The Second Amendment Foundation has taken over JPFO. Which means, no matter what else happens, JPFO is dead. Its zombified corpse may serve as a pretty little meat puppet (and fund raiser) for the SAF for a while, but make no mistake, it is dead and gone.
Massad Ayoob approves, which should be enough to make any liberty lover pause until the chills subside. Ayoob is a well-known "gun rights advocate" who always puts enforcers and their "safety" and "authority" above actual gun rights, which he places beneath State whims, anyway (according to the stuff of his I have read in the past). If he weren't an actual cop he would still be an enthusiastic copsucker. One simply can't overlook that huge failing.
I will be removing all references to JPFO from KentForLiberty.com over the next few days, but I won't edit out the references from the past on this blog. Aaron Zelman left an important legacy- which has now been crapped all over by anti-liberty bigots and the traitors of the JPFO board of directors.
Too bad those "directors" didn't take one of the reasonable alternatives which were offered, but chose to destroy JPFO, instead. What does that tell you about them, personally?
It is a sad day in the ongoing- and now smaller- fight for real gun rights and human liberty.
R.I.P, JPFO. You will be missed.
(When the news first broke...)
.
Thursday, September 04, 2014
A poor substitute for justice
The justice system is such a poor substitute for justice- a farce, really- that most people can't even fathom justice anymore. It has been erased from the range of possibilities their minds can even consider.
So, instead of justice, they expect imprisonment and punishment.
Instead of restitution, people expect fines.
Instead of self defense, they expect cops to come save their sorry, cowardly hides.
And, it's all because a worthless "justice system" was allowed to replace justice.
Well, there is no substitute for justice. Don't expect me to support your useless system.
Sure, I would accept "jury duty" if allowed- if only because that is a concrete way to thwart the schemes of the state. But I only see that as a way to help people avoid getting caught up in something that never serves justice anyway. Justice for the guilty comes separately.
.
So, instead of justice, they expect imprisonment and punishment.
Instead of restitution, people expect fines.
Instead of self defense, they expect cops to come save their sorry, cowardly hides.
And, it's all because a worthless "justice system" was allowed to replace justice.
Well, there is no substitute for justice. Don't expect me to support your useless system.
Sure, I would accept "jury duty" if allowed- if only because that is a concrete way to thwart the schemes of the state. But I only see that as a way to help people avoid getting caught up in something that never serves justice anyway. Justice for the guilty comes separately.
.
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
Selling historical artifacts of The State -UPDATED-
If you like old statist control and tracking devices- or know someone who does- I am selling some Texas license plates from the 1960s on eBay. Most are "Farm Truck" plates. The ones I just now listed are all shown below, but there will be more in the coming days (or weeks).
Update: I just added some "Texas farm trailer" plates. Still more to come.
Look for me on eBay: dullhawk1840
Update: I just added some "Texas farm trailer" plates. Still more to come.
Look for me on eBay: dullhawk1840
Time's Up patches!
Don't forget: I now have "Time's Up" patches available!
They measure 3" X 2", and are "sew on" patches.
They are $5 each, with $1 shipping and handling. I will give substantial breaks on shipping and handling for multiples.
Paypal accepted (use my regular "dullhawk" address shown elsewhere on this blog), or contact me (at that same email) to work out other arrangements.
Thanks!
.
They measure 3" X 2", and are "sew on" patches.
They are $5 each, with $1 shipping and handling. I will give substantial breaks on shipping and handling for multiples.
Paypal accepted (use my regular "dullhawk" address shown elsewhere on this blog), or contact me (at that same email) to work out other arrangements.
Thanks!
.
Zombie entertainment
Voting is like playing a video game.
Lots of flash and noise, and immediate results that accomplish nothing beyond entertainment.
People feel they are doing something while voting and talking about voting.
They complain about those who refuse to play- or those who play but don't take it seriously.
But politics and voting will never accomplish anything worthwhile.
.
Lots of flash and noise, and immediate results that accomplish nothing beyond entertainment.
People feel they are doing something while voting and talking about voting.
They complain about those who refuse to play- or those who play but don't take it seriously.
But politics and voting will never accomplish anything worthwhile.
.
Tuesday, September 02, 2014
Property standards another control
Property standards another control
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 1, 2014.)
