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.

Trusting the Wolves

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

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

Announcing "KentForLiberty.com"

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

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

A Gun Control Compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 I am truly willing to meet you half way. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining Down Freedom

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

The National Agenda

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

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

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

Who's the "Criminal"?

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

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

Laugh at Me

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

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

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

Out-of-Proportion Punishments

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

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

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

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

"Driving is a Privilege"?

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

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

... For Your Own Good....

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

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

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

Politics One Polls

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

"In Search of the Second Amendment"

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

Not to Be Trusted?

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

REAL ID? Any ID? Why?

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

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

The "Cult of Government"

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

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

"They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer

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

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

A Trap to Avoid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty For All article about "they".

Would I Be "Allowed" to Take Office?

Would the powers-that-be allow someone like me to become president? Would they make certain I was assassinated before I could begin to dismantle the police state that they are working so feverishly to implement? I do sometimes fear the possibility. I don't fear it enough to make me stop the campaign, though.

No matter who wins the presidency, no matter how loudly that candidate has decried the abuses of the government in the past, nothing ever changes once that person takes office. Am I the only person who has noticed this? How does the government make certain that nothing changes? Does it make sure that only a dedicated police-stater gets elected, or does it "convince" the new president to go along?

Whatever normally happens, I would not allow that to happen with my presidency. I pledge to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights. My VP would have the responsibility for making certain of that, up to the point of shooting me if that is what it took. I would hope he would use persuasion, press conferences, and pressure before resorting to this last option. If I were ever guilty of going back on my campaign promises, and would not listen to reason, and some member of the population took it upon him- or herself to "fix" the situation through assassination, my successor would be under strict instructions to grant an immediate pardon to "the voter". This is the only way to keep a politician, even the most well-meaning one, honest.

Murder-by-Cop in Florida

Isaac Singletary, 81 years old, of Jacksonville, Florida is the latest victim of murderous drug cops.

"If you've got an individual that's got a firearm, then you have to do what you have to do based on your training to protect your life or protect the lives of others," said the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Director of Homeland Security and Investigations, Micheal Edwards.

And that is exactly what Mr. Singletary tried to do. He had tresspassers in his yard. He asked them to leave. They refused, and he tried to defend himself against these criminals. Once again, though, the bad guys had badges. He was murdered for his efforts.

Libertarians: Amish of the Future?

A couple of days ago, I was watching "2057" on The Discovery Channel, a program looking at life fifty years from now, and wondering; where privacy will be in the future. It was mentioned a few times on the show, but only in passing. Will libertarians be left out of the future wonders if we do not accept the all-seeing state? Will we be the Amish of the future? Will we, will liberty, become obsolete? That is a scary thought. Or will the world be divided into the urban areas of great technology, but zero privacy, and rural areas of greater privacy, but less tech? Perhaps the liberty lovers will be expected to put up with the intrusive state, and pay for it, but will not get any benefit because we won't or can't pay for it. We are already viewed as paranoiacs just because we can see the drawbacks of giving up liberty for (false) security. We are already being marginalized because we don't ask for permission to do the things we know we have an inborn right to do. Try explaining to some state sympathizer why you have no "driver's license". Try to retain a bit of privacy when you open a bank account. Imagine how much harder it will be in the future. It will be hard, but we must never give up. It will be easier to hold onto what we have, than to try to get it back if we give in now.

Then again, government meddling has kept all the wondrous things that were predicted fifty years ago from coming to pass, maybe it will prevent this too. It's too bad. I would really like a flying car, even if I balk at government "requiring" a license and registration for using one.

"Politics One" January Poll

I ended up winning the Politics One Libertarian poll for January.

I am in fourth place in The Next Prez's January poll at the moment, and in third place on the Libertarian Poll.

"Thank you" to everyone for your votes!

Tyranny Deniers

There are people out there who seem to do everything in their power to overlook the evils of the state. They attack and ridicule those whom they mockingly call "tax deniers" and others who attempt to fight the state; even those who do so without any violence. They are the tyranny deniers. They would not see tyranny in their own backyard as long as it was operating under color of law. They try to trivialize the fight by finding fault in the argument that the resistance uses, or by finding fault in the resisters themselves. No one is perfect. I certainly am not. Does that make my fight against tyranny illegitimate? No, it makes my fight human. In epic battles of the past, sometimes less-than-heroic allies have helped defeat an even greater, more pressing evil. There is no more horrific evil than tyranny. Don't become a tyranny denier just because you may not like or agree with someone who is standing up to the state. Find a way to strike your own blows. Divide and conquer the state instead of letting the liberty movement be divided and conquered. Authoritarians of every stripe are a major threat to all of humanity, even to the tyranny deniers.

It's Lonely at the ..... Top?

I am a political party of one. I suppose that makes it lonely, but this way I don't need to conform my views to please any political group. Instead of going out and trying to convince them that I am worthy, I am letting them come to me. If they want me to be their candidate, and they can accept my stand, then we can work together. I don't know if this is a viable tactic, since, as far as I know it has never been done. In reality, every person is their own political party. Most people just try to identify with one that matches their views as closely as possible; or the party that their parents belong to. I am simply recognizing reality and trying to work with it. I am probably closest in agreement with the Boston Tea Party. I also appreciate the Libertarian Party, but think they have watered down their message to be more palatable for general consumption. I would accept the nomination of any party out there; on MY terms. If I am forced to "go it alone" to the bitter end, that is what I will do. It is my quest. Now pardon me while I go off to find some windmills to tilt at.

