The Cruelest Utopia: Minarchy

Minarchy, the "smallest possible government", is a cruel idea. It means no pension for government employees, that's for certain.

Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." In other words, every generation or so, in order to keep government in check, and to keep liberty alive, those who love liberty need to kill off all the politicians.

Admit it. The idea made you smile. That would make it a lot less likely to have lifetime career parasites... uh.... politicians and bureaucrats. If they still wanted that power over the lives of others that badly, they would want to get in and out as quickly as possible. Maybe like a thrill-seeking thing. Still it is a very bad way to organize a society, especially since the bloodshed is unnecessary if you just keep tyrants from gaining power to begin with.

Government is a cancer. It is not possible to leave a small tumor inside and scold it into not growing. You must cut the thing out. If you leave a bit of it, you will need to repeat the surgery every time the tumor gets dangerously large. It is simpler, more effective, more realistic, and less painful, to get rid of ALL of the cancer at once.


.............................................

Government's Role

What is the "proper role" of government? Besides as a discredited historical curiosity, I mean. Government, IF it is "necessary", which I do not believe it to be, should only be your bodyguard. And only if you are somehow too defective to defend yourself, of course. Your bodyguard can defend you from attack, but should not tuck you in at night, feed you, or wipe your butt. If that is what you need, you need a nanny. I don't.

-----------------------

Libertarian Parenting

I wish I had the answers to this one. Really. I welcome any thoughts and ideas from you. In the meantime here are my random thoughts on the subject.

Do parents "own" their children? No. Children are not slaves to be forced to do the housework or yardwork that the parent doesn't feel like doing. Children should not be subjected to counterfeit "laws" or rules anymore than adults should be. That includes such things as fashion, music, and hairstyles. If others, such as public school "officials", try to enforce nonsensical rules on your kids, I would hope you would stand behind reason and not behind "authority". (That is, IF you haven't taken the self-defensive step of removing your kids from those government indoctrination centers.)

Parents do bear a huge responsibility to protect kids and teach them how the world works so that they can grow up independent and realistic. Sometimes that means letting them see that the world isn't often fair or rational, and that the majority seems to love authoritarianism. Show them why the majority is wrong. I try to show my kids that libertarianism frees them and makes them better people. I try to show them it gives them a better way of dealing with others. I'm trying; I'm just winging it.

My belief is that all parents screw up their kids in some ways, and the best parents try to minimize that and give their kids the mental and emotional tools to overcome it.

My two older kids have grown up to be pretty libertarian. I am pretty happy with them, and I like them as people. What more can be said?

My youngest kid (pictured above), well, what can I say ... all toddlers are cuddly anarchists.



................................................

Rights, Liberty, and Responsibility

Rights exist by virtue of being a person.

Liberty is a consequence of exercising those rights.

Personal responsibility is how you retain your liberty and keep from being killed by others who are also exercising their rights and protecting their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

At least, that is my take on the relationships.


...........................

Optimism and Denial

Happy optimism is one thing, but denial of a bad situation helps no one. You need to be realistic.

That's why, when you "support America" no matter what the US government does, or when you gloss over the aggression that has become standard operating procedure for the police... alert, critical thinkers dismiss you.

Good things surround you. Acknowledge those things and be happy about them. Recognize the bad stuff, too. You can't change the bad stuff if you refuse to see it. Take the first step.

When the bad stuff overwhelms the good stuff, no amount of laws or body armor will protect the tyrants against unintended consequences. That is Liberty's ace in the hole.

"The Bad Guys Won't Play By The Rules"

I often see people complain that a society based upon the ZAP (or any other nice libertarian or anarchist principle) won't work because the bad guys won't cooperate. Face it; the bad guys don't cooperate with the system in place now. Not only that, but they use the system to their advantage. They often get elected to public office, or put on a badge, where they can prey on society with much less personal risk. This would not be possible in a ZAP-based society.

The reason I like these principles; the really great thing about them, is that they don't depend upon the cooperation of the bad guys. That's right, the bad guys become irrelevant. Can your proposed system achieve that?

