Why I'll be voting for Robert Sarvis and not Ken Cucinelli or Terry McAuliffe

     The election for Governor of Virginia is less than a week away. The candidates are Republican Ken Cucinelli, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, and Libertarian Robert Sarvis. Wait, there's a third candidate? I thought there was only Cucinelli and McAuliffe. I mean, that's all the media talks about, (Of course they do. They wouldn't want to give attention to a non-establishment supporter, RIGHT?!)

      I will be voting for Sarvis for a number of reasons. It's really no contest. Cucinelli and McAuliffe are both God awful candidates. It's a testament to both the parties' decadence that this is the best they can come up with. So here are the reasons:

1. Cucinelli opposes gay marriage. Sarvis supports it. 

     I'm as straight as they get, but I support gay marriage. Why? Because there's no reason not to. All the conservative arguments against gay marriage are complete and utter bullshit:

• Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Really?! Look at the stats at marriages now in days. 45% of all marriages end in divorce is a low ball estimate, some estimates say as high as 65%. Abuse is rampant, cheating is a plague, people being their children's friends instead of disciplining them when they do illegal or immoral things is the new norm. So, all that doesn't ruin the sanctity of marriage, but gay marriage will? Yeah right. Someone else's marriage has no effect on how I see my marriage or what it means to me.
• Gay marriage is against Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. No. It's. Not. You can read the Torah, Bible, and Quran from front to back, and you will find absolutely NOTHING about banning gay marriage. This is just another example of people using religion as a cover to protect their own hatred ideals. Besides, let's just say for argument's sake, that Christianity does ban gay marriage. Fine, then you personally, don't get married. But just because you think you shouldn't do something, does not give you the right to shove that ideal down someone else's throat, and say to them that they have to have the same opinion about this certain something that you do. 
• More gay marriages end in divorce that heterosexual marriages. There is no conclusive evidence that shows this. Yes, some websites say so, but other websites, which are just as credible, say no. So one of them is lying. Which one is it? I don't know. That's why it's inconclusive. Besides, let's just say for argument's sake, that more gay marriages end in divorce than heterosexual marriages. So, using that same logic, we should ban Christians from getting married, because more Christians get divorced than Muslims. We should only allow Muslims to get married in this country. If we made that law, people would be up in arms, rightly so, because that's infringing on their rights. So why should we do the same thing to gays if Americans would riot if that same thing happened to them? 
• Gay marriages lead to more trouble making kids, lower grades, etc. Again, no conclusive evidence. Sure, you can find a scientific study done by a influential organization that says so, but then you can turn around and find another scientific study done by another influential organization that says completely the opposite. Besides, even if it were true, since when did America ban everything except the group that is the best? That's like looking at schooling demographics, and banning all races from going to school except Asians, because Asians do the best in school. It's insane!

      2. McAuliffe supports fascist gun control, Sarvis does not.

       Gun control restricts peoples' inalienable right to defend themselves. It hurts law abiding citizens while helping criminals and thugs. There is really no argument here. The thing that will hurt citizens the most will be limiting magazines to only 10 rounds. I don't know about you, but if I'm facing 2 thugs each with gun that can hold 30 bullets, I'd sure as hell want a gun that can hold 30 bullets rather than 10. It's still possible to beat them, but a smaller magazine will just make it harder. And in a life or death situation, you want every advantage you can get.

     3. Cucinelli voted to not raise the minimum wage.

      http://votesmart.org/bill/3821/11799/50871/minimum-wage-increase#.UnFgFBBKQTs
      One of the most basic things they teach you in economics is that the minimum wage must be proportional to inflation and standard of living. Well, the neo-cons have been so successful in keeping the minimum wage down for decades, while inflation and the standard of living have skyrocketed. If the minimum wage was proportional to inflation today, it would be more than $10. (Look it up, I'm not gonna waste my time putting a link for this well known fact).
     Cucinelli follows the standard Republican mantra of not giving a flaming fuck about the poor people working their asses off to put food on the table. He just wants to lower taxes for his super rich friends and supporters, while squeezing the middle class out of existence and forcing them into the poor class.