Read This

"A Few Reasons to Own Guns" by Darian Worden.

No Such Critter as a "Tax Cheat"

"Tax cheat". I am tired of hearing this dishonest phrase. How is it even possible to "cheat" a thief? It isn't. If a mugger accosts you in the park, he is stealing your money, which is, at its foundation, your life's time and effort. Anyone who attempts to take your life or any part thereof by force is a thief who should be resisted with force. He has forfeited his right to life. You certainly have no obligation to hand over the $20 hidden in your shoe. If you don't, are you cheating him? Of course not. The very thought is utterly ridiculous. Why is a thug with a badge or a gavel any different? There is no difference except in the carefully crafted misperception of the public. The government and its media lap-dogs indoctrinate Americans with the words "tax cheat" and "your taxes" in a calculated effort to make the institutionalized theft seem legitimate. Americans are distracted by glowing accounts of what the thieves will spend the money on, and shown how some small part of it will be directed back to the victims. Don't fall for it. No one can spent your money as wisely (or as foolishly, if that is your desire) as you can. A freelance mugger is much less dangerous than a vindictive government bent on theft. The mugger can be dealt with easily. The kleptocracy is well populated and heavily armed and does not like to be defied. Just because they can write permission for themselves in the form of counterfeit "laws" and imprison you does not make them right. Theft-by-government is the most common, and the most disgusting, kind of theft.

Advice for Ed Brown

Well, this isn't really just advice for Ed Brown, but is also for Wayne Fincher or any one of the millions of people in America who are currently violating some counterfeit "law" out there. You should work as hard as you can, putting everything you've got, into getting me elected president. This would do more to help your case than anything else you could do. Why? Because as soon as I took office I would become a pardon factory. As long as you did not commit force or fraud (against anyone other than someone acting in an official government capacity) I would grant you executive clemency. I would also point out that if the judge had not dishonestly refused to inform the jurors of their legal and traditional right and duty to judge the law as well as the facts of the case, you would most likely have never been convicted in the first place. Never again would a judge be able to tamper with the jury in this manner without his crime being made public. Very public.

I know it would be more of a moral victory to stand up to the unconstitutional edicts on your own terms, but the state can not allow you or me to win this way. We can beat them at their own game, however. Let them arrest you and put you on trial. Have your defense attorney inform me of the case. I would hold a press conference to remind America to become fully informed jurors. I would publicly call for the judge to instruct the jury to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. Then, even if you are convicted, I would pardon you. What kinds of "crimes" am I speaking of? Tax "evasion, gun possession, self defense against armed agents of the state or free-lance criminals, prostitution, drug charges; anything that is not force or fraud. Look at the past blog entries in my archive to find out more about counterfeit "laws". Hiding money from theft-by-taxation is not fraud, by the way, it is attempting to hold on to that which belongs to you. It is the moral equivalent of hiding money in your shoe.

This is my offer to you. Whether you have been arrested, are currently facing trial, or have gone through this injustice in the past. Put your effort into getting me elected and the "justice system" will begin to be "just" again in spite of the best efforts of the government.

Are All Presidents Mad-Men?

I often wonder if all who seek to become president are mad. I know it seems that most of them, perhaps all of them, behave as though they are completely insane once they take office. I observe the disconnect with reality that is displayed when presidents speak to reporters (themselves not known, as a group, to be very rational). It is truly astounding what presidents think we will believe when they say it. "Tell a lie often enough and it will become accepted as the truth." Playing with the lives of humans as if they are chess pieces to be used in the deadly games of government. Sane humans do not do this. The disregard to human life is enough to make the most infamous serial-murderers look compassionate. The political process weeds out those of us who are not willing to compromise our principles and lie ourselves into the good graces of the voters. Maybe this is why it is so hard for a person of the libertarian persuasion to get elected; we are too sane. Or, it is more likely that we are not "mad" in the right way.

Expectation of Justice

When a person is accused of a crime, that person should be able to have some expectation that they will get justice in front of the jury. Remove this expectation and the entire justice system will collapse, as well it should.

The courts are not interested in justice; only convictions, and have skewed the system in their favor. Corrupt judges who refuse to inform jurors of their right and duty, under the law and backed up by a thousand-year-old legal tradition, to judge the legitimacy of the law, as well as the facts of the case, undermine this expectation. "Justice" does not mean "punishment". It means what is right will be done.

If you have been arrested for consciously deciding to violate a law which you believe to be counterfeit, the jurors deciding your fate have the right to judge for themselves if your view has any merit. Ed Brown and Hollis Wayne Fincher were denied even this minimal amount of justice. It does not matter whether or not they actually broke any law at this point; what matters is that the government kept critical information from the jury in order to assure a guilty verdict. This is jury tampering of the highest degree. Remove "justice" from the "criminal justice system" and what are you left with?

The REAL State of the Union

At the request of Conservative President 2008 I prepared my own State of the Union address. Here it is:

America, through world-wide meddling by the US government, has made enemies all over the globe. The US government does not, or at least should not, represent America. America is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; The Highest Law of the Land. The US government is a bureaucracy which serves only its own interests to the detriment of America.

