-Quote from George Washington-

"When the government fears the people, we have liberty, but when the people fear the government, we have tyranny." - George Washington, American Revolutionary and first President of the USA

Friday, November 25, 2011

I'm Wiccan and am pro life

I'm Wiccan and am pro-life.

CM-speak

skull-f*ck  (v) - CM speak for the act of using secret techniques to make a person's mind messed up, insane, or otherwise totally unable to think.

mindhack (v) 1- my word for someone reading my mind for own gain. 2- same as skullfuck.

I have picked up "banishing element-of-earth"  and jokingly sending the demon a codeword

Sharkey's machine

snitches are nescesary - they could get a crook in power in a lot of trouble.

What laws protect us from

Laws protect more than just the rich from the "rabble".  They protect the poor from the rich, the corporations, bad companies, companies who adulterate food and drugs and with the US bill of rights, the government itself.  The police and the government cannot impinge on the rights of the poor.  For example,  the GNU Public License is a legal software document protecting open source software from later copyright from software giants.  Jack always finds a way to kill a giant.

Meat, murder? and Thanksgiving

Meat can be obtained by two ways - raising and hunting.  Raising meat can be done in a humane way (The celts culled their herds and slaughtered the cattle in a humane way - kosher slaughter is very inhumane.)

Many cultures have hunted animals including modern American culture.  Native cultures across the world have hunted and gathered.  This is a good post for Thanksgiving when the Native peoples in Massachussetes helped the whites survive the winter and then had a feast to celebrate.  Native people hunted buffalo, turkey, and deer, as well as other animals.

What I am saying is that meat is not murder.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Burning times

On "feeds", click header for video to the "Burning Times" song.

Many lives were lost during this time.  We as Wiccans do care for and love all living things.  We, even I do not hate Christians, nor do we hate Jesus.  I happen to be an eclectic solitary Wiccan.  I do have a disdain for ceremonial magick, since it can be abused very easily.  Blessed Be.

Christian Hypocrisy

Some Christians are hypocrites.  Just take an example from Whitman, from Wallowa Valley.  What I am talking about are two things - church gossip and praying for God or the angels to do harm to an individual.  I get prayed against, and it is probably FoR my religious choice - Wicca.   I feel it is OnLy okay to pray gains someone of one's life or safety is in danger.  Peace.

Marbury vs Madison

Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court.
In the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided:
1st. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
3dly. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?
The first object of enquiry is: Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
His right originates in an act of congress passed in February, 1801, concerning the district of Columbia. This law enacts, "that there shall be appointed in and for each of the said counties, such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace as the president of the United States shall, from time to time, think expedient, to continue in office for five years."
It appears, from the affidavits, that in compliance with this law, a commission for William Marbury as a justice of peace for the county of Washington, was signed by John Adams, then president of the United States; after which the seal of the United States was affixed to it; but the commission has never reached the person for whom it was made out.
In order to determine whether he is entitled to this commission, it becomes necessary to enquire whether he has been appointed to the office. For if he has been appointed, the law continues him in office for five years, and he is entitled to the possession of those evidences of office, which, being completed, became his property.
The 2d section of the 2d article of the constitution, declares, that "the president shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided for." The third section declares, that "he shall commission all the officers of the United States." An act of congress directs the secretary of state to keep the seal of the United States, "to make out and record, and affix the said seal to all civil commissions to officers of the United States, to be appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the senate, or by the President alone; provided that the said seal shall not be affixed to any commission before the same shall have been signed by the President of the United States."
These are the clauses of the constitution and laws of the United States, which affect this part of the case. They seem to contemplate three distinct operations:
1st, The nomination. This is the sole act of the President, and is completely voluntary.
2d. The appointment. This is also the act of the President, and is also a voluntary act, though it can only be performed by and with the advice and consent of the senate.
3d. The commission. To grant a commission to a person appointed, might perhaps be deemed a duty enjoined by the constitution. "He shall," says that instrument, "commission all the officers of the United States."
This is an appointment by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, and is evidenced by no act but the commission itself.... The last act to be done by the President, is the signature of the commission. He has then acted on the advice and consent of the senate to his own nomination. The time for deliberations has then passed. He has decided. His judgment, on the advice and consent of the senate concurring with his nomination, has been made, and the officer is appointed. This appointment is evidenced by an open, unequivocal act; and being the last act required from the person making it, necessarily excludes the idea of its being, so far as respects the appointment, an inchoate and incomplete transaction.
The signature is a warrant for affixing the great seal to the commission; and the great seal is only to be affixed to an instrument which is complete. It asserts, by an act supposed to be of public notoriety, the verity of the Presidential signature.
It is never to be affixed till the commission is signed, because the signature, which gives force and effect to the commission, is conclusive evidence that the appointment is made.
The commission being signed, the subsequent duty of the secretary of state is prescribed by law, and not to be guided by the will of the President. He is to affix the seal of the United States to the commission, and is to record it.
This is not a proceeding which may be varied, if the judgment of the executive shall suggest one more eligible; but is a precise course accurately marked out by law, and is to be strictly pursued. It is the duty of the secretary of state to conform to the law, and in this he is an officer of the United States, bound to obey the laws. He acts, in this regard, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the President. It is a ministerial act which the law enjoins on a particular officer for a particular purpose....
The discretion of the executive is to be exercised until the appointment has been made. But having once made the appointment, his power over the office is terminated in all cases, where, by law, the officer is not removable by him. The right to the office is then in the person appointed, and he has the absolute, unconditional, power of accepting or rejecting it.
Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the secretary of state, was appointed; and as the law creating the office, gave the officer a right to hold for five years, independent of the executive, the appointment was not revocable; but vested in the officer legal rights, which are protected by the laws of his country.
To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.
This brings us to the second enquiry; which is, 2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.
By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.
In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. The application of this remark will be perceived by adverting to the act of congress for establishing the department of foreign affairs. This office, as his duties were prescribed by that act, is to conform precisely to the will of the President. He is the mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts.
But when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others.
The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.
If this be the rule, let us enquire how it applies to the case under the consideration of the court.
The power of nominating to the senate, and the power of appointing the person nominated, are political powers, to be exercised by the President according to his own discretion. When he has made an appointment, he has exercised his whole power, and his discretion has been completely applied to the case.
The question whether a right has vested or not, is, in its nature, judicial, and must be tried by the judicial authority. If, for example, Mr. Marbury had taken the oaths of a magistrate, and proceeded to act as one; in consequence of which a suit had been instituted against him, in which his defence had depended on his being a magistrate; the validity of his appointment must have been determined by judicial authority.
So, if he conceives that, by virtue of his appointment, he has a legal right, either to the commission which has been made out for him, or to a copy of that commission, it is equally a question examinable in a court, and the decision of the court upon it must depend on the opinion entertained of his appointment.
That question has been discussed, and the opinion is, that the latest point of time which can be taken as that at which the appointment was complete, and evidenced, was when, after the signature of the president, the seal of the United States was affixed to the commission.
It is then the opinion of the court: 1st. That by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the president of the United States appointed him a justice  of peace, for the county of Washington in the district of Columbia; and that the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the secretary of state, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years. 2dly. That, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which, is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy.
It remains to be enquired whether, 3dly. He is entitled to the remedy for which he applies. This depends on, 1st. The nature of the writ applied for, and, 2dly. The power of this court.
1st. The nature of the writ.
If one of the heads of departments commits any illegal act, under the color of his office, by which an individual sustains an injury, it cannot be pretended that his office alone exempts him from being sued in the ordinary mode of proceeding, and being compelled to obey the judgment of the law. How then can his office exempt him from this particular mode of deciding on the legality of his conduct, if the case be such a case as would, were any other individual the party complained of, authorize the process?
It is not by the office of the person to whom the writ is directed, but the nature of the thing to be done that the propriety or impropriety of issuing a mandamus, is to be determined. Where the head of a department acts in a case, in which executive discretion is to be exercised; in which he is the mere organ of executive will; it is again repeated, that any application to a court to control, in any respect, his conduct, would be rejected without hesitation.
But where he is directed by law to do a certain act affecting the absolute rights of individuals, in the performance of which he is not placed under the particular direction of the President, and the performance of which, the President cannot lawfully forbid, and therefore is never presumed to have forbidden; as for example, to record a commission which has received all the legal solemnities, it is not perceived on what ground the courts of the country are further excused from the duty of giving judgment, that right be done to an injured individual, than if the same services were to be performed by a person not the head of a department....
It was at first doubted whether the action of detinue was not a specified legal remedy for the commission which has been withheld from Mr. Marbury; in which case a mandamus would be improper. But this doubt has yielded to the consideration that the judgment in detinue is for the thing itself, or its value. The value of a public office not to be sold, is incapable of being ascertained; and the applicant has a right to the office itself, or to nothing. He will obtain the office by obtaining the commission, or a copy of it from the record.
This, then, is a plain case for a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be enquired, Whether it can issue from this court.
The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the supreme court "to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."
The secretary of state, being a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the description; and if this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely incapable of conferring the authority, and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign.
The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.
In the distribution of this power it is declared that "the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction."
It has been insisted, at the bar, that as the original grant of jurisdiction, to the supreme and inferior courts, is general, and the clause, assigning original jurisdiction to the supreme court, contains no negative or restrictive words; the power remains to the legislature, to assign original jurisdiction to that court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited; provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.
If it had been intended to leave it to the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial powers, and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction. If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made  in the constitution, is form without substance.
Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.
When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system, divides it into one supreme, and so many inferior courts as the legislature may ordain and establish; then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them, as to define the jurisdiction of the supreme court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction; the plain import of the words seems to be, that in one class of cases its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other it is appellate, and not original. If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to their obvious meaning.
To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.
It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that if it be the will of the legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true, yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.
It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper, is in effect the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and therefore seems not to belong to appellate, but to original jurisdiction. Neither is it necessary in such a case as this, to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.
The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to enquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised.
The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of  these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written constitution -- would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to be maintained.
In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey? There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject. It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law. The constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavors to preserve?
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States."
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
Note: Top image: Chief Justice John Marshall; bottom image: William Marbury

