Tax Day

I know that this year the IRS and its enablers have moved "Tax Day" to the 17th, but today, on April 15th, the historically enshrined day of federally sanctioned armed robbery, theft-by-receiving, extortion, and various immoral acts of governance, I thought I would say a little about it.

Taxation is theft. Taxes are money taken from the unwilling, by threats of force by the cohorts of the ones who are allowed to set the rules, and given to those who wish to control every aspect of our lives and imprison or kill those of us who refuse to play along. The only morally justifiable level of taxation is "zero percent" on everything and every action and in every situation.

If you wish to have a government, and wish to finance its atrocities; make a case for financial support, and go out and collect voluntary contributions from like-minded cretins. Don't threaten those of us who recognize you and your government as an abomination and refuse to contribute. Go off and play your perverted game amongst yourselves and leave civilized, non-coercive people alone. You will be healthier for your wisdom in this matter.

What's the "Big Idea"?

Sometimes blogging is so frustrating. I was on my errand this morning when a brilliant idea for a blog struck me. I was turning it over in my mind when I had to pull to the side to let an ambulance pass. Then I saw that it was headed towards the house of someone I know. I didn't see if that is where it went or not... it might have been next door. Anyway, when I got to the computer, my brilliant idea was gone. Evaporated. I have tried to remember for the last few hours to no avail.

Has "The Big Liberty Idea" vanished in the rush of daily life in this same way? Perhaps the kernel of the idea that would have made us all throw off the chains of oppression was just forming in someone's mind once, and then in a moment of distraction, it was gone.

Take the time to daydream a little everyday. Maybe "The Big Liberty Idea" will come to you. If not, you will still have spent some valuable time inside your own mind. That is a good thing.

What Freedom Means to Me

"Freedom" is not having to think about government, its rules, or its enforcers. It is being able to pursue happiness however you want as long as you do not harm anyone else. Government harms others so the practice of governing is not a "right" and is antithetical to freedom.

Governments are established (it has been said) in order to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No other reason. If government is not doing its job, it should be fired.

Has the government, at any level, enriched your life today? Has it protected your individual liberty in a concrete way today? Has government gotten out of the way and allowed you to pursue happiness? Or has government and its minions endangered your life by filling our land with badged highwaymen hopped up on "authority" and adrenaline, and forced you to be disarmed for freelance criminals to prey on? Has government taken anyone you know prisoner for the simple act of owning or using something in a non-aggressive way that the government does not approve of? Does government forbid you to do the things that bring joy to your heart, and fill your life with meaning, simply because the majority of lawmakers do not understand your interests? If you have experienced government doing any of these things, in direct violation of its charter to exist, then you have first-hand knowledge of why government must be brought back in line with the laws that apply to it, or if it resists, be abolished. The rules were clear. Government is established for A, B, &C, yet government does -A, -B, & -C. That adds up to zero. Zero government, with individual responsibility, is what freedom means to me.

In Defense of Violence

The Zero Aggression Principle states: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation". "Initiate", as in "start it". Even very young children recognize the clear difference. "He started it" is often the cry for justice from their lips. Violence when used in self defense is not the same as violence used to hurt an innocent person. Initiated force (offensive violence or aggression) is wrong; reactive force (defensive violence) is just and good. A moral individual will recognize the difference even while governments refuse to. This is one reason (out of many) the D.A.R.E. program is so evil; in its blanket condemnation of all violence, it does not differentiate initiated force with self defense force. That is because the authoritards only think that they can properly use violence; against us.

The blind rejection of self defensive violence has left our society crippled with crime and government. Evil individuals and governments will never learn to behave themselves if there are no painful or fatal consequences for their crimes. We must reintroduce the predators among us to fear. Violence in the form of self defence must be encouraged and rewarded, and people whom governments demonize for using self defense must be supported by all lovers of liberty.

"Top Ten Reasons Why an Anarchist is Your Best Friend" by Retta Fontana

I have linked to the writings of Retta Fontana once before, but here is another excellent piece on anarchists: They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

I was called a "hippy anarchist" on one website. A black powder shooter group I used to hang out with had bumper stickers that said: "I am NOT a hippy! I am a well-groomed MountainMan". Maybe we are hippies; with guns. In any case, I am an anarchist. Read Retta's piece and see why.

Donations? - I Need Your Feedback

I am having an ethical crisis that I need some input on. Some people feel that I should accept donations. I have very strong feelings against this for a couple of reasons. I want this to be the first truly grass-roots campaign. I want my supporters to be my campaign staff. I have asked you, my supporters, to spend your time and/or money however you see fit on this campaign. Some people feel I am handicapping my campaign with this stance.