More terrorists devoted to killing Americans are created every day in countries all over the world by the US government's policies of nation-building and "peace-keeping". Who can blame them? Imagine if the roles were reversed. Remember how America felt when nineteen Arab terrorists killed almost 3000 Americans (if the government line is true)? Now imagine that instead of that horrible, singular act, a foreign army had invaded our shores and began moving through all of our towns, killing, raping, and maiming along the way. You would vow to avenge the deaths of your neighbors and brothers, sisters, father and mother til the last breath of life were gone from your body. How do you think they feel with US troops parading through their hometowns? We must bring the troops home, safe, alive, now.

The economy is a mess. Government statistics hide the true cost of inflation, which is really simply the cost of not backing our money with precious metal. The Federal Reserve needs to be abolished to bring value back to your money, and the IRS must be banished to leave that money in the hands of its rightful owners.

America is a country suffering in a vast wasteland of "law pollution" where every little issue brings forth a new law. The Supreme Court, back when it still had a shred of honor, ruled that any law which was out of line of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was null and void and was not really a law, and that no one had any obligation to obey such a law. I call this a "counterfeit law". The law pollution needs to be cleaned up. Crimes such as murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, and fraud are real crimes. There is no debate here. Victimless "crimes" need to be done away with, and the political prisoners held for violating them need to be given back their lives.

Some Americans rail against "illegal" immigrants while studiously ignoring why the "problem individuals" come here. Welfare handouts are not only bringing in human parasites from abroad, but raising up a generation of the same here. Handouts are never the way to build a person. Stop offering them and the people who choose to come here will come for all the right reasons; the same reasons most of your ancestors and mine chose to make America their home.

Much is made of the shift to a Democratic-controlled Congress, but this is merely "smoke and mirrors" as there is no longer enough difference between Democrat and Republican to matter. Both sides believe they have the authority and wisdom to control the personal, private affairs of others. Both sides pursue the same policies only shifting emphasis from year to year. Both sides are complicit in the destruction of liberty under the pretense of saving "us" from one phantom or another.

I believe there is hope. More and more Americans are recognizing the harm that the US government is doing using American interests as an excuse. Even out-of-control police officers across the country are having the light of attention shined on their abuses. The murders they commit are being noticed more and more. Fewer people believe the official government story on .... anything. There is hope. Freedom will win.

News Flash: All "New" Laws Null and Void!

In the manner of the US federal government, I have unilaterally decided that all laws passed since the original Constitution and Bill of Rights are now null and void.

I hear the masses of oppressed productive Americans breathing a sigh of relief. "But wait" I hear you say. "What about laws which deal with things that didn't exist in the late 18th century?" Don't worry about them; I won't. There are plenty of hazards that existed in that quaint era for you to get your knickers in a knot over. Swords and muskets existed back then, so you will be required to obey every single sword or musket control law in the Constitution. Sorry, but that is just how it must be. You will also be responsible for obeying all the environmental regulations that the Constitution applies to your horses' exhaust-pipes. You must apply the definition of the words that were in common usage at the time they were written, and not "go soft" by using more modern "kinder, gentler" translations. And don't worry, the .0001% of the US government that will still exist under the new rules will be enforcing the Highest Law of the Land from now on, since they will be freed from enforcing the ridiculously silly edicts they have been wasting their time with for the past couple of centuries.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled hallucination.

Freedom on Trial

Here is an article from The Libertarian Enterprise about Ed Brown and his situation.

"Why I Support Ed Brown" by Kat Kanning

I haven't been commenting on this situation primarily because everyone should know by now that I think that all taxes are completely, inexcusably wrong and that drawing attention to yourself is suicide. I hope for a good outcome, but I don't expect it. The "Ed Brown Standoff" is no longer really about Ed Brown and whether or not he is a nice guy. It is now about whether or not you support the criminal-justice system as it is, or if you think it has become a travesty.

This and other recent high-profile trials where the defendants were not allowed to argue that the "laws" that had been violated were illegitimate demonstrate a severe shortcoming in our broken criminal-justice system. The parasitic government sets all the terms so the outcome is almost predetermined. As Darrell Anderson of Simple Liberty said recently, "What parasite in his or her right mind would allow the host to dictate the terms of existence?" Not the one which controls the US courts, obviously.

The only nice way to fight this is to become a fully informed juror. The next time Freedom is on trial, disregard the judge's infantile demands and find in favor of liberty, not tyranny.

L. Neil Smith on "Gun Rights"

He says it better than I could.

Emotional Inertia

In our quest for real, meaningful change, I think that a form of "emotional inertia" is what holds us back. I was originally going to call it "mental inertia" but I don't think it involves our rational minds. Stay with me and I will get around to the political implications here.

Imagine that you always thought that rhinoceros were the size of a donkey. On a safari you run into one and discover that it is much larger than you thought. Unless you have some emotional investment in your previous belief, you will easily adjust to your new information.

On the other hand, if you have always believed that the federal government is like a kindly grandfather; watching out for you and only wanting what is best for you, you are not likely to shift your view no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary. You will always rationalize the evil that the government does. "Those people deserved it." or "There are a few bad apples, but most of them are only in it to help." You have too much of your emotional life bound up in your worldview to relinquish it easily. You may have friends and family who have a job that you would begin to see as immoral if you looked at it rationally.

Can emotional inertia be overcome? Yes, but it isn't easy. Mostly it will only come from within. I can't argue or debate you into changing your view. What I can do is live my life freely. Live by what I know is right. I will not initiate force or fraud against anyone. I will stick to my guns. I can't force you to be free. If you want to join me, I will welcome you.