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Occupy Portland Protests

Finally, people are carrying signs, taking to the streets and speaking their minds.

Hemp for Victory

There are many uses for the hemp plant, also known as Cannibis.  One is fuel.  The oil from the seeds can be used for biodiesel.  This can be mixed with alcohol from the hemp biomass to raise the octane a little bit.

The fibers from hemp can be made into clothing.  The oil from hemp seeds can be used as lubricant.  Hemp has medicinal and recreational uses, including getting one off of heroin addiction, alcoholism, and it is relaxing, as well as uses such as stimulation for the appetite and pain relief.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Possible cure for AIDS

The Lady revealed to me a possible Witches' cure for AIDS.  It calls for 1/3 Belladonna leaves (daisy leaves is belladonna is not available)  1/4 tobbacco  and the rest of the mixture is Cannibis Indica.

The Prime Directive vs One world government

The Prime Directive forbids Starfleet or the Federation to interfere with the cultural development of another world.  On Earth this should be extended to forbiding the cultural or political development of another nation, unless that nation asks for help.  It would be foolhardy for a "one world government" to be put in place.

There is a lesson that can be learned by the Galactic Empire of the Star Wars Saga.  The Galactic Emperor, Palpatine had absolute power.  The UN is a federation rather than a one world government.  The nations on this planet should cooperate rather than band together in a one world government.

How to get water in the desert

This is an idea of how a vaporator works.  This design is free to copy or distribute.  An example is putting a few on "moisture farms" for a city (such as Los Angeles, Pheonix AZ, Barstow CA, or Los Vegas to supply water for the community.

These machines can be solar powered. Catylitic converters can be used in air-polluted areas.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

TV

TV - Treminiums Videodrome

Causes eye cancer, destroys brain cells, and gets angry (explodes)

Vader and Palpatine

Old socket-eyed spindly fingers

Old Bug-eyed Vaccum Mouth

Fortunate Son lyrics

Some folks are born
made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, whit and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
they point the cannon right at you.

It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no senator's son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no fortunate one.

Some folks are born
silver spoon in hand,
Lord don't they help themselves.
But when the tax man comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale.

It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no millionaire's son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no fortunate one.

Some folks inherit
star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war.
And when you ask them,
"How much should we give?"
They only answer "More! More! More!"

It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no military son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no fortunate one.

It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no Fortunate Son.


INSPIRED BY THE F-TEAM AND THE LORD OF MISRULE AT MERRYMOUNT POINT - In memory of Thomas Morton

Erin Go Brach

The Irish Dream... Erin owns the mint.

ANIKIN SPY AGENCY

ANIKIN SPYWALKER SEZ

Elizabeth Tolkein is illgally throttling the Internet!

...And she got an abortion


philosopy 101

Repentence - "turning back" and changing ones ways - not converting to the "religion du jour"


The Money Report - Forbes Zine - "The root of all evil is not money, but it is the love of money (greed - one of the 7 vices)

to pres obama

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA -

Hail to the crook!

- THE BLACK NINJA


trick or treat

This is what Pres. Obama's soul looks like... Trick or Treat!

Monday, October 31, 2011

Reagan

One good thing about Ronald Reagan - He broke up AT&T, a horrible monopoly.

Halloween

Bury the Comcasket!!!!!!



Happy Halloween.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Occupy Portland march

I do support Occupy Portland, and I stand in solidaridy with Occupy Portland.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

My bad mistake

There were people I accused badly earlier, but deleted the posts.  I think I have autism (auspergers) or just fear Aynar.  I love Ansela and Aynar very much, and apologize for everything I blew out of proportion.

