Trusting the Wolves

People have become accustomed to thinking that without a paternalistic government to keep the wolves at bay, they will be devoured. The problem is that government IS the wolf pack. It only protects you for the moment so it can tear you apart later. The pack has only its best interests in mind.

The pack puts out the bright, warm fires and then points out into the darkness and says "See that shadow over there? It is a wolf waiting to eat you as soon as we turn our backs!" But while we peer into the shadows, agreeing that we see dangers in the formless void, behind our backs the pack rips another of us limb from limb. If anyone notices, they are told that it was a diseased individual who had to be destroyed to keep the flock healthy. The truth is that it was quite often an individual who realized that the pack was preying on the flock, or that the shadows contained lesser dangers than were dwelling amongst the flock. If a true rescuer arises from the midst of the flock, the wolves shriek in hysterics, calling him a wolf and attack in great numbers while the flock looks on approvingly, never knowing that this could have been the end of the slavery that they endure. Indeed, they refuse to see that they are slaves.

Announcing "KentForLiberty.com"

I have launched my new campaign website today: KentForLiberty.com

I hope it gets my message across better than my old Geocities page. Check it out.

A Gun Control Compromise

I have been accused of being an extremist in defense of the right to own and to carry, anywhere you see fit, any type of weapon whatsoever, in any way you wish, without asking permission from anyone. 

 I suppose it is time to reconsider and announce I am ready to accept "reasonable gun laws". 

So.... which 50% of the victim disarmament laws are we going to repeal this year? 

Since my long-term goal is to remove all legal restrictions from guns, I am willing to use the same logic that the merchants of victimhood use when telling me that I must compromise. I will not demand the immediate repeal of all federal, state, and local laws against gun owners, but will compromise and only seek the removal of half of them. This year. 

Compromise means meeting halfway; not banning this type of gun today, then that type of gun tomorrow, followed by registration of handguns next week. 

 No, we gun owners compromised when the 1934 National Firearms Treason was committed. 

 Then again in 1968 and regularly since then. This "compromise" is only moving in one direction, and that isn't compromise at all. 

 A true compromise would have said you want the 1934 NFA and once you got that, there would be no more victim disarmament laws proposed ever again. Not this sneaky, incremental banning of self defense. It is your turn to accept compromise. 

 I am truly willing to meet you half way. 

 I would even accept the repeal of only one victim disarmament law as long as I get to choose which one. 

 If you choose, then I stand by my demand for abolishing 50% of them. 

 Well Sarah Brady; Chucky-Doll Schumer; Mike Bloomberg; which gun owner vilification laws will you help me get rid of? You couldn't possibly oppose this plan, could you? All we are asking for is "reasonable restrictions". Only an extremist would refuse to compromise. Right?

When They Come to Arrest You For Blogging....

The time is coming when the government will not be able to overlook dissent any longer. When they come to arrest you for blogging, will you shoot back?

In the very near future, I expect that it will be illegal to point out government abuses, murder-by-cop, and counterfeit "laws". The internet is an anarchical force in the eyes of government, and steps will be taken to rein it in. When this begins to happen, what will you do? Will you say "if they weren't doing anything wrong, they wouldn't have gotten in trouble"? Will you call them "cyber-terrorists" along with the choir called the mass media? People already get in trouble for satirically "threatening" the treasonous "leader" of the US online. Government has become nothing more than a rabid beast, hell-bent on attacking anyone who crosses its path. Those who point out this fact will be targeted. Those who continue to worship the monster will be the last ones eaten. Those who are assimilated after being infected with "government" will spread the disease.

The recent "Lite-Brite Terror" tragicomedy comes to mind. Here is an example of an advertising campaign that in no way threatened anyone, and yet became a terror case just because some people, private and governmental, were too incredibly stupid to recognize a toy! Whoever sounded the "alarm" over this should be humiliated into seclusion for exposing themselves as a mindless drone. Unfortunately, this type of knee-jerk whistle-blowing has become epidemic in the former Land-of-the-Free.