Innocents Betrayed

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the film Innocents Betrayed put out by JPFO. This movie explores the links between victim disarmament (erroneously known as "gun control") and genocide. I highly recommend it. They now offer it as a download for $5.00. If you look quickly, you can see a photo of me in the film, and I am listed in the photo credits. I am the mountainman in the black & white photo that flashes past rather quickly during a montage illustrating modern American life.

Liberty for All

There have been some incredibly good articles in "Liberty For All" recently. Here is a selection of some that struck a nerve with me.

Child support.

Out of the Mouths of Wolves...

Responsibility.

So Easy to Believe the Lie.

Most of these were originally published a few years ago, but they are just as relevent now as when they were written, which is why Liberty For All republished them.

Last Call for "Time's Up" Flags

Tomorrow, Friday January 19, 2007 will be the last call for "Time's Up" flags on eBay for a while. Get them while you can!

The Elite and Their Enablers

Why isn't there more disenchantment with government? I think it is because too many people feel they would be nothing without the big guns of government backing them up. If you are "in" with the tyrant, you have privileges that the serfs don't have. You can get away with using guns that are forbidden to the rest of us. You get to engage in blatantly criminal behavior such as kicking in doors and shooting dads and grandmothers.

Even if you do not wield the iron fist there are reasons you might want to keep the status quo. If you have been granted a license that gives you a special status, you don't want everyone to realize that a "license" is only as meaningful as the body that grants it. If you are with the IRS you can take glee in stripping the flesh off of those who dare to point out your nakedness. If you are with the BATFE you can stalk, imprison, and murder those who simply own the same types of firearms that you feel should be yours alone. Small souls seek to punish.

Then there are also those who rely on a government handout. They studiously ignore the fact that the money is stolen from other people. Perhaps they justify it because they "paid in all those years".

If you fear freedom, real freedom, examine your reasons. Do you fear the loss of your privilege? Are you afraid of "the unwashed masses"? Does being forced to compete on the free market without the state threatening everyone into submission scare you? Stop belittling and ridiculing liberty. If you don't want freedom, get out of the way of those of us who intend to live free.

Rigging the "Game"

Did you sign the Constitution? I didn't. I am not that old. Were you asked when you reached the governmental "age of consent" if you wished to be subjected to rule by the US (or any) government? Me neither.

Isn't it ironic that "we" are told we must obey the governmental edicts imposed by "our" representatives (who, at best, are only representing a small majority of voters) while they are allowed to interpret the rules to mean whatever is convenient for them?

I have no problem with a government existing as long as it does not violate anyone's rights. Once it does, it becomes coercive. I do not consent to coercion.

Government is the only power allowed to define the rules of the game. They do not do so in favor of individual liberty. Is it any wonder that governments historically get bigger and more evil until they topple?

United (Police) States of America

Think about it. The government keeps clamping down with tighter and tighter controls on us ordinary people. We are numbered and tracked in almost everything we do. Anything remotely against the current governmental "view" of things has been labelled "terrorism". We live in Police State USA and are charged for the privilege, through taxation; being subjected to all the above abuses, and expected to thank the authoritards for "protecting" us.

State-worshippers see nothing wrong with this system. They seem to think it is a good idea. After all, it is for our own good. No, wait; it is "for the children". We must not put American ideals above their false god of safety.

Paraphrasing Princess Leia: The more they tighten their grip, the more people will slip through their fingers. Yet, according to the reigning Emperors and Darths, it is our fault if things don't work out. We should willingly give up our lives as pawns of the Empire. Good luck, tyrants. This is still America!

Am I More Palatable Now?

For those of you who want a more "political" looking candidate McManigal, I offer this picture of me.

2008 Presidential Election blog

Another blog has mentioned me. The writer of the 2008 Presidential Election blog doesn't particularly seem to agree with me, but here is what he said:

Libertarian Party Leader

Kent McManigal (Is this guy serious? I hope NOT)

This one was tough. Kent did not lead in both polls, but when averaged between the too, he was the leader. I googled him and he is listed well. He makes a lot of crazy statements on his site that make it apparent he is not serious about being president. He has a blog and a website that describes him as anti-government with plans to have his massive inauguration party/meet up on the White House lawn where he will burn Social Security cards and put the White House up for bid to sell. He has listed Andrew Wiegand as his running mate. I listed Kent only because he was ahead in the polls.

I really don't see the big deal. I am not a threat to anyone. If you prefer to live a less-than-free life, I can't stop you, nor would I even try. You don't like parties or bonfires? Stay home then. You like your Social Security cards and IRS papers? Keep them for nostalgia. I think the White House would make a lovely museum to remind Americans what can happen if government is not kept in a pinch-collar on a very short leash.

Fincher Railroaded

Hollis Wayne Fincher has been railroaded. What else would you call it? I don't wish to get into another debate on the right to own weapons (if you wish to rehash it, look at my earlier blogs and comments), but I do want to comment on the Hollis Wayne Fincher guilty verdict. Of course he was convicted. How could he not be when the judge tampered with the jury to make certain they would convict him? He was not allowed to use the defense that he has the individual right, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, to "bear arms".

