Mummified Rulers - The Best Kind!

The recent identification of a mummy dug up in 1903 as the Egyptian Pharaoh/Queen Hatshepsut has got me wondering why we don't mummify (or just stuff) our Presidents. Do dead Rulers need to age like wine in order to become valuable? Maybe. They are a dime a dozen presently. Would they be more interesting if dug up 3500 years from now? It took over one hundred years for the mummy of Hatshepsut to be identified. With a little prior planning, future generations could be spared the frustration of trying to figure out which body (technical term: "people jerky") used to be which Ruler, although a plague of "John Adamses" and "George Bushes" complicates matters a bit, not to mention the "Johnsons" and the "Roosevelts". Cram a ceramic tablet engraved with the name and Wikipedia URL in the mummy's mouth to save future archaeologists time and effort. And why stop with only the President? We could stuff Congresscritters, Supreme Courtjesters, governators, and even local potentates. Speaking of "stuffing": there are a few big, modern pyramids in America that we could use as tombs. I have driven past the one in Memphis a few times. We could collect private donations to purchase one. I'm sure that as soon as word of our noble mission got out, many people would rush to help. How many mummies could fit into a building such as that? Since the walls are much thinner in these modern structures than in the pyramids of antiquity there is a much larger storage capacity. Skip the sarcophagi and stack the "mummies" like firewood and I'll bet you could fit millions in there. Especially with a little tamping after they get dry and crunchy. After all, comfort won't be a factor. This concept is thrilling to contemplate! Just wait though; some crybaby will probably whine that we should wait until they each die of natural causes before we stuff them.


PS: I should have mentioned Ron Paul in order to get more hits on my blog today. Oops, I guess I just did!

Race Baiting

Government loves to keep people divided and uneasy. Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on schools and race has once again fanned the flames. Forget for a moment that government has no business "educating" anyone. No, wait, don't ever forget that fact! When will people learn that race will stop being an issue when they stop making it an issue? When will government forms stop including that section with the boxes to check to assign yourself a race? Probably never. It is a great source of strife they can use to divide the population into easily manageable groups, and then pit the groups against one another in order to grab more power for themselves.

I am a big fan of refusing to fill out government paperwork altogether. If you feel the need to allow the government to waste some of your time anyway, then skip that whole "race section" completely. Maybe it is "illegal" to skip that section. Then be a good firefly (freedom outlaw) and skip it anyway. After all, there is a good libertarian tradition of civil disobedience. Nothing is more civil than not allowing yourself to be used as a weapon against other people. Or monkeywrench the database by always checking "other". That is probably the most truthful answer in 99% of the cases. My DNA is so mixed up there is no telling what is in there, and I would be willing to bet yours is too.

Hot Libertarian Topics

I have nothing to say (for once), so I will let my mind wander a bit. It is very small and shouldn't be left to wander alone for too long. Kinda like when I used to take my kids into the mountains and say "If you get attacked by a bear, scream really loud and I will come shoot it." They never screamed and were always right where I left them.

So, anyway. Ron Paul is still shocking people with his libertarian answers to some issues. The issues for which he has only Rep(tile)ublican answers ("immigration"?) shock no one. No one except libertarians, anyway. He should start giving libertarian answers to those questions too. Just to shock the general populace more. Couldn't hurt, and it might get him more attention. I notice his webpage has "borrowed" Alexander Hope's slogan. He isn't quite Alex Hope, but maybe with a little encouragement....

In other current events, a jabbut (jack-booted thug) in Hot Springs, Arkansas was caught on video choking skateboarders. This shocks no one anymore; we are getting desensitized to the thuggery of the authoritards. It does make some of us really mad, though. Well, me at least.

Wayne Fincher is still in jail for owning guns the tyrants are scared of (and hurting no one). Red's Trading Post is still being harrassed by the BATFE (Barbaric "Anti-Truth and -Freedom " Extremists) who have hissy fits over paperwork while ignoring the total lack of integrity in their dead, fishy heads.

Ed Brown seems to be going crazy because of the seige. The feds have ruined this man's life simply because he wants to keep his own money. Money that he and his wife earned; not the federal government. Just because he doesn't want to give in to thieves with badges. Sad.

I'm getting a growing number of hits on this blog from countries other than America. Welcome guys! We are all in this together, and I appreciate your interest.

In other words, it is a typical day in America. Get out there and enjoy it while you still can.