      4. McAuliffe wants to increase Medicaid, furthering our national debt and furthering peoples' dependence on government.  Sarvis does not.

     http://votesmart.org/public-statement/800471/issue-position-healthcare-and-virginias-economy#.UnFidxBKQTs
     Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to take money from hard working people and give it to other people? That's right, nowhere. The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to run such programs as Medicaid and Medicare. Those two programs are an overwhelming huge part of our federal debt. As tragic as peoples' stories are, we just cannot afford to keep these programs. They're running our country into the ground. Do I sound heartless because I don't want to give money to Grandma and poor kids? Maybe. But I don't think it is heartless to say to someone who is old and sick "I'm sorry, but I am in debt up to my eyeballs. My financial situation is a complete and utter wreck. I really can't afford to give you any money right now."
      What the government should be focused on is strengthening the economy enough so that people do not need to rely on Medicaid and Medicare and lowering ridiculous medical costs so they don't cost the same as a house to get a simple operation done. There's nothing in the Constitution saying that the states themselves cannot provide Medicaid and Medicare, just so as long as they don't use federal money. People should also change their spending and lifestyle habits so that they're not completely broke when they get old. For example, in many other countries, old people move in with their children when they cannot live and work on their own. The child then pays for much of their old parents' expenses, eliminating the need for such programs as Medicaid and Medicare.

      5. Both Cucinelli and McAuliffe do not want to legalize marijuana or end the ridiculous war on drugs. Sarvis wants to do both.
      http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/drug-reform
     Cucinelli and McAuliffe both believe that the government knows what's better for you than you do. They believe the government knows how to better spend your money than you do. They believe that since they personally do not believe smoking marijuana is a good idea, then that means they should force that idea down peoples' throats, and make it so no one can smoke it.
      If you think that smoking marijuana is bad/immoral, fine, I have no problem with that. Then don't do it then! But don't try and make everyone else think that same way!
      Outlawing marijuana gives power to the Mexican drug cartels, because now they have a monopoly on selling the stuff, because legal companies can't. Estimates say that a whooping 60% of the cartels' profits come from selling marijuana:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html?_r=0

     Just imagine if every ABC store also sold marijuana, for example. You could get it virtually in any town, and for much cheaper, because getting stuff on the black market is always more expensive than getting something the legal way. It wouldn't be profitable for the cartels to sell it anymore. Boom. There goes 60% of their profits. With a crippled income, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to fight them. But Republicans and Democrats want the war on drugs to continue. They want Mexican citizens to be continued to get kidnapped and beheaded. Why? Because as long as there is a war right next to us, the government can continue to sell weapons to both the cartels and the Mexican government. War is a racket. They can continue to get money for training the Mexican army and police. They don't give a flaming fuck about the Mexican people. They just want money money money.  
     Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and it's not working with marijuana. The government should not micro-manage peoples' individual spending habits on luxuries. They should stop viewing casual users as criminals, just like casual users of alcohol are not alcoholics.

     And there concludes my list. This is not a completely full list, just the top 5. Notice that both Cucinelli and McAuliffe both have ideas that I like. Cucinelli does not favor gun control. I agree with him on that issue. McAuliffe supports gay marriage. I agree with him on that issue. The thing is that their negatives far outweigh their positives. Sarvis is the only one where I agree with him on all the important issues and the majority of issues in general.

Robert Sarvis, Libertarian candidate for governor of Virginia

Vote on November 5th!            

 

More evidence that the US has a terrorist government

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch recently released a publication that, in essence, shows that the US government is killing a lot more civilians in countries like Pakistan and Yemen that they freely admit.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/security-and-human-rights/drones/will-i-be-next
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5GOvAarMc
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/10/21/us-reassess-targeted-killings-yemen

The numbers speak for themselves:

• In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman.
• Amnesty International said it found strong evidence that more than 30 civilians were killed in four of the attacks in Pakistan. 
• The groups’ findings coincide with a report released Friday by a U.N. human rights investigator, who estimated that 2,200 people have been killed in drone strikes over the past decade in Pakistan. Of those casualties, at least 400 were civilians and 200 others were “probable noncombatants,” according to the U.N. official, Ben Emmerson. He said the statistics were provided by Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry.
• Amnesty International highlighted a July 6, 2012, drone attack in the village of Zowi Sidgi, near the city of Miran Shah, in which it said 18 civilians — including a 14-year-old boy — were killed. 
• In December 2009, a US cruise missile strike on a Bedouin camp in the southern village of al-Majalah killed 14 alleged AQAP fighters and 41 civilians, two-thirds of them women and children. The attack involved cluster munitions – inherently indiscriminate weapons that pose unacceptable dangers to civilians.

