Here, go read this, cause I have a rant bubble that's about to pop:
» Matthis and collateral ignorance

So, if you were a teacher and you invite a guest lecturer to speak to your students, wouldn’t you want them to be subject matter experts? Why would a teacher have IVAW Matthis explain the “Collateral Murder” video to his/her students then?

That’s what’s happening across the country today. Three people are touring the country and speaking at high schools in a program called “We Are Not Your Soldiers” - Matthis Chiroux, Robin Long and Emma Kaplan. Matthis and Robin Long refused to deploy to Iraq, Emma is a tool of Maoist World Can’t Wait. None of them has ever been to the wars, yet some teachers feel that they have the expertise to talk about the war to their students.

One young woman started crying, saying her dad was in the military and she wanted to join but now she didn’t want to. Matthis had asked a question and this young woman raised her hand and said, “My dad was probably in a helicopter like that killing children.

Students were asked what they thought caused the war, a number of them replied: Imperialism.

Here's my Rambling Rant:

Imperialism. Not decades of deadly attacks on America by islamic terrorists, culminated in 9/11 ... but Imperialism. America's imperialism. That's the lesson being taught your children - that bad things happen to America and it's our own fault for illegal invasions and occupations and arrogance and being rich and not spreading our wealth and supporting our friends and treating communist tyrants with disrespect and our constant endeavors to improve life.

So, who is this Matthis Chiroux and IVAW? For the third time, I offer this video:

Chiroux is a bitter, flag-burning communist tool, busily kicking at the foundations of our Republic. Like thousands of his fellow leftists, there's piss in his veins instead of blood.

But I'm just a character assassin. I attack good solid people for vindictive purposes. Like Adam Kokesh. He's a fine, upstanding, ex-Marine, Iraq veteran, conservative candidate for congress. I'm a meany for bringing up the fact that Kokesh is a ring leader of the IVAW flag-burners and has spent the last several years hanging out with CodePink, ANSWER and every other communist-funded organization.

I'm a pawn of the globalists (I'm told) because I don't like another famous politician that endorses the exact same anti-American sentiments expressed by Chiroux and Kokesh. Ok, to be fair, Ron Paul hasn't ever had the nads to proclaim his disdain of our military (or be specific on his anti-semitic policies or deny/affirm 9/11 trutherism, chem-trails, stealing oil from Afghanistan* and Iraq, plus a plethora of insane conspiracy theories). He just allows his minions to do it without calling them on it, which in my mind is endorsement.

I'm also guilty of plain ole sour grapes because I still insist that some 'liberty' candidates separate themselves and their campaigns from the likes of Chiroux, Kokesh, Paul and the nuttiest conspiracy theorist of them all - Alex Jones.
That's not asking too much, is it? I mean, I mean, if you've got a section on LibertyCandidates.org amongst fellow 'liberty' candidates like Steve Susman (click that link, you gotta see it to believe it**), and imagery like this:

then is it a conclusionary jump to assume that you sip the same koolaid? Especially when your profile states stuff like

Terror is a tactic, and not something against which we can declare "war". As such, it is an oxymoron.

The "war on terror" is not a constitutionally declared war***, and as such is illegal. It is simply a branding exercise to get the American people to accept further government intrusions into our lives and business.

I've heard those sentiments before. They came out of the mouths of leftists and the communist dupes of ANSWER, MoveOn.org and CodePink. Think to come of it, that could have been a quote from Sean Penn or Danny Glover, both trophy-holders of the Hugo Chavez Butt-Kissing Contests.

What am I to assume when a Republican candidate for congress' campaign staffer has these stickers on their car?

Ya see, B.J., I have a serious problem with sending a Republican to congress that walks and talks like all the leftist communists that I've spent the last several years battling.
Prove me wrong. Publicly denounce and proclaim. If you do, you'll get my support (for what it's worth), but you'll also lose a substantial portion of your lunatic base. But prove me wrong, I'd like that very much.

* by the way, Afghanistan doesn't have any oil.
** in case Susman removes his nutty post about chem-trails, I have screen caps and transcripts saved.
*** The Constitution, Article I, Section VIII states, in part:
"The Congress shall have Power to ....
... To declare War, ..."
Is that the basis of the statement that all wars are illegal if not declared? If it is, then that statement is wrong; 'shall have power to declare war' does not translate to 'and shall do so if and when we ever have to kick some butt'. That section also states that congress shall have the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. Does that mean congress is required to borrow money, whether or not we need it?

Dont Feed the Moonbats

Danny Glover has forfeited the blessings of American citizenship.