One of the very first promises I made was to not accept monetary donations. I don't want to break a promise. Not without a compelling reason, and not without the consensus of my supporters that it would be the right thing to do. If you think I am wrong to refuse donations, tell me so, and explain why you think I should accept them. I have thought long and hard about this and can't seem to find an answer on my own.

I have two reasons for not accepting donations. The reporting regulations are one reason. The other reason is that I hear people complaining about how donations corrupt the candidates with influence, so I thought that if I refused donations, I could avoid any appearance of "political favor-ism". I didn't think it would be a divisive issue. I can't really imagine that there are that many people itching to donate money to me anyway.

The only reason I have not yet filed with the FEC is that I don't have a "campaign committee" (and the required bank account) or a treasurer or a "guardian of records". Since I wasn't planning on accepting donations, I wasn't too concerned with the FEC. Now it appears that in order to continue the campaign I will need to file. The FEC seems to have no option for "does not accept donations". That really lets you know what the "game" is all about, doesn't it.

Anyway, I have promised to think about accepting donations if enough people really think it is important for me to do so. Please let me know what you think, either in a comment here or in an email to dullhawk@hotmail.com .

Thank you.

Conservative President 2008 Interview

Conservative President 2008 asked me four questions recently. Here is the interview:

Libertarian McManigal Q&A

Thank You LPHQ Staff

I would like to thank the Libertarian Party HQ staff for publishing the interview with me in the recent issue of LP News. Your recognition of my campaign is very important to me.

I have not yet changed my position on accepting campaign donations for myself, but I would be glad to participate in Liberty Decides '08 to raise funds for the LP and their eventual nominee. I feel it is important to build the LP so that it can be an effective counterbalance to the authoritarian parties which get most of the public's attention. The people of America need to know they have a choice. The LP is fundamentally different enough, not being just another flavor of authoritarianism, that it can serve as a polar opposite to "politics as usual" which disgusts so many people. We should all help in any way we can.

The War on Guns: Guest Editorial: You Can't Repeal the Law of Unintended Consequences

The War on Guns: Guest Editorial: You Can't Repeal the Law of Unintended Consequences

Washington DC's Gun Ban

I apologize for needing to talk about gun "laws" again. The tyrants keep making it necessary.

The rulers of Washington DC, like any hive of villains, think it is a good idea to keep honest people disarmed against their predations. As I have pointed out in the past, only crooked politicians and freelance criminals fear guns in the hands of ordinary people. No one who wishes to disarm you does it for your benefit, but for their own, so that they are empowered to do things to you that you would not permit them to do if you had the means to effectively defend yourself. "Gun control" is the act of predators taking preemptive steps to protect themselves. That is why it is called "victim disarmament".

Now a court, with an uncharacteristic act of self betrayal, has declared that the Washington DC "laws" against gun ownership are unconstitutional (that means "illegal" in case you missed that chapter in the civics book). It makes me wonder why the court did that. Of course the DC villains will appeal the ruling; they must; it is a matter of life and death to them. The court knew they would, too. I believe that they are thinking that in the long run, this ruling will help them get rid of that "pesky Second Amendment" once and for all. I don't know how yet.

Perhaps the Supreme Court will decide to look at the case. If they do, there are a couple of things that could happen. They could say that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but of course the gun ban doesn't violate that in any way since (...insert twisted justification of your choice here...). They could rule that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right and so only applies to "militias" controlled by the villains themselves. I don't think the Supremes will have the integrity to rule against the villains who want to keep DC helpless. As long as "judges" work for the government and are paid by the government, it is in their self interest to side with the government. (I propose that in cases where the government is involved, judges only get paid when they rule against government interests. But that is another issue.)

The entire concept of "collective rights" is absurd. A right is something that is held within an individual. Like a life. For poetic purposes, sometimes a culture is said to have a life, but to be killed off, it must be killed one individual at a time. A right is the same way. Just as with a life, a right must be individual to have any meaning at all.

Gun Laws Equal Death

Here is a good article from WorldNetDaily, "How gun control trades life for death". The irony to me is that WorldNetDaily conservatives would imprison people who do not bow to the "law". They also worship the Law Enforcement Jackals who would murder us for carrying the means for defending the defenseless. Make no mistake: Victim Disarmament is murder. Under the dishonest euphemism of "gun control" it brings only death and destruction to the innocent. The monsters who propose or enforce these "laws" are guilty of empowering the murderers. Real thinking, feeling, caring humans do not require defenselessness from others nor do they allow themselves to be disarmed. They will strike back at any thug who tries. No honest police officer will ever arrest or harass anyone who is simply violating any gun "law". If they do, they are only a common thug.