The ages of the victims speak for themselves:

• By the end (of 2 particular drone strikes in Pakistan), 18 people were dead, including at 14-year-old boy, and 22 others were wounded, including an 8-year-old girl.
• It recounts another strike, in October 2012, in which a 68-year-old woman, Mamana Bibi, was blown apart by a drone as she picked vegetables in front of her grandchildren, several of whom were injured in the attack. 

Shakira, a Pakistani girl that was 1 year old when a US drone strike hit her and disfigured her. Was she a terrorist? Was she a future producer of terrorists???

The refusal of responsibility, the lack of transparency, and the arrogance of our government acting like a complete God damn dick speaks for itself:

•  With rare exceptions, the US government only acknowledges its role in targeted killings in general terms, refusing to take responsibility for individual strikes or provide casualty figures, including civilian deaths. The Yemeni authorities have been almost as silent. Both governments declined comment on the six strikes that Human Rights Watch investigated.   
• The six strikes also did not meet US policy guidelines for targeted killings that Obama disclosed in May 2013, Human Rights Watch said. 
•  The U.S. government almost never publicly acknowledges its role in individual drone strikes, and its legal justifications for targeting specific people are shrouded in secrecy. 
•  But in virtually all cases, the groups said, it was impossible to know whether the targets had met Obama’s threshold of posing an imminent threat to the United States, because U.S. officials have kept that information a secret.

The aftermath of a Pakistani wedding, bombed by an American drone. If this happened at your wedding, wouldn't you be PISSED OFF?!

What is the definition of terrorism? That's right, killing unarmed civilians. That's what the US is doing, and has been doing for centuries. It's time to get people out of their comfort zones. People feel uncomfortable talking about the crimes that their country's soldiers do, or admitting that they aren't 100% perfect little angels. Fuck your uncomfortableness. People are dying by the thousands because of the American peoples' lazy inaction. The American people could easily solve 90% of the nation's problems by simply voting third party, but no, they still vote for Republicans and Democrats, while both parties are working tirelessly day and night to ruin us.

Look at the facts, look at the stats, look at history, look at peoples' stories. The US HAS A TERRORIST GOVERNMENT. Our American values compel us to get rid of this fucking government as fast as possible, any way we can. Our government is an insult to it's people. It kills innocents on purpose to rile up the friends and families of those killed, so they can justify their one-sided war to get more power and resources.  People have the right to be mad at America. People have the right to fight against America, because America has killed their innocents. If someone killed your wife/husband/son/daughter, wouldn't you think it would be justified if you fought back and killed the murderer?

Afghani children, killed by an American airstrike. Why do we sit in silence when our soldiers kill innocents, yet we constantly demand that citizens of other countries condemn their terrorists? Do not ask someone to do something that you are unwilling to do yourself.

Simply saying basic sentences about the US government will make it easier and more comfortable for you to talk about these concepts. Stating "People have the right to take up arms against America" starts the conversation. We need to have these painful conversations. Yes, it's uncomfortable to talk about these concepts, but the government has pushed this on itself.  Only then can we work towards purging the terrorists out of our government.

Oh, America isn't the only one to blame for this. Drone strikes require the approval of the country it's happening in, otherwise, they would attack our drones with their Air Force or ground to air defenses. But they don't. They let America kill their citizens. The Pakistani and Yemeni are corrupt, self-centered oligarchies that do not care about the well-being of their citizens. They oppress them, denying them the most basic of human rights. Those governments need to be overthrown just as much as America's government needs to be. Without "foreign aid," aka, bribery, from the US, (paid by us, the taxpayers), these governments would not last a month. They're simply puppet governments that allow the US to do what it wants in their country.       

Why pacifists are selfish, and why violence is not inherently a good or bad thing

     This weeks post is going to be on a touchy subject, and it's going to be kind of different, because it's not about a single event in the news. It's coming from a position that is usually described as barbaric at worst, and unrefined at best. So I'm going to be very careful in my wording, because I want my opinion to be seen as exactly the opposite as those adjectives.
      If it can be related to a single event, it would be about Malala Yousafzai being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize, her book coming out this week, etc. For the record, I believe 99% of what she has said. She is very brave and we should all support her because she is going to need all the support she can get, because she's going against a very sick and twisted organization, the Taliban. She is a good role model for young people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, girl or boy. However, just because I support her doesn't mean I'm going to look over the things that we are in disagreement with. That 1% that I didn't agree with really disturbed me, which compelled me to write about this topic.