Idiots Have Freedom of Speech, Too

First this:

NEWS RELEASE
CCRKBA DRAFTS LEGISLATION TO STOP
JACKSON-STYLE GUN SHOP PROTESTS

BELLEVUE, WA – After denouncing the demagoguery of Rev. Jesse Jackson in
his continued protests at a suburban Chicago-area gun shop, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today announced that it has drafted federal legislation that would prevent such protests from interfering with legal businesses.

“This is not an attack on the First Amendment rights of Jesse Jackson or
anyone else,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “But it would put an end to
the kind of publicity-seeking shenanigans that Jackson and his cohort, anti-gun
Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, have been conducting at Chuck’s Gun Shop in
suburban Riverdale for the past three weeks. We’re working on Capitol Hill right
now to gather sponsors.

“Nobody is saying Jackson can’t protest a gun shop,” Gottlieb added. “We
are, however, seeking the same protection from interference that is now
guaranteed by federal statute to reproductive health services facilities.”

Added CCRKBA Public Affairs Director John Snyder, “It is against the law
for anti-abortion activists to block access to these clinics, and it should be
just as illegal for anti-gunners to block access to gun shops. This is neither a
First or Second Amendment issue but rather a Fourteenth Amendment issue relating to equal protection.”

Jackson and Pfleger have been demonstrating at or near Chuck’s Gun Shop for
the past few weeks. Last Saturday, both men were arrested by Riverdale police
after their activities created access problems for Chuck’s customers.

Under CCRKBA’s proposal, anyone who uses force, a threat of force, or
physical obstruction, or intimidates or intentionally injures another person who
is attempting to enter a gun shop, or who operates such a store, would be
criminally liable. Three weeks ago, Pfleger caused considerable alarm by telling
a crowd that he would find gun shop owner John Riggio and “snuff him
out.”

“This proposal would provide protection to law-abiding firearms retailers
and their customers nationwide,” Gottlieb stated. “Chuck’s is a legal business,
operating under state and federal statutes. Jackson and his followers don’t have
to like it or agree with it, but under this proposal, they will have to accept
the fact that a firearms dealer has as much right to operate a business as they
have to shoot off their mouths. They have no right at all to prevent public
access to a gun shop, or to intimidate or otherwise discourage customers from
entering.”

Now, the commentary. Jesse Jackson is a two-faced media-whore. Michael Pfleger is an anti-christian. They still have the absolute right to say whatever they wish to say. Freedom of Speech, ya know. But ... while they have a right to display their infantile, coercive ways, they do not have a right, no one does, to initiate (or threaten to initiate) force or fraud. Once they do, they should be subject to darwinization (not terribly applicable, I know, since Pfleger has supposedly done us that favor with his "priestly" vows of celibacy). Are Jackson and Pfleger trespassing? I would bet they are, if they are able to effectively block the entrance. What is the ethical method of dealing with intentional, hostile, repeat trespassers? If the gun store owner or one of his customers is touched in an unwelcome way or if these clods threaten to initiate force (as has already been done on video by Pfleger) while trying to go about their business, then force has been initiated .... with all the ramifications that go along with it. New laws are not the way to solve boorish or dangerous behavior. Dealing justly with these control freaks, under the constraints of the Zero Aggression Principle, is the proper response, and one that would lower the chances of bad behavior like this happening in the future. We have been too "nice" for too long; allowing parasites to get away with behavior that should not be tolerated. Time's up, vermin!

Tyranny Fears....

What are the things tyrants fear the most? Guns and brains. In the hands of the people, anyway. They love their own guns (pointed at us) and their own brains (insane with lust for control).

Tyranny fears guns, because regardless of whatever "laws" and security it enforces, there is always the risk of a patriot doing the world a favor by culling a mentally diseased control-freak from the herd. Leaders have no reason to fear armed regular people. Leaders do not drag us along behind them. Rulers force us along a path that we have no desire to be on. This makes us cranky. This means if we get a chance to rid ourselves of the tyrant, we will take it. It is therefore necessary, in the tyrant's unbalanced mind, to impose more draconian edicts on us to take away our weaponry. As if this will stop the inevitable. No one who wants to take your gun, any gun, away from you does it for your benefit. They do it so that they can do bad things to you that you might resist effectively if you were armed. Once they utter an intention to pass a "law" regulating some aspect of gun ownership they have declared that they intend to hurt you in some way. Never forget that fact.