Don't forget that the good people, the ones who would cooperate with such a just system, vastly outnumber the bad guys. The morally neutral people, those who will go along with whatever the social norm happens to be, will tip the odds in our favor even more.

The bad guys will either cooperate or will get killed quickly in a truly just society based upon the ideas that initiating force is wrong, and that the rule applies to EVERYONE equally. A few might even decide it is easier to become honest people rather than risk annihilation at the hands of a universally armed society that no longer has to fear retribution from the state when defending life and property.


.................................................

Even A Stopped Clock.....

A while back I was told I should reject the scientific fact of evolution because it is taught in government schools. Remember that "even a stopped clock is right twice a day".

This has a couple of implications.

If you need to know the time, you don't run to check the stopped clock first. However, if you have other ways of verifying the time, you don't decide they are wrong just because the stopped clock happens to display the same time. This is where intelligence and reasoning ability comes into play.

So, don't look to the state for answers, but if you find a truth somewhere, don't discard it just because the state might happen to acknowledge the same truth. You would probably have a different take on it or reach different conclusions anyway.

Take A Breath

Government is stupid. It is based upon ridiculous suppositions and false premises. It is without moral justification. It is made up of fools, liars, and tyrants. It is cheered on and supported by imbeciles and co-conspirators.

I need to remind myself of that from time to time and remind myself that government has nothing to do with life.

This is one of those times.



***************************

"Learning From The Insane" by Bob Wallace

This is one of the best things I have read recently (although it appears to have been written in 2005): "Learning From The Insane" by Bob Wallace

What Would it Take?

What would it take to make YOU personally oppose the federal government (or any state or local government)? What would it take to make you actively oppose it rather than just saying that they have "gone too far" this time?

Concentration camps filled with your neighbors? Gun confiscations? Martial law? Tanks rolling down your street? Tax rates of 90%?

Would you only take real action if movies and television or sports were banned? Or if food became scarce? Or if cars were outlawed? Or if the US dollar became (more) worthless?

This is a question which I would seriously like to get you to think about. For some people I think there is nothing that would ever make them oppose "their" government, at least with meaningful action. For others, maybe more than the government is aware of, the next step might be the final straw. Some of you may have crossed that line long ago.



----------------------

OBAMcCAIN Debates Itself

Doesn't that qualify as "masturdebation"? I don't feel like watching this sad creature trying to gratify itself on planetwide television.

Strange Priorities

Since when it is "important" to harm people who are harming no one else? Since when is it a "family value" to violate the rights of others? Or to steal the property of others... or to invade other countries.... or to use coercion to get your way? Why can't some people see that if it were OK for them to do to others, it would be OK to have it done to them. And why would anyone make it a priority to pursue this kind of activism? Fear? Hatred? Prejudice? Ignorance?

Watching the various political factions fighting over who can steal from others better or more fairly or more efficiently makes me feel like I am in a bad comedy. A poorly scripted and acted one at that. I just need Joel and the 'Bots to make rude and clever comments about the action. I could find humor in it if it wasn't harming real people in real ways.

This really is bizarre. I can't understand the mind-set. Does that make me the oddball?



.........................................................

Energy Crisis or Too Much Government

Most problems, even those few not directly caused by government, could be solved by keeping government out of the way. Running to the state to "save" you is the one thing you should never do. It is a complete waste of effort, and will only serve to further enslave you.

The so-called energy crisis could be solved almost overnight if government would just get out of the way. Stop "taxing" fuel and the production and delivery thereof. Stop subsidizing those energy businesses that can't compete in a free market. Let the market set the price of fuel. Let the market determine the desire for new technology. And stop interfering with innovation. Supply and demand.

Yet too many people want the government to "do something" to "save us" from energy problems. They want new regulations to cause hardships that will force people to look for new power sources, and "laws" that will prohibit the use of traditional sources of energy. They spend a lot of money on mass-media advertisements to incite the people to beg government to help. They are really just selling their children to the state. Not a very nice thing to do, in my estimation.


