Nation of Scared Children

Life is risky. Nothing will ever change that. The more risks you take; the greater the rewards could possibly be. In recent decades, however, it seems Americans have lost their sense of adventure. Some have begun acting like overprotective mothers and the rest behave as though they are frightened children. Of the two, the "overprotective mother" types are the most dangerous. Those who are truly timid can be pitied, but those who try to control others "for our own good" should be reviled. It isn't wrong to seek safety and protection, but it is wrong to force others to live under your paranoid ideas of safety and protection. Their behavior is a threat to the future of the human species.

Nothing of lasting greatness will come from a nation where every detail is watched and regulated; where safety labels have become so ubiquitous that they are a joke, and the ones which might actually be needed are ignored amid the visual noise. Herds of professional nannies with badges clog the landscape telling us what we are and are not allowed to do. If we disobey or even challenge their authority, we get shot or tazered for being uppity. Now there is an unnecessary risk.

To live a meaningful life, humans must explore. They must test their own limits, the limits of their ideas, and the limits of their devices. We all need to be stimulated, and not just by flickering images on a screen. For governments or other busybodies to try to outlaw risk will be disastrous for our species in the long run.

I hope it is just a phase, because otherwise we are doomed.

Compare the Candidates

I am included in a Presidential Candidate Selector on SelectSmart.com . This allows you to compare any (of those included) two candidates' stand on any of the issues included.

I suspect that more candidates will be included for comparison later. As of this morning, there are 21 candidates.

I was spending a little time comparing my stance with that of Ron Paul. While I do think he is the only member of congress worth his oath of office, he differs from me on some important issues. He holds some distinctly non-liberating positions. Compare for yourself. While you are at it, look and see what the Tyrannocrats have in store for us. Just don't do it right before bed; or if you are alone. I am not responsible for any nightmares you may have.

"The Law" Works For the Corrupt

I, personally, do not try to use "the law" to my advantage. I am speaking of seeking legal remedies for fraud; violence against me will be dealt with immediately. I feel the danger of getting "absorbed" by the system is usually too great to take the risk. It has been my experience that whenever someone is taking advantage of someone I know, there is nothing they can do, legally, to solve the problem to their benefit, but the crook can always find a way to get their position officially endorsed. As I watch other people attempt to use laws against people who have defrauded them, I have made the observation that "the law" only seems to work for those corrupt enough to be in sync with the system. It seems that crooked people know how to use "the law" to advance their careers and their goals, but honest people get caught in the gears and eaten alive. Perhaps that is because so many of the people authorized to enforce, administer, and interpret the "law" are themselves corrupt and look out for their own kind. Or perhaps the crooks get a lot of experience in the system and learn how to make it work for them. Either way it seems like a good system to avoid. I am not saying that you should not seek legal help if you decide you need it, so please don't misunderstand.

One of "Those Days"

Do you ever have "one of those days"? This for me is one of them. I read the news and found nothing inspiring or even enraging. I learned this morning of a casual aquaintance's suicide. I am even depressed over Gene Chapman's troubles. He is not as capable of living without money as I am, it seems. The tentacles of the police-state wrap around all of America and it seems no one notices or if they do, they welcome its deadly embrace. The media worships the Democrat/Republican candidates and ignores those of us who really understand and love liberty. I even see libertarians arguing over whether to "support gay marriage" instead of telling the government to stay out of all marriges. I guess I am having a bad day.

When the president has a bad day, you had better be certain he is not the type to start pushing the red button. That would only make everyone's day worse. If you know me, you know I wouldn't push the button.

The NRA

I have been rather hard on the NRA recently. This harshness comes from my disappointment at their behavior. I expect more from them, and I will continue to demand it. Until they kick me out, anyway. It is tough love of a sort, and would stop if the NRA renounced their previous support of gun "laws" and the enforcement thereof.

I first joined the NRA back when congressional traitors got my attention by pushing for more victim disarmament schemes back in the late 80s. I then upgraded to a Life Membership when Bill Clinton and his co-conspirator, Sarah Brady, started pushing even harder. Sarah Brady is truly the best recruiter the NRA has ever had, and they don't even need to pay her.

