If parents do their job well, their children will grow up and will no longer need to be parented. To have your grown kids needing to be parented by a spouse or the nanny-state is a failure as a parent. It means that somehow you did not help your child become an adult.
Yet it seems this is the normal state of the world today. Look around you and you will see most people being parented in some way. Welfare hands them money, food, and housing. Government tells them what to do to be "safe" or how they must behave. Everywhere they turn they are being told how to live. No adult would stoop to taking handouts or instructions from some big maternal government. Yet, the supposed adults (as measured in years) think nothing of it in most cases.
Their parents failed to help them become healthy, independent adults. Is it too late for them? Blaming your upbringing only goes so far. Once someone reaches the age that they should be an adult, it is their responsibility if they do not "mature". How old is too old to finally become an adult? I wish I knew the answer to that. What I do know is that the welfare trough needs to be emptied and turned into a planter or something. It may be painful, but continuing to coddle these big children is not doing them a favor. Handing your life over to someone else is not a healthy thing to do. It hurts you and it gives your surrogate parent way too much power over your life.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
The FEC: Rigging Elections Since 1975
The first question when dealing with any governmental agency should be: "Where in the Constitution does it specifically authorize your agency's existence?" If they cannot answer, then the agency, bureau, or commission is not a legal group. An illegal group should not be "obeyed" or listened to. If the government gets its authorization to exist from the Constitution, then they should be forced to play by the rules and follow that Constitution, right?
I mention this because Federal Election Commission regulations demand that a candidate must do certain things that accomplish nothing other than protect the status quo.
In order to have an "official, FEC sanctioned" campaign, I am required to appoint a campaign committee, and that committee is required to open a bank account. The bank account requires a Social Security number. Do you even realize how many unconstitutional requirements there are in that string of demands? How can a libertarian justify obeying illegal demands from an illegal governmental bureaucracy?
I do agree that there should be oversights to protect elections from fraud, if elections are deemed to be necessary. That oversight should not be from a governmental agency or commission. "Fox guarding the hen house"? That doesn't even begin to describe to conflict of interest that the FEC demonstrates. It is just as bad an idea as having judges work for the government instead of for the individual people. You will have an obligation to whosoever hands you your paycheck, regardless of where the money originates.
That is why I remain a stubborn, principled, write-in candidate. Judge me if you want to, but that is where I stand.
***********************************
I mention this because Federal Election Commission regulations demand that a candidate must do certain things that accomplish nothing other than protect the status quo.
In order to have an "official, FEC sanctioned" campaign, I am required to appoint a campaign committee, and that committee is required to open a bank account. The bank account requires a Social Security number. Do you even realize how many unconstitutional requirements there are in that string of demands? How can a libertarian justify obeying illegal demands from an illegal governmental bureaucracy?
I do agree that there should be oversights to protect elections from fraud, if elections are deemed to be necessary. That oversight should not be from a governmental agency or commission. "Fox guarding the hen house"? That doesn't even begin to describe to conflict of interest that the FEC demonstrates. It is just as bad an idea as having judges work for the government instead of for the individual people. You will have an obligation to whosoever hands you your paycheck, regardless of where the money originates.
That is why I remain a stubborn, principled, write-in candidate. Judge me if you want to, but that is where I stand.
***********************************
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
I Don't Care!
The big stink about whether Ron Paul is a racist or not seems ridiculous to me. Even if he is, it isn't the first thing I disagree with him about. I don't care what bizarre or bad ideas someone has as long as they will not try to force their ideas upon me by "law". This is where Ron Paul differs from the racists who are the "mainstream" candidates sanctioned by the powers-that-be and the "mainstream" media. He would not promote "laws" to establish racist governmental policies. The other Demopublican clowns have been passing their twisted racist, sexist, and genocidal laws against America for decades. They have a proven record of holding views that make an issue of race and passing "laws" based on this corrupt notion. How is that better?