*******************************

I HATE Politics

Since I think of "politics" as an attempt to get along with those we dislike, I hate politics. I don't want there to be "people I don't like". If there MUST be people I don't like, I would be content to just "live and let live". Why can't they do the same?

I would like to see the world be free of politics, OR make politics become a club that exists only among those who choose to join. As long as they can't affect the rest of us, they should be free to wage war among themselves. That would go a long way towards making the world safe for the rest of us.

Wouldn't that be an amusing situation? A club where the members argue over whom to coerce, and in what ways. They could talk about "right" and "left" or "conservative" and "liberal" while the rest of us ignore their infantile bickering. They could tax one another, and redistribute the wealth of the members, order one another around, whatever..... but they could not touch anyone who did not sign up to be a part of their twisted club. The rest of us could live our lives with a real free market, with liberty for ALL, and knowing that we will not be kidnapped for defending our lives and property from the few parasites who survive real liberty.



........................................................

Young Voters, Lend Me An Ear

One half of the OBAMcCAIN abomination is counting on the votes of the young idealistic voters to sweep him to victory. He may be right, but not if they understand what they are voting for. He cries "change" while representing the exact same socialistic nonsense that has been actively destroying freedom for centuries. Your future is at risk from this man and those like him!

Young people need hope. They look to others to provide that hope, only to be used as pawns for ambition. I aim to give them real hope by pointing out that "hope" should come from inside, not from others. I would tell them "Trust your own abilities". I trust them, and all people, to know what is best for their own lives. You can't get experience in living your life if no one lets you.

The state, and much of society, wants to keep them dependent and helpless for many years beyond their real childhood. And then it blames them when they act like the irresponsible children they have been trained to be. That's ridiculous, and cruel.

Look, if you are young and idealistic, don't fall for the trap of voting for more of the same masquerading as something new and different. If you do, those who only want to use you will win.


----------------------------

One Less False Authority

I have heard it said that atheists simply believe in one less god, among the thousands which have been worshipped throughout history, than do believers. So it is with anarchists: we simply believe in one fewer false authority than do the statists.

I had this brought home to me after I made a comment on another "libertarian" blog where statists are reviled on a daily basis. (This person does have a favorite government activity, however, and I once stepped on some toes by pointing out the hypocrisy of that position. I guess the memory still irritates.) A comment from me elicited an angry reply, effectively ridiculing my stance, even though I had not mentioned anything in my comment that was even slightly at odds with the blogger's point of view. I hadn't even hinted at "anarchism".

If I choose to comment on another blog, I realize I am there at their whim. I am subject to their rules and desires. I do expect consistency and rationality from them. However, that blogger immediately went back to blasting statists, the exact same subset of statists, in the very next post after becoming angry at me for the exact same position! I don't get it.

---------------------------------------------

"They Differ Where It Matters To Me"

Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same: socialists who want to kill you unless you agree with them and allow them to control every aspect of your life. As has been said "When there is a boot on your neck, it doesn't matter if it is a right boot or left boot".

Yet fearful "voters" still clamor to be victimized by the group that they believe shares their values. It is just hype. Or a vicious lie. Or sweet, seductively whispered lies, saying just what the desperate person wishes to hear. They want, or need, to believe that the state is at least partially their friend. They want to believe that if only they could get the "right people" elected, things would be OK. They want to feel good about helping the "right side" win the cultural battle against "those people" (whoever that might be).

However, when I recently pointed this out to someone, she said "There are still differences between Republicans and Democrats. They differ where it matters to me." No, they don't. They only trick you into believing that with lies. This belief is pathetically sad and delusional and it leads to the Nazi "showers".

The Democrats and Republicans only really differ in who they lie to. When they are trying to get the votes of a particular segment of society, they will lie to that segment in order to make them falsely believe they are on "your side". Since they usually focus on one segment of society and ignore the rest, they frequently get away with their deception. Only when they try to pander to opposing sides does their duplicity become obvious.