I displayed all the bumper stickers the NRA sent me to promote "pro-gun candidates" and I voted for the ones they recommended. I was betrayed time after time as these candidates voted for more victim disarmament. I foolishly expect that if a politician supports something, he or she will actively work to promote that thing. Not so with these "pro-gun" folks. They believed in "compromise", which they defined as "always give the other side most of what they want, but then focus on the little things that the other side allows us to keep". To me, this isn't "compromise"; this is "a loss".

I watched as truly "pro-gun" candidates were ignored or denigrated simply because the NRA believed that they were unelectable. I can understand this to a point; you have to actually win some elections to be taken seriously, but to actively promote a compromiser when there is a real supporter running, too, is not honest.

I became very disillusioned. I wanted someone who understood and believed what I believed. I recognized that all gun "laws" were superseded by the Second Amendment, and anything other than recognizing that fact was simply playing into the hands of the traitors who wanted the ability to control or kill Americans at will. That is the only reason for victim disarmament; all other excuses are just lies. I was disappointed that the NRA suffered from the need to worship the very people who enforced, by murder if necessary, the counterfeit "laws" regulating guns. The NRA actually proposed "laws" and programs to regulate guns, control the sale of guns, issue "permits" for guns, or to punish people who owned guns that the NRA was trying to distance themselves from. This is like environmentalists condoning the extermination of "Badgers: the Assault Weasel!" Divide and conquer is the tactic of an enemy, not an ally. I began to view the NRA as the nation's largest gun control group.

In my despair, I wrote emails to the NRA, but never got any response from them other than an automatic reply. I called for them to acknowledge that all gun "laws" are illegal. I was ignored. I am still ignored. I am still right, though.

I guess I do owe some debt of gratitude to the NRA; they did inadvertently steer me to L. Neil Smith's book "Lever Action" through a small, rather luke-warm book-review buried in the back of one of their magazines. This book was my awakening to who I truly am.

I would like to once again view the NRA as a strong supporter of my individual right to own and to carry weapons. If they ever decide to begin to really fight to get rid of all the counterfeit gun "laws", I will be right there beside them. Until that time, I will throw my support behind groups such as Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They don't compromise.

"Libertarians"

What exactly is a "libertarian"? A libertarian is a person who practices "libertarianism"; who believes in and lives by the Zero Aggression Principle (sometimes known as the Non-Aggression Principle). The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) states:

"No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation."

Committing theft or fraud also falls under the ZAP as these are forms of force; they take what you have worked for with your own time and labor away from you against your will or under false pretext. Can you see how "taxation" fits in here as well?

Many, if not most, of the criticisms of libertarians I have read revolve around how the ZAP is interpreted. Some critics argue that libertarians are pacifists. Others argue that one or more core concepts of "The State" are good or "necessary evils". Still others argue that libertarians will strike out and kill anyone who angers us using the excuse that the other person initiated force. On the other hand, anyone with a functional intellect can see and understand when force has been initiated. Carrying a gun in your holster is not initiating force, even if a hoplophobe sees it and has a panic attack. Pointing that gun at a person who is making an obscene gesture at you in traffic is initiating force. Taking a person's property from them while implying that there will be consequences if the person does not comply is initiating force. Asking for a donation is not. The critics just don't get it and are not thinking. They ignore the word "initiate" in almost all cases. Probably intentionally, since they have no other argument.

Read more from my website.

My Letter to Sarah Brady

I just sent the following email to "stopthenra.com" in response to an email they sent me earlier today. I got the email from them in response to the survey I filled out for Sarah Brady.

