The Libertarian Enterprise

As I have done in the past, I will do again today. I ask you to go read today's issue of The Libertarian Enterprise. L. Neil Smith has a particulaly good article today on exposing the Victim Disarmament crowd for what they really are. There is also a good article on The Sunset Pledge. I also have an article in there. Just relax, read it, and have a nice day!

Calling All NRA Members and Gun Owners

I have been sticking my neck out for you. Now I am asking for a favor in return. I am asking all gun owners and NRA members to ask the NRA to endorse or acknowledge my candidacy. At least for a while. It would be a show of good faith toward gun owners on their part, and they would still have time to switch their endorsement to the Republican candidate later.

Look at my position on gun rights. You will not find a candidate in any party who is willing to go out on a limb for gun owners as far as I have. I do not falter on gun rights. It is an issue I am passionate about; unlike the lukewarm positions the candidates they have historically endorsed have held. I would welcome the support of the NRA and would view it as a sign that they are finally willing to accept a true pro-gun candidate. How about the rest of you gun owners?

"Cleared of Wrongdoing"

I don't know about you, but I am ready to see some criminal cops get punished for their crimes. Here is a video showing one such Bad(ge) Guy using pepper spray on a girl who he thinks shortchanged him. I have said before that badges and guns are a deadly combination. I'll expand that. Cops have shown repeatedly that they can't be trusted with tasers. I guess these vermin can't be trusted with pepper spray either. Or hands or teeth. If you or I did what this cop does on video, we would go to jail. But this assailant is "cleared of any wrongdoing". Of course he is. They can't have one of us commoners defying the lords and masters, can they? What it comes down to is this: don't speak to cops, ever. Don't do business with them. Record them on video whenever you can. Shine a light on their crimes. Until they turn from their oppressive ways they should be shunned. Resist the occupying forces in any way you can. They are the criminals here; never forget that.

Updated Blog "Labels"

I have gone through all of my old blog posts and added "labels" to everything. I hope this makes it easier for you to find information that you may be looking for. I also fixed a few links, and corrected a few typographical errors. I didn't change any content or anything else; I am still the anarcho-libertarian Presidential candidate. Just trying to be helpful.

Government

Government. It was a bad idea from the start. Maybe it sounded good at first to someone. Statists have had 5 or 6 thousand years to try to find a way to make their precious idea work. They've had their fun; enslaving, killing, raping, taxing, controlling; and all the while telling everyone how lucky we are to have them "protecting" us from ourselves. Telling us how much worse it would be without them and their kind holding back the wolves of "anarchy". Guess what... we ain't buyin' it no more. Time's up. It failed. It's over. Let it go. Get over it and move on. Get out of the way of those of us who want to progress away from dictators, tyrants, and bureaucrats. Let someone else have a try at something better this time. Set up your own little dictatorship in the privacy of your own home if you can't live without controlling someone. After all, we understand that what you do in private isn't any of our business unless you hurt someone. If you do hurt someone and they fight back, we won't punish them for daring to have and use tools of defense against you. No, we will congratulate them and thank them for ridding the world of a dangerous parasite.

Take Action - Do Something!

Is "doing something" so important that it doesn't matter if what you are doing is wrong? I think a lot of America's (and the rest of the world's) current mess of law pollution comes from the mistaken idea that it is always important to "do something", even if the situation isn't fully understood. Something bad happens and then the cry rises to do something so that the same thing won't happen again. So legislators pass a new law in response. It doesn't matter that most new laws cause more problems than they solve, or that they are invariably counterfeit "laws" to begin with. No, what matters to the masses of humanity is that something was done. So now we are smothering under hundreds of years of laws passed in order to be seen as taking action in a crisis (imagined or real).

It is time to take action again. This time, though, we have had time to consider what we are doing. It is time to sweep away the counterfeit "laws" that threaten our liberty and our country. It is time to take action to make certain that any laws that are allowed to stand have a basis in punishing initiated force or fraud only. It is time to remove from positions of power or influence those who seek to control our lives. The time has come to take action.

The Tale of the Thief

A father, let's call him Steve, needs money to feed his children. He won't ask for help, because he believes no one would help him anyway. He won't go earn money because he needs the money today. He only wants to get money for food. That is a noble cause, right? He goes to sit in the park to think about his problems. As Steve sits there thinking, a person we'll call Ernie walks past, stuffing his wallet back into his pocket, an ATM receipt in his hand. Steve gets an idea. He walks up behind the stranger and taps him on the shoulder.

Steve: "Excuse me sir."

Ernie: "Yes?"

S: "You must give me some of your money"

E: "I don't think so"

S: "Yes, you are required to. I wrote a essay about it", he lies. "Besides, I am not asking for ALL of your money."

E: "Go get a job, you bum". He turns to leave.

S: "If you don't give me some of your money, my friends out there behind the bushes will shoot you. Then we will look through your wallet and find out where you live and go to your house to get the rest of what you owe us."

E (looking nervously around): "Um. Okay. Here". Hands over some money.