One group I see fall for this trick over and over again is the "religious right". The Democrats have no chance with the "religious right" so they don't even bother to pander to them, choosing to pander to the "progressive churches" instead. The Republicans, however, know they can still fool gullible, desperate, scared "Conservative Christians" into thinking that they are on the same team. Unless those Christians are on the side of genocide, socialism, torture, and tyranny, they are not on the same side. And if they are, then they are enemies of liberty and are to be reviled along with the rest of the statists. None are so blind as those who refuse to see. If you advocate violating the rights of one group you are playing into the hands of the state. Remember my analogy of the "snake's jaws"? Both sides work in apparent opposition toward the same goal. The only way to win is to refuse to be grabbed.

If you advocate violating the rights of any "other" group, be it gays, Christians, a "racial" group, "drug users", or gun owners, you are playing right into the hands of the state. The state will thank you for your help, I am sure. You forget that there are others who feel it is equally important to oppress or victimize you in some way. That is why ALL rights for EVERYone, EVERYwhere for ALL time is the only way. It is called "libertarianism". We will not forget who betrayed us.


.............................................................

"If You Don't Like It, Get Out!" - Refuted Again

Don't you get tired of hearing that statement? It is regurgitated by the unthinking zombies of the state whenever they are confronted with evidence (or even a suggestion) that America could be made better. It is either a well-ingrained reflex or a post-hypnotic suggestion. Usually it gets shouted out when liberty-lovers begin criticizing the military being used to fight for the government, but it can crop up almost anywhere.

My usual response is that I love my home too much to abandon it to statism. I also recognize that those who call for the exit of those who love real freedom have a serious moral deficiency. I am not including those who simply ask why the freedom-lovers haven't yet left, but only those who demand our exit.

If the good people leave the country, the evil ones win by default. Perhaps they know that, and that is why they feel compelled to use their ultimate rationalization.

Leave my home to the likes of them? They wish!


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My Opinions: Baseless Rants?

Of course, you realize that all of this, everything in this blog and everything on my website, is just my opinion, right?

Where do my opinions come from? In the simplest terms, all my opinions come from my belief that all people have the exact same rights, no matter what society or the local enforcer squads may think. They also come from my belief that coercion and theft are always wrong no matter the circumstances or who is doing it to whom.

If these beliefs are somehow flawed, then, of course, my opinions are the worthless rantings of a madman.






*****************************************

"TimePeeper" by L. Neil Smith and Sherard Jackson

If you like graphic novels, especially of the science fiction variety, check out TimePeeper. I have been following the story for a while now, and it recently concluded. It's good entertainment.

Necessary Evil? No Such Thing

I keep hearing the federal "bailout" called a "necessary evil". I don't buy it (even if the government expects me to pay for it).

Those who worship government cry "But it will be so much worse if we do nothing!" I doubt it.

If people are going to be harmed if you do nothing, and people are going to be harmed if you do something, it would be better to do nothing and spend your time trying to help those who have been harmed while the situation corrects itself. But lend a hand as a private individual, not as a government parasite using stolen money and coercion.

I look upon this as similar to this scenario: The government put a time-bomb in a room. Now that its explosion is imminent, they storm into the room and shoot the people pointing out the bomb, and reset the timer for a little extra time, while adding more explosives to the bomb. Too many people only question how much explosives to add, not whether any should be added at all. Ask them why.


****************************************

"Bailout"? Wrong Answer, Parasites

As long as people keep looking to government for the answers, whether it is about energy, finances, the environment, or morality, people will keep getting the wrong answers.


Just look at the huge government-caused financial meltdown that all the professional parasites are up-in-arms about. Yes, the government caused it; more government will not fix it.


One half of the OBAMcCAIN beast was on the news declaring that "Time is short and doing nothing is not an option". Really? That is odd because in every other decision in life, "doing nothing" is always an option, and is very often the RIGHT option. What if "doing nothing" is the right choice in this government-created financial nightmare? Are you and your fellow "congressites" so determined to be seen "doing something" that you will shove us off a cliff instead of stopping to realize who and what is to blame? Yep. That is what you and your fellow parasites will do. Happily.


The bigger and more critical a problem is, the less likely it is that it can be solved by government. Only very trivial matters should be attempted by professional parasites in government. Let them worry about the