Not religious

I'm not religious.  I just think it is boring for me.  I just like classic rock now

weed whacker - NOT

Hey, I gave the OTO a bad rap for the most part.  I know they have bad apples and I do not wish to join.  I wonder if the OTO would want marijuana legal?

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

In Retrospect

Feminist Christianity is wrong.  I was involved in it for a short time, renounced it and went back to solitary Wicca (Scott Cunningham).  The men involved in this false belief can be whatever religion they are comfortable with (except satanism, black CM, Alister Crowley magic(k) or any religion that preaches (or teaches violence.)  When I was a Wiccan years ago, I had a problem and a hatred for Christians.  I would always tell people in my coven that I wanted "to throw fireballs at a 'fundie' or put a 'whammy' on one.

Blessed Be

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Marijuana

Marijuana should be legal.  Someone should, if they get busted for pot, should take the case all the way to the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds of states' rights.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Rock n' Roll

This is an inside joke that many people that listen to heavy metal rock musicians use when they are angry.  "The punk rockers call this taking a chill pill in the squat", but many of us (I like both punk and heavy metal [I really dislike blasphemous music of any deity])  Many heavy metallers call this "cooling off in the lake of fire".  For heavy metallers, this involves nothing that does any harm to anyone.  The punk rockers call it "taking a chill pill in the squat" which involves listening to hardcore punk rock."  Some more serious metalheads and punks call these terms slang, while the lighter-hearted ones (ones not as spiritually [getting prayed against or getting the BIble beat into someone - or CM's putting spells on them {or even hexed by bad examples in the Craft}]or physically abused [beaten by some drunk of a father, of sexually abused as a woman}]) call it a joke.  So up the irons, get beaten by a bat, then the Iron Maiden will get you - and you - and YOU!   Iron Maiden wants ALL OF YOU.  you couldn't make it as a punker.  L8tr, dude - Consider yourself deleted. <SNIP>  +++

Thursday, October 20, 2011

A Long Time ago...

I believe that in a long time ago, in a galaxy far away, I was Anakin Skywalker, raised on Tatooine, taken by two Jedi at the age of 9, fought rashly and recklessly at times in the Clone Wars, was taken in and fooled by Chancellor Palpatine's charm and was seduced by the dark side of the Force.  I then became Darth Vader, and helped the Empire exterminate the Jedi.  I never gave the order to destroy Alderaan - That was Governer Tarkin's fault.  I instinctively grabbed Leia to comfort her, since I sensed something about her.  I faced Luke Skywalker 3 times, the first one was at the fighter battle at Yavin, then he faced me at Bespin, then the last time, he sought me out on the second Death Star.  The Empereror was using Force lightning to fry Luke, then I threw Palpatine down a deep shaft.

Gossip and sin

Michelle Jackman Carr, also called Michelle Julliet Carr is a horrible gossip.  She spread a horrible rumor that I am Satan.  She also practices black magick.  She infiltrated a church in Portland just to try to have sex with me under a different name.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Thursday, October 13, 2011

the beast


deadhead christians - apostate church

The "church of the deadhead Christians", which uses LSD and deals it, possibly committing acid-terrorism with the water supplies of the US and world wide are the apostate church.

titian and Wicca

People think I am Titian, the supposed antichrist.  I am simply a solitary Wiccan that cares about the Earth.  I removed the "beavis and butthead" joke about the "grand bewitchment."  I don't know if Wiccans are involved in this kind of torture, or even Christians.  Maybe someone in the Federal government wants me to make a signed confession or something.

KFBW Brew

KFBW - "Brew" of Vancouver, WA gives out toxic waste from Sly Sludge.

false prophet

What the false prophet says about calling fire from heaven can either be a fire demon being conjured by a group of black (evil) ceremonal magicians and ordered to possibly destroy a city, or it can be some kind of nuclear device or even an incindedary weapon such as the fire bombing of Dresden, napalm or white phospherus, which burn under water, or other kind of military (could be foreign) or terrorist device.

Voodoo

Michelle Julliet Carr practices Voodoo.

Thrash bands, punk and other bands I like

I do not like thrash (death metal) that glorifies satan or ritual killings, or satanism.  I like bands like Ozzy Osbourne, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax and bands like them.  I also like bands that joke about, or simply make fun of satan or satanism.

Punk is not junk.  bands that are violent towards the governement were playing during a time when the government and police were violent and oppressive to poor people.  I like Rancid, Aus Rotten, NoFx, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, the Vandals, and band like them.  About "Anarchy Burger" from the Vandals, they just joke around.

food stamp prgram

The food stamp prgram is crooked.  I am sick of the unfair way the food stamp prgram is treating certain people.  We need to protest this.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Churchianity

Time to shape up.  Or get dropped about 15,000 feet into the Pacific Ocean.  I am sick of "churchianity" in this world.  I do not mind real Christians.  Churchianity people think they are so rich and comfortable running the show.  Did you ever see the movie "2012"?  Well, there are ancient Hopi prophecies about earthquakes the magnitude of 15 to 30 on the Richter scale.  Boy, this can sure flatten Caltech.

Shroud of the dark side



suggestion for the UN

I am throwing out a suggestion for the UN.  It involves a bicamberal assembly.  The upper chamber can be modeled after the US Congress.  The upper house can be like the US Senate, with the representatives in that house appointed by the heads of the countries that are members.  The lower house can be like the House of Representatives, with for example, each state in the USA, by popular election for a 2 year term, elects one member of the lower house.  Maybe the change would make the UN more democratic.  Each nation remains totally independent.

My picks for Democrat and Republican

My favorite Democrat is Franklin Delenor Rosevelt.  When the USA was in the thrall of the Great Depression, he got the New Deal out.  My favorite Republican was Abraham Lincoln.  He came from humble beginnings.  Probably the worst Democrat we ever had, and are still stuck with is Obama.  The worst Republican was George W. Bush, second worst was Ronald Reagan.  The last thing we need in this country is Obama-nomics.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Burning times song

Tribute to our 300 year "tribulation" - 1484 - 1550

It is written

IT IS WRITTEN... that "in my father's house, there are many mansions."  This means that all religions that are kind including Wicca, atheism and agnostics are welcome in heaven.  Just my 2 cents.

online censorship

Yeah, with no anesthesia!!!

Friday, October 7, 2011

Giant Gorilla

58 foot tall gorilla crawls out of Miyagi, Japan and terrorizes Tokyo.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Wicca and respecting Jesus

Please, Wiccans and magical people - Please do respect Jesus, even if you do not agree with the religion of Christianity.  It is like good neighbor policy.  Remember, I am not Jesus or any diety.  I am just a human being like everyone else.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

victim of sorcery

Christine Reyna and Shane Burras did the "End of the world spell", which is a Crowley spell.  It is an evil spell which put the devil into someone.  I was the victim and it caused me to sin against the Holy Spirit.  It is the most evil spell that Alister Crowley did.  It was done at Stonehenge between Halloween and Thanksgiving of 1997.