The Six Things Americans Should Know
Here is a good Second Amendment primer from JPFO: The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment
____________________________
____________________________
Enforcers Keep Murdering More of Us
There are times I sit on a blog idea for a few days until I cool down somewhat. Just so I don't say something overly truthful. This is one of those occasions.
If you have been paying attention to the news, you are probably as disgusted as I am over all the murder-by-cop that has been occurring recently. Almost every day new instances slip through the mass media news filter, IF you look in the right places. For the most part the news is ignored.
It is way past time for the free, reasonable people of this country to stand up as a Great Wall of Opposition to the occupying army that the police forces across America have become. Do not submit. Do not back down. Defend your neighbors from these murderous predators. Do not ever forget or forgive what these badged monsters are doing. These murders are NOT justifiable. Any police "spokescreatures" who excuse these abuses might as well have pulled the trigger themselves. The bosses are accountable whether they want to be or not.
Even if all drugs were really bad, no drug "law" is important enough to kill people over. None. No drug "law" is important enough to destroy families over. No, not ONE. Even the worst addict in the world has the right to destroy his own life as long as he doesn't cross the line to initiating force or fraud. When a cop commits one of these raids he becomes worse than the worst non-violent drug abuser. These crimes must be stopped. We need civilization again.
If you have been paying attention to the news, you are probably as disgusted as I am over all the murder-by-cop that has been occurring recently. Almost every day new instances slip through the mass media news filter, IF you look in the right places. For the most part the news is ignored.
It is way past time for the free, reasonable people of this country to stand up as a Great Wall of Opposition to the occupying army that the police forces across America have become. Do not submit. Do not back down. Defend your neighbors from these murderous predators. Do not ever forget or forgive what these badged monsters are doing. These murders are NOT justifiable. Any police "spokescreatures" who excuse these abuses might as well have pulled the trigger themselves. The bosses are accountable whether they want to be or not.
Even if all drugs were really bad, no drug "law" is important enough to kill people over. None. No drug "law" is important enough to destroy families over. No, not ONE. Even the worst addict in the world has the right to destroy his own life as long as he doesn't cross the line to initiating force or fraud. When a cop commits one of these raids he becomes worse than the worst non-violent drug abuser. These crimes must be stopped. We need civilization again.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
The War of 2012
From the tattered remains of a textbook found along with the blueprints of some crackpot's ridiculous idea of a time machine:
Sadly, that is where the page is ripped away. But it is just nonsense. Right?
....With the benefit of hindsight, we can clearly see the events that led to the
War of 2012, such as the election of Barak Huckabee, and the collapse of the
dollar. When inflation hit an almost infinite rate and the government
began jailing or killing those who tried to trade in gold and silver, or even to
simply barter, it was merely the inevitable coming to fruition. The
death throes of an empire are seldom pleasant. Those who refused to go
quietly began to fight back, just as their kind have throughout history.
The police forces, both local and federal were caught completely by surprise,
thinking as they had that they were invulnerable and beyond the reach of
justice. This mindset had been bolstered by the unpunished abuses of the
late 20th and very early 21st century "War on Drugs" and the closely related,
and just as corrupt, victim disarmament schemes. The American people,
joined by the utterly unexpected allies who flooded across the borders from
around the world, had decided it was time to be free. If only they had had
the foresight to avoid the war by ......
Sadly, that is where the page is ripped away. But it is just nonsense. Right?
Monday, January 07, 2008
The Anarchists Second Choice
Whether I am a write-in candidate for President, or an "official" one, I should be the second choice of the anarchists. The first choice of course is "None". It would be my goal to attempt to be as close to "None" as is humanly possible, since that would also be my own preference.
Moving on to other people's choices: I should be the first choice for gun owners, as I recognize no limits on rights (as long as you do not aggress against anyone, of course), including the right to own and to carry any type of gun, anywhere you go, in any way you wish, without asking permission of anyone, ever. Plus, I would turn the White House into a "clemency factory" for anyone ever convicted for the victimless crime of owning or carrying a gun.