Al Sharpton Hosts Actor Danny Glover's Incoherent Anti-American Comments

From House and Senate Cloakroom at Heritage Foundation:

It’s crunch time on health care. The Budget Committee will meet Monday to start marking up a shell of a Reconciliation Bill. The Rules Committee will then meet as early as Wednesday to hollow out whatever the Budget Committee passed and then insert a new bill from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) office. The Majority is still planning to use the “Slaughter Rule” that would allow the House to pass the Senate health care bill without voting on it.

RED ALERT: We Are Now Living Under Martial Law -- House Democrats Appear Set to Pass Senate Bill Without Voting On It

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is preparing to pass the health care overhaul through the House of Representatives without a vote, as was originally reported by the National Journal's Congress Daily. Mark Tapscott observes that such a maneuver would be the penultimate refutation of the people's will.

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill "passed" once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!

From the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 7

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively...

Mark Levin:
... this clause goes to the heart of this Republic.

This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were... They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President...

This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.

And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.

Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!

Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.

...
This is a crucial lesson for those of you who... aren't sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren't sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, ...openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.

And if this is done, this is about as close to martial law as you'll ever get... So Louise Slaughter, a Representative from New York, is discussing, in essence, martial law. Now I can tell you, if they pursue this process, and try to impose this kind of a law, without actually passing a statute, that I will be in a race -- with scores of others -- to the courthouse to stop this.

I can't think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution than this. And the liberal media has essentially ignored it!

...It's not only absurd on its face -- that these power-hungry ideologues, party-first-country-second types, would make the claim that the House voted on something it never voted on... that's not only absurd on its face, it's blatantly unconstitutional!

» Adam Kokesh ‘runs’ for Congress; is an antiwar activist seeking to return Ben Lujan to the House?

Is Kokesh a grass roots fiscal conservative or an antiwar activist masquerading as a conservative-libertarian to deceive the people of New Mexico? Before voters there decide, perhaps they should review his multiple arrests — including for smuggling home a firearm — in addition to his anti-war protests while in uniform, anti-military recruitment actions, and travel to an allied nation to encourage U.S. soldiers stationed there to go AWOL.

I was at the Capital on September 15, 2007 when ANSWER, Code Poink, SDS, several thousand avowed communists and Adam Kokesh pitched their anti-war hissy fit. I was there as a member of the Gathering of Eagles, assigned to stand with and protect a group of Gold Star moms who were protesting the use of their fallen sons’ images and names by Adam’s comrades.

You would assume that Gold Star moms would need no protection, that they could expect nothing but respect from any American, right? Wrong. I watched and listened to those vile creatures as they marched past, shouting and cursing at these ladies. They spat, and jeered. They yelled “your son got what he deserved”.

We were several hundred American patriots, surrounded by thousands of anti-American leftists. I argued with punks that were mad that I called them commies, they told me I had no right to call them that – even though they carried Soviet flags.

Adam Kokesh was not just one of them, he was one of their leaders. He marched with anarchists, communists and troop-haters.

Now he’s a conservative Republican tea-partier? Oh hell no, I am not stupid. Said Fletcher to the Union Senator, “There’s another old saying Senator … don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.”

Kokesh is a narcissistic, opportunistic parasite. He will take sides with whoever, whatever makes him feel good at the moment. That he has the backing of the Ron Paul cult is fitting, peas in pods.

After spending most of the last decade in the company of communists and anti-American groups like CodePink, ANSWER, Moveon.org, SDS and IVAW, Adam Kokesh is now a conservative republican running for congress.

Donkey Doodle!

Adam thinks we are stupid, or more specifically, he thinks New Mexico conservatives are stupid enough to believe that he has changed colors. Does he expect forgiveness for his association with commies, America-Bashers and Troop Haters? If so, he's forgotten to actually ask for it.

» Say NO!! to IVAW's Adam Kokesh, "Republican"?!!!! for Congress?

Note that Kokesh has the endorsement of Ron and Rand Paul? Does that means he's abandoned his old anti-war commie buds to hang with 9/11 truthers and Jew Haters. No way! Why would he? Truthers and anti-semites mix rather well with communists.

» DPNM: “Who is Adam Kokesh to lecture anyone on corruption?”

» Mullins: Kokesh’s actions “dishonor the military”

Kokesh has a national base of Tea Party advocates, but Mullins describes himself as an organizer in the Farmington Tea Party movement.

Wrong. Kokesh has a national base of Tea Party Infiltrators and usurpers.

Established on February 10, 2010 : American Patriots Against Kokesh