Ha, I am trying out a new tactic to get more hits and comments on my blog.  I've been a member here for almost a year I think and of the around twenty (lengthy) posts I've contributed to the cause of revolution.  Regardless of the subject matter (or tags) I have failed to connect with the majority here.  I feel that revolution should only be excerized when there are any number of citizens or states right to use their voice.
I especially feel that it is some sort of responsibility to share these thoughts and topics, for everyone that I shared regards to a growing but preventable doom.  My contribution to those subject matters was common sense, Christianity, and a love for history.
So dam it, I think I ought to be heard!  If having a misleading subject line will bring you to my blogs I wrote for you, then why not.  In fact, aren't your heroes, whether be Obama or McCain, always reflecting those tactics?  At least I give the people a chance to slay me for my mistakes and errors in these posts.

I can't believe how disappointed I was with the American people today.  For the first time in my life I felt more love for Congress than I did for their voters.  I wish the reason why was more obvious than just a few.
Before the House voted against the 700 billion dollar, socialist, special rights for a few citizens or institutions, anti-accountable, little band aid bill, the American people were screaming fire and brimstone for their lawmakers to say nay.
The following is a note that I wrote to Bill O Reily (the GOPs spokesman in the media):

I should have felt an unchecked relief yesterday that for once the great majority of congress did not turn their back on the American people for partisan or party interests and deals.  Rather, our congress on both sides of the isles sided with the opinion of the people.  Neither party can be blamed for the bill's destruction.  Rather I think, even in spite of the total turn around of opinion, that the people truly stepped up and caused their voice to manipulate congress.  We all seem to have a very short memory considering the people decided to approve after it failed to their will. It is hard to imagine that just two days ago we demanded congress vote against it.
The second I heard the results of the congressional vote yet before the first interviews I felt a great spell of hope for our country.  I was feeling hope that had been mostly gone since Ron Paul ducked out of the race.

Congress not only moved with the will of the people, despite the turn around but it did also side with the rights of the people and their states.  Did they recognize that such a bill was unconstitutional for very important reasons?  Instead of passing another sort of legislation that would challenge our rights and our laws, congress did the responsible thing by not trading liberty for a little temporary (financial) security.
Yet, yesterday was mixed with despair over the sanity of the people.  It was announced the bill that the people had been firmly against had just been firmly defeated.  Yet, suddenly the media, Wall Street, and the people had a complete change of heart.
Before yesterday citizens wrote countless blogs, letters to the editors, congressmen, and appeared on talk and radio shoes to express their rage against a "government bail out."  Everyone felt that it was a sell out of our trust to protect financial giants with no accountability and that the banks should find a more responsible solution, just like the rest of us.
One person called it a "golden parachute."
If I am not the most confused person on earth, one day after, I am positive President Bush is the most likely other.  On one hand congress and the people's initial opinion once again shared a mutual distrust towards the president's solutions aka problems.  And that was never more obvious in the past than it was yesterday when in the midst of a financial crises and a administration in panic mode, Congress equally on both sides of the isle, shouted nay in his face.
Yet, on that same day the Dow Jones mysteriously dropped more than 700 points and the voice of the country quickly forgot its previous day's principals.  Suddenly the president that has caused so much economic punishment and casualties in two separate wars these past eight years, might have been right after all.  (We were wrong?) Suddenly a temporary security by giving big banks Federal (our) hundreds of billions of dollars, might of been pretty cool.
It was only right that you had Senator Kerry be a guest on your program last night.  Yesterday truly was a "Was against it before I was for it," moment in our history.
I give my thanks to Congress tonight.  Will they take this as a "can't please our voters no matter what," and become more reckless then in the past?  Shall they remember that despite what the public is saying now, they did exactly what it demanded before hand?  I hope at least, they are convinced they did the right thing.
They did.

Because I am neither Obama or McCain I have decided not to allow my subject line to be misleading after all.