Open letter to Obama

What right do you have to screw and fuck the poor over.  You have mind fucked the whole nation.  Are you too fundy for your own good?  Well, do some good and quit sitting there like some king.  I only get $35.00 in food stamps and Social Security ripped off money that they owe me.  You sure talk a good game, your magesty, Obama <sarcasticly>

Congressional anti-internet

Congressional Anti-Internet Freedom Bills

Internet
Congressional Anti-Internet Freedom Bills- by Stephen Lendman

Net Neutrality is the last frontier of press freedom. With it, consumers have open access to an array of equipment, content, applications and service, free from corporate control. Public interest groups want it preserved. Giant telecom and cable companies want control to:

• establish toll roads, or premium lanes;

• charge extra for speed and free and easy access;

• control content to stifle dissent and independent thought;

• co-opt this essential public space for profit; and

• subvert digital and political democracy.

As a candidate, Barack Obama promised to "(s)upport the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."

Obama made lots of promises he broke, notably not delivering promised change. Instead, he's been the standard bearer for corrupt political/business as usual, elevating it to more extreme levels at home and abroad.

He governs more like a crime boss in league with Wall Street, America's military industrial complex profiteers, and other corporate favorites.

He systematically spurns democratic values, freedoms, and rule of law principles. Betraying working Americans, he implemented austerity, not vital aid when most needed in hard times.

He ignores growing poverty, hunger, homelessless and despair.

He champions expanded militarism, imperial wars, and state-sponsored terrorism.

He praises murdering American citizens abroad in cold blood. Anwar al-Awlaki broke no laws, but never got due process to explain. He was killed for opposing US imperial lawlessness globally. That perhaps also makes millions at home targets.

He systematically spurns fundamental human and civil rights.

He supports open-ended banker bailouts, other generous corporate handouts, and tax cuts for super-rich elites already with too much.

Will Internet freedom fare better on his watch? It prevents providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

Losing it will stifle innovation, limit competition and control. It will also restrict or prevent free access to information.

If lost, consumers will be sacrificed to benefit powerful telecom and cable giants. In fact, they lobby furiously to destroy Internet freedom for greater profits and control of online content.

Many congressional members support them. On February 6, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R. TX) introduced "SJ Res. 6: A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices."

The bill was referred to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. No further action so far was taken.

Forty Republican senators co-sponsored it, including Lamar Alexander (R. TN, Susan Collins (R. ME), Lindsey Graham (R. SC), Charles Grassley (R. IA), Orrin Hatch (R. UT), John McCain (R. AZ), Mitch McConnell (R. KY), Rand Paul (R. KY), Richard Shelby (R. AL), and Olympia Snowe (R. ME), and 30 others.

All get generous industry handouts (read bribes) to support legislation harming their constituents.

Writing for freepress.net, Tim Karr headlined "High Noon for Internet Freedom," saying:

This "arcane 'resolution of disapproval' now wend(s) its way through the Senate." If passed, it'll void a recent FCC rule, "seek(ing) to preserve long-held Internet standards that protect users against blocking and censorship."

Many in Washington want these and other protections ended, including AT&T, other telecom and cable giants, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and ExxonMobil, among many others.

With 81 co-sponsors, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R. TN) introduced a similar House measure on January 5, 2011:

"HR 96: Internet Freedom Act: To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further regulating the Internet."

The bill was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. No further action so far was taken.

Tea Party favorite Blackburn compares Net Neutrality to communist tyranny, saying:

"The FCC is in essence building an Internet Iron Curtain that will restrict more of our freedom....It is just another example of a federal agency defying the will of the people."

It's making a "vampiric leap from its traditional jurisdiction - the terrestrial radio and land line telephones that have fallen into disuse - onto the gifts piled neatly under our trees. The iPads and iPhones, Androids, Wiis, Webbooks and WiFi will all feel the federal bite in a way they never have before...."

In fact, new FCC rules benefit providers by discriminating favorably for them between wired and wireless Internet access. More on that below.

"(T)he FCC is effectively nationalizing the Web," says Blackburn, adding that "the new Congress will prove a swift antidote to the federal bloodsucker you found at your throat this Christmas."

With support from enough congressional members like her, Internet freedom may be going, going, gone.

In contrast, at least 90% of Americans want Net Neutrality preserved. Whether or not Congress goes along is very much in doubt.

If measures like SJ Res. 6 and HR 96 pass, FCC power to protect Internet freedom will be lost. Cable and telecom giants will subvert digital democracy as explained above.

They'll be able to wreck "open architecture that has made the Internet a great equalizer for all users," according to Karr.

They want Congress to let them "manage the abundance of user-driven innovations online," as well as updated future versions and new technologies.

They claim ending open access will best manage Internet traffic and content efficiently. Corporations want greater profits. They and congressional hard-liners also fear free flowing information and global democratic organizing movements online.

Occupy Wall Street protests are enlisting supporters nationwide this way. So have others worldwide for denied freedoms and others lost.

At issue is will everyone reading articles like this online mobilize to save what perhaps they'll lose otherwise.

Free expression and other fundamental freedoms are on the line. It's up to ordinary people to save them.

A Final Comment

A September 28 freepress.net press release headlined, "Free Press Files Suit to Challenge FCC's Open Internet Rules," saying:

Free Press "will challenge the arbitrary nature of rule provisions that provide less protection for mobile wireless Internet access than they do for wired connections."

According to Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood:

Open Internet rules "came with the understanding that there is only one Internet, no matter how people choose to reach it."

New FCC rules "fail to protect wireless users from discrimination, and they let mobile providers block innovative applications with impunity."

Arbitrarily discriminating between wired and wireless Internet access is unjustified, especially as wireless popularity grows.

Free Press promises to "fight in court" for stronger rules. They want equal protections for everyone online. Digital democracy depends on it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Obama's police state



Police State Justice Under Obama

police state
Police State Justice Under Obama - Stephen Lendman

Lawlessness, injustice, and contempt for democratic values define his administration. He delivered change all right - for the worst, and nothing ahead looks promising.

Obama-style "rules of engagement" include bullets, bombs, slit throats, knives in the back, or drone attacks justice.

Targeted victims are declared guilty by accusation. Due process and judicial fairness are discarded artifacts. US citizens are as vulnerable as global enemies.

No one is safe anywhere in a world ruled by rogue leaders, taking the law into their own hands with impunity.

As a result, freedom and security were jettisoned to memory hole oblivion. Let's count the ways.

Muslims are targeted for their faith, ethnicity, and at times prominence and charity.

Torture remains official US policy.

America's domestic and overseas gulags match the worst anywhere. Out of sight and mind, inmates are dehumanized and brutalized.

America's business is war and grand theft globally. Countries are raped and pillaged on the pretext of humanitarian intervention.

Everyone except corporate favorites and complicit elites suffer.

Ten Muslim Southern California students were convicted for exercising their First Amendment rights. Others are hunted down and prosecuted ruthlessly for political advantage.