Tyranny fears brains possibly more than it fears guns. They have tried to sabotage knowledge through government controlled "education". They may have delayed their downfall by a generation or two. Some people are immune to the mind-numbing effects. Anyone with a mind can devise an effective weapon, even a gun, from things that are so common in an industrialized country that it is completely impossible to prevent. This scares tyrants out of their minds. And it should. They can outlaw, confiscate, and destroy every gun and bullet in the world, and by the next morning there could be enough new guns and ammunition to cause Rulers to have a very bad, very short, day. As long as the knowledge still exists. (On this note, I recommend that everyone immediately go to this website and buy this guy's book(s). Do it now... I will wait...) Besides the danger to tyrants of "us peasants" making guns, the awareness of what constitutes tyranny and oppression is dangerous for them. If we thought they were justified in their "governments" we would probably be content in our shackles. Knowledge of liberty, the Zero Aggression Principle, and the Covenant of Unanimous Consent make for a smoldering volcano lying just below the surface. Rulers never know which new rule will cause an eruption. We know that what they attempt to do is wrong. We know how to make weapons, poisons, and traps. We know how to communicate our knowledge to others. To get rid of the knowledge, they will have to kill us all, burn all the books, and erase the internet. They can't do that. They have lost; they just don't know it yet.

Self Righteousness

Is it "self righteousness" to say what you really believe?

I often do a Dogpile or Google search on myself to see what crops up. I ran across a forum where I was being discussed (as a minor part of a SelectSmart discussion). One of the posters was infuriated by me, saying that I am "self righteous" and that everything I say is "the Libertarian Party line". Strange argument.

I don't know if I am self righteous or not. I do know that I am much more radical than the LP. Last summer's LP reform has seen to that. He claims that I am "saying the same stuff that the LP was saying 11 years ago, using the same wording half the time." So? I was not a member of the LP back then and never read any of their literature. How many ways are there to say the same thing? Maybe everything I say is strictly libertarian in nature, but I am libertarian, what else can I do? If a physicist says things that happen to agree precisely with the way the world really operates does it make him wrong? Do you demand that he incorporate creationism into his observations to soothe your bruised ego? Gimme a break!

OK. Let's go to Dictionary.com to look up "self righteous". Hmmm. "confident of one's own righteousness" does not fit me. I am confident of my rightness, but not of my righteousness, and there is a big difference in the two. I am not saying I am not righteous. I do try to be. I don't believe anyone can judge that in themselves. So we go on to the next part: "smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others" is the exact opposite of what libertarianism is all about. There are many behaviors that I find personally repugnant that I defend on a daily basis, precisely because I understand that my personal opinion on these things is trumped by individual liberty. As long as no one else is being hurt people should be free to live however they see fit.

The poster in question has no personal knowledge of me. How can he decide if I am self righteous or not? I think he is simply threatened by my confidence that I am right, and maybe afraid he is wrong. If you think I am wrong, tell me so in the comments. Others have. You may not convince me but I will not delete anything you say (unless you decide your comments make you look foolish and ask me to delete them, as I have done for one person in the past). Perhaps your words of wisdom will keep some other misguided person from embracing individual liberty and responsibility. I still think I (and others who think like me) are right, and those who worship the state are dead wrong. If I doubted that for an instant I would shut up and stop blogging.

"Conspiracy Realists of the World Unite!" by Wilt Alston

By way of The Libertarian Enterprise and KarenDeCoster.com comes this article by Wilt Alston about 9/11.
Conspiracy Realists of the World Unite!

Wanted: A Frontier

For the first time in all of human history, there is no readily accessible frontier available for those of us who need to move beyond the grasp of "civilization". Never pretend it is not a NEED. This is a tragedy that may spell the end of our species if it is not remedied soon. Social pressures and nonsensical "rules" are not easy for some people to deal with. These people need to be able to move to freer spaces. To force them to stay in crowded, regulated areas is a recipe for disaster. This does not mean they are bad people; just that over-management has unintended, but entirely predictable, consequences.

Without going underground, undersea, extra-dimensional, into interplanetary space, or building a new continent, we are trapped. Of these options, I think leaving Earth completely is the best long-term option. Governments will try to prevent it if they discover your plans, and will risk everything to shoot you down upon launch. Can't allow any subjects to declare independence, you know. The problem is that projects like this will probably be large group projects and will be prone to becoming "governmental" in their complexity and administration. Maybe it would be possible to form a group based upon Unanimous Consent. It's worth a try.