One topic being raised in almost all the communities in this area is that of keeping your property to particular standards which other people prefer, under threat of government action.
Maybe it concerns weeds, "junk", prairie dogs, or "public property" you have been assigned responsibility for. People are being told they need to make their property pleasing to others "voluntarily", or it will be forced on them by "law".
The big problem, besides the atrocity of wielding "laws" to violate property rights, is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I have to admit- I don't care for lawns. Never have. Sure, they have their place, and I wouldn't forbid anyone from maintaining one, but I think they are ugly and plain. Around these parts, they are also terribly wasteful and precarious.
If I had my choice I would cultivate a native area around my house, which around here would mean wild grasses, yucca, prickly pear, mesquite, and other interesting, useful (and edible) plants the uninformed might call "weeds". Yes, I know some of those may not be exactly native, but they are historical, and adapted to survive the local conditions without wasting water to keep them clinging to life.
I would also welcome prairie dogs, jackrabbits, cottontails, and whatever else chose to live there. Except mosquitoes.
If I had this yard, and I lived in town, I would be willing to put up a privacy fence to protect my neighbors' delicate sensibilities from having to gaze upon what I consider the most beautiful yard possible for this area.
In this way I also wouldn't have to look at the neighbors' lawns.
On the other hand, I hate junk and litter. Yet, I know what I see as "junk", others might see as treasures, or useful materials for projects. Their stuff is beautiful in their eyes, and it's none of my business. I would never dream of using the blunt instrument of government to force them to make their property look the way I would prefer it to look. My business ends at my property lines.
I can't relate to the withered souls who somehow believe controlling other people's property is their right. It's a sickness in desperate need of a cure.
Once you enshrine the belief that the majority can enforce "community standards" against how others must maintain their property, you give others permission to do the same to you in the future, when the community changes and the standards have become something you dislike.
You are selling your future liberty for immediate gratification, using whatever justification you can invent. It will come back to bite you.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 1, 2014.)
One topic being raised in almost all the communities in this area is that of keeping your property to particular standards which other people prefer, under threat of government action.
Maybe it concerns weeds, "junk", prairie dogs, or "public property" you have been assigned responsibility for. People are being told they need to make their property pleasing to others "voluntarily", or it will be forced on them by "law".
The big problem, besides the atrocity of wielding "laws" to violate property rights, is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I have to admit- I don't care for lawns. Never have. Sure, they have their place, and I wouldn't forbid anyone from maintaining one, but I think they are ugly and plain. Around these parts, they are also terribly wasteful and precarious.
If I had my choice I would cultivate a native area around my house, which around here would mean wild grasses, yucca, prickly pear, mesquite, and other interesting, useful (and edible) plants the uninformed might call "weeds". Yes, I know some of those may not be exactly native, but they are historical, and adapted to survive the local conditions without wasting water to keep them clinging to life.
I would also welcome prairie dogs, jackrabbits, cottontails, and whatever else chose to live there. Except mosquitoes.
If I had this yard, and I lived in town, I would be willing to put up a privacy fence to protect my neighbors' delicate sensibilities from having to gaze upon what I consider the most beautiful yard possible for this area.
In this way I also wouldn't have to look at the neighbors' lawns.
On the other hand, I hate junk and litter. Yet, I know what I see as "junk", others might see as treasures, or useful materials for projects. Their stuff is beautiful in their eyes, and it's none of my business. I would never dream of using the blunt instrument of government to force them to make their property look the way I would prefer it to look. My business ends at my property lines.
I can't relate to the withered souls who somehow believe controlling other people's property is their right. It's a sickness in desperate need of a cure.
Once you enshrine the belief that the majority can enforce "community standards" against how others must maintain their property, you give others permission to do the same to you in the future, when the community changes and the standards have become something you dislike.
You are selling your future liberty for immediate gratification, using whatever justification you can invent. It will come back to bite you.
Voting to impose religion
Many people want their religion imposed on the rest of us so badly that it's their only consideration.
It's why they vote and how they vote. Everything else is secondary, and liberty gets swept aside because it would mean people making choices- voluntarily, consensually, and without coercion- which would be against the religion's rules for its followers.
Of course, it doesn't matter at all whether the people whose liberty is being violated belong to that same religion or not. Everyone must obey "The One Way" regardless of anything else, and no matter whether "The One Way" respects liberty and rejects the initiation of force or embraces evil with the excuse that "it's what God demands".