I should be the first choice for anyone victimized by the disgusting "War on Some Drugs" for the same reason. In fact, I would do the same for anyone who has ever been targeted by the government for ignoring any counterfeit "law". My goal would be to make it pointless to arrest anyone for anything other than causing actual harm to another.
Where I stand with Libertarians and libertarians has yet to be determined, but I should be in the top three. I think.
Moving on to other people's choices: I should be the first choice for gun owners, as I recognize no limits on rights (as long as you do not aggress against anyone, of course), including the right to own and to carry any type of gun, anywhere you go, in any way you wish, without asking permission of anyone, ever. Plus, I would turn the White House into a "clemency factory" for anyone ever convicted for the victimless crime of owning or carrying a gun.
I should be the first choice for anyone victimized by the disgusting "War on Some Drugs" for the same reason. In fact, I would do the same for anyone who has ever been targeted by the government for ignoring any counterfeit "law". My goal would be to make it pointless to arrest anyone for anything other than causing actual harm to another.
Where I stand with Libertarians and libertarians has yet to be determined, but I should be in the top three. I think.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Saturday, January 05, 2008
"He Who Governs Only Himself, Governs Best"
If, in some wonderful alternate universe, I were elected President what would I do about the issues I am ignorant of? Does a President need to be an expert on everything? No, he doesn't. A President who is an "expert" often feels compelled to do something, even if it is not a good idea. It's similar to the saying about your only tool being a hammer causing you to see every problem as a nail.
The President needs to be able to call upon people who are experts to find out what they think. Then, and here is where all Presidents have so far failed monumentally, he needs to weigh the advice to see if it violates anyone's rights. If it does, don't do it. Next, he needs to think about whether the action falls under authority of any government, or specifically the federal government. If it does not, he should not do it. Last and rarely needed, he needs to make certain that the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically allow the advised action. If not, don't do it.
If it sounds like this would result in a President who doesn't do much, you are right. That is the way it should be. A good President should do very little "governing". "He who governs least, governs best" only goes part way to the truth: "He who governs only himself, governs best". It is time for a President who only truly governs himself, and does his best to keep the rest of the government contained, and then gets out of the way of the rest of us to do the same.
The President needs to be able to call upon people who are experts to find out what they think. Then, and here is where all Presidents have so far failed monumentally, he needs to weigh the advice to see if it violates anyone's rights. If it does, don't do it. Next, he needs to think about whether the action falls under authority of any government, or specifically the federal government. If it does not, he should not do it. Last and rarely needed, he needs to make certain that the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically allow the advised action. If not, don't do it.
If it sounds like this would result in a President who doesn't do much, you are right. That is the way it should be. A good President should do very little "governing". "He who governs least, governs best" only goes part way to the truth: "He who governs only himself, governs best". It is time for a President who only truly governs himself, and does his best to keep the rest of the government contained, and then gets out of the way of the rest of us to do the same.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Iowans Beg For More Tyranny
The people who live in the region known as "Iowa", and who chose to participate in the caucus yesterday, want tyranny and socialism. That is obvious. A vote for anyone other than Ron Paul in Iowa yesterday was an endorsement of the police state, and is a bad sign for the future of those of us who choose to remain above the counterfeit "laws" that the collectivists will continue to attempt to subject us to. Of course, the only choices were between socialist party "A" and socialist party "B", so what can you expect?
Funny thing is, this is not news to any of us who value freedom. In almost every election the result is the same: year after year; decade after decade; century after bloody century. Voting for new and improved tyrants is an ignorant act at "best", and a selfish, greedy, brutal act at "worst". Politicians who offer kickbacks in the way of "entitlements" or "pork" are the ones who get the vote, while those who tell the truth don't. Politicians who are seen as "young" and "different", whether they really are different or not, get the vote from people who want to be seen as "enlightened" or "socially conscious". I'm sorry, but voting for socialists is neither.