There is also the fact that a planet-wide catastrophe could cause human extinction. It is imperative that humans get spread out away from our planetary cradle before that happens if we want to survive. If left to governmental agencies, we will never leave Earth in large enough numbers to form sustainable populations elsewhere. If any of you have a nice Firefly-class ship full of kind-hearted "pirates", I can clean toilets for passage.

Seeds of Freedom

I have lived in a few places around America. Some places are pretty free; others are very socialistic. Some places actually have pretty bad laws governing them, but most of the people ignore the laws and simply go about their lives regardless of what any "authorities" demand. Where I am living now is not too bad as far as the laws go, but the people have a fawning attitude toward "authority" that I find disgusting. They live as though they are subject to more rules than they actually are. My flippant attitude toward the stupid laws meets with shocked disbelief. Even my close friends will say "You don't CARE what the law is???" I refer to police officers as "enforcers" or "terrorists" depending upon what they are doing at the time. I have a Time's Up flag flying from my house and a small one on my car. Freedom, true freedom, comes from your own mind. I don't know how many of you have read this article I wrote for Strike the Root a while ago, or this one I wrote for The Libertarian Enterprise.

I don't know how much the "authorities" watch people who write things like this. They probably ignore us completely, thinking that as long as we keep venting our frustration harmlessly, we will not start the revolution. What they don't realize is that the revolution starts in our minds. We are watering the seeds of freedom with every thought. We are ignoring the government edicts a little more every day. It has begun and will only grow. Socialistic governments only cause those seeds of liberty to germinate faster and spread to more minds with every idiotic law or control they impose on us. Don't let the state worshippers trick you into accepting your chains. Toss them aside, or turn them into jewelry if you can't.

Don't Fall Into a "Cult of Personality"

Everyone is fallible. Even the most brilliant person is capable, with his next breath, of uttering total crap. This is why we should all avoid "cults of personality". Yes, there are people whose written words I read hungrily. I try to keep my BS detectors engaged, though, so that I can filter out anything that doesn't meet the test.

Form your own opinions and don't let others weigh you by how much you are like or different from someone else. Some great (famous?) libertarians of the past and present had horrible ideas or inconsistencies in some areas. Nowhere does this get more discussion than with Ayn Rand, but it is true of everyone. Cull out the bad and keep the good. In this way you can build upon the foundations others have laid while you rise higher than they could. Liberty wins.

Sometimes I even have the alarm bells go off in my own head at my own thoughts. When I am falling asleep I have the most remarkable epiphanies at times. The next morning some of them reveal themselves to be absolutely ridiculous. Aren't you glad I get to sleep on these ideas instead of having them automatically blogged? I mean with some of the things I post even after cogitating.... I shudder to think....

Libertarian Left, Right, or Wrong?

I see a lot of blogs and websites that claim to speak for "the libertarian left". I haven't run across any from "the libertarian right" but I am sure they are out there somewhere. I don't know about you, but I think that distinction is nonsense. Either you are "libertarian" or you are not. I am not talking about "libertarian purity" or anything silly like that here. You may hold some left-over views, call them "scars", from your past, but don't pigeonhole yourself by those aberrations.


I considered myself on "The Right" long ago. Does that make this blog "a blog of the libertarian right"? I hope not. I have moved beyond all that. Or at least I think I have. Yes, I defend the "keeping and bearing" of guns. I also renounce the supreme stupidity of drug prohibition and "enforcing the law at all costs" that seem to be such a turn-on for The Right. Unlike The Left, I don't believe there is any such critter as "social justice"; either each individual gets justice or no one does.


I just think the false distinctions of "left" and "right" miss the boat completely. They are both authoritarian scavengers patrolling the bottom sludge. The libertarians are up top, in the light. Therefore this is "a blog of the political top".

Welcome to The New Dark Ages

This article in Wired, Don't Try This at Home, about the government's war against home chemistry got me thinking. It really does seem like we are entering a new "dark age" with it's own witch hunts and inquisition. Mystical superstitious nonsense like creationism is replacing scientific inquiry. Intelligent, curious people are being targeted by government thugs as "terrorists".

The subject of the Wired article, Bob Lazar, is well known to UFO/Area 51 aficionados. His is a fascinating tale. He may be a pathological liar, or he may know some bizarre things about the government's UFO cover-up. Either way, it is his sales of chemicals that has government goons after him. Chemicals that used to be available in home chemistry kits, but which the government now fears for their potential use in unapproved medicines or "things that go bang". How is our country supposed to advance with a government crack-down on experimentation? Demand a separation of government and science. Remember: tyrants want you to be helpless and stupid.