     Pacifism, in liberal societies, is often seen as having the moral high ground, or being ideological superior to any other thought process that thinks violence is acceptable in at least one situation. I cannot disagree with that opinion more. I believe that violence in pure self-defense against aggressive combatants, and violence in defense of others against aggressive combatants, is the superior thought process. This opinion on violence does not support:

•  violence against non-combatants, (i.e. women, children, the elderly), 
• violence against combatants who did not start any fight, 
• violence where non-violence could've be used to achieve the same result,   
• violence against someone who just so happens to be in the social group as an aggressive person, (either religious, racial, political, etc). 

     Pacifists see all violence as abhorrent. I do not believe that fighting to protect civilians, or fighting against a tyrannical, murderous government, or fighting to protect yourself against a criminal who wants to murder you, is barbaric or vile in any way. On the contrary, pacifists are selfish because they refuse to put their life or health on the line to protect innocents. A person who has the same opinion on violence that I do, would gladly fight, and possibly die, if that meant saving his/her family from home invaders, for example. But a pacifist would just sit there and not fight back all, making it the easiest thing in the world for home invaders to kill everyone in the house. How is that morally superior?

   
     Let's think about the above picture. If a murderer invades a pacifist's house and proceeds to attack the pacifist, what's the first thing the pacifist, having absolutely no weapons in his house, does? That's right, he calls 911. He calls for a person, with a weapon, to come and help him. This police officer believes that a person is allowed to use violence in defense of others in the face of an aggressor. A person who believes in a "barbaric way of thinking" is the only thing standing between the pacifist and death. The pacifist is selfish. He won't put his life or health on the line to even protect himself, but he'll gladly let someone else do it.  
     The pacifist is like the dodo bird. Even in the face of aggressors killing pacifists on a mass scale, they would still just sit there, refusing to budge on their "moral high ground principles."

    Okay, enough bashing pacifists. Let's move onto the second part of the post. The media, and much of any liberal society, views violence as "100% always bad," without a doubt. It is never acceptable. Well, let's look at some of history's most evil villians:

• Hilter
• Osama Bin Laden
• Talat Pasha (responsible for the Armenian genocide)
• Reinhard Heydrich (2nd in command of SS, architect of the "Final Solution)
• Maximilien Robespierre
• Ivan the Terrible
• Vlad the Impaler

     Guess how they all died? I'll tell you, it wasn't peaceful protests that did them in. Right, it was violence. Good guys killing the bad guys. In Hitler's case, he killed himself, but only because loads of good guys, the Allies, were beating the crap out of his totalitarian state by, guess what, killing Nazis by the thousands.
      The point I'm making here is that sometimes, peaceful means will not get rid of a bad guy, or solve a problem. Sometimes, the only option left is violence. It should be used as a last resort. In some cases, it can be a good thing, because nothing short of killing Vlad the Impaler was going to stop Vlad the Impaler from killing innocent people. By killing him, the people who did so saved countless innocent lives that would've been taken away, had Vlad the Impaler continued to reign.
     Sometimes, there is nothing that will stop a bully from beating the shit out of you, except beating the shit outta him. When I was a freshman in high school, I got picked on and beat up relentlessly because I was short and small, because of my race, because I wasn't one of the cool kids, etc. I tried every method of non-violence to solve this problem.

1. Talked to the bullies themselves, told them to stop. That didn't work. 
2. Went to the school administrators. They didn't do anything; they didn't care.
3. Told my parents. They didn't care.
4. Went to the police officer at school. He didn't care.

     At this point I was out of options. Over the months, I started working out a lot. I grew half a foot. Throughout all my fights with the bullies, I learned how to fight well. I took some cheap shots, but due to my size, it was the only way I could win, so I did so. So by the end of the year, I was the one that was winning the fights, not the bullies. Sophomore year I got into a few fights but not nearly as much as freshman year. Junior and Senior year I didn't get into any fights at all. People learned not to mess with me, and that was that.
     I'm not saying to love violence. I'm not saying to go out into the street and start beating up random people for the fun of it. Violence can just as easily be used for evil means as it can be used for good means. I'm only saying to admit that violence can be used for good means. Don't label it as 100% evil, all of them time.