Defining Down Freedom

I was recently reading something about "freedom" written by someone in another country. He stated that "only in America are guns equated with freedom". I don't know if it is true or not, but it makes me wonder. This person thinks he is mostly "free". It seems that most Americans are also under the impression that they are "free". By most any measure, we are not. Does this make us feel inferior? Is it so disconcerting to admit that the US government has stomped out freedom in all but its most "harmless" incarnations that we delude ourselves? Do we redefine "freedom" in such a way that we can still claim to be free? Perhaps we lower the bar enough so that our version of "freedom" is still achievable without going to war against liberty's enemies. Does the person whose definition of freedom started this train of thought feel that guns are not connected to freedom because guns have been outlawed completely in his country, and are therefore a moot point? Do others in his country feel the same? They can't have guns to enforce freedom, so they "dumb-down" freedom to a point where it appears to be within reach of their crippled hands? What is your standard of freedom? Is it a weakened version that is government-approved or is it the real liberty to live your life as you see fit. Where as long as you do not harm or defraud anyone else, the government will stay completely out of every single aspect of your life to the point that, for all you know, government may not exist?

The National Agenda

As I was walking past the television I heard some TV face on a political show saying that "The battle is over who will control the National Agenda". I am assuming he was only considering the various minions of the Tyrannocrat Party. To me the real question is "Should there BE a national agenda to control?"

Of course, my position is that there should not be. A "national agenda" implies that there is "one answer to fit all" out there. It suggests that attacking other countries before they have a chance to attack "us" is a legitimate course of action. This is the kind of thinking that leads to "for the children" disasters, and welfare rolls expanding, and laws that cripple us all for the benefit of parasites and predators.

You as an individual can and probably should, have an agenda. It gives focus to your life. America, as a country, once had an agenda. It was called the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The US government rebelled against it and has been floundering looking for a legitimate purpose ever since.

Who's the "Criminal"?

I was reading a website where Steve Kubby was referred to as a "felon" and it got me thinking. He is considered a bad guy by the government, and his only "crime" was in violating the counterfeit "laws" against self-medicating with chemicals the government doesn't like. Yet when police officers kick in the door of an old woman while enforcing these same counterfeit "laws", and shoot her to death, they get the benefit of the doubt. Even to the point of the government trying to tarnish the grandmother's name. It becomes news when it seems they may, possibly, be held accountable for their murderous rampage.

If the concept of a "felony" is legitimate, it is only the serious crimes that fit the definition. Crimes like murder, rape, kidnapping, major thefts (IRS), and serious assaults. How long a time the corrupt agents of the government choose to hold a person prisoner should not enter into the definition. Using chemicals on your own body does not measure up. Neither does owning a gun. Nor refusing to pay taxes. If no harm is done to another person, no crime was committed. Anyone who considers himself a libertarian in any sense should recognize the distinction and not fall into using the state's terminology against anyone who has committed no crime. Cops who murder old women fit the bill very well; Steve Kubby does not. So I ask: Who is the criminal?

Laugh at Me

It is a sad fact of life today that people seem to have lost the ability to laugh at themselves. Perhaps a sense of humor is getting as rare as "common sense". Almost every joke has to come with a disclaimer that "no offense is intended". Television commercials, when creative, can be certain to offend someone, somewhere, too. Humans are absurd. We might as well admit and enjoy it. Throwing a tantrum about a joke that we find offensive drives the point home even harder.

Look at me for example. I think I can make a difference. Is that funny, or what? How can I take myself seriously? I get my panties in a wad when I misspell a word and can't edit it. (As I did here. Look at the last word. I hate that!!) I refuse to dress conventionally or to cut my hair to "fit in". I wear 18th century style glasses. I force myself to deal with handicaps that most people think are unnecessary because I refuse to tolerate certain government intrusions or ridiculous demands from employers. I have hobbies that most people don't "get". I am not an expert on anything, yet I foolishly believe I can understand most things at their core. I sing karaoke.

These things may or may not have any bearing on whether my ideas have any merit. That isn't for me to decide. After all: crazy people don't know they are crazy.

Out-of-Proportion Punishments

Out-of-proportion responses by government cause panic and bad decisions by people. Just like someone who is involved in a hit-and-run accident who panics and leaves the scene of the accident. How much of this is caused by a fear of the draconian punishment meted out by government? Probably most of it. Otherwise, there is no reason to panic. Ask someone who has done this and see why they fled. I doubt they feared that the pedestrian's family would kill them.

I can usually count on a rational response from individuals. Even when I unintentionally have harmed someone. Give that individual the badge, though, and you create someone who no longer treats the "non-badged" among us as humans, but as "perps". Simply putting a bad(ge) guy into the mix escalates the tension.

Take the case of the hit-and-run. If it happens, you can count on the fact it was not intentional. The person who is at fault should take responsibility for causing harm. Even if it is the pedestrian who is to blame. However, if the driver has no license, or no insurance, has taken an allergy pill, or is even just behind on child support, the consequences of having to talk to a cop can destroy his life. His car may be stolen; he may be jailed. Someone who may desperately want to stay and help is prevented from doing so out of fear of inappropriate punishment.