The good thing is that only around 400,000 people (by my probably incomplete count) got out and bothered to beg for more tyranny. That is out of a population of around 3 million people. How many of those who did not vote are libertarians, Libertarians, and anarchists? How many are regular people who are convinced that their vote doesn't matter, or that the only thing that matters is who counts the vote (or programs the voting machines)? How can we get those people to join the struggle for freedom in their own way?
Funny thing is, this is not news to any of us who value freedom. In almost every election the result is the same: year after year; decade after decade; century after bloody century. Voting for new and improved tyrants is an ignorant act at "best", and a selfish, greedy, brutal act at "worst". Politicians who offer kickbacks in the way of "entitlements" or "pork" are the ones who get the vote, while those who tell the truth don't. Politicians who are seen as "young" and "different", whether they really are different or not, get the vote from people who want to be seen as "enlightened" or "socially conscious". I'm sorry, but voting for socialists is neither.
The good thing is that only around 400,000 people (by my probably incomplete count) got out and bothered to beg for more tyranny. That is out of a population of around 3 million people. How many of those who did not vote are libertarians, Libertarians, and anarchists? How many are regular people who are convinced that their vote doesn't matter, or that the only thing that matters is who counts the vote (or programs the voting machines)? How can we get those people to join the struggle for freedom in their own way?
Thursday, January 03, 2008
What's it Gonna Take? by L. Neil Smith
I really enjoyed this essay, sent by JPFO today. These paragraphs illustrate very clearly why the world is in such a mess:
Read the rest here.
_______________________
A police officer once informed me loftily that civilization has to be
maintained by authoritarian managers because individuals in general are
selfishly uninterested in doing the hard work of maintaining it
themselves.
Unsurprisingly, after I pointed out that when individuals become
interested in maintaining civilization -- by voting down bond issues, treating
teachers and administrators like the hired hands they are, or carrying
self-defense weapons that demonstrably make society safer -- they're either
told, not so very politely, to go away, or they get arrested, he didn't have a
whole lot to say, because he knew that it's true.
Read the rest here.
_______________________
The Strength of Libertarians
It takes a strong person to be a libertarian. It is easy to be weak and need others to be controlled, like the authoritarians do (under whichever aliases they wish be be known). It takes a strong person to stand up and support the right of others to do things that harm no one, but that you may find personally undesirable. That is why I see Demopublicans as weak. They can't afford to let go of their need for total control. Or at least their need to control those things they don't like. If they don't like certain drugs, they pass or enforce laws regulating their use by everyone else. If they fear guns, they try to forbid their possession in every situation they can get away with. Only libertarians are strong enough to back off and let people live their own lives, and make their own mistakes. That is strength of character.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
"I Found It On the Ground"
Back around the time I first became involved in "buckskinning" (the mountainman thing), there was a federal sting operation trying to catch buckskinners with "illegal" feathers. In case you are not aware, I am not even talking about just eagle or hawk feathers, but the regular, ordinary feathers you might find on the sidewalk. Yes, almost all of them are "illegal" for you to pick up or possess.
In one of the hobby's magazines I read a quote from a fed that stated that the defense of "I found it on the ground" was no defense at all, because "then people might try to use that excuse if caught with a bag of marijuana". I guess one nonsense "law" bolsters another.
In the course of my life I have found thousands of feathers, yet I have only found one bag of pot on the ground. Since I was pretty sure that the guy standing beside it, putting his wallet back into his pocket, had dropped the bag, I picked it up and handed it back to him. Boy, was he grateful! Anyway....
There is an obvious difference between a "shed" feather and one pulled from a bird's body. I can tell the difference but the feds apparently can not. I can assure you that there is no one who gets more angry than me at senseless destruction of wildlife. However, when I find a feather, or even a dead bird, why is it better to let it rot away than to collect the beautiful feathers and use them? Only because the government thinks it owns that bird, and owns you as well. That is a disgusting myth.