Suppose that next year congress passes a law outlawing certain books. You take a moral stand that the law is wrong, and publicly announce that you will continue to own and read, perhaps even publish, those "illegal" books. Being arrested for owning a Bible or an encyclopedia and not being allowed to argue that the "law" you are being charged with violating is illegitimate almost guarantees you will be found guilty. Unless the jury is made up of very strong people who resisted the judge's instructions to simply decide if you had indeed broken the law. Counterfeit "laws" should not be obeyed. Regardless of your stand on the right to bear arms, if you are not allowed to use the government's highest law in your defense, then what has become of America?

Free Wayne!

Communists

What is a "communist"? It is someone who ascribes to the system of communism, which Dictionary.com defines as "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state."

I could never be a communist since I do not believe in a "common good". However, depending on your religious beliefs, you might not want to toss it out so quickly. The early Christians were communists. Acts 4:34-35 says:

"Neither was there any among them that lacked, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold. And laid them down at the apostles' feet and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Note that this was an entirely voluntary form of communism; not the state enforced Marxism that is generally meant by the word "communism" today. Still, I could not live this way, since I view the fruits of your labors as yours alone to do with as you wish. If, however, you choose to put it in a common account, to be used "for the greater good", that is your business and not mine.

Overwhelmed

Somedays it seems like the police state is overwhelming us. You read about cases like Cory Maye, Hollis Wayne Fincher, Kathryn Johnston, Sean Bell, Peyton Strickland, and Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, and it just feels that "they" have us outnumbered. There is hope, though. At least these stories are not being totally ignored. Even the average American is hearing about some of these people. Perhaps a few of them are beginning to see the United States for what it is: a grave threat to America. Don't forget any of these victims of US tyranny.

Remember your duty to use the power of the jury box to judge the legitimacy of the law that someone is being accused of violating; if the law is nonsense or if you believe it is unconstitutional, then find the defendant not-guilty. Regardless of what the judge tells you to do. It is your right and duty, and has been for around a thousand years. No corrupt puppet of the police state can order you to do otherwise. Support and practice jury nullification.

Political Teens Blog

A new blog, The Political Teens Campaign, has been started for all of you politically minded teens out there. It was started by Daniel Myers of the Politics One blog. I think it is a great idea and wish Daniel the best of luck.

No-Excuses

I like the little blurb about me on The Next Prez's Friday Top Five this week:

5. Kent McManigal (steady) -- Still holding down the fort for libertarians from the L. Neil Smith no-excuses corner of the party.

Polls

If you have the desire to do so, here are a few polls where you can vote for the candidate(s) of your choice.

Next Prez, third poll down, on the right.

Politics One, also the third poll down, and it is bright yellow!

Libertarian Poll

Thanks for your votes!

A Reason to Hope for the Future

A Missouri teen videos cops during one of their increasingly common illegal roadblocks. This kid has guts.

Excited by the Opportunities

As we watch the state grow larger and more tyrannical, we can take comfort in knowing that there will come a point where it will be impossible to keep such a gigantic, authoritarian government from collapsing under its own weight. It has happened countless times throughout history, and will happen again. Authoritarian control is counter to the needs of people. For a time, the lazy or covetous among us will keep trying to hand us over to the state for their benefit. Eventually even they will see that it is not in their best interest to support a government that has only its own power as a motivating factor. Then, even these state worshippers will begin withdrawing support from the institutions of tyranny.

When this happens, we will watch the state crumble under its own weight, and we can be excited by the opportunities for liberty that will be opened to us. If we don't try to trade liberty for the temptation of controlling someone else, even those we may not like, in order to impose our wishes on their lives, we can have a free America. The secret is, don't replace the collapsed system with another system. To do so is to start down the road to authoritarian terrorism once again. It is the road that all governments eventually travel too far down.

A Quote About Cops

Here is a good perspective on what is wrong with the police in America today, and it was written in 1964. I wonder what Mr. Vance would think of the badge-wearing predators we have infesting society in 2007...

Humanity many times has had sad experience of superpowerful police forces.... As soon as [the police] slip out from under the firm thumb of a suspicious local tribune, they become arbitrary, merciless, a law unto themselves. They think no more of justice, but only of establishing themselves as a privileged and envied elite. They mistake the attitude of natural caution and uncertainty of the civilian population as admiration and respect, and presently they start to swagger back and forth, jingling their weapons in megalomaniac euphoria. People thereupon become not masters, but servants. Such a police force becomes merely an aggregate of uniformed criminals, the more baneful in that their position is unchallenged and sanctioned by law. The police mentality cannot regard a human being in terms other than as an item or object to be processed as expeditionsly as possible. Public convenience or dignity means nothing; police prerogatives assume the status of divine law. Submissiveness is demanded. If a police officer kills a civilian, it is a regrettable circumstance: the officer was possibly overzealous. If a civilian kills a police officer all hell breaks loose. The police foam at the mouth. All other business comes to a standstill until the perpetrator of this most dastardly act is found out. Inevitably, when apprehended, he is beaten or otherwise tortured for his intolerable presumption. The police complain that they cannot function efficiently, that criminials escape them. Better a hundred unchecked criminals than the despotism of one unbridled police force.