I too, wish to "stop the NRA", but not for the reasons that you do. I wish
to "stop the NRA" because it has become an instrument of slavery just like your
organization(s). I am a life member of the NRA, but I can no longer
support it as it seeks to compromise with organizations like yours which promote
victim disarmament. There can be no compromise with murderers or those who
empower them by disarming the innocent. Gun "laws" are counterfeit "laws"
as they seek to regulate something other than force or fraud. Murder is
illegal. Assault is illegal. Do you believe that a criminal who
already has no problem with killing innocent people will stop because the "law"
forbids him from having a gun? Why would you rather see a woman raped and
strangled with her own panty-hose than to see her stop a criminal with a gun in
her hand? Gun "laws" promote genocide as well. Governments
throughout the 20th century murdered over 200 million of their own people (not
even counting declared "wars"). The first step to genocide is to disarm
the population so they can no longer resist. Why do you promote
genocide? I realize that you will deny these facts. You will think I
am a "gun nut". That is OK. I oppose the NRA and I oppose you
because I am against murder.

Their email address is advocacy@stopthenra.com. Drop them a line in the next few days.

Give Sarah Your Opinion

Sarah Brady wants to know how you feel about guns and gun "laws". Follow this link and tell her.

Freedom

What will it take to make people crave freedom? What will be the average American's "line in the sand"? The tyrants who control the government are very careful to pace themselves just enough to stay under the tipping point. They are evil, but they know how to destroy America; just a little at a time.

At one time, I thought that draconian gun laws would cause Americans to say "enough!" and fight back. I later thought that once federal agents started murdering innocent people using counterfeit "laws" as an excuse the alarm bells would ring. The sad truth is that the US government has done all these things and more and has gotten away with it. We live under a more oppressive government today than the true patriots did in 1776, and yet we make excuses and find reasons to ignore the problem.

Shorty Dawkins poses this line of thought "Ask folks if the founding fathers would be proud of the government and society of today. Do you think they would revolt, again?"
I believe I know the answers. What do you think?

The Libertarian Party

I suppose I need to formally declare that I am officially seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for the 2008 presidential election. I had originally planned to only seek the Boston Tea Party's nomination (which I will continue to seek), but I am actually getting more response from the Libertarians, so I certainly won't dismiss them. I hadn't thought recently about formally declaring, since I have already been appearing in polls under the LP category, but Thomas Knapp pointed out that I hadn't declared yet. I hereby correct this oversight.

I am just planning to continue to run my campaign. The political parties will continue to run their business as they see fit. I know I am probably not an attractive candidate to the more straight-laced members of the party, but I hope the "radicals" will rally around my candidacy. Let's make sure that The Libertarian Party remains libertarian.

Filter Out the Sewage

I get amused when I read about Democrats or Republicans trying to win the favor of the libertarian voters. It would be easy to do: reject force as a political tool and liberty lovers will be on your side. Of course, it would be the Tyrannocrat who did the "joining" in that case, but that is as it should be.

Why should anarchists or libertarians "join with" any other political group? WE are the ones they should be clamoring to join. We are the only group with a real difference. The Tyrannocrats can argue like spoiled toddlers over who is better to control "the people" while we quietly take that control out of their hands and place it on a high shelf out of reach.

You don't get clean water by mixing in sewage. You get clean water by filtering and treating the sewage until all that is left is the clean water. This is all we are asking Democrats and Republicans to do. Filter out the large rotting chunks of the police-state first. Filter out your control-sewage and embrace the clean, refreshing water of liberty. Any filtering or treatment at all will at least move you in the right direction. I have tasted the sludge of the state. It does not slake the thirst.

Revenge

I was reading an old post on Liberty For All about a case where a woman named Clara Harris murdered her husband because he had an affair. The murderer has gotten a lot of public and media sympathy.

Even the prosecutor in the murder trial, Mia Magness, expressed her disgust, saying that Clara, instead of killing David by her own hand, should have '[done] like every other woman … get his house, car, kids - make him wish he were dead."