In one of the hobby's magazines I read a quote from a fed that stated that the defense of "I found it on the ground" was no defense at all, because "then people might try to use that excuse if caught with a bag of marijuana". I guess one nonsense "law" bolsters another.
In the course of my life I have found thousands of feathers, yet I have only found one bag of pot on the ground. Since I was pretty sure that the guy standing beside it, putting his wallet back into his pocket, had dropped the bag, I picked it up and handed it back to him. Boy, was he grateful! Anyway....
There is an obvious difference between a "shed" feather and one pulled from a bird's body. I can tell the difference but the feds apparently can not. I can assure you that there is no one who gets more angry than me at senseless destruction of wildlife. However, when I find a feather, or even a dead bird, why is it better to let it rot away than to collect the beautiful feathers and use them? Only because the government thinks it owns that bird, and owns you as well. That is a disgusting myth.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
New Year's Revolutions
I always hear about people making "New Year's Resolutions". Did you make one or more? From what I hear, most people break them as quickly as they make them. If this has been your experience in the past, maybe this year you should try something different. I think it is a couple hundred years past time for a New Year's Revolution. Bringing freedom back to America after a 200 year decline. Wouldn't that be something!
Monday, December 31, 2007
Good-Bye 2007 - Hello 2008
Happy New Year. I hope that you survived 2007. I'm guessing that you did since you are reading this. I also hope you will survive.... no, thrive in, 2008. I hope you will assume liberty in every situation, and that your boldness in doing so will serve you well. I hope that the state will continue to crumble; maybe even collapse (bloodlessly if possible) in the coming year. I'm ready. Are you?
Do something to advance real liberty in the coming months - Beyond voting, please - Pick a liberty project in 2008. I have mine in the works.
*****************************
Do something to advance real liberty in the coming months - Beyond voting, please - Pick a liberty project in 2008. I have mine in the works.
*****************************
Same-Sex Marriage and Open Borders
In this week's Libertarian Enterprise I encountered this letter. I think I have read this guy's words before . I recognize his style and his issues. (He may get an ego boost from that admission) If you go through his posts there, you will see how obsessed he is over certain concepts and terms. In particular, he likes to call us "libertine/libertarians" as if he thinks this is a clever insult.
His main "arguments" in the new letter are that the Libertarian Party (and libertarians in general) endorse same-sex marriage and open borders. He then explains how he is more in line with the Constitution Party because it simply wants the US to return to Constitutional government. That's funny. I don't remember the Constitution defining "marriage" anywhere, or giving government the authority to regulate personal love-lives. That leaves his love of "Berlin walls" as his sticking point.
Compared with the current US government's immigration policy, the Constitution does call for open borders. Where does the Constitution establish the current police-state road blocks (often many miles from any border), vehicle searches, national ID papers, etc.? All those things are necessary to enforce "secure" borders like he wants.
If freedom is important to you, you must realize that it is a two-way street. You must give the other guy the same liberty you want for yourself. How is it "libertine" of us to recognize everyone's right to live as they see fit, as long as they hurt no one else? How can you say that you have a right to live free, but your neighbor needs to be controlled? How is it good to give government control over things that are not within its authority?
Freedom is for everyone. If you wish to embrace control and tyranny, don't get angry at those of us who want liberty. If that makes us "libertines" in your myopic eyes, so be it.
His main "arguments" in the new letter are that the Libertarian Party (and libertarians in general) endorse same-sex marriage and open borders. He then explains how he is more in line with the Constitution Party because it simply wants the US to return to Constitutional government. That's funny. I don't remember the Constitution defining "marriage" anywhere, or giving government the authority to regulate personal love-lives. That leaves his love of "Berlin walls" as his sticking point.