The worse the law pollution becomes, the less respect I have for any laws. I suspect I am not alone.

"Driving is a Privilege"?

Privilege. This means it can legitimately be denied to you if you don't agree to do it the state's way. Nonsense. What would have happened if the British had tried to force the colonists to pay for "license brands" to be renewed yearly on their horses' rumps? What if they had been required to get "riding licenses" in order to ride a horse to town? More British enforcers would have been hanging from lamp posts and much sooner, that is what. What has happened to us? Why do we tolerate such obvious meddling? Driving is simply a modern extension of walking or horse riding. Nothing more; nothing less. Any claim about "higher technology" is meaningless. It makes as much sense as saying there is a right to "freedom of the press" as long as no technology invented after 1789 is used. Quills or 18th century printing presses are OK, but ball-point pens and computers are not, without a government permit. The technology increases, not diminishes, the safety. Should riding bareback be unregulated, yet if you use a saddle, you need a government permission slip? Is horseback riding so safe that no one ever dies? Hardly. Were the roads not "public" back then, so government couldn't lay claim to everything that touched them?

There is a right to travel (not a "right to trespass"), and it is not dependent on the method or technology used. Any government regulation, licensing, restriction, or obstruction (such as "check points") of this right is to be decried as the thrashings of a tyranny running out of time. Stop the highway bandits-with-badges.

... For Your Own Good....

How many things does government impose on us "for our own good"? Well, there are all the gun "laws" and the drug "laws". Then there are the "health laws" regulating certain foods and behaviors. Seatbelt laws and speed limits and laws against porn. Mandated vaccinations and building codes. Even tax laws are involved since this is how all this enforcing is financed. "You can't cut the budget for cops because the resulting chaos would kill us all!!" Every one of these laws has a reasonable sounding, if completely erroneous, "safety" component to it.

With all these laws making sure we are safe, why do we not live forever? Because they don't work, can't work and were never intended to work. At least, not in the way they were "sold" to us. These laws are about controlling the peasants. They do make certain people safer: government enforcers and bureaucrats. The rest of us do not matter to those who believe they are superior. We have fallen for their lies for centuries. If the average person does not have the capacity to manage his own life, what makes you think that once elected to a political office, that same person can manage the lives of all those he seeks to control?

My job as president would be to hand your life back to you. You are the only person who truly has your "own good" firmly in mind. I trust you with your own life; would you trust me as president?

Politics One Polls

Politics One as two polls where you can vote for me. The Situation Poll (the second poll down on the right side) and the Libertarian Party poll (further down). Thanks for all the votes!

"In Search of the Second Amendment"

The new documentary, "In Search of the Second Amendment", is a scholarly examination by David Hardy into the historical background of the right to keep and bear arms. I have not had a chance to see it, but will try to get a copy soon. If you have an interest in this subject, I would recommend that you watch this. You can watch the YouTube preview at the bottom of the page I linked to. The collectivists out there will not like this film, and will make the same old tired excuses that they always do. They are still wrong.

Not to Be Trusted?

Does anyone really feel that they, personally, need to be tracked and controlled by government? Or do they feel that only other people need to be watched, and that in order to accomplish this, they are willing to put up with it themselves? In either case, to be so suspicious of one's fellow humans is pathetic. To hand them over to the state to satisfy one's paranoia is even worse; it is evil. How can individuals be worse than a group of people who work openly to enslave you? As a group, government is insulated from taking the blame and receiving real consequences from destructive actions. There is safety (for the individuals in government) in numbers. So who should really not be trusted? Why not require tracking collars on politicians and other government employees at all times? Why not make them all submit to humiliating random drug tests and constant surveillance? After all, they are the ones who can do the most damage to America. As tempting as it is, it would still be wrong. As libertarians we have the moral high-ground. This means honoring even the rights of those who do not deserve the consideration. Like governmental parasites.

REAL ID? Any ID? Why?

There is starting to be a lot of mainstream opposition to REAL ID. This is the universal tracking permit that the government wants to force you to have in order to still qualify as an American. Some states are rejecting it, mainly due to financial reasons instead of the draconian socialist overtones inherent in it. Still, any opposition is good, for whatever reason. Bush wants to force you to have it. If you balk, you are a terrorist in his mind. It will replace and become your "driver's license" soon. The idea of being forced to carry any sort of identification should be recognized as completely against any sort of freedom that America ever stood for. It is something directly from the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. People fell for it when driver's licenses were first "required" and they continue to fall for it each step of the way towards total state ownership. I can't tell you to refuse to submit to driver's licenses anymore, but I strongly suggest that once REAL ID gets implemented, you would be wise to consider refusing it. Why do you need a card from any government to "be legal"? The only reason for the card is to be tracked and controlled.