I made the comment "Murder is wrong, but so is “get his house, car, kids - make him wish he were dead.” This kind of vengeance is often encouraged in America. It can lead, ultimately, to the vengeance of murder. Let men or women think they are justified in destroying the life of another and it doesn’t take much to make them feel they have a “right” to get ultimate revenge. "

A later commenter, infojunkie, called me a "woman hater" for my comment. I can't see anything in my comment that singles out women. I believe I was pointing out that revenge is evil. Since I didn't make myself clear, I posted another comment (twice, accidentally) which I reproduce here to clarify my position.

infojunkie - Unless the contract stipulated that "revenge" is the proper course of action if the contract were broken, then taking everything and making the other person wish they were dead is wrong. It doesn't matter if the vengeful party is male or female. Gender has nothing to do with it and is merely used as a false flag. I am absolutely not a "woman hater", but I do hate "revenge". I have never seen a marriage contract that laid out the terms that would be followed in case of "cheating" and mentioned that "taking it all and destruction of the guilty party's life" was mandated. The assumed terms are that the property will be divided equally, and care of any children will be shared. Going further than that is "revenge" and it is wrong; libertarian or not. Once you step into the territory of revenge, where do you draw the line?

I am confronted everyday by the acceptance of revenge as a legitimate tool of the "hurt" or "cheated". This is a mafia mindset. Every slight is not justification for revenge. Revenge gets wars started and murders committed. Revenge fuels the capital punishment industry. I firmly believe that in the long run, revenge hurts the hateful revenge seeker as much as it hurts the target. Hungering for revenge certainly cheapens your life and corrodes your personality. You become a prisoner of your hate. Revenge has no place in a liberty-lover's life.

Poll Reminder

Just a reminder to vote for me in the Politics One poll. I am in the Libertarian Party poll down on the right side. Thanks.

"Rebelfire: Justice Day" Video

Here is a good music video. It is the song "Rebelfire: Justice Day" which goes along with the book "Rebelfire - Out of the Gray Zone" by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman. The book and song are aimed at teens, but I really enjoyed the book and I really like this video, too. The book chronicles a teen's life in a near-future police state, and his determination to live free and follow his dream in spite of it.

"Real Campaigns"

I have heard the observation in the past and then again today that I am not running a “real campaign”. I would like to explain myself. I am not running a conventional campaign, but that does not make it unreal. "Real campaigns" keep getting us "real politicians". I don't like them, and I doubt you do either. Real campaigns involve name-calling and mud-slinging and innuendos. Real campaigns rely on whispered promises and promised favors. Real campaigns annoy us with advertisements that make us change the channel in disgust at the disingenuous parasite smiling at us from the screen while he plots against us behind the scenes. I won't do it.

What I decided to do from the start was to get my name and views "out there" and see if there was enough support for me to inspire grassroots efforts to promote my candidacy. So far, this has not happened to the extent I would like, but unless I have someone give me a very good reason to change my strategy, I probably will keep on going down this path.

I am running for President. If you wish to support my candidacy it is up to you to promote me as a real candidate. This means you can make up bumper stickers or buy mine from CafePress. Make business cards with my name and website information on them to pass out to people who might be interested, or to leave in public places where they may be seen and picked up. Link to my website in your blog or on your website. Rent a billboard. Buy a radio or TV ad if you want to. You have a lot of information about me in this blog and on my website. Anything else you want to know, as long as it is relevant; just ask me. If it isn't relevant, you can still ask, just don't base an ad on it, please.

My supporters are the only ones who can make this a "real campaign". Has any other candidate ever given you this much responsibility? I have confidence in you. You can handle it.

Feeling a Bit Guilty

I find myself feeling guilty for not taking myself more seriously. Yes, I am running for president. That doesn't mean I will change who I am in order to win favor. Voters are fickle. If you have a well-polished campaign with nicely printed brochures, and you are attractive and dress well, they will support you, until someone who does those things better comes along. At no time do the candidate's actual views come under serious consideration. I don't have the finances to play the game that way. Actually, I have no finances at all. But that is another issue.