It's Sharia Law, no matter which religion is pushing it. I find it rather vile and distasteful and think those pushing it should be ashamed and resisted in their attempts.
.
It's why they vote and how they vote. Everything else is secondary, and liberty gets swept aside because it would mean people making choices- voluntarily, consensually, and without coercion- which would be against the religion's rules for its followers.
Of course, it doesn't matter at all whether the people whose liberty is being violated belong to that same religion or not. Everyone must obey "The One Way" regardless of anything else, and no matter whether "The One Way" respects liberty and rejects the initiation of force or embraces evil with the excuse that "it's what God demands".
It's Sharia Law, no matter which religion is pushing it. I find it rather vile and distasteful and think those pushing it should be ashamed and resisted in their attempts.
.
Monday, September 01, 2014
MIB sighting scrambles my brain
Recently I saw something that made me consider actually heading straight for the nearest police station.
What on earth would make that course seem reasonable?
As I was driving along a back road I saw a solid black car with very dark-tinted windows and a driver's side spot light (also solid black) but no markings whatsoever. Of course, I instantly thought "government". It looked like something the Men in Black (the "real" myth, not the Will Smith movie version) would drive.
It was pulled off the side of the road in a rather random way- almost looking like an accident.
I drove on past. After a mile or two, I saw it coming up behind me. I wasn't "speeding" or anything- not that it matters to the enforcer vermin. But he passed me and got behind a car which had been several car lengths ahead of me the whole time- and which also was never "speeding" or doing anything any enforcer could frown upon. The MIB car's turn signals were very different from any I had ever seen- very high-tech and a line of little orange lights in the rear window. And it was sporting a New Mexico government license plate.
He followed for a mile or so, and after the road we were all on came to an intersection, and the followed car turned right (as I also did after him), the MIB car turned on some flashing lights unlike any I had ever seen on an enforcer vehicle- they were the same little orange lights that had served as the turn signals. As I passed I saw the odd red flashing lights in my rear view mirror which were in his front window. There may have been blue flashers on the passenger side, but the car he had pulled over was blocking my view somewhat.
Something didn't feel right on many levels.
I was thinking I wouldn't have stopped for that car without witnesses around. The nearest place I could have counted on to have witnesses was the police station a mile or so on down the road. Unsettling thought. They would have probably rolled over for anything the MIB car's occupants wanted. But, sometimes, you can get various enforcers to fight for "jurisdiction"- which might help the situation.
Quickly I realized that is probably a losing proposition no matter what, once the MIB alert to your car. Absent a button to push to instantly neutralize the threat and erase any record of them noticing you, you're going to take damage.
It's really disturbing when something can make me think- for even a minute- that it might be "smart" to go to police for "help".
.
What on earth would make that course seem reasonable?
As I was driving along a back road I saw a solid black car with very dark-tinted windows and a driver's side spot light (also solid black) but no markings whatsoever. Of course, I instantly thought "government". It looked like something the Men in Black (the "real" myth, not the Will Smith movie version) would drive.
It was pulled off the side of the road in a rather random way- almost looking like an accident.
I drove on past. After a mile or two, I saw it coming up behind me. I wasn't "speeding" or anything- not that it matters to the enforcer vermin. But he passed me and got behind a car which had been several car lengths ahead of me the whole time- and which also was never "speeding" or doing anything any enforcer could frown upon. The MIB car's turn signals were very different from any I had ever seen- very high-tech and a line of little orange lights in the rear window. And it was sporting a New Mexico government license plate.
He followed for a mile or so, and after the road we were all on came to an intersection, and the followed car turned right (as I also did after him), the MIB car turned on some flashing lights unlike any I had ever seen on an enforcer vehicle- they were the same little orange lights that had served as the turn signals. As I passed I saw the odd red flashing lights in my rear view mirror which were in his front window. There may have been blue flashers on the passenger side, but the car he had pulled over was blocking my view somewhat.
Something didn't feel right on many levels.
I was thinking I wouldn't have stopped for that car without witnesses around. The nearest place I could have counted on to have witnesses was the police station a mile or so on down the road. Unsettling thought. They would have probably rolled over for anything the MIB car's occupants wanted. But, sometimes, you can get various enforcers to fight for "jurisdiction"- which might help the situation.