"Me Libertarians"

In talking to people about politics, I have noticed a thing I will call "me libertarians" Almost everyone I talk to fits into this group to one extent or another. These are the people who want to be treated as they would be in a libertarian society, yet they want to control others with the authoritarian "iron grip". I may be wrong, but I think this is because they feel that they are personally trustworthy and capable of running their own lives, while everyone else is not.

Where does this idea come from? From government. Who is it that pits the races against one another, and has a stake in keeping our society from becoming "color-blind"? Who attempts to cause strife between men and women using "family law" and favoritism in the divorce courts? Who makes an issue of sexual orientation while most of us don't even notice "who is what"? Who implements policies that favor one group to the detriment of another group? Who makes it OK, and encourages, for smokers, gun owners, and certain religious groups to be treated as third-class citizens? Government.

Americans are better than that. Remember who the real enemy is, and don't be distracted by the red flags government pins on the other guy. Refuse to check the "race" box when you fill out forms. It doesn't matter and would never be asked except by a racist. If someone who you are not sexually attracted to shows an interest in you, you can respond without over-reacting. No matter what gender the person may be. Just because they are interested in you, it doesn't threaten you in any way. Don't cooperate when the government and its mass-media lapdogs try to demonize a segment of the population.

Don't delegate your responsibilities to government or its thugs. Remember that no one, especially not government, has the right to initiate force or fraud against you and don't take it if they do. As Robert A. Heinlein said: "An armed society is a polite society".

Remember, a libertarian is not someone who takes liberties; but is someone who gives liberties. Don't be a "me libertarian". Spread the responsibility and the freedom. Give the other guy the benefit of the doubt. I'll bet he or she will strive to meet your expectations.

"When cops turn into thugs" by J.D. Tuccille

Here is a good blog about a rare case where bad(ge) guys are held accountable for their crimes.

Updates on KentForLiberty.com

If you haven't visited KentForLiberty.com in a while, I invite you to see the changes I have made. My "Political Hierarchy Chart" now has its own page, along with an updated description. I am constantly tweaking the site, sometimes to the detriment of my blog. I have added links to several other things as well.

Interview on Presidential Election '08

Here is a short interview I did for the Presidential Election '08 Blog.

McManigal Quoted in Article about "Survivalist"

In a recent case in California a man was arrested after guns and ammunition (and food and water) were found stored in his burning house. An online request was made for information about "survivalism". I spoke to the reporter in order to balance what I was afraid would be a one-sided response. The "law" enforcement spokescritters had already had their say, casting aspersions on the man who was universally viewed as a good neighbor. Here is the article: Link

Plus, also read this by Vin Suprynowicz.

My Purpose in Blogging

It has been pointed out to me that I am stubborn, and have an attitude that "I am right and you are wrong". I really don't know anyone who doesn't have that attitude. That is human nature. Each of us sees things from our own unique perspective. If I didn't think I was right, I wouldn't write anything down for anyone to read. What would be the point? I would just read what others had written and I would keep my opinions to myself.

The purpose of this blog is not to tell you what to think, but to tell you what I think so you can make an informed decision as to whether to support my candidacy or not. As a libertarian, I would never force my opinions on you; that is what separates libertarians from all other political persuasions. Do you want a candidate who is afraid to tell you what he believes? I have reasons for believing as I do. Whether they are good enough reasons for you to accept is not my call; it is yours. I attempt to lay out my positions, my beliefs, and my reasoning for you to see. If you think I am loony, ignore me. If you think I am mistaken, correct me. If you think I am right, let me know.

Dangers of Being Armed or Unarmed

Anytime one goes out in public, and many times when you think you are safe in your own home, you are in danger of being victimized by a criminal.

Many people (many more than gun-haters know) take responsibility for their own safety and the safety of the public at large, by carrying a weapon. The chance of being victimized on any particular day is very small. Of course, it does happen without warning and you should always be prepared.

On the other hand, the chance of being stopped and victimized by a cop who is willing to enforce victim disarmament laws, having your weapon discovered, and being arrested or killed grows larger each and every day that those counterfeit "laws" stay "on the books".

You can avoid that danger by abdicating your responsibility and walking around unarmed.

Or you can beg permission from the "government" to be allowed to carry a weapon. Subject to their whims, restrictions, fees, and inclusion in criminal databases, of course.

Either of these options robs you of your humanity in a real way, since it is an admission that you belong to the state. Unfortunately, the danger from cops is probably getting greater than the danger of being victimized by freelance criminals. It makes the decision more difficult.