- Jack Vance, The Star King, 1964 (later included in The Demon Princes)

Freedom of Speech

Do you have the right to falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Yes, you do. You have a responsibility to not do that, though, to be sure. Here again, I must state that rights are non-negotiable; not subject to restriction. Don't get yourself in a self-righteous knot, though. This is not quite the same as shooting people since the other people in the theater have some control over whether they panic and stampede or not. Still, if you cause a panic and people are injured or killed, you will be held accountable. If a theater owner wants to make certain that you do not cause a panic, would it be within her rights to cut out your tongue before allowing you into the theater? Not at all. She could tell everyone that false alarms will not be tolerated and if you cause one, you will be held financially responsible for any damages, and will face punishment for any harm that your actions cause anyone. If you have done this even once, I am quite sure you would not be welcome in any theater that knew of your actions. You should not be punished for "crimes" you have not yet committed, nor should you be denied your rights or property in order to prevent you from committing these potential "future crimes". Unfortunately, this is what the US police-state attempts to do. It is the entire foundation of victim disarmament "laws".

The First Amendment forbids government interference with speech. It also quite obviously protects your freedom to air your disagreements with the government or its indigenous vermin. I believe that freedom of speech is specifically about protecting unpopular speech. If just about everyone agrees with what you have to say, no one would be likely to try to stop you from saying it. If, however, your words are inflammatory, then dictators are likely to try to silence your dissent or to put you in a "free speech zone" where your words will have less of an impact if they are heard at all. Remember this when you hear authoritarians talking about "hate speech" or "religious extremist speech". Whether you agree with what is being said or not, do all you can to protect the speaker's right to be heard. You may be next on the list to be silenced.

Democrat vs. Republican - Yawn

Government is all a game; there is no difference but in name. Yet, coming from a republicanoid background as I do (did?), the sight of Democrat congresscritters celebrating their coup sends chills down my spine. I must continually remind myself that, once again, these are all still the same old authoritarians who believe they have a divine or social mandate to run my life as they see fit. I am just an unknown pawn in their game called "The United States". I am worse than anonymous to them; they don't care nor do they want to care. How is this any different from last year when the Republicans "ran things"? I used to care more deeply about the issues that the Republicans pretended to care about, but I have come to see that there is only one true issue: self ownership. Government is still all about increasing governmental "oversight" (read "control") over daily life. It is still all about "protecting" us from.... something. I forget who or what they are protecting me from today. Terrorists? Environmental doom? Guns? "Trans fats" or tobacco smoke? Sex? Fortunately I can protect myself from most of the things I need to be protected from (none of which are on the Tyrannocratic radar), and the ones I am powerless against I will take my chances with. So, thanks for the offer, government, but you can keep your "safety", and if you don't know where to put it, I could suggest a good place.

Being True to Myself

I have had a lot of well-meaning people suggest that the only way to make a name for myself in this campaign is to abandon the very things that set me apart from the other candidates. If I were comfortable with that tactic, why would I even continue to run?

I am here to remind others what "libertarian" means. If you are uncomfortable with some of the implications, then I am doing my job. I do not know everything. There are some issues and some situations I have not thought out fully, and some I have not even made myself aware of, I am sure. Anything that comes up can be solved in a true, uncompromising, libertarian, Zero Aggression Principle, sort of way. These types of solutions are permanent, not expedient, and sometimes are more difficult to embrace. Especially when we have lived in a culture of expediency and authoritarianism for so long.

I am still getting suggestions that I must change the way I dress in order to be taken seriously. George Phillies might look good in a suit; I do not. If you had never seen any pictures of me, would it change your opinion of me in any way? What if I had used a nice studio photo of a handsome model in a professional looking suit instead of a photo of myself? Would the ideas springing from my mind take on more legitimacy? I am my mind. Part of my mind makes it difficult for me to dress as others would wish I would dress. Just ask my parents. I don't do it to be difficult or to shock people, although that seems to be the general concensus. It is part of what makes me Kent McManigal. Perhaps I will take a self portrait that looks more "normal" soon. If I do, see if it changes your perception of me. If it does, then America is probably doomed.

Free Market

I'm on my way out the door to the modern American version of the street market: the flea market. A place where you can engage in free trade and find good products; many that were made before manufacturers discovered flimsy, plastic substitutes for wood, glass, and metal. There is a bit of an outlaw feel to the whole thing. You can haggle over a price instead of simply accepting the price that the barcode scanner demands. You can suggest a trade, or pay with your silver or gold coins. You can stumble upon treasures never imagined to exist if you dig through the boxes that no one else wants to take the time to explore. You can meet vendors who can't fit into the mainstream job market (for whatever reason) and who are more interesting for their differences.

If there is a flea market in your area (and I am sure there is) give it a try, if you haven't already. In its own way, it is a little bit of anarchy in the best sense.

An Apology (Re-Posted From My Comments)

JK Pratt - I owe you an apology. You were simply asking a valid question and I responded sarcastically. I am truly sorry.

I have been thinking about this issue and I will say I do not believe that people get killed very often for refusal to pay taxes, since I am sure most people are intimidated into compliance sometime during the process long before it reaches the fatal confrontation. If they did not ever give up, then, and only then, would they be killed.

Thank you for making me think more about this.

Rights Redux

I suppose that in light of recent discussions I should make clear that I do not think that "rights" come from government, nor do I think that government has any authority to restrict rights. I have written this all before, I realize, but it bears repeating, I suppose. Rights existed before government and rights will outlast government. The problem we have is that government does not want you to recognize this fact. Government wants you to think that they grant you a right, perhaps by passing a "Bill of Rights", and that therefore, government can take away or restrict that right. This is not a description of a "right, but of a "privilege". Privileges can be restricted or outright revoked. Rights can not.