"If I Can't Dance..." by Jac

Here is something written by "Jac" at The Claire Files that I ran across recently. I think it is pretty good.

If I Can't Dance... or A Certain Person's Manifesto

"I did not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for
anarchism, for release and freedom from convention and prejudice, should demand
the denial of life and joy."--Emma Goldman

When tyranny reaches a certain level in a society, as it always does (which
may sound strange coming from an anarchist, but hey, I'm a realist), the freedom
lover has a number of choices, which, in essence, are really three: he can
commit suicide, he can hide, or he can fight.

Suicide in the face of tyranny is, I think, more frequent than any of us
care to imagine. How many "stress-related" heart attacks and strokes in the
United States do you think have more to do with a simple lack of will to live? A
society such as we have today is truly a killer, and whether it's through
cowardice, lack of direction, or simply a lack of physical or emotional stamina,
many people succumb with little resistance. Even some who live a "full" life
commit a form of suicide, if they repress their desire for liberty; if one
allows his passion to die, can his continued physical existence
truly be called a life?

On to hiding. As often as some of the "hard core" types dismiss it as
cowardly, I see hiding as a very valid option for the liberty lover. Indeed, my
own goal is to run away (which is a subset of the hiding choice). In fact, this
continent was largely settled by those who fled tyranny rather than fighting it.
As my friend George Potter says, statism is largely a function of population
density. It is always around but, like any parasite, requires certain conditions
to truly flourish. And often, when so many people are subject to such a
parasite, quite a lot of them actually form a symbiotic
relationship with it, and rely on its survival for their own. And when a
despotic government commands such support, and has access to the resources of a
large civilization, what recourse is left to the liberty lover but flight?

Which brings us to fight. The favorite of novelists (some of them quite
good) and die hard patriots (some of them quite sane). But really, the reason I
saved fighting for last is because, despite the romance toward it felt by some,
or the terror others imagine it with, fighting tyranny is the one thing that every liberty lover does at some point along their chosen path.
The "quiet one" who goes toe-to-toe with the cops before eating his gun; the CEO
who struggled with her principles in school before accepting her "inevitable"
fate; the gulchers who fight in court for their right to homeschool, or keep
goats; the expatriates who dodge Uncle Sugar's taxes. The computer geek who
posts rambling screeds to the internet. Ahem. All of them choose their path, and
all of them fight their battles against the same enemy. In fact, the only real
difference is the weapons they choose, which is what this piece is really about.
Specifically, it's about that most potent of weapons: laughter, and those who
wield it.

Throughout history, one of the greatest banes of kings and presidents,
princes and popes, has been laughter. Whether inspired by subtle satire or
dick-and-fart jokes, tyrants cannot stand to be laughed at. Jokesters have been
the cause of revolutions and the target of book burnings and press smashings
(and people hangings).

So, I stand before you today (actually, I'm hunched over a legal pad in bed
writing this, but you're reading it on a computer, so I'll go with some dramatic
license)... I stand before you and proudly join (as an acolyte, of course... I
could only ever dream of attaining the satirical summits
reached by some) the ancient and noble line of Certain Persons, members of which
include: Tom Lehrer, Groucho Marx, H.L. Mencken, Emma Goldman, Samuel Clemens,
Ben Franklin, Jonathan Swift, Aristophones... so many more.

As one of our wiser contemporary members recently wrote (actually, he's not
really all that wise; kind of a goof really, but he's the best writer of us all
and, as a writer, needs an ego boost now and again): "I am convinced, now more
than ever, that the best action against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of
all that is best about being human, is to be human. Inconquerably human.
Unapologetically joyful."

So, if you are offended by our smart-assed smirks, or our immature sounding
attacks against statists, or our seeming lack of regard for The Cause or The
Party or The Mission, perhaps you should think twice before admonishing
us.

Because if you can't have fun in the pursuit of liberty, what, really, is
the point?

Fun With Acronyms

BATFE=Barbaric Anti-Truth and -Freedom Extremists

CIA=Cannabis Importers and Assassins

DEA= Destroying Everything American

DHS=Department of Hitlerian Schemes

FBI= Feral Brutality Instigators

IRS=Insane Revenue Stealers

TSA=Traveller-Squeezers Anonymous

USA (as opposed to "America")=Usurpers Supressing America



Laugh at them, then abolish them ALL!!