I have been invited to some interviews that I would have truly loved to have participated in, but couldn't afford to travel to. If someone wants to do an interview and meet me somewhere in this general vicinity, I am willing. I have also been invited to some nice political events. It would be interesting to speak face to face with the other candidates and find out if they are as loopy as I am. Who am I kidding, anyone who chooses to run for president is nuts. Some just wear it well or hide it better than others. Which is more sane: shifting your principles to meet the occasion, or sticking to them in the face of rabid opposition? Seriously, I am asking you.

If there becomes a demand for personal appearances by yours truly, I will find a way to make a few of them at least. Possibly I could telecommute since this is the 21st century (I still find myself saying "20th century" sometimes). So far, most of you seem content to read my words of wisdom (or "rantings", depending on your perspective). If a major change in the wind occurs, a positive change, I will make myself more visible. Until then, I remain your nearly-invisible candidate. Now if all of the politicians would follow my example, my job would be done.

Campaign Limerick

Most candidates have campaign videos, advertisements, or even songs. I am a bit different so I wrote a campaign limerick instead. Since this is the most noble form of poetry, I grace your day thusly:

There once was a fellow named Kent
Who wanted to be President
He did well in some polls;
Which was one of his goals
He'd hoped he would just make a dent.

He wanted to be President.
In his blog he would quite often vent.
Readers toasted his buns
when he wrote about guns.
This most libertarian Kent.

He preached "Responsibility"
Refused to ration "Liberty"
You will pay a price
for punishing vice.
It leads straight to tyranny.

Thus continues the saga of Kent
Who wants to be your President.
Just offer your vote;
His words you may quote.
This most libertarian Kent.

NRA Elections

David Codrea of the excellent War on Guns blog posted a questionnaire for candidates for the NRA Board of Directors. I realize I am running for President; not for the NRA Board of Directors, but I thought you might like to see where I would stand if I were. I am a disgruntled life member of the NRA. This is where I stand, and where I wish a candidate for the NRA Board of Directors would stand as well:

1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the birthrights of all Americans?

Absolutely. Rights exist independent of government choosing to acknowledge them, however a government that does not recognize and respect rights has lost any legitimacy it may have once had.

2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state?

If by "proactively protected" you mean that every counterfeit "law" (any law which seeks to regulate something other than actual force or fraud) should be stricken from the books and that any law enforcement action that violates any rights possessed by anyone should be punished swiftly and harshly, then yes, I do believe they should be.

3. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional.

No such laws exist.

4. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.

National Firearms Act of 1934; Gun Control Act of 1968; background check requirements; laws forbidding firearms to former felons who have completed their sentence; etc.

5. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?

Yes. Government has no authority to regulate firearms (or other weaponry) in any way.

6. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern?

Yes.

7. Do you support or oppose Project Exile, and do you agree with current NRA management’s call to “enforce existing gun laws”?

Project Exile is an abomination and should be abandoned as such. I have written to the NRA on several occasions demanding an end to their call to "enforce existing gun laws".

8. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?

Oppose. Government has no authority to regulate firearms in any way.

9. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?

If I could only choose one, I would work to get the National Firearms Act of 1934 thrown out. Next would be the Gun Control Act of 1968. I would work my way down from there.

10. If elected to the NRA Board, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?

Yes I would, by speaking out against victim disarmament and acknowledging the help of other (more consistent) gun rights organizations.

11. Do you agree with the way NRA assigns political ratings? If not, what would you change and why? Who would you have given a different rating to, what would it been and why?

No. I would have given Ron Paul an "A+" rating and G.W. Bush an "F" rating to reflect their support or lack thereof for gun owners.

12. Do you disagree with any policies being promulgated by NRA management? What is you biggest area of dissent? Have you offered superior alternatives and worked with others to implement them?

I disagree with their support for anti-gun programs such as Project Exile and Project Safe Neighborhoods. I have called for the end of these programs. The only "superior alternative" that is necessary is the Second Amendment, which means: "Because a Very Effective, Armed, Population is Essential in order for America to stay Free and safe, the Absolute Right of Everyone to Own and to Carry any type of Weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"

13. Have you ever publicly spoken out against an NRA position because you thought it was wrong? When, where, and what were the results?