Thousands of political prisoners suffer unjustly, including undocumented Latinos here because destructive trade pacts destroyed their livelihoods.

State-sponsored murder is official policy. Innocent victims include Troy Anthony Davis. Others wait their turn on death row. Federal, state and local authorities call it justice. Human rights activists call it crimes against humanity.

Murdering Anwar Al-Awlaki

CIA operatives and Special Forces death squads are authorized to kill US citizens abroad. For any reason or none at all without evidence, they're hunted down and murdered in cold blood.

Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen living in Yemen, targeted for opposing US belligerency, not alleged or committed crimes.

His murder and others put Americans and everyone at risk globally if outspoken against imperial Washington lawlessness, including waging permanent global wars against humanity to profit handsomely from wreckage spoils.

After him, who's next? Maybe writers expressing outraged criticism. Maybe media hosts on air, and speakers justifiably denouncing rogue crimes.

Under Obama-style justice, they're potential targets, putting everyone at risk for speaking publicly against rampaging government criminality. Administration and congressional officials are recklessly out-of-control and unhinged, without morals or ethics. They fail to distinguish between right and wrong.

In September 2009, it was learned that then Central Command head (now CIA boss) General David Petraeus issued secret orders to covertly deploy US Special Operations forces to 75 or more Middle East, Central Asia, and Horn of Africa countries.

By implication, it meant anywhere in the world to "penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy" terror threats and "prepare the environment" for planned military attacks.

In other words, to make the world safe for Wall Street banks, war profiteers, and other Western capitalist predators.

Previous attempts to kill Al-Awaki failed, even though international human rights law permits lethal force in peacetime only when imminent deadly attack threats exist. Even then, killing is a last resort after other exhausting other measures.

Under international or US law, designating US citizens or anyone terrorists based on suspicions without proof is egregious by any standard. Moreover, no one should be denied due process and judicial fairness.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) condemned Al-Awlaki's killing, saying:

"The assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki by American drone attacks is the latest of many affronts to domestic and international law, said Vince Warren," CCR Executive Director.

"The targeted assassination program that started under (Bush) and expanded under Obama essentially grants the executive" extralegal judge, jury, and executioner power.

"If we allow such gross overreaches of power to continue, we are setting the stage for increasing erosions of civil liberties and the rule of law."

Post-9/11, in fact, rule of law justice was trashed for political expediency. It no longer applies when unchallenged under presidential supremacy authority.

Obama elevated Bush era lawlessness to a higher level. As a result, no one anywhere targeted can hide or get justice.

Political Washington praised Al-Awlaki's murder. Falsely accusing him of crimes, Obama called it a "major blow" against Al Qaeda, vowing to target anyone America (without evidence) calls part of a global terrorist network.

US major media scoundrels approved, including a Washington Post editorial headlined, "Killing of Anwar al-Aulaqi was clearly justified," saying:

Doing so "was clearly justified, both legally and morally. (He) was dangerous, (and) Obama was right to place him on a target list. Considerable evidence supports the administration's contention that (he) played a direct role in attempted attacks on the United States, including the failed bombing of an airplane on Christmas day 2009..."

Fact check

Killing Al-Awlaki was morally indefensible extralegal murder. No evidence whatever connected him to crimes.  He had nothing to do with the alleged Amsterdam-Detroit bound Christmas day incident.

The alleged culprit, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian citizen, was set up. Denied a UK entrance visa, he avoided a no fly list. He paid cash for a one-way ticket, checked no luggage, had a US visa but no passport, and was helped on board by a well-dressed Indian gentleman, facilitating Washington's false flag plot. Abdulmutallab was used as a convenient dupe.

Moreover, his so-called (PETN) explosive was so weak and technically deficient it failed to go off properly, and its fire cracker strength assured no possibility of damaging the aircraft, let alone down it.

"Perhaps more significant, (Awlaki), a charismatic teacher and fluent English speaker was instrumental in inspiring would-be jihadists in the United States and other Western countries...."

Fact check

No evidence proves he inspired violence anywhere. Moreover, whether in or out of the country, America's Constitution protects First Amendment rights without which all others are at risk - including Washington Post editorial writers' freedom to wrongfully slander Al-Awlaki and call murder justified.

Calling him dangerous, however, "(h)e was consequently a legal and justified target of American forces, acting under the international principle of self-defense...."

Fact check

Unproved accusations have no legal validity. A serial aggressor, America never acts in self-defense. Moreover, individuals or groups defending themselves against US attacks are called "terrorists," including by major media op-ed and editorial writers, lying to support wealth and power.

On September 30, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer explained what media scoundrels won't say: namely that:

Targeted killing "violates both US and international law."

ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner added:

"If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the President does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American (or anyone else) whom he concludes is an enemy of the state."

Doing so makes him a war criminal - an enemy of rule of law justice.

A Final Comment

Obama's lawlessness also embraces Military Commissions justice. It includes sweeping unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate, and prosecute alleged suspects and collaborators (including US citizens), hold them (without evidence) indefinitely in military prisons, and deny them habeas and other constitutional protections.

The Military Commissions Act also authorized torture to extract confessions and other extralegal police state powers, including denying speedy trials or any at all.

In May 2009, Obama also authorized preventive detentions of anyone "who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people," even with no evidence proving it.

Whether short, long-term or indefinite, preventive detentions violate core legal principles, including the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, stating:

"No person....shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

Indefinite detentions, military tribunals, targeted assassinations, and other extralegal policies are indefensible in democratic civil societies.

Under Obama, however, they're official policy.

As a result, out-of-control executive power threatens everyone, especially when cheerled by media scoundrels.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Monday, October 3, 2011

legalism

Please, Christians, I just do not like legalism.  Jesus didn't either.  Wiccans want to heal the earth, but not all witches are good.  Some do go bad.  Take this for example.  Anikin Skywalker was a good man, but he was seduced by the dark side of the Force.  He saw Senator Palpatine as a father figure.

About my scary pictures

I just like drawing scary pictures and I like horror movies, as well as death metal.  That is how I face my dark specter.  I'm not evil, I just like to look scary.  I also like Halloween.   It is just my twisted sense of humor.

Wiccans and Crowley

Wiccans are not Crowley students.  Crowley students "play God (or Goddess).  I do not know what the end of the world spell is, but it is a perversion of magic.  Scott Cunningham would disapprove of this kind of "magick" and would never use anything that evil demonic man Crowely would write execept the Gardenarian spells.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

rich, snob,crook


Some rich snob in SF is ruining out ROMS!!!!!!  Fuck you, bitch!

Judas Priest - Screaming for Vengeance


Scanners

This is from the 1981 movie "Scanners"

Your're fired

"You're Fired!!!" - originally done by Mr. Spacely

Wiccans and humor

Some Wiccans like to joke about scary or "evil" things.  Some kid about demons, some like death metal and some like horror movies.  Some do not.  They are too religious about their craft, and some ceremonial magicians tell inside joke to do harm to an individual they do not like.  I even like some Slayer (their old stuff that is quite tamer.  Some Wiccans like me only do magic when they need to.  Some practice "magick" tm OTO 1891, which conjures demons and the shades of people living and dead to harm people or make themselves millonaires.