Why I'm Radical

I'm a radical libertarian and an anarchist because I see what happens if people continue to believe that government has a legitimate function. It grows out of control. The way I see it, in the alphabet of government, too many people say "the government should regulate A but leave everything else alone". The problem is that there are other people who then pipe up and say "government should regulate X or Y and leave everything else alone". Government is always only too happy to begin to regulate something new, but never decides it is time to back off. It is like saying that cancer is good because it kills a few really bad people while ignoring the fact that it kills more far more good people. Government is not worth the destruction it causes even if during its existence it occasionally does something good. Government: there is no excuse for it.

What Good are "Laws"?

Do you think laws make you safer? Do they somehow protect you? Laws are not passed to prevent or stop any crime, but only to provide for punishing those who have committed the crime, if they survive to escape the scene and are later caught and proved to be the guilty party. How does this protect you? What about the really stupid laws designed to protect you only from yourself?

Guns in the hands of the intended victims can (and do) stop and prevent crimes. But this takes power away from the government authoritards. That is one reason they don't like privately held weapons. Another reason is that in too many cases, the authoritards in question ARE the attackers.

Some people think that fear of punishment will keep bad people from committing crimes. I don't think that works very often. Premeditated murders would never occur if that were the case. Everyone thinks "I won't get caught!" Criminals who have been interviewed admit to being more afraid of armed victims than of being caught by cops.

Civilized people need to be able to stop a crime just as it starts. The best and most effective way of doing this without putting yourself in even more danger, is to have a gun, know how to use it, and be willing to do so.

Hey NRA, Please stop "Helping"!

I have written to the NRA again expressing my disgust at their "help". Wayne LaPierre: at this rate, you will negotiate away all of my guns. Compromise is for losers. Compromise is what you do if you are on the losing side of a battle. Or if you think you have done something wrong. It is like plea bargaining. Schumer and McCarthy should be begging gun owners to allow THEM to plea bargain instead of you, supposedly representing ME, running to them to show them how to rape our rights more effectively. Our side can't be the losing side; we have the moral high-ground, we have objective reality, we have the guns. Of course, the feds have more guns. They also have you worshipping them and their stormtroopers.

How can you have time to help to violate gun owners? There are plenty of REAL crises happening right now that you could be working on instead of helping the traitors in Congress to outlaw gun ownership. If you really want to help the good guys, Mr. LaPierre, join with JPFO in calling for the shutdown of the BATFE. Hold them and their accomplices accountable for their harassment of Red's Trading Post. Insist that they immediately release Wayne Fincher and return all of his guns and pay for the militia headquarters that burned. Make them pay from their own pockets, not from "public funds".

Either start helping gun owners or merge with the Brady Massacre Fan Club. You couldn't hurt us any worse than you are now.

Ed Brown and The Feds

What is this case about now? It is purely to punish someone for not paying their bribe. How much do the feds claim Ed and Elaine "owe"? How much have the feds (and their state and local co-conspirators) spent trying to "get" the Browns? Is this a cost effective siege? What function of the US government is so important that it justifies killing a person or taking their home or business? Over tax money? Get real, Uncle Scam.


I know all the arguments about "they were convicted in a fair trial". Your definition of "a fair trial" may be different than mine. Taxation is theft. Theft can not be justified or made right by passing "laws" authorizing it.


I would much prefer that Mr. Brown refuse to pay on the grounds that taxation is immoral rather than using the "show me the law" tactic. That isn't my call. America is watching the US government. What will it do? Murder or otherwise destroy lives over some money? Why not. It does this and worse on a daily basis. Just ask gun owners, or non-sanctioned medication users, or un-papered drivers, or........

Scared Sheep? Or....?

When people run into my ideas unprepared they get frightened. They call me a wacko, insane, loony, nut case, a weirdo, "Krazy Kent", and a variety of other creative names. They suggest I go back to smoking my crack pipe and leave opinions to the traditional statists. The really funny thing is a lot of this comes from people who take the Presidential Candidate Selector and find that I am their top-scoring (former) candidate.

I really don't understand this reaction. Do people think so little of their own opinions that they secretly think they are crazy? Do they fear anyone who voices these things out loud? Or do they read only snippets of what I have to say, and then take them out of context. Surely that is the only way they could be exposed to my brilliance and be unconvinced. (<---- a joke)

Claire Wolfe Time

Claire Wolfe, in her book 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution, made the statement "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

The question constantly arises, "Is it time, yet?" Yes, it is time. It has been time since the dawn of humanity. Look back at history and you will see there has never been a time that fighting against oppressive rulers was the wrong thing to do. If our species had always remembered that fact, and exercised it, we would not be in the situation we are in now.