Just on this blog and in conversation with other gun owners. I have been doing this since I became politically active a few years ago. Most gun owners don't see that the NRA is wrong, unfortunately, so results were not apparent.

14. What reforms do you think are needed at NRA and why?

NRA needs to publicly apologize to America for siding with the victim disarmament crowd, and needs to firmly state its commitment to work towards overturning every gun law in America.

15. If elected, how will you inform members of your performance and voting record? Will you let us know when you dissent and why?

I would set up a blog and/or a website to catalog up-to-date information about actions of the NRA and my stance on those actions and my voting record.


16. Do you agree with Executive VP Wayne LaPierre, who stated: "[W]e believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel"? If not, what do you plan to do about it?

I absolutely do not agree. See my opinion on "gun-free schools" here: School Shootings.

Everything is being redefined as "terrorism"

A consequence of the government's fear and paranoia is that, as they clamp down tighter and tighter, they call more and more things a crime or even "terrorism". Now electronic advertising toys become potential bombs and dissent becomes "domestic terror". An educated person can make a bomb, poison, or a gun from things lying around most any household in the country. The only missing ingredient is knowledge. Remember the communist dictatorships where knowledge became a fatal condition? Welcome to the New USA. Books dealing with "dangerous" subjects are already being banned. Knowledge and intelligence is suspicious to the "ruling elite", unless you are working against America within the structure of the US government.

Blogs where governmental thugs are exposed face visits from Secret Service agents. All of your emails, phone calls, web surfing, library books, bank transactions, and credit card purchases are already being scrutinized by paranoid agents of a criminal tyranny. Anything "anti-government" that is found will elicit more snooping. They are looking for an excuse to arrest you. It is easier to track and control you once you are "in the system", either in jail or on probation. This is their desire: get as many of the disgruntled individuals into the criminal "justice" system as possible. Make an example of the ones who dare to defy them openly. They are succeeding, just look at the news.

The roles have been reversed: the terrorists now control the US. They call themselves Republicans, Democrats, FBI agents, BATFE, IRS, the President, Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and hundreds of other euphemisms to hide behind the truth. They call the real Americans "domestic terrorists". They pass counterfeit "laws" to protect themselves. They steal money from Americans to use against us. Americans need to start pointing out these traitors and holding them accountable. What will it take to make you angry enough to stand up?

What is Real Liberty?

Real Liberty. It means different things to different people. For some it means that they can use whatever substances they wish, chemical or electronic, in order to numb the pain of a dreary life. For others it means having a fine, expensive machine gun to admire and shoot. Still others only want to be able to "pimp their ride" until it looks like something out of a fevered dream. All of these things are important to some people. You may not choose to do the same things. It doesn't matter.

The only real right is the right to live completely unmolested. It is the ultimate right of association. If you do not wish to have any interaction with someone, then no one has the right to force you to. This is especially true when it comes to busy-bodies in government clothing.
What you do is not anyone's business as long as you are not hurting anyone else. Offending others is not the same as hurting them. Government stepped over the line millenia ago by using force to impose counterfeit "laws" on local populations. Government-enforced theft, called "taxation", was used to finance other abuses against the productive people that the governmental parasites fed on. Disarmament "laws" were passed, usually in the name of "safety" in order to keep the people weaker than the ruling "class" who faced no such restrictions.

I think government probably began as humans adopted a more settled, agricultural, lifestyle. Roving bands of marauding thieves began offering "protection" from other bands of marauding thieves ( which may or may not have actually existed) in exchange for goods and services. Eventually, the thieves stopped roving and put down roots in the area that they were victimizing; still demanding their cut of the riches. Unfortunately, the local population forgot what these thieves really were and accepted them as a "ruling class". It has been downhill since then.

It is my goal to remind people just who governments are composed of. That way we as human beings can get back on track to building civilization after a long detour caused by the thieving parasites. It is amazing the progress we managed to make despite their interference. Imagine where we would be, where we will be, once we give them their walking papers.