The Exorcist



Scott Cunningham

Scott Cunningham was a kind Wiccan.  He wrote "The Truth about Witchcraft Today", "Wicca - A guide for the Solitary practitioner" and "Living Wicca" as well as books about metal and gem magic, and herbalism.  Many people beleive that Wiccans go to "hell".  I do not even acknowledge the place.  It is a gimmick created by the church to scare people into obedience to the churchmen.  The mixture of government and church and government (the king) caused the holcaust called the burning times.  The Goddess and God are real.  Wiccans do not even call themselves a "church".  There are solitaries, small groups are called covens and larger groups are called groves.  We love nature, and we care about our cities, though we are not perfect.  We do our best to "do as we will and harm none".  This is freedom with responsibility.  Blessed Be.

Death Electric


Saturday, October 1, 2011

Hellraiser

Hell's new spokesman.

Loyalty Oath

I, Riverwind (Martin J. Carr, Jr) hereby swear and affirm a loyalty oath to the Constitution of the United States of America including the Bill of Rights.

Riverwind )O(

Ozzy and freedom

"I speak for freedom and I am English"

the Lorax


Shocking, political joke

Time for us to bullhook the Republican elephant into submission. <haha>  Make Reagan gyrate in his grave.

Jesus and freedom

Jesus, for many people of all faiths including Wicca (that follows the Wiccan Rede), died for freedom.  Too many people died for freedom, inlcuding the Christians that were persecuted in Rome, the many that were accused of witchcraft in the middle ages and burned at the stake, the ones who fought and died in the American Revolution and the many who died in both world wars.

Kill Switch


Portland Police


Thursday, September 29, 2011

marijuana ad jingle

This is a marijuana ad jingle to the tune of Frerre Jacques

Marijuana Marijuana
Smoke some weed, smoke some weed,
let's get stoned, let's get stoned,
a real good high, a real good high.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Rainbow Family

People in the Rainbow Family include hippies, Asatru, Rastas, punk rockers, kind rock'n rollers of all kind, the nerds, the geeks, the Wiccans, Christians, other religions that are kind.  Linus Torvaldes is a Rainbow brother.

Horse haters club

Cruel horse keepers send their horses to the GLUE FACTORY.  Just ask Boxer how he feels.



The Scarlet Letter

The Scarlet Letter  
Title page for The Scarlet Letter.jpg
Title page, first edition, 1850
Author(s) Nathaniel Hawthorne
Genre(s) Romantic, Historical
Publisher Ticknor, Reed & Fields
Publication date 1850
Pages 232
The Scarlet Letter is an 1850 romantic work of fiction in a historical setting, written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. It is considered to be his magnum opus.[1] Set in 17th-century Puritan Boston during the years 1642 to 1649, it tells the story of Hester Prynne, who conceives a daughter through an adulterous affair and struggles to create a new life of repentance and dignity. Throughout the book, Hawthorne explores themes of legalism, sin, and guilt.


Plot summary

The story starts during the summer of 1642, near Boston, Massachusetts, in a Puritan village. A young woman, named Hester Prynne, has been led from the town prison with her infant daughter in her arms, and on the breast of her gown "a rag of scarlet cloth" that "assumed the shape of a letter." It is the uppercase letter "A." The Scarlet Letter "A" represents the act of adultery that she has committed and it is to be a symbol of her sin—a badge of shame—for all to see. A man, who is elderly and a stranger to the town, enters the crowd and asks another onlooker what's happening. The second man responds by explaining that Hester is being punished for adultery. Hester's husband, who is much older than she, and whose real name is unknown, has sent her ahead to America whilst settling affairs in Europe. However, her husband does not arrive in Boston and the consensus is that he has been lost at sea. It is apparent that, while waiting for her husband, Hester has had an affair, leading to the birth of her daughter. She will not reveal her lover's identity, however, and the scarlet letter, along with her subsequent public shaming, is the punishment for her sin and secrecy. On this day, Hester is led to the town scaffold and harangued by the town fathers, but she again refuses to identify her child's father.[2]
The elderly onlooker is Hester's missing husband, who is now practicing medicine and calling himself Roger Chillingworth. He reveals his true identity to Hester and medicates her daughter. They have a frank discussion where Chillingworth states that it was foolish and wrong for a cold, old intellectual like him to marry a young lively woman like Hester. He expressly states that he thinks that they have wronged each other and that he is even with her — her lover is a completely different matter. Hester refuses to divulge the name of her lover and Chillingworth does not press her stating that he will find out anyway. He does elicit a promise from her to keep his true identity as Hester's husband secret, though. He settles in Boston to practice medicine there. Several years pass. Hester supports herself by working as a seamstress, and her daughter, Pearl, grows into a willful, impish child, and is said to be the scarlet letter come to life as both Hester's love and her punishment. Shunned by the community, they live in a small cottage on the outskirts of Boston. Community officials attempt to take Pearl away from Hester, but with the help of Arthur Dimmesdale, an eloquent minister, the mother and daughter manage to stay together. Dimmesdale, however, appears to be wasting away and suffers from mysterious heart trouble, seemingly caused by psychological distress. Chillingworth attaches himself to the ailing minister and eventually moves in with him so that he can provide his patient with round-the-clock care. Chillingworth also suspects that there may be a connection between the minister's torments and Hester's secret, and he begins to test Dimmesdale to see what he can learn. One afternoon, while the minister sleeps, Chillingworth discovers something undescribed to the reader, supposedly an "A" burned into Dimmesdale's chest, which convinces him that his suspicions are correct.[2]
The Scarlet Letter. Painting by T. H. Matteson. This 1860 oil-on-canvas may have been made with Hawthorne's advice.[2]
Dimmesdale's psychological anguish deepens, and he invents new tortures for himself. In the meantime, Hester's charitable deeds and quiet humility have earned her a reprieve from the scorn of the community. One night, when Pearl is about seven years old, she and her mother are returning home from a visit to the deathbed of John Winthrop when they encounter Dimmesdale atop the town scaffold, trying to punish himself for his sins. Hester and Pearl join him, and the three link hands. Dimmesdale refuses Pearl's request that he acknowledge her publicly the next day, and a meteor marks a dull red "A" in the night sky as Dimmesdale sees Chillingworth in the distance. It is interpreted by the townsfolk to mean Angel, as a prominent figure in the community had died that night, but Dimmesdale sees it as meaning adultery. Hester can see that the minister's condition is worsening, and she resolves to intervene. She goes to Chillingworth and asks him to stop adding to Dimmesdale's self-torment. Chillingworth refuses. She suggests that she may reveal his true identity to Dimmesdale.[2]
As Hester walks through the forest, she is unable to feel the sunshine. Pearl, on the other hand, basks in it. They coincide with Dimmesdale, also on a stroll through the woods. Hester informs him of the true identity of Chillingworth. The former lovers decide to flee to Europe, where they can live with Pearl as a family. They will take a ship sailing from Boston in four days. Both feel a sense of relief, and Hester removes her scarlet letter and lets down her hair. The sun immediately breaks through the clouds and trees to illuminate her release and joy. Pearl, playing nearby, does not recognize her mother without the letter. She is unnerved and expels a shriek until her mother points out the letter on the ground. Hester beckons Pearl to come to her, but Pearl will not go to her mother until Hester buttons the letter back onto her dress. Pearl then goes to her mother. Dimmesdale gives Pearl a kiss on the forehead, which Pearl immediately tries to wash off in the brook, because he again refuses to make known publicly their relationship. However, he clearly feels a release from the pretense of his former life, and the laws and sins he has lived with.
The day before the ship is to sail, the townspeople gather for a holiday put on in honor of an election and Dimmesdale preaches his most eloquent sermon ever. Meanwhile, Hester has learned that Chillingworth knows of their plan and has booked passage on the same ship. Dimmesdale, leaving the church after his sermon, sees Hester and Pearl standing before the town scaffold. He impulsively mounts the scaffold with his lover and his daughter, and confesses publicly, exposing the mark supposedly seared into the flesh of his chest. He falls dead just after Pearl kisses him.[2]
Frustrated in his revenge, Chillingworth dies a year later. Hester and Pearl leave Boston, and no one knows what has happened to them. Many years later, Hester returns alone, still wearing the scarlet letter, to live in her old cottage and resumes her charitable work. She receives occasional letters from Pearl, who was rumored to have married a European aristocrat and established a family of her own. Pearl also inherits all of Chillingworth's money even though he knows she is not his daughter. There is a sense of liberation in her and the townspeople, especially the women, who had finally begun to forgive Hester of her tragic indiscretion. When Hester dies, she is buried in "a new grave near an old and sunken one, in that burial ground beside which King's Chapel has since been built. It was near that old and sunken grave, yet with a space between, as if the dust of the two sleepers had no right to mingle. Yet one tombstone served for both." The tombstone was decorated with a letter "A", for Hester and Dimmesdale.

