-loving Americans who dissent from their government and be perfect little puppets for our dear leader; suddenly, we're supposed to leave Obama alone just because he has a lot of weight on his shoulders (again, another message from when Bush was in office). And quite predictably, in spite of "the dream coming to pass", we're still supposed to treat Obama differently than previous presidents because he's "the first black president" (I find it ironic that those who keep trumpeting that little bit of meaningless information are the ones doing the best job of spitting on MLK's dream.)

Seems everytime I pick up the opinion section of the newspaper, some snot-nosed spoiled brat is still whining about "the past eight years" or demanding that Bush and anyone who supported him be locked away without trial. If you're in any way asssociated with Bush or the Republicans, you're automatically a criminal, even if all you did was say "I like Bush." Heck, in an issue of the Arkansas times, some jackass claimed a potential court nominee was ineligable simply because she had made a donation to Bush in 2000. BOO FREAKING HOO! Do I get to go out and wail the tar out of some Obama supporter if his boy pulls a Carter and sends us into the worst crash since the Depression? I'd only be following his own misguided logic. He better hope not, because our Dear Leader's already done more in half a year to trash our economy than Bush did in eight years.

And what other hypocritical acts has the party of "change" done that shoot down their claims?

The party that whined about military service and so called "back door drafts" apparently has no problem with forced service in Obama's new "volunteer programs" and "civilian national security force" and apparently see no problem spending just as much money on them as the military recieves, even though they've dragged their heels in regards to the latter.

The party that whined about Bush spending money overseas and whined about how Iraq was a waste of money are suggesting sending money over to Palestine, a country with zero value to the US. And now Obama is talking about aiding Iran, which in politics means giving money to them. Now they're even talking about a stimulus plan for the whole world, even though our own has been a pathetic failure.

The party that went so far as to demand Bush'es impeachment for not doing a black mayor's job after Hurricane Katrina didn't raise a peep when people went without power after a brutal ice storm in January while Obama enjoyed his "victory". Hurricane season this year should be an interesting show.

The party that whined about Bush'es deficit spending and the US debt hasn't said anything as Obama continues to spend money that doesn't exist, plunging us deeper into debt. News flash people, debt isn't any different if the nonexistent money was spent on your neighbor or on yourself; either way, it has to be repaid.

As noted above, the party that railed against racial profiling has no problem with political profiling, denouncing a person as evil just because they have some connection with Bush. The democrats better pray their boy does a good job, 'cause they'll be on the recieving end of their own view of life if he screws up. Oh, and does anyone remember that memo about "right-wing terrorists" which just happened to name every view that clashes with our Dear Leader's? I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism.

The party that was so horrified by Bush taking on more powers after 9-11 is now considering asking Congress to give Geithner more power over financial institutions.

The party that once yelled "Unconstitutional" at just about everything Bush did now turns a blind eye to continued governement abuse of the document under Obama and in some cases openly supports it.

The party that raised a stink about "warrentless wiretapping" and invasion of privacy see no problem with putting people's medical records under government watch.

The party that drones on and on about "our children's future" when blowing hot air about global warming shows no concern for saddling our children with trillions in debt, which will have to be paid in "our children's future".

The party that claims to favor the people and support democracy hasn't raised a peep as Iran continues to crack down on protesters of a disputed election; I guess disputed elections only matter when the democrats might end up being the losers.

Granted, I don't deny Republicans (or more accuratly, RINOs) do the same thing from time to time, but if the democrats want to be better than them, maybe they can start by setting a better example of government and actually following the rules. How are they any better if they do the same thing they criticize Republicans for doing? By what right do they slam them for the things they themselves do?

You guys got what you wanted; Bush and the Republicans are out of office and might even be prosecuted for the horrible crime of disobeying the will of the world (to hell with them). Your boy is in office and your party is in control of both houses...so why don't you take what you got and shut the fuck up? You want the job, you better damn well be willing to take the same crap you dished out, not to mention follow the damn rules your boy agreed to abide by when he took office, and don't feed me any bullshit about "well we have the right after all that's happened." No, you don't. If Obama's election was supposed to be a victory for equality, put your money where your mouth is and allow him and yourselves to be equally open to criticism and equally bound to the rules of office. Otherwise you're just a different side on the same coin.

A historic event may soon be taking place; in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court will make a ruling that may finally decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms or if it only protects a state's right to maintain a militia, this often being defined as the National Guard.

While supporters of the 'individual rights' interpretation of the Second Amendment no doubt pray for a ruling that supports their views (as well as the Founding Fathers'), there may be little to fear from a ruling stating that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard.

First off, the Founding Fathers, no doubt anticipating attacks on the Second Amendment in the future, put into the Constitution and Bill of Rights several safe guards that will remain in effect even if the Supreme Court makes the wrong decision, as well as make any move by the government to seize firearms easier to challenge.

The Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment's protection against taking property without due process will protect the rights of those who already own a firearm. The Tenth Amendment will also present an formidable obstacle, as there is nothing in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights granting the Government power to confiscate property, even if it isn't specifically protected by said documents.

As for those of us who do not yet own firearms, a certain bill written in 1907 that created what is today the National Guard also created what is called the "Reserve Militia", which, according to Wikipedia, "presently consists of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for the draft)[2]." That bill is the Militia Act of 1903.

Thus, even if the Court rules that the Second Amendment only applies to state militias, a person could still challenge the assumption that the National Guard is the only militia. Also, if one can prove that the Founding Fathers intended the militia to be a protection against tyranical government (which, considering their comments on the militia, should be an obvious fact), the fact that the National Guard can be placed under the Federal Government's control can also be used to challenge a 'state's rights' view of the Second Amendment.

Granted, we should not let these apparent safeguards lull us into a false sense of security. Our government routinely violates Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression in the name of political correctness and sensitivity, and Freedom of Religion is currently being suppressed in the name of "Separation of Church and State". One must not disbelieve that the government will try and find a loophole with which to ban firearm ownership and confiscate all firearms. However, we can take some comfort in the fact that, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling, the American people will not be easily disarmed.

So for now, watch, listen and pray. If the Supreme Court rules in our favor, than we have won a great victory for freedom. If not, know that the road to disarmament will be a rough and bumpy ride for the government, one they may find they are unable to take.