S: "Thank you for voluntarily complying. See you tomorrow"

Steve the father, emboldened by his success, goes up to stranger after stranger and starts the same routine, this time adding "Of course I have the authority to do this. I don't need to show you the whole essay I wrote, or explain it to you. You wouldn't accept it anyway. I can prove I have the authority to do this because I have a history of success when confronted about my actions. Pay or I will be forced to make an example of you so that fewer will resist me. If you try to avoid paying by hiding money in your shoe or by burying it somewhere I will destroy you so completely that no one will dare question my methods again."

Steve becomes a wealthy man. Few dare to stand up to him, because, true to his word in this regard, anyone who resists is destroyed as an example to the rest of us.

The Hostile Legal Landscape

Following up on my thoughts on "laws", I will say I believe there is a huge distinction between "legal" and "right". I am not a lawyer so I do not pretend to have any expertise in legal matters. What some may call "simplistic", I think of as "cutting through the crap". I also believe that the "law" has lost most of its relevance to "right and wrong" precisely because it has become so convoluted and self-contradictory that it requires legal scholars to decipher.

In my view, laws should be easily understood by the average person in a particular culture. "Average" means that person would probably seem rather dull-witted to most people who concern themselves with "legal matters". If a law requires panels of judges or law-firms to interpret and rule upon, then it is too complicated to be useful in day-to-day life. I have had lawyers admit to me that they have very little understanding of laws outside of their direct area of expertise. How then could a government expect you and I to understand the laws which they expect us to obey to the letter? I don't think that most of these "laws" were put in place in order to destroy our lives; most were probably proposed with good intentions, but I do think that has been the unintended consequence that has come out of it. Plus, in the case of "laws" which attempt to regulate something other than actual initiation of force or fraud, they have no ethical standing to begin with. They are "counterfeit" just as surely as if I were to run dollar bills off my home printer. Having the appearance of legitimacy does not make something legitimate. "Legalese" does not make a "law" legitimate.

Someone made the comment to me that my simplistic views on "laws" can't work in today's society because we no longer live in the 13 original colonies, but in 50 states with a multitude of jurisdictions. Perhaps. I believe that the more people you try to apply the "law" to, the less specific it must be. This could be called the "simplest common denominator" legal theory. You can't declare that all people must be 5'6" tall and weight 200 pounds. Human variances make such declarations absurd. You must accept that people are different, and have different values. As long as they do not aggress against others or defraud them in any way, you must leave them alone to live their lives as they see fit. Doctors have a principal precept which states "First, do no harm". If it is your intention to write, pass, or enforce laws, you should make the exact same pledge: "First, do no harm".

As I have said many times in the past, I don't care if you pass laws from sun up to sun down "legalizing" some criminal action such as taxation or "no-knock raids". A "law" will never make those things right. The claim that I am incorrect for thinking this way is a symptom of how far from free our society has fallen.

Do Laws Solve Anything?

Do laws solve problems? Do they cause more problems? I am not being facetious here, but I am truly looking for any instance of a law being passed that actually solved a problem. Not a problem caused by a previous law, (like "shall issue" concealed carry laws reducing crime rates), nor an authorization to punish someone for a crime. A case (or cases) where there was a real problem, and then a law was passed, and the problem was gone. Any ideas?

Drop Your Crutches and Walk!

Government has become a sort of crutch for some people. They have gotten dependent on leaning on it and now believe that they can't stand on their own two feet. But they can. When a problem crops up, the first reaction of many seems to be to reach out to government for assistance. Do you really wish to sell yourself and your family into slavery that cheaply? Do you want to sell your future and the future of your children? You are worth more than that. Don't let the government blind you to your abilities and your real value. You are not crippled; the state-worshippers are. You can stand on your own if you will only drop the crutch that government has hypnotized you into believing that you need. Drop it and stand on your own feet. Then take a step forward, away from the negative goons of the state. While you are at it, tell those goons to take a hike.

The Invading Army in America

We were warned. The local police have become the standing army that was so despised by the founders of America. They stand and watch, and even spy on, Americans, whom they consider criminals who just haven't been caught yet. They swagger through our towns with the knowledge that they are immune from following most of society's courtesies. They sit in their cars (bought with our stolen money) and wait for one of us to make an innocent mistake so that they can swoop down and tear us apart, and make us pay their extortion money for the honor. It has become normal procedure for them to tazer any person who does not immediately bow down to these badged reavers and give them total defeated compliance. These cretins regularly use weapons which are forbidden to the rest of us against us. Raiding our homes to kidnap or kill us in our sleep. We are supposed to pity them if they can't afford bullet-proof armor, while they enforce laws that prohibit us from wearing the same (in some locations). Then they whine that they don't get enough respect. How much respect do violent criminals deserve?

"A Nation of Laws"

When I hear the phrase "America is a nation of laws" I understand that the speaker has no moral compass at all. Every nation, by definition, is "a nation of laws". Germany was in the 1930s, the Soviet Union was during all of its existence, and America is today. Big deal. The problem arises when most, or even any, of those "laws" are counterfeit. It is easy to shrug and say "enforce the laws we have instead of passing more". That is the normal "conservative" cop-out. The real patriot will say to stop enforcing the "laws" that are aimed at regulating something other than actual force or fraud. Then the amoral state worshipper will whine: "If you don't enforce one law, where does it stop? Which law will you stop enforcing tomorrow?" How about all the ones which are counterfeit? Who, other than a control-freak, could have a problem with that?