[edit] Major themes

[edit] Sin

The experience of Hester and Dimmesdale recalls the story of Adam and Eve because, in both cases, sin results in expulsion and suffering. But it also results in knowledge—specifically, in knowledge of what it means to be immortal. For Hester, the scarlet letter functions as "her passport into regions where other women dared not tread", leading her to "speculate" about her society and herself more "boldly" than anyone else in New England.[3]
As for Dimmesdale, the "cheating minister", his sin gives him "sympathies so intimate with the sinful brotherhood of mankind, so that his chest vibrate[s] in unison with theirs." His eloquent and powerful sermons derive from this sense of empathy.[3] The narrative of the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale is quite in keeping with the oldest and most fully authorized principles in Christian thought. His "Fall" is a descent from apparent grace to his own damnation; he appears to begin in purity but he ends in corruption. The subtlety is that the minister's belief is his own cheating, convincing himself at every stage of his spiritual pilgrimage that he is saved.[4]
The rosebush, its beauty a striking contrast to all that surrounds it—as later the beautifully embroidered scarlet A will be–is held out in part as an invitation to find "some sweet moral blossom" in the ensuing, tragic tale and in part as an image that "the deep heart of nature" (perhaps God) may look more kind on the errant Hester and her child than her Puritan neighbors do. Throughout the work, the nature images contrast with the stark darkness of the Puritans and their systems.[5]
Chillingworth's misshapen body reflects (or symbolizes) the anger in his soul, which builds as the novel progresses, similar to the way Dimmesdale's illness reveals his inner turmoil. The outward man reflects the condition of the heart; an observation thought to be inspired by the deterioration of Edgar Allan Poe, whom Hawthorne "much admired".[5]
Although Pearl is a complex character, her primary function within the novel is as a symbol. Pearl herself is the embodiment of the scarlet letter, and Hester rightly clothes her in a beautiful dress of scarlet, embroidered with gold thread, just like the scarlet letter upon Hester's bosom.[3] Parallels can be drawn between Pearl and the character Beatrice in Rappaccini's Daughter. Beatrice is nourished upon poisonous plants, until she herself becomes poisonous. Pearl, in the mysterious prenatal world, imbibes the poison of her parents' guilt.

[edit] Past and present

The clash of past and present is explored in various ways. For example, the character of the old General, whose heroic qualities include a distinguished name, perseverance, integrity, compassion, and moral inner strength, is said to be "the soul and spirit of New England hardihood". Sometimes he presides over the Custom House run by corrupt public servants, who skip work to sleep, allow or overlook smuggling, and are supervised by an inspector with "no power of thought, nor depth of feeling, no troublesome sensibilities", who is honest enough but without a spiritual compass.[5]
Hawthorne himself had ambivalent feelings about the role of his ancestors in his life. In his autobiographical sketch, Hawthorne described his ancestors as "dim and dusky", "grave, bearded, sable-cloaked, and steel crowned", "bitter persecutors" whose "better deeds" would be diminished by their bad ones. There can be little doubt of Hawthorne's disdain for the stern morality and rigidity of the Puritans, and he imagined his predecessors' disdainful view of him: unsuccessful in their eyes, worthless and disgraceful. "A writer of story books!" But even as he disagrees with his ancestors' viewpoint, he also feels an instinctual connection to them and, more importantly, a "sense of place" in Salem. Their blood remains in his veins, but their intolerance and lack of humanity becomes the subject of his novel.[5]