Quickly I realized that is probably a losing proposition no matter what, once the MIB alert to your car. Absent a button to push to instantly neutralize the threat and erase any record of them noticing you, you're going to take damage.
It's really disturbing when something can make me think- for even a minute- that it might be "smart" to go to police for "help".
.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
The Horrors of "legalization"!
We must keep "those things" illegal!
It's all that stands between us and a total disintegration of society!
I mean, really!
You can't legalize Crocs or everyone will wear them!
The same goes for broccoli! If it were legal what would stop people from eating it? Think of the children!
No one would be able to resist something if it's not illegal. No one has any preferences of their own. Everyone will be wearing Crocs and distractedly munching broccoli instead of productively earning tax money for the state unless we make sure to not endorse such things- by keeping them illegal!
Where would it end?
.
It's all that stands between us and a total disintegration of society!
I mean, really!
You can't legalize Crocs or everyone will wear them!
The same goes for broccoli! If it were legal what would stop people from eating it? Think of the children!
No one would be able to resist something if it's not illegal. No one has any preferences of their own. Everyone will be wearing Crocs and distractedly munching broccoli instead of productively earning tax money for the state unless we make sure to not endorse such things- by keeping them illegal!
Where would it end?
.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
The questions borderists won't answer
How do borderists believe "we" can "protect our borders" without a huge police state (and the attendant expense met through "taxation")?
This is a question I have asked many times over the years and have never gotten a real answer to. For that matter, I have almost always had the question completely ignored, as if I never asked.
And, how do they believe a State powerful and omnipresent enough to "secure our borders" will not (eventually, if not immediately) use that power and omnipresence against them in ways they wouldn't like?
That's another question I have never gotten a real answer to.
I suspect that's because the real answers are too uncomfortable for the borderists to contemplate.
What do you think?
.
This is a question I have asked many times over the years and have never gotten a real answer to. For that matter, I have almost always had the question completely ignored, as if I never asked.
And, how do they believe a State powerful and omnipresent enough to "secure our borders" will not (eventually, if not immediately) use that power and omnipresence against them in ways they wouldn't like?
That's another question I have never gotten a real answer to.
I suspect that's because the real answers are too uncomfortable for the borderists to contemplate.
What do you think?
.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Shun the creeps to death
There is a family in the general area who are perfect candidates for shunning. I had never heard of them until a couple of weeks ago. They are known aggressors, and have been for a long time, according to people I know and trust. There have been plenty of other incidents, but this one finally seems to have brought them to a lot of people's attention (including mine).
I have other sources for my information- I would never accept the word of the sheriff or other enforcer without credible confirmation.
I do know that one of them has been a government school teacher, and has been fired for aggression more than once. I also know there were two more family members who were involved in this attack, but apparently are either "too young" to be mentioned in the report, or weren't charged for some reason.
I will not do business with these aggressors, nor will I do business with anyone I find out is employing them. I have heard rumors that at least one was fired due to this incident- I hope it's true. And I hope no one is foolish enough to ever hire these people again.
I already shun the enforcers in town- but of course, most people support those aggressors and my shunning makes no measurable difference. But these freelance thugs are a perfect example of people who should be shunned, and who probably could be. Effectively.
Added: On September 4, 2014, the paper finally announced the name of the other family member.
.
I have other sources for my information- I would never accept the word of the sheriff or other enforcer without credible confirmation.
I do know that one of them has been a government school teacher, and has been fired for aggression more than once. I also know there were two more family members who were involved in this attack, but apparently are either "too young" to be mentioned in the report, or weren't charged for some reason.
I will not do business with these aggressors, nor will I do business with anyone I find out is employing them. I have heard rumors that at least one was fired due to this incident- I hope it's true. And I hope no one is foolish enough to ever hire these people again.
I already shun the enforcers in town- but of course, most people support those aggressors and my shunning makes no measurable difference. But these freelance thugs are a perfect example of people who should be shunned, and who probably could be. Effectively.
Added: On September 4, 2014, the paper finally announced the name of the other family member.
.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Those wacky socialists and their "borders"
The whole "border" and "immigration" problem are socialist-created crises. Or perhaps I should say collectivist-created.