Who is a bigger danger: freelance criminals or cops? I wish I had the answer.

.

The Political Hierarchy Chart

This chart was designed to show the relationships between the various political philosophies. As you pass from freedom at the top, through apathy in the middle, down to the Authoritarians (those who wish to control or punish others) on the bottom, you pass through all of the ways that people relate to one another. You can find a larger version of it on my website, too.

The Philosopher Candidate

Recently, in a private email, someone referred to me as "the philosopher candidate". At first I didn't know how to take that. To me a philosopher has always been someone who just sits around and thinks instead of actually doing anything. But then, being the philosopher that I am, I sat and thought about it.

I suppose I am a philosopher. A philosopher of libertarianism; of individual liberty and responsibility. I do think about these things a lot, even when I am doing mundane chores. Especially when I am doing mundane chores. In my mind I weigh the ins and outs of actions and reactions. I try to imagine a truly free world and what it would mean to the future of humanity. To each individual who has been freed to live his or her life to its full potential; free of coercion. The implications excite me, as I hope you can tell by reading this blog.

America has had presidents who were warriors, businessmen, an actor, farmers, teachers, a lot of lawyers, an inventor, and myriad other things in their "before President" lives. Why shouldn't there be a philosopher in that mix? And if a philosopher is an honorable thing to be, why shouldn't that philosopher candidate, that Philosopher President, be me?

JPFO Third Party Gun Poll

Here is a good poll from JPFO. They ask whether you would vote for the candidate of a pro-gun third party (you know what I am banking on). Please go vote on both of their questions.

School Vouchers

I keep getting questions about whether I support school vouchers. I do not. In my view it is a non-issue since there should be no "public money" in the equation. I don't support using stolen (tax) money for education at all. Government needs to get out of the business of indoctrinating our children into being good little "citizens" and factory cogs. It isn't much better to have government dictating how, where, and in what way the same money is to be used in "private schools" (which cease to be truly private as soon as they accept the money from government).

I believe all education should be private education, and that property taxation must be ended. Take the money that was previously stolen for the public schools and use it to fund your children's education, if that is what you wish to do. You will get more brains for your buck that way. Or, if you have the desire and the ability, educate your children in your own home. I would also suggest sharing the task with others in your neighborhood. Each teaching what they know best, and what they enjoy.

Teachers, the good ones, would make more money and be more appreciated in a free market system of education than they can even dream of now. They wouldn't need to waste their time, and the time of the students, by dealing with kids who don't want to be there but are held captive by the state's compulsory education laws. It isn't a good learning environment to be held prisoner.

Forge of the Elders

I'll take a little time here to try to help L. Neil Smith sell all of the copies of his book Forge of the Elders. I have just ordered my copy. He is willing to make a deal with his fans. Let's take him up on it.

Do the Right Thing

"Always do the right thing" ..... It seems an easy enough idea. There are times, though, that "the right thing" is a little more elusive. Especially when dealing with people who are scared of life. How can you free them, which is the right thing to do, when they hang on to their chains so tightly?

People, at least some of them, are frightened by "terrorists". They truly want someone else to take the responsibility to keep them safe. They do not realize that the risks have been greatly exaggerated by a government desperate to keep them frightened into submission. Some others think that without the government; federal, state or local; educating their children we will become a nation of imbeciles. Look around you and decide for yourself how effective state education has been. There is also a fear that without the safety net of welfare; call it Social Security or some other euphemism if you wish, we will all drown in a sea of poverty. How can it be wrong to control your own financial destiny instead of letting professional thieves do it?

I know that I would be better off if government were smaller and weaker, and I strongly suspect that you would be too. Yet there is so much uncertainty and fear. How do you do the right thing when so many are truly afraid of freedom? How can we reassure people that doom is not the result of getting government out of their lives, but the result of allowing it to control them?

Hardyville

If you would like to read some good, freedom oriented fiction, head on over to Backwoods Home's website and read the Hardyville stories by Claire Wolfe. Also, if you have a business to promote (or if you want to buy a little ad for my campaign), this is a good place to advertise. Just tell them it is because of Claire.

Politics One Blog TalkRadio

I am scheduled to be on the Politics One Blog TalkRadio show today (Monday March 26, 2007) at 6:00PM Eastern Government Time. Tune in and listen to the show.

Politics One Poll

If anyone would be so kind, could you go to Politics One blog and vote for me in the Libertarian Party poll? It is on the right side; the seventh poll down. It is the bright yellow one. Thanks so much!

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.