     Malala was asked what she would do if another Taliban goon approached her to kill her. She replied:
 "I started thinking about that, and I used to think that the Talib would come, and he would just kill me. But then I said, 'If he comes, what would you do Malala?' then I would reply to myself, 'Malala, just take a shoe and hit him.' But then I said, 'If you hit a Talib with your shoe, then there would be no difference between you and the Talib."

     Absolutely incorrect. Malala could not be more wrong on this. Killing a girl because she wants to go to school is absolutely nothing like a girl defending herself from a religious extremist. The two actions could not be farther apart on the moral scale. Malala is right on many things, but she has some growing up to do.    

Is it insane to protest against the Russian government?

A man who was protesting against the Russian government last year, and found guilty of beating a policeman during that incident, was sentenced to forced psychiatric treatment.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57606559/russian-activist-mikhail-kosenko-sentenced-to-forced-psychiatric-treatment/

There are several issues I have with this story. Let's deal with the police beating part of it, since that is the more serious of the two "crimes."
1. There's evidence that shows that Kosenko never even touched the police officer who was beaten.
"The majority of the evidence, including from the police officer himself, indicates that Kosenko never touched him," Tanya Lokshina, the rights group's Russia program director, said in the statement.

Sounds like the autocratic Russian government just wanted to punish Kosenko for his activist activities, and just made up this charge so they could stick him with something.

2. But let's say Kosenko did beat the police officer. Is it a crime to defend yourself against a government goon who is going to beat you up, simply because you are using your freedom of expression?
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Russian government is militant, repressive, and theocratic. One must only look at places such as Freedom House or Human Rights Watch to see their long list of crimes.
Every human is entitled to certain rights, regardless of whether the government of the country they're living in, says it's legal or not. Therefore, when the Russian government thugs, a.k.a, cops, came to break up that protest in May of 2012, Kosenko, along with everyone else that was with him, still had their unalienable right to freedom of expression. If that police officer attacked Kosenko, he had the right to defend himself. Therefore, even if Kosenko beat up that police officer, he was still justified. I think you guys would agree that Kosenko shouldn't have just sat there and get his ass handed to him. If you believe that Konsenko was not justified, then you believe that, due to Kosenko political beliefs, he is a legitimate target of genocide, because the police officer, in his beating of Kosenko, could easily kill him. And that, sir and madams, is fascism.

3. It is not insane to protest and/or use force to defend yourself from a violent, corrupt, autocratic, non-legitimate regime.
As I have said in many past posts, it is logical and rational to fight against an entity that is taking away your human rights. For centuries, men and women have taken up arms against oppressive governments. People have a primeval yearning to control their own affairs; it is against nature to want to control them. Do not believe the mainstream media, (MSM), which brainwashes people into thinking that using force in self-defense is barbaric and terrorism. They are doing that to soften people up so that they will not resist the government when it slowly, bit by bit, takes away our human rights.
There is reason why protest groups, who want to be committed to a policy of non-violence, have to train their members to be non-violent even in the face of police breaking up their rally. It is because non-violence is contrary to the vast majority of peoples' instincts. It is normal, mainstream, to fight to protect yourself. But the MSM is trying to tell everyone that it's exactly the opposite! They're trying to say that non-violence is the norm, and that people have to be exposed to "extremist ideology" or "radical thought" in order for them to use force in self-defense! 
Therefore, the punishment of forced psychiatric treatment for Kosenko, who did a logical and rational action, is totally illogical. It's Russia's way of saying "resistance against us is insane. The only rational thing is doing everything we say." It seems Russia has changed little from when it was the Soviet Union.   

What can we ordinary Americans do to help Kosenko and other people who are opposed to Russian fascism? Well, very little, unfortunately. That's the sad truth. America has little to no control over what Russia does, especially in internal affairs. But what we can do is this:

• Spread the word about this story. Have you seen this in any MSM newspaper or website? (Besides CBS obviously). Didn't think so. Simply sharing the CBS story on FB, Twitter, heck even Tumblr, whatever social media you use, will let people read this story who may have otherwise never came across it. 
• Follow Human Right Watch's campaign for Mikhail Kosenko, as well as news from Amnesty International. If you can afford to and agree with these group's values, consider donating to them.
• Present a counter-argument against people who say along the lines of "Only governments can use violence, if a person does it, it's terrorism." This is what I did here in this post, is present a counter-argument and defense for Kosenko. Go ahead, you can do it as well. Use my points if you want to, I don't care, it's not like I copyright any of this shit. 
• Demand that the United States government not conduct any business with Russia. Our American values tell us that we cannot do business with freedom hating governments, because the money we give them can be used to stifle dissent and destroy liberty. I, for one, do not want that on my conscious. On principle, we must isolate Russia until they change their ways, or weaken them enough that a more freedom loving group comes into power. The fact that America does so much business with Russia makes us guilty in the oppression of the Russian people. We are financing their suffering. IT'S GOT TO FUCKING STOP!!  