If there were no superstitious belief in the existence of "public property" there would be no problem. People could defend their own property as they saw fit. But socialist/collectivists believe the State can "own" property. They also believe the State can control how you use- and how or whether you can defend- your own property. (Which you also must pay a yearly ransom to keep.)
It's like dogs' territoriality gone berserk- where a hypothetical barking dog thinks it can claim everything around him, including half a continent, as his own- no matter the other dogs living there. Claiming other people's property is socialistic.
Offering "free stuff"- which is never free- is also socialistic. No matter who the intended recipient may be.
Many of the migrants are also socialistic- believing they are "owed" passage across other people's private property, and "free stuff" once they settle somewhere. So you have the clash of the socialists.
I have no dog in the fight other than the fact the socialists pretend to have the authority to prevent me from defending my life, liberty, and property from any of their kind.
.
If there were no superstitious belief in the existence of "public property" there would be no problem. People could defend their own property as they saw fit. But socialist/collectivists believe the State can "own" property. They also believe the State can control how you use- and how or whether you can defend- your own property. (Which you also must pay a yearly ransom to keep.)
It's like dogs' territoriality gone berserk- where a hypothetical barking dog thinks it can claim everything around him, including half a continent, as his own- no matter the other dogs living there. Claiming other people's property is socialistic.
Offering "free stuff"- which is never free- is also socialistic. No matter who the intended recipient may be.
Many of the migrants are also socialistic- believing they are "owed" passage across other people's private property, and "free stuff" once they settle somewhere. So you have the clash of the socialists.
I have no dog in the fight other than the fact the socialists pretend to have the authority to prevent me from defending my life, liberty, and property from any of their kind.
.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
The American "Anne Frank"
Is the American "Anne Frank" already among us? If so, how old might she be? And, who?
Might she be your daughter? Or the new baby you saw at the grocery store? Will she be your future granddaughter?
Who will she be hiding from? Cops already on the job, or some new enforcers hired "for the duration"?
Which "laws" will she and her family be hiding from? "Laws" which have already been passed? Or "laws" which have only been hinted at? "Laws" you oppose, or "laws" you might have even supported?
Who will be hiding her?
Who will be the one who exposes her to the cops?
Where will she meet her fate? And how?
You may roll your eyes at these questions. I hope in a few years you aren't suddenly remembering this and wishing you had taken it more seriously.
.
Might she be your daughter? Or the new baby you saw at the grocery store? Will she be your future granddaughter?
Who will she be hiding from? Cops already on the job, or some new enforcers hired "for the duration"?
Which "laws" will she and her family be hiding from? "Laws" which have already been passed? Or "laws" which have only been hinted at? "Laws" you oppose, or "laws" you might have even supported?
Who will be hiding her?
Who will be the one who exposes her to the cops?
Where will she meet her fate? And how?
You may roll your eyes at these questions. I hope in a few years you aren't suddenly remembering this and wishing you had taken it more seriously.
.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Liberty frees from control situations
Liberty frees from control situations
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 25, 2014)
Why would anyone want liberty? It requires responsibility, after all. It removes most of your opportunities to whine and blame everyone else when things go wrong. It leads to minding your own business. Where's the fun in that?
Well, there are benefits.
What is liberty? According to Thomas Jefferson, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
"Unobstructed action"- absolutely anything which doesn't violate the identical liberty of some other person, regardless of what the law says, is within your rights to do. No one has a right to rule your life or prevent you from offending them.
Another way to put it might be "Don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.", which I have been told is a better translation of The Golden Rule.
Liberty frees you from feeling like you need to control other people's lives. Live your own life, and if someone encroaches on your life, liberty, or property, deal with them then and there.
Liberty lets you focus on your responsibility; not enforcing responsibility in others.
Instead of fretting over trivial matters, you can focus on what's really important. Is someone attacking the innocent or violating private property? No? Then forget it and move on. If they are, take steps to stop them.
The less time you spend worrying about what other people do, the more you will have to spend on being a better friend, relative, and neighbor.
You'll probably be less stressed out, too. It's a huge burden to feel what your neighbors do is somehow your business.
Liberty frees you from wringing your hands over situations you have no control over. Don't like what's going on in other countries? Can you actually do anything about it? If you can, should, and want to, go and do something. If not, concentrate on your own life. Don't force others to do what you think should be done, and don't force them to pay for it either. Meddling by those who think "something must be done" has caused the lion's share of political trouble.