Perspectives

Is it just me, or does it seem that presidential candidates are delusional? Republicans believe that they are "upholding the Constitution" while they use it for personal hygiene purposes. They think they are saving America by waging war on everything and everyone. Democrats think they are saving society by treating everyone like a somewhat stupid child. They act as though just by passing the right laws, every problem will go away. Then the third parties each seem to think, as I do, that our issues are THE defining issues of our time. I was highly amused listening to the Prohibition Party candidate on the Politics One Blogtalk Radio show. He is positively convinced that most Americans want alcohol outlawed. He views American history through this kaleidoscope, and bases his entire worldview on this misperception. He thinks that by passing more laws and punishing the violators, prison overcrowding will end. From what I see, he is not the only delusional one. In my case, I firmly believe that if government were held within its Constitutionally mandated limits (or eliminated altogether) we as individuals would benefit and therefore society as a whole would benefit. Liberty is not a malfunction; Statism is. So, am I crazy?

Kent's Campaign Finance Reform

People, especially voters, are truly bizarre creatures. For most of my life I have heard people complain about money influencing politicians. They cheered a "campaign finance reform" law (it had nothing to do with reforming anything, but that is another issue) which was touted as "cleaning up politics". When I decided to run for President, I thought the cleanest, most honest way to run was to refuse any donations whatsoever; asking people to instead spend their own money to promote my campaign however they saw fit. No donations = no corruption.

Instead of rallying behind this novel idea, I find people making the excuse that I "can't be taken seriously" because I don't accept donations! It makes me want to utter "colorful metaphors" (thanks, Mr. Spock).

As I have said before, if I am not the type of candidate you want to support, that is your business. We can go our separate ways with no hard feelings. My different approach is a result of me being fundamentally different from any of the other candidates who have ever run. Instead of laughing or calling me a "moonbat" or a "hippy anarchist" do something to make America and the world better. Otherwise you are just announcing to the world that you like things just the way they are; on a fast train to tyranny.

My "Curiosity Card"

I have made up a few of these cards to leave anonymously in order to pique curiosity. I included the words "It's a Free Country" because I hope it will make people think. Some may patriotically agree, while others may think "not anymore!". Either way, perhaps it will cause someone to pick up the card and visit my website. If you feel inclined, why not print up a few to scatter around your stomping grounds?

Government is Obsolete

Government is an old idea which has seen its time pass away. It wasn't a very good idea to begin with. Seriously, who would think that letting other people control your life is a smart thing to do? It is time to stop being polite. Stop acting as though someone isn't completely raving mad when they are praising or proposing some governmental program. Stare at them as if they just suggested that you roast your children alive, because that is the moral equivalent. We liberty-lovers have pussy-footed for years and it has gotten us a bigger, more violent government. So next time someone talks about a drug bust, or any other counterfeit "law" violation, let your face show your horror that a society would allow such tyranny to go unpunished. It is their turn to feel like the misfits that they are. They are clinging to a stone-age institution that has outlived its dubious usefulness. It is time to let go of this obsolete relic of the past and reach for the future; the future of freedom.

Daylight Savings Scam

If you allow the government to dictate to you the position of the sun at noon, don't forget that in its infinite bureaucratic wisdom the federal government has declared that the sun is now behind schedule. That's right folks, the government's annual clock meddling began early this year. I have always viewed "daylight savings time" as a monumental scam. Perhaps because I am not an earlybird and mornings make me a queasy. I dislike some pinhead in a distant office deciding that I shall have to wake up even earlier than before in order to not be late. See how grumpy I get when cheated out of an hour of sleep? And don't suggest I "go to bed earlier; that is the suggestion of a "morning person" (curses be upon you).

I will now stumble groggily through the day. At least for the next couple of weeks until my body decides that this nonsense is permanent. And I will await that glorious day when the fools in DC decide to allow us all to set our clocks back to a more accurate setting and get back the hour that they taxed from me today. I promise to do away with Daylight Savings Time when I get elected. At least at the federal level. You will need to tar and feather your local bureaucrats yourself if they insist on continuing it in your area. I can't do everything for you.

Nation of Scared Children

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

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

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

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

Compare the Candidates

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

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

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

"The Law" Works For the Corrupt

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

One of "Those Days"

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

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

The NRA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Libertarians"

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

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

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

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

Read more from my website.

My Letter to Sarah Brady

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

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

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

Give Sarah Your Opinion

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

Freedom

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

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

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

The Libertarian Party

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

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

Filter Out the Sewage

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

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

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

Revenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll Reminder

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

"Rebelfire: Justice Day" Video

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

"Real Campaigns"

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

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

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

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

Feeling a Bit Guilty

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

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

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

Campaign Limerick

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

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

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

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

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

NRA Elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

No such laws exist.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Everything is being redefined as "terrorism"

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

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

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

What is Real Liberty?

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

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

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

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

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.