Our problem is that we abdicated our responsibility when it was easy to fulfil. We thought that the tyrants were not too bad; besides we knew them personally. Now the rulers have erected a huge wall of "laws" designed to ensure their "continuity of government". People with a blind sense of "lawfulness" will point to those laws and say that it is wrong to fight back against the evil rulers. Only if you look at it through the eyes of the tyrants themselves is it "wrong". Of course they will forbid fighting back. Tyrants always do.

Before anyone gets worked up, I'm not advocating any actions here, I just want you to realize that regardless of whatever "laws" the tyrants erect around themselves, fighting against tyranny, with whatever you have, is never wrong.

Safety Nets?

I know some people (OK, a LOT of people) feel that modern society owes some sort of "safety net" to the poor, sick, or disadvantaged. I don't think it is a case of "owing a debt", but I do think that a civilized society will provide something to assist those in need. In fact, just about every society always has. Where I have the problem with a "safety net" is when it is financed through theft. Government runs on theft and is not legitimately responsible for taking care of anyone. Private charities (or even "private charity" as in "personal kindness") are not coercive and are more able to adapt to the individual situation. They are also more likely to detect those who abuse "the system" and become parasites. "Kindness" does not then attempt to take possession of the lives of those it helps. "Safety nets": another empty excuse by people who fear freedom and do not trust themselves to do the right thing if no one is holding a gun to their head.

Legitimate Government

What is the legitimate purpose of government? From my radical libertarian perspective, the only legitimate purpose of any government is to protect the rights of the individual from being violated. This is what The Declaration of Independence was talking about. If the government fails in this it has to go. If the government becomes the main culprit violating individual rights it has negated the very reason it had for existing in the first place. Therefore in order to fulfil its duty to protect the rights of the individual it is necessary for that government to abolish itself.

Every government sooner or later, usually sooner, becomes the people's worst enemy.

My Neighbor's Nuke

The right to own and to carry any weapon is often belittled using the extreme scenario of your neighbor having a nuclear bomb in his garage. Forget for a moment the fact that extreme cases make for really bad laws. If you have an absolute right to own any weapon, what can you do if your neighbor has a nuke?


If my neighbor had a nuke, and I thought he was that much of a danger to me, I would try to destroy his bomb or shoot him before he had a chance to use it. Then I would take my chances with a fully informed jury. "Self defence" applies here, as it does in any instance of imminent danger. My neighbor would also be able to claim "self defense" if he shot me when I tried to get him, so it would probably be better to try to reason with him first. If I felt he was so mentally unstable that reason would not get through to him, then I'd take my chances.


What I would not do is use this case to argue that since my crazed, nut-case neighbor wanted to threaten my life, and the lives for miles around, by keeping a nuclear weapon in his garage that government should ban me from owning guns or ban children from having and using rubber band guns. That is insanity.

Help Red's Trading Post

Red's Trading Post is the oldest gun store in Idaho. The thugs from BATFEces are trying to shut it down. There is a lot of background information at War on Guns Blog about this case and today there is a suggestion on what YOU can do to help.

It's a Protest Vote - Really

I realize that any write-in votes for me won't be counted by "election officials" because I am not willing to jump through the hoops to become "legitimate" as far as the feds are concerned. I am a write-in candidate only as a protest; just like if you write in "Bart Simpson" or something. The difference is that I stand for something. If you tell someone that you wrote in "Kent McManigal", they can Google me (if they can figure out the spelling) and see exactly what I am all about. I think we all know Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of being the Republican nominee; not the way the system is rigged. (If he did become the nominee, I would need to question whether the system is rigged like I think it is.) A Libertarian has even less chance of winning the election than Ron Paul has of being the Republican nominee. If you still feel that not voting is shameful, then you can write-in my name, knowing the Powers-That-Be will not count it, but still sending a message, just the same.

Domestic Enemies in Black Robes

When elected officials take office they pledge to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Then they immediately break that oath by not recognizing that almost every thing the federal government does is in direct violation of the Constitution, and trying to stop it. In direct violation, but sanctioned (wink-wink) by federal courts.