People do not always use their rights in a good way. This is illustrated by the ubiquitous example of "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater". This would be a stupid and evil thing to do, but this also doesn't mean that everyone who goes into a theater must have their tongue cut out in advance to keep them from shouting "fire". If guns offend you, you have a right to not own one, but you do not have a right to forbid your neighbor from owning one. I have a right to carry an AK-47 down the streets in New York City if I choose to do so, though the city would undoubtedly choose to immorally arrest me if I did, but I do not have a right to point that gun at innocent people. The citizens of New York City do not have a right to not be offended or frightened by the sight of a gun. No one has rights that are more important than anyone else's rights. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

Rights are absolute, but not everything is a right. You have a right to live, and to defend your life. You have a right to live as you see fit, as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. You have a right to do what you enjoy as long as you do not violate the rights of others. You have a right to avoid involuntary servitude: the fruits of your time and labor belongs to you alone, unless you choose to share or give it away. On the other hand, you do not have a right to "universal government paid health care", or a right to walk through a crowd swinging a sword, a right to not breathe second-hand smoke, or a right to not be offended. Stop and think a moment and it is easy to see the difference between a right and something that is not a right.

Are some people so devoid of personal responsibility that they fear that if they own and carry defensive weapons they will suddenly lose control of themselves and become murderous maniacs? Or is this what they fear that you and I will do?

I believe that by looking at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights we can see how far America has fallen from what it was established to be: a beacon of liberty. If we could somehow get America back in line with the Constitution, I could live with that. I really want a truly free country where no one would ever need to fear the government as long as they are not initiating force or fraud on another person. No constitution can ever guarantee that. Personal responsibility can.

Firefly

I highly recommend that you watch the cancelled FOX network TV show Firefly. It is a science fiction/space-western. The principles are not strictly libertarian, but it is pretty good entertainment without the state-worship so prevalent today. Plus, it is just very fun to watch. There is also a feature movie, Serenity, which is a sequel to the series.

I am not associated in any way with anyone who gets money from a purchase or rental of Firefly, but plug it here strictly for your anti-state enjoyment.

As a point of interest (or, perhaps, not): Many of us "Freedom Outlaws" now refer to ourselves as "Fireflies", in part because of this show, and a suggestion from Claire Wolfe, the demi-goddess of freedom.

More on the Second Amendment

I suppose the whole issue of "interpreting" the Second Amendment is very upsetting to some people. Funny. Since that is what courts have been doing for years. The Second Amendment is not difficult to understand. The opening statement, by mentioning a "militia", seems to be a big part of the contention, even though that only explained why the founders thought it was necessary, but didn't limit its scope in any way. It would be like me saying "Gold coins being necessary for the purchase of a good meal, the right of the people to own and to spend gold coins shall not be infringed". It does not limit the owning of gold coins to only people who wish to eat "a good meal".

Another problem I have is that it seems very few people understand what "infringed" means. Let's go back to my gold coin analogy. Suppose your "right" is a gold coin. If someone shaves a little bit off the edge, they have infringed that coin. It may not even show up without a microscopic examination, but the damage is done. Those shavings can never be returned to their proper place, and each one steals a bit of value from the coin.

People who have an issue with my interpretation of the Second Amendment should read the writings of the founders from the time of the adoption of The Bill of Rights if they don't believe me. You will find that they did mean for it to be understood just as I understand it. You might find that I am a radical; yet I am not wrong.

I Am a Radical

I am a radical. There is no sense denying it. Like most of you, though, I am not a violent radical, unless I get attacked. I think radical actions need to be taken in order to save America from government extremism.

First of all, Americans need to be educated about what freedom really is. Then they will see that government is the opposite of liberty. This is what I attempt to do every day.

Second, they need to be shown that there is always an alternative to government intervention and control. We do not need to roll over and cooperate every time some pin-head with a badge or a zombie with a title gives us an order. Think before you comply.

For years I tried to fit into the mainstream of "average Joe-American" political thought. It didn't work for me. I could see the "man behind the curtain" too clearly, and could see that he was totally without merit. So I sit here sharing my awakening with you, hoping that it will make you think; even if you don't agree with me. This is what makes me a radical.

As has been often quoted and paraphrased: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
Karl Hess for Sen. Barry Goldwater; attributed to Cicero.

Visit My Website

I keep running into people asking questions about things that I have previously explained on my website. It is there so that you can read my views on issues that remain fairly constant. This blog is for things that just strike my thoughts in passing, or breaking news items. If you are interested in what I have to say, my website is a good place to start. Then, if you wonder what I think about the news of the day, my blog should address that. If it doesn't; ask me.

The Second Amendment (for the Learning Impared)

"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!"

Potential Allies or Tinfoil Hatters?

A couple of years ago I had a friend who would talk with me about his displeasure with the governmental status quo just about anytime we got to talk. I trusted him and thought he sounded pretty reasonable. He had told me he had been diagnosed as "paranoid/schizophrenic", but that he really wasn't. My only early warning was when he mentioned that he had an "alien implant". I thought he was joking, and didn't think more of it. Until "the incident".