Compared with the current US government's immigration policy, the Constitution does call for open borders. Where does the Constitution establish the current police-state road blocks (often many miles from any border), vehicle searches, national ID papers, etc.? All those things are necessary to enforce "secure" borders like he wants.
If freedom is important to you, you must realize that it is a two-way street. You must give the other guy the same liberty you want for yourself. How is it "libertine" of us to recognize everyone's right to live as they see fit, as long as they hurt no one else? How can you say that you have a right to live free, but your neighbor needs to be controlled? How is it good to give government control over things that are not within its authority?
Freedom is for everyone. If you wish to embrace control and tyranny, don't get angry at those of us who want liberty. If that makes us "libertines" in your myopic eyes, so be it.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Global Warming?
Interesting news on the "global warming" front: Has global warming stopped? Why haven't we been told this before?
Carnage Prevention
Any death that occurs because a gun was not present can be laid directly at the feet of the nearest government and its representatives and enforcers.
Killed by a tiger before a gun could arrive? Mugged and shot or stabbed to death in the park because your city doesn't trust you with a gun? Died in a hi-jacked aircraft or a tower it crashes into because you must disarm to fly? Why was there not a gun present to avert these tragedies?
Fear of breaking the "law" and the draconian punishments that result is why. The bad guys have already decided that the laws do not apply to them. That leaves the good guys at a disadvantage where evil "laws" are concerned. Too many of us good guys obey bad "laws", resulting in unnecessary death.
Killed by a tiger before a gun could arrive? Mugged and shot or stabbed to death in the park because your city doesn't trust you with a gun? Died in a hi-jacked aircraft or a tower it crashes into because you must disarm to fly? Why was there not a gun present to avert these tragedies?
Fear of breaking the "law" and the draconian punishments that result is why. The bad guys have already decided that the laws do not apply to them. That leaves the good guys at a disadvantage where evil "laws" are concerned. Too many of us good guys obey bad "laws", resulting in unnecessary death.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
"Killed by a Tiger"
The one question that comes to my mind is why was no one in the vicinity armed and able to stop the attack? Just kidding. We all know the answer to that one. Don't forget:"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." If I were in a situation like the one that occurred in California, I would have probably shot the tiger to stop the attacks and prevent innocent people from being attacked. Then I would have spent the rest of my life feeling I had shot the wrong beast (if the reports of tiger-taunting are true).
I can't help but think that since we all must die, why not go out in an unusual way. I can imagine family members, years from now, whenever the man's name comes up in conversation, saying "He was killed by a tiger". I'll bet they will even steer the conversation that way so they can spring that tidbit on the listener. I would. I'm sure they will leave out certain parts of the story, though.
I have often thought of "cool deaths". I would rather die in an interesting way. And not of an "interesting" disease, either. Maybe like... killed by a meteor that only kills one person (not a planetary disaster event), or the first recorded Sasquatch attack death, or killed by a spontaneous singularity popping into existence in your head resulting in a short-lived black hole that makes your head disappear.
I can't help but think that since we all must die, why not go out in an unusual way. I can imagine family members, years from now, whenever the man's name comes up in conversation, saying "He was killed by a tiger". I'll bet they will even steer the conversation that way so they can spring that tidbit on the listener. I would. I'm sure they will leave out certain parts of the story, though.
I have often thought of "cool deaths". I would rather die in an interesting way. And not of an "interesting" disease, either. Maybe like... killed by a meteor that only kills one person (not a planetary disaster event), or the first recorded Sasquatch attack death, or killed by a spontaneous singularity popping into existence in your head resulting in a short-lived black hole that makes your head disappear.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Disaster Preparations
As we head into winter we should make certain we are prepared for survival in bad weather or other unforseen circumstances. Check your bug-out bags and your hunker-down kits. Make sure to double-check any expiration dates. And read this collection of observations from a Katrina survivor. Remember: you can't be free if you are dead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)