The top five reasons to love Sarah Palin

1.) She would be the most ardent and passionate pro-lifer in an aministration since the Rogue vs. Wade verdict.  Though she is against the death of unborn babies, she is still more hypocrite than Christian.  She supports the death penalty and she supports war which usual involves wide scale death.  Anybody in the world can claim to be a Christian yet until that person attempts to follow the commandments and opposes any violations of it regardless of his causes, that person is not a Christian.  For example, The Bible says THOU SHALT NOT KILL.  There are no foote notes to that included.  You either obey the whole thing or you don't.
But I am not going to vote for Obama.  Because though he does not support causes that cause soldiers to get killed in Iraq he nevertheless favors abortion.
Because both candidates support causes that clash with multiple of my most strongest Christian beliefs, I will vote for neither.

2.) She once discussed Alaskan secession.  Many on the Donkey side of the isle will scream that she is a radical secessionist wac job while the Elephants will try to dismiss or ignore it. I mean, after all, didn't Lincoln having the reigns of the Republican party raise several armies of Northern troops to invade and destroy the South for attempting secession?
Regardless of either parties' views towards the constitutional right of secession, the right still very much exists.  First of all did the states not join the Union with as much freedom to withdraw from it?  Did any of the states or their represintives sign any oaths or contracts that forbade their will to any ends?  And most obviously, does not the X amendment read clearly that the supreme rights be reserved to the people of the states?
So constitutionally and in respect to freedom of the people, what part of Pailin's secession discussions was wrong?  Maybe it is time that we start addressing and demanding certain promised and recorded rights that have long been oppressed.
Civil War hero Admiral Raphael Semmes wrote that the revolution, though illegal under British law was a right reserved to the slaved or oppressed by God.  Yet, secession, though our government all but forbids it, is a right reserved to the people and states of the United States by the Constitution.

3. She supported the "Bridge to Nowhere."  I'm with you Sarah! Bridge to Nowhere my butt.  It would be a bride to Paris, London, or Rome.  True there are many challenges we would face the building project considering it would be thirty miles longer than the longest bridge at the present, it would go across the Baron Strait, and that more than a thousand miles of tundra wasteland exists during the first part of the vacation.
Yet, are we not Americans?  How many times have we scorned at the odds with the Washington Monument, the San Jacinto Monument, or the Golden Arch?  What about the Lake Charles Bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge, or the Golden Gate bridge?
Even though I have never been to college in my brain's mind I can envision perfectly the Bridge.  To protect the trains and other vehicles from some of the most cold and violent weather on earth, the whole expanse of the bridge would be in a tunnel like tube.  Vehicles and trains would pass through it like electricity in a wire.  It could be made large and strong enough to protect passengers from the elements and high enough off the water to protect shipping.  Such feats have been proven before.  Certainly the above ground tunnel idea has worked.  As far as the population problem, temporary stores and gas stations could be erected along the way.  Such ideas had been practiced during the gold rush to California.  The route out west was dotted by small camp towns and trading posts.  The same idea is being used along the ice roads of the north that end up at giant mines.  Rough out posts and fill up stations dot that landscape.
The need for those structures would not last forever, for I am confident this largest example a means to trade and ship overland would produce dozens of towns along the way.  And then to address the costs.  Considering that our country was prepared to spend 700 billion to help ignorant banks and trillions on depths that had aided the actual people very little, I am confident the budget could be there.  In fact, along, over, or under, the above ground bridge tunnel there could be a large or a couple large oil pipelines connecting oil rich northern Russia to the US.
As a traveler I would love to someday drive to Paris. I hate airplanes.  Yet, most importantly, our country used to build and create some pretty amazing things.  As far as those that imagine that the Freedom Tower may at least be an example of that, I don't find anything amazing about building a VIP office building upon a graveyard of pulverized terrorist victims.
Even though that very specific plot of land seems ot be a common target for terrorist attacks, wouldn't it finally be wise to leave that peace of earth alone?  It really doesn't make any more sense than if the US navy put their ships back in packed formations even in spite of the lessons of Peal Harbor attack.  Building an even taller world trade center upon the same site that terrorists on 9/11 used the height of the former Trade Center to deadly effect is as nonsense not to mention very disrespectful towards the victims.  There should be a monument (s) there, the biggest the world has ever seen, yet not stuffed with people.

Sorry for getting off topic.  I do like Sarah Pailin on some issues.  I even think she is pretty foxy!  Yet, this shouldn't be the best there is.  It is sad that since Ron Paul left the race, the only grain of light I see is that I agree with some of the issues of a VP nominee.

In the worlds of poor Charlie Brown, Oh Brother!