   

Maybe this government shutdown will wake people the hell up

I don't even need to put a link for this story. Everyone knows the U.S. government shut down, and now doesn't have any money for anything except for "essential personal," (Like all those soldiers overseas and NSA pricks are "essential," but hey, that's another story.)

By itself, this shutdown wouldn't be an incredibly big issue, because hey, people run outta money every once in a while. If this was the one thing the government fucked up at, I'd forgive 'em.

But that's not even remotely the case, isn't it? This fuck up is only the last in an incredibly long and painful list of things our government does wrong. My argument today is that this shutdown should be the breaking point for people, because it is personally affecting their wallets.

The government is killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq? What do I care? I'm not in Iraq. My life is fine. 

I'm not getting my paycheck because of a government shutdown? AW FUCK NO MAN!! We gotta do something about this!

^^^Unfortunately, this is how most people think. It's psychological, but that doesn't make it right. Whatever, I'll take contempt against the government any way I can. The point is, our government has failed us. It's failed us a long time ago. Not just the people currently in office, but the system itself is busted. It doesn't care about us, the common people, the people struggling to pay our bills, to put food on the table. It only cares about the 1%, the unimaginable rich that line the politicians' pockets full to the brim with money.

Yes, there is a bit of difference between Republicans and Democrats, but at the end of the day, both parties want to tyrannize us with minimal rights and poverty, while they get to have all the wealth and power they want. Republicans and neo-Liberals want corporations to rule America. They want us to go back to the way things were in the 1930's, with sweat shops, no federally mandated safety laws, 12 hour shifts, no paid vacation, getting fired for no reason, no workman's comp if you've been injured on the job, etc. They want constant wars with 12+ countries at one time, killing civilians, stealing resources, and setting up illegitimate puppet governments.

Democrats and neo-Conservatives want the government to rule America. They want us to be like Italy and Japan in the 1940's, with no privacy, secret police and NSA spies knowing everything you're doing 24/7, no right to bear arms to defend yourself and your loved ones, no freedom of speech, Constitution be damned, (fuck that old piece of irrelevant shit!!!).

 At the end of the day, tyranny is tyranny. It doesn't matter whether the person shoving a gun against your temple is liberal or conservative, a government thug or a corporation thug. Both parties don't give a shit about us. The fact that so many people still vote for them stands as a testament to how good those parties are at brainwashing and dolling out propaganda. The parties don't even try to hide their agenda. It's out for everyone to see. They openly say they're going to do all these harmful things to people, and then those same people turn around and vote for them.

This article clearly states what I want to happen to Congress as a result of their extreme incompetence:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ways-to-punish-congress-for-threatening-a-shutdown/2013/09/30/4778f724-29ed-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html

I'm surprised a government controlled media source openly said that people said "Off with their heads," and “Line ’em up and shoot ’em. I consider what they’re doing treason.” They might be exaggerating or half joking, but the words clearly show the extreme anger many people have with the government. People that don't normally get pissed off at the government, now are really pissed off at the government.

Okay, so what's the point of this entire rant? If you take one thing away from all this, it's this:

•   Do not vote for a Republican or Democrat for any office. 

 These parties have treated us like shit for decades. It's time to throw. them. out. Every single one of them. A massing purging of government. Now you might ask "I happen to like many of the stances the Republican Party has," for example, "So why should I vote for another party whose stances I don't agree with?"

That's a valid question. I'm not asking for anyone to vote for a party that they don't believe in. I would ask that you research all of the third parties out there in America. There are a lot more of them then you might think. Research them, find out their opinions on important issues. I think you'll be thoroughly surprised that you'll find a couple that have the same opinions that you do. You just haven't heard of them yet because the main stream media puts a tight clamp over them when they're trying to get their message out. Here is a tentative list of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_%28United_States%29