He had loaned me, without prompting, some money to use to help a family that we both knew. I used it to buy food for them. The next day he asked what I had spent the money on and I told him. He seemed a little agitated. I still had the receipt and I offered it to him. We talked and he started claiming I had tricked him into loaning me the money. I was a little shocked as it had been his idea. Then the real fireworks began. He started saying that I was controlling his mind through his "implant" and that I was a "Martian". I told him that I was pretty certain I was human. He said "Why would you say that? Are you not positive?" I said I was, and he said "That is just what a Martian would say". He became more and more upset. He was talking about being in Army Intelligence back in the early '70s, and that he was still "in", but it was a secret. The more he spoke, the more unreal his claims became. He claimed to be killing people "in high government positions" with mental feedback through his implant. He asked me to kidnap him and a girl he wanted, and take them somewhere they couldn't be tracked. He spoke of the significance of his name and his initials. He said he couldn't "claim to be God". He was getting extremely angry, too. He began pounding his fist on the table and his face was very red. I was trying to just get him calmed down at this point, but everything I did he saw as me trying to use my "Martian thought-control powers" to manipulate him. He did eventually calm down and I got out without harm. I immediately called and warned the girl he wanted me to kidnap with him. He mentioned blowing my head off to mutual friends a few times, but no one else ever saw his bizarre behavior, and downplayed it.

I learned a valuable lesson from this: Not everyone who seems to be in agreement with you, is really on your side. Don't divulge too much too soon. Sometimes you can get a shock even after knowing someone for a few years. Also, beware my awesome "mind control powers".

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is nothing but revenge institutionalized. It is dead wrong; no pun intended. Now, before I get accused of being a bleeding heart, I will tell you; if you are being attacked, you have the absolute right to fight back in any way you need to in order to end the attack. I would even support your decision to use deadly force to stop vandalism or theft in almost all cases, since property crimes are stealing your life and security. Death at the hands of the victim or a rescuing hero at the scene of the crime is a fair outcome for someone who has decided to initiate force. However, once the criminal leaves the scene, there will always be some doubt, somewhere, as to guilt.

No government anywhere is so pure that it should be trusted with the authority to decide to kill someone as punishment. Once a person is caught and charged with a crime, all the government cares about is conviction. The fact that many defendants are found "not guilty", despite the best efforts of the jury-tampering judges, shows that the system can still work. However, no jury is above being influenced by a judge or prosecutor who is looking to advance his career by being seen as "tough on crime". If a defendant is found guilty of a "capital" crime, send him to prison for life and let those who believe in his innocence, or his family, pay for his upkeep.

Governments lie. They manufacture evidence, intimidate witnesses, play on some people's "authority worship", and set-up innocent people who dare to stand against their edicts. Show me a perfect, just government that I would trust with the power of life and death, and I will show you a government that has no desire for revenge.

Environmentalism

When I was younger, I was an enthusiastic environmentalist. I drove an electric car. I tried to convince my family that pesticides were worse than the "pests" they were used against. I almost fought with people whom I saw littering. I may have even thought more environmental regulations would be a good thing, but my mind can't force itself to even accept that possibility anymore, and I honestly can't remember if I ever thought that way.

I still hate to see the destruction and pollution of the natural world, but I have come to understand that laws are not the best way to "save the planet". I don't litter, and if you want to see me freak out, throw some trash out the car window while I am riding with you. In most cases, I will absolutely refuse to use pesticides of any kind, unless I am sure that the pests are a much greater health risk than the chemicals are (which is true in some cases). When I have owned a piece of property, I have spent a lot of time cleaning up trash that others have left behind, and repairing other kinds of damage that I find. This is not to say that I do not alter the land to suit my purposes, because I do. I just try to do it in a way that I find more appealing; which usually means in a way that appears more natural.

I don't know if humans are causing, or if they are even capable of causing, global climate change. The global climate is much more complicated than media-heads can grasp. I do know that I dislike waste and destruction. Handing over control of our environment to the most wasteful, destructive force the planet has ever endured (government) is not the way to save anything. Most environmental laws have zero to do with helping the environment and everything to do with controlling your life, stealing your property rights, and making you dependent on government.

The environmental mindset of government was witnessed years ago when some "ivory smugglers" were caught. In order to "save the elephants", ivory had been tightly controlled. Some government now had "confiscated" tons of a precious material. How could they have destroyed the market for ivory and put the poachers out of business? (Not that I believe they should, just as a thought experiment) They could have released all that ivory into the market and caused a glut, sending the prices down and making it less profitable to kill elephants. What did the governments actually do? They burned the ivory*. There, in a nutshell, is how governments think they will save the planet.

I believe that people will take care of the environment when it is in their best interest to do so; financially, aesthetically, and whatever else may motivate them. Lead by example and show people how it helps them to keep a clean, healthy planet and they will find real solutions.

*Update: It's now 2013, and it's STILL happening!  Idiots!

.

Is America Ready to Be Free?

Are YOU ready to be free? What about your family? How about your friends, neighbors, or co-workers? Is America, in general, ready for freedom? I don't think so. I wish it were. Freedom is expensive. It costs a lot in terms of responsibility. Slavery costs even more, but the cost is hidden because you can blame all your problems on the "master" when you are a slave. This makes it easier if you would rather complain than DO something. If being free became important to even a tenth of Americans, we would free America from the clutches of the United States in short order. There would be massive rejections and refusals of permits, licenses, and taxes. Cops and the military would walk out in defiance of their "superiors" and of the counterfeit edicts they are expected to kill Americans to uphold. Politicians and bureaucrats could spend all day screaming about this "law" or that "phantom-of-the-week" and we would ignore them or laugh in their puffy, red faces. If America were ready to be free, we would be free today. Our task is to make people realize that they deserve to be free. This is the way to get there from here. Once enough of us want to live in liberty, we will.