You can also save a lot of time when you stop worrying whether something is "legal" and go straight to doing what is right.
It's easier to keep track of two or three universal laws than millions of federal, state, and local rules. How easy? Don't use force- or send others to use it on your behalf- against people who aren't attacking the innocent or violating private property, respect private property, and if you enter an agreement, do your best to keep it. Anyone can do that. Can't you?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 25, 2014)
Why would anyone want liberty? It requires responsibility, after all. It removes most of your opportunities to whine and blame everyone else when things go wrong. It leads to minding your own business. Where's the fun in that?
Well, there are benefits.
What is liberty? According to Thomas Jefferson, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
"Unobstructed action"- absolutely anything which doesn't violate the identical liberty of some other person, regardless of what the law says, is within your rights to do. No one has a right to rule your life or prevent you from offending them.
Another way to put it might be "Don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.", which I have been told is a better translation of The Golden Rule.
Liberty frees you from feeling like you need to control other people's lives. Live your own life, and if someone encroaches on your life, liberty, or property, deal with them then and there.
Liberty lets you focus on your responsibility; not enforcing responsibility in others.
Instead of fretting over trivial matters, you can focus on what's really important. Is someone attacking the innocent or violating private property? No? Then forget it and move on. If they are, take steps to stop them.
The less time you spend worrying about what other people do, the more you will have to spend on being a better friend, relative, and neighbor.
You'll probably be less stressed out, too. It's a huge burden to feel what your neighbors do is somehow your business.
Liberty frees you from wringing your hands over situations you have no control over. Don't like what's going on in other countries? Can you actually do anything about it? If you can, should, and want to, go and do something. If not, concentrate on your own life. Don't force others to do what you think should be done, and don't force them to pay for it either. Meddling by those who think "something must be done" has caused the lion's share of political trouble.
You can also save a lot of time when you stop worrying whether something is "legal" and go straight to doing what is right.
It's easier to keep track of two or three universal laws than millions of federal, state, and local rules. How easy? Don't use force- or send others to use it on your behalf- against people who aren't attacking the innocent or violating private property, respect private property, and if you enter an agreement, do your best to keep it. Anyone can do that. Can't you?
.
The crescendo approaches
In every issue of the local papers I see government growth. More "authority" being stolen and asserted; new "laws" being invented; more heavy-handed enforcement being proposed.
Sure, it might look like healthy growth to those who don't look too closely, but it's actually the malignant run-away growth of something about to die. When I extrapolate this to every area around America- and the world- I see the end of the Age of Authority coming.
Statists may believe they can keep this up, but they can't. It will cause a collapse. I don't have a lot of pity for those who keep cheering this growth on. I just hope it isn't too hard on the liberty lovers (who are probably at least kind of expecting it).
.
Sure, it might look like healthy growth to those who don't look too closely, but it's actually the malignant run-away growth of something about to die. When I extrapolate this to every area around America- and the world- I see the end of the Age of Authority coming.
Statists may believe they can keep this up, but they can't. It will cause a collapse. I don't have a lot of pity for those who keep cheering this growth on. I just hope it isn't too hard on the liberty lovers (who are probably at least kind of expecting it).
.
Monday, August 25, 2014
You'd need to alter reality
I hate to be disagreeable, but...
You'll never convince me "government is necessary" because I don't need it.
You'll never convince me "government is good" because I see its inherent evil with my own two eyes.
Until you can change reality your words are as ridiculous to me as a person who tries to tell me I need to get cornea piercings, just because it would be cool. I know what is unnecessary and harmful to me, despite any arguments and pleas.
.
You'll never convince me "government is necessary" because I don't need it.
You'll never convince me "government is good" because I see its inherent evil with my own two eyes.
Until you can change reality your words are as ridiculous to me as a person who tries to tell me I need to get cornea piercings, just because it would be cool. I know what is unnecessary and harmful to me, despite any arguments and pleas.
.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Defending property rights of the "nonconformist"
Just as freedom of speech is meaningless until someone says something "offensive", so are property rights meaningless until someone decides to use their property in a way you disagree with.