How can you protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic when some of the worst domestic enemies have placed themselves in charge of deciding what the Constitution means? Whether or not the Constitution is worth defending is another matter. As has been said, either it established this governmental monstrosity we now suffer under, or it did nothing to stop it. Fortunately "freedom" does not depend on a piece of paper, but on each of us as individuals. Freedom is ours to take and live, if we will only do it. Pay no attention to the black-robed gremlins of the court. Let them paint themselves into a corner with their pronouncements-from-on-high. Just get on with the business of living free from coercion.

Leaders or Rulers?

Leaders can be a good thing. They lead by showing the rest of humanity the trail, and then striking out along that path, alone if necessary. If you trust the Leader, you follow him. If not, you find your own path.


Rulers dictate which path you will follow, often times from the safety of their fortresses. A Ruler may send an envoy in front of you as a decoy to make you believe you are following the Glorious Leader. You are given no choice whether to follow the path the Ruler chooses for you. A set of imaginary rules will be enacted to show you that the Ruler's way is the only right way.


Is the President (or governor, senator, etc.) a "Leader" or is he a "Ruler"? If you have a Leader and he begins leading you astray, you are free to stop following. If he threatens you or forces you to continue following him by dragging you along, he is no longer a Leader, but a Ruler. The Rulers in the US claim we are free to follow them or choose another "Leader" in the next election. We will be dragged along unwillingly until that time, of course. The "Leaders" insist we are not free to say "No thank you. I don't need a Leader".


Leaders lead; governments drag. Which situation seems more like America in 2007?

"Bill of Rights" or Simply "Rights"?

A group I belong to, JPFO, is working to educate people everywhere (not just in America) about the Bill of Rights; advocating what they call a "Bill of Rights culture". I would like to live in such a culture, but I don't think it goes far enough. People need to be reminded that rights were not created by the Bill of Rights. Some of the founders of America were afraid that if a Bill of Rights were written, government would try to claim that those rights mentioned were the only ones held by the people. Even though the 9th and 10th Amendments were adopted to try to avoid this, it has still occurred. Plus the government has "reinterpreted" away any protection of rights enshrined in the document.

Instead of a "Bill of Rights culture" I think we need a "Rights culture". A deep understanding that rights exist regardless of government attitudes or usurpation; are inseparable from responsibilities; are inborn in every person everywhere; do not come from "Bills", government or anyone else; are not additive or divisible; are absolute and not subject to restrictions; are the opposite of privileges; and are worth defending to the death.

The Bill of Rights was a good idea, but learning that actual Rights exist with or without government permission is more empowering. At least it has been for me.

New CafePress Products

Check out my new "Government is Evil" and "Live Free Today" products on CafePress. Straight to the point, don't you think?

Consistent Liberty

Freedom is not "pick and choose". I can't acknowledge that government in all its incarnations is evil while begging government to "keep out the foreigners" or to punish "hate speech". If freedom is a good thing for me, then it is also a good thing for my enemy. I must be consistent. I can't turn to government for help when something happens that I couldn't stop. If I can't stop it, then neither could government, at least not without violating someone's rights. You must live up to the principles of freedom even when it makes you uncomfortable.

"The Gang" from JPFO

The JPFO documentary "The Gang" is now available ($29.95). This film details the history and the abuses of the BATFE, one of the most vile and disgusting of all the criminal organizations inside the US government (my words; not theirs). Beat me to the draw and get your copy before I get mine!

Forum 21

There is an interesting forum that I have joined. It is called Forum 21 and is run by Phil Defer. It is based in France, but they have started a thread about me in English. Phil asked for an interview and I explained that I am not actively campaigning anymore, but answered his questions anyway. He invited me to join his forum to answer the participants questions, so I did. I find it interesting to see how other cultures view "liberty". Go on over and take a look around. If you can't read French, use Babel Fish to translate. You can even ask me questions there, too.

The Abusive Relationship

Do people enjoy abuse? Do we seek out or stay in abusive relationships because somewhere, deep down, we like being miserable? I know people who seem to. Government is like an abusive partner. It steals from our bank accounts and wants more, claiming ownership of all our possessions while contributing nothing of value. It sets bizarre, arbitrary rules with extreme punishments for even accidental infractions. It demands to know every detail of our private lives "for our own good" as if we are stupid children needing constant supervision. It claims moral superiority over us while behaving like a drunken lecher. It warns us of dire consequences if we ever dare to tell it to hit the road. "You'll be sorry! You are nothing without me! You'll never make it on your own! Everyone will kill each other without me to make them behave!" Yet we keep defending its indefensible actions, and behaving like it really does have some claim on our lives. Kick the bum out. If it resists, you know what to do.