[edit] Wilderness and man

In the novel The Scarlet Letter, nature including the sea and wilderness of the surrounding forests offers safety, new beginnings and freedom from the repression of puritan society. As our hero and heroine are enveloped in their separate prisons of guilt, nature continues to represent itself, forcing its way into their lives with everything from the rose bush that stood by as Hester proudly confronted the public, to their wild and free child, Pearl. It would almost seem as if Hester and Arthur's secret union of love caught the attention of the wilderness, therefore destining them to be tied to nature for the rest of their days, whether they like it or not.
After her public exposure in the town square, Hester is banished to the outskirts of the community to live in a tiny cottage… "It stood on the shore, looking across a basin of the sea at the forest-covered hills, toward the west" (p 81 sparknotes.com- The Scarlet Letter; Themes, motifs and symbols. "The society its self (Puritan Boston society) is like an island surrounded by nature." This close proximity with nature led to a drastic difference in Hester's understanding of the puritan norm, although her location was also just close enough to and still within the reach of the weight of social punishment. "..The town and the surrounding forest represent opposing behavioral systems"(sparknotes.com) Leaving Hester in a deeply conflicting struggle between the freedom that nature provided her and the oppressive way in which her 'sin' was held above her. This strong contrast seemed to help her in many ways including strength of mind and individual formation of thought, namely owning her scarlet letter and integrating it into her own being. Not only did her home near the forest and sea influence her own life, but it also helped to raise and nurture Peal in a profoundly unique way. Pearl is described as a free creature closely resembling wild things "…looking like a wild tropical bird of rich plumage, ready to take flight…" (p.113) She confuses and frustrates many of the characters in the book with her unwillingness to heed to authority, seeming to represent the consistency of a wilderness's overwhelming presence. From a very young age, Pearl identifies with and interacts with nature in an uncommon way, as an outcast child she has no human friends so everything from the woods edge to the sea shore becomes her play mates "She seized a large horseshoe by the tail, and made prize of several five fingers, and laid out a jelly fish to melt in the warm sun." (p.185) This relationship could be viewed as a very healthy one given her choices in the New World, she is creative and independent and one comes to assume she will grow up without losing these attributes.
The young minister is trapped in a torturous and isolating prison of guilt and shame from which he has no relief, unlike Hester who has the advantage (or misfortune, depending on how you look at it) of having a physical distance between the community and herself and therefor a small amount of relief from societal oppression, Arthur is constantly in the public eye. Starting in Chapter 17 when Hester waits for Arthur in the woods, we are finally allowed, for the first time full insight to the vast and important nurturing effects which nature allows our victims of guilt, once they are out of the reach of public scrutiny. This is an incredibly important scene, not only dose it heal and reunite our lovers, but it is immensely profound for Arthur, this being the first time he is allowed the freedom and restorative passion offered up by nature.
Within this forest scene several things accrue. First we see Pearl at her best, completely at ease with and welcomed by her wild surroundings " The great black forest….became the playmate of the lonely infant, as well as it knew how. Somber as it was, it put on the kindest of its moods to welcome her." (p. 215) Than we are introduced to the passionate, refreshed and hopeful side of her parents. As mentioned earlier, Hester's beauty and strength that go hand in hand, had been waning over the past seven years and sense Arthur is so easily affected by Hester's strength, they are both uplifted and momentarily freed when she shares her heart's desires and hope with him. …"a glow of strange enjoyment threw its flickering brightness over the trouble of his breast…. His spirit rose, as it were, with a bound, and attained a nearer prospect of the sky, than throughout all the misery that had kept him groveling on the earth." (p. 212) and "The stigma gone, Hester heaved a long, deep sigh, in which the burden of shame and anguish departed from her spirit. Oh exquisite relief! She had not know the weight until she felt the freedom!" (p. 213) Hester than goes on remove "…the formal cap that confined her hair; and down it fell upon her shoulders, dark and rich, with at once a shadow and a light in its abundance, and imparting the charm of softness to her features… a radiant and tender smile, that seemed gushing from the very heart of womanhood." (p. 213) And with the return of Hester's beauty and therefor outward strength, as if the heavens really were watching them "And as if the gloom of the earth and sky had been but effluence of these two mortal hearts, it vanished with their sorrow. All at once, as with a sudden smile of heaven, forth burst the sunshine, pouring a very flood into the obscure forest…" (p. 214) Only by the freedom of nature is it possible for Arthur and Hester to see a better future for themselves. The path they choose for their freedom is one by sea, another great and powerful natural source and although they never make it to their freedom together, the power and presence of nature is their driving force.

[edit] Publication history

Engraved illustration from an 1878 edition.
It was long thought that Hawthorne originally planned The Scarlet Letter to be a shorter novelette which was part of a collection to be named Old Time Legends and that his publisher, James Thomas Fields, convinced him to expand the work to a full-length novel.[6] This is not true: Fields persuaded Hawthorne to publish "The Scarlet Letter" alone (along with the earlier-completed Custom House essay) but he had nothing to do with the length of the story.[7] Hawthorne's wife Sophia later challenged Fields' claims a little inexactly: "he has made the absurd boast that he was the sole cause of the Scarlet Letter being published!" She noted that her husband's friend Edwin Percy Whipple, a critic, approached Fields to consider its publication.[8] The manuscript was written at the Peter Edgerley House in Salem, Massachusetts, still[when?] standing as a private residence at 14 Mall Street. It was the last Salem home where the Hawthorne family lived.[9]
The Scarlet Letter was published as a novel in the spring of 1850 by Ticknor & Fields, beginning Hawthorne's most lucrative period.[10] When he delivered the final pages to Fields in February 1850, Hawthorne said that "some portions of the book are powerfully written" but doubted it would be popular.[11] In fact, the book was an instant best-seller[12] though, over fourteen years, it brought its author only $1,500.[10] Its initial publication brought wide protest from natives of Salem, who did not approve of how Hawthorne had depicted them in his introduction "The Custom-House". A 2,500-copy second edition of The Scarlet Letter included a preface by Hawthorne dated March 30, 1850, that stated he had decided to reprint his introduction "without the change of a word... The only remarkable features of the sketch are its frank and genuine good-humor... As to enmity, or ill-feeling of any kind, personal or political, he utterly disclaims such motives".[13]
The Scarlet Letter was also one of the first mass-produced books in America. Into the mid-nineteenth century, bookbinders of home-grown literature typically hand-made their books and sold them in small quantities. The first mechanized printing of The Scarlet Letter, 2,500 volumes, sold out within ten days,[10] and was widely read and discussed to an extent not much experienced in the young country up until that time. Copies of the first edition are often sought by collectors as rare books, and may fetch up to around $18,000 USD.

[edit] Critical response

On its publication, critic Evert Augustus Duyckinck, a friend of Hawthorne's, said he preferred the author's Washington Irving-like tales. Another friend, critic Edwin Percy Whipple, objected to the novel's "morbid intensity" with dense psychological details, writing that the book "is therefore apt to become, like Hawthorne, too painfully anatomical in his exhibition of them".[14] Most literary critics praised the book but religious leaders took issue with the novel's subject matter.[15] Orestes Brownson complained that Hawthorne did not understand Christianity, confession, and remorse.[citation needed] A review in The Church Review and Ecclesiastical Register concluded the author "perpetrates bad morals."[16]
On the other hand, 20th century writer D. H. Lawrence said that there could be not be a more perfect work of the American imagination than The Scarlet Letter.[17] Henry James once said of the novel, "It is beautiful, admirable, extraordinary; it has in the highest degree that merit which I have spoken of as the mark of Hawthorne's best things--an indefinable purity and lightness of conception...One can often return to it; it supports familiarity and has the inexhaustible charm and mystery of great works of art."[18]
The book's immediate and lasting success are due to the way it addresses spiritual and moral issues from a uniquely American standpoint.[citation needed] In 1850, adultery was an extremely risqué subject, but because Hawthorne had the support of the New England literary establishment, it passed easily into the realm of appropriate reading. It has been said that this work represents the height of Hawthorne's literary genius; dense with terse descriptions. It remains relevant for its philosophical and psychological depth, and continues to be read as a classic tale on a universal theme.[19]