Very few people need to defend the property rights of the guy with the neatly trimmed, water-wasting lawn, with nothing in it but a birdbath (cleaned daily to prevent mosquito propagation) in front of the perfectly maintained house. The only time you are likely to have to defend that person's property rights is when the State decides to steal his property via "eminent domain".
The person who needs others to rally to his defense is the guy whose idea of a great place to live differs from that of his neighbors.
Whether it's the tall weeds, the crop of Cannabis, the herd of goats, his "unlicensed" home-based business, or his prized, rusted Yugo in the middle of the front yard, the "community" wants to force him to keep his property they way "the majority" has decided it must be kept, and they will steal his property as punishment if he doesn't comply.
And this is the guy who will illustrate to observers whether you really believe in property rights, or if you just make a show as long as you aren't uncomfortable.
So which will it be? What kind of excuses will you come up with why this guy must give up his rights for "the common good"? Or, will you really defend him?
.
Very few people need to defend the property rights of the guy with the neatly trimmed, water-wasting lawn, with nothing in it but a birdbath (cleaned daily to prevent mosquito propagation) in front of the perfectly maintained house. The only time you are likely to have to defend that person's property rights is when the State decides to steal his property via "eminent domain".
The person who needs others to rally to his defense is the guy whose idea of a great place to live differs from that of his neighbors.
Whether it's the tall weeds, the crop of Cannabis, the herd of goats, his "unlicensed" home-based business, or his prized, rusted Yugo in the middle of the front yard, the "community" wants to force him to keep his property they way "the majority" has decided it must be kept, and they will steal his property as punishment if he doesn't comply.
And this is the guy who will illustrate to observers whether you really believe in property rights, or if you just make a show as long as you aren't uncomfortable.
So which will it be? What kind of excuses will you come up with why this guy must give up his rights for "the common good"? Or, will you really defend him?
.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
The use of a militia
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment
So, what happens when the militia failed in its duty to stop a standing army from being established? Because that's where we are, and a lot of people don't remember that quote and its implications. And they forget that the military is the mortal enemy of both America and the liberty of Americans (and anyone else they encounter). People need to remember. Or recognize the reality.
.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Is this The End for JPFO?
Claire Wolfe has unsettling news about a very important gun rights group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and its imminent destruction.
I posted the following on JPFO's Facebook page (it is awaiting "approval"- can you say "snowball's chance in Hell"? I hope I'm wrong- we shall see...)
ADDED: just found out the person who runs the JPFO Facebook page has an actual LIFE and doesn't just sit around waiting for people like me to post stuff. Amazing! ;) And, Thanks!
Now I will forward this to JPFO's board of directors. Why not put in your "2 cents", too?
Contact the JPFO board (Copied from Claire's blog, "just in case")
Executive Board Director
Robert (Bob) Meier — bob@rhmeier.com
Senior Board Member
Bruce Bell — boo3@ix.netcom.com
Board Member and Managing Director
Doug Schuett — jpfoscty@att.net
UPDATE: Yep. It was The End.
.
I posted the following on JPFO's Facebook page (it is awaiting "approval"- can you say "snowball's chance in Hell"? I hope I'm wrong- we shall see...)
ADDED: just found out the person who runs the JPFO Facebook page has an actual LIFE and doesn't just sit around waiting for people like me to post stuff. Amazing! ;) And, Thanks!
I have been a LIFE member of JPFO for several years. I have never been wealthy, and it was very hard to scrape up the dues, but I did so because of the "no-compromise" position Aaron [Zelman] and JPFO held.
So it pains me, but if the deal with Alan Gottlieb's SAF goes through I will publicly and loudly renounce my membership on my blog to all my readers. And I will tell everyone I know why I felt forced to do so.
There is an alternate plan, one which respects Aaron's legacy and my wishes for the group. JPFO doesn't have to be destroyed. It can be saved. Do it, because it's the right thing to do.
Now I will forward this to JPFO's board of directors. Why not put in your "2 cents", too?
Contact the JPFO board (Copied from Claire's blog, "just in case")
Executive Board Director
Robert (Bob) Meier — bob@rhmeier.com
Senior Board Member
Bruce Bell — boo3@ix.netcom.com
Board Member and Managing Director
Doug Schuett — jpfoscty@att.net
UPDATE: Yep. It was The End.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)