Illegal acts by government, such as the USA PATRIOT Act and REAL ID do more to give in to terrorist demands than any ransom ever paid or any concession ever given to freelance terrorists. Make no mistake; only the US government "hates us (Americans) for our freedoms". So it continues doing to Americans the exact thing that government mouthpieces claimed the 9/11 terrorists wanted; government destroyed out freedom. The US government is the largest terrorist organization the world has ever seen. America does not negotiate with terrorists. America should not give into demands of the US government tyrants.

The "Cult of Government"

If I were to start my own cult, I would find a basic human drive (the respect for a powerful leader-figure; fear of the unknown) to use to my advantage. I would then pervert basic human psychology (like our innate cooperativeness; the need to "belong") in order to collect followers, and I would emphasize the necessity of accepting the "truth" as I preach it, and would forbid real questions. Arguing over "how many angels could sit on the head of a pin" would be OK; questioning whether the angels actually existed would not.

In other words, I would set up a system just like a government. If you can "draft God" into your cult of government as effectively as many presidents, kings, and dictators have done, you have an even greater advantage. Allow the people to get caught up in whether Demopublicans or Republicrats are a better choice to lead America, but squelch any questioning of whether America needs to be led by anyone. Set up a dichotomy of "you are either with us or with our enemies" instead of letting anyone point out that government policies do more damage to freedom and liberty in America that if every freelance terrorist on earth suddenly invaded our shores. In the event of such an invasion, the population would see a clear threat and no government pronouncements would be able to keep us from doing everything in our power to protect our homes, gun "laws" or no. But if government dismantles America a piece at a time, saying it is for our own good, and says the only other option is to allow our "way of life to be destroyed", then people follow like cattle while the very parasites claiming to protect us, destroy us.

"They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer

Here is an exerpt from They Thought They Were Free - The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by
little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in
secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government
had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous
that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released
because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler,
their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who
would otherwise have worried about it."

A Trap to Avoid

I have read a few items recently on other blogs about people who have done horrible (in my opinion) things in support of the US superstate. We need to learn the art of recognizing these misdeeds and publicizing them without necessarily calling the authoritarians who do this by name. At least unless you can do it anonymously. It is an unfortunate fact of modern life that those who perpetrate crimes against humanity don't like to be called on it when they are exposed, and if motivated enough, they can make life miserable for those who expose them. This doesn't mean they hold the moral upper-hand, just that they have been empowered by their unholy alliances to do damage to those they fear. Attack the deed; not the person.

Drug Tests - Just Say "No! You Pervert!"

Why is it so important for employers to become perverted "urine collectors"? For most jobs, it probably wouldn't even matter if someone came to work slightly "impaired. For the rest, unless someone is obviously not "right", it doesn't matter if they are impaired because of chemicals, depression, illness, or lack of sleep. All those things impact performance. I don't want a surgeon cutting on my brain with any of these issues hanging over his head. Why are "drugs" singled out?

Your personal time is just that: personal. What you do on Friday night is not your employer's business on Monday (or a couple weeks later). Liability wouldn't be an issue if we could get back to holding people responsible for their actions and any harm they cause. But then, Congress would all be facing the death penalty, wouldn't they?

Which drugs are OK to use? Ibuprofen? Benedryl? Alcohol? Caffeine? Chocolate? Broccoli? Every single substance you ingest or inhale affects your body chemistry in some way. Some have more of an effect than others, but if you are able to do our job without putting anyone, other than yourself, in increased danger, then you should be left alone, and any bodily fluids you contain should be yours to do with as you see fit. If you apply for a job that demands a urine sample, give them one right then and there. Let them get a sponge if they want to put it in a cup. It is time to stand up like humans with dignity and say a loud "No!" to this sick behavior on the part of government and its worshippers.

Now, I recognize that employers have a right to require just about anything they want. On the other hand, no companies had even thought of this intrusion until it became a government fad. You also have a right to refuse a job if they make ridiculous demands. Without the blessing of government, fewer companies would try to get away with this sanctioned molestation. In a future, free, America there will be enough companies and opportunities competing for your skills that you will be able to pick and choose.

"The Light's On, but Nobody's Home" - Ed Lewis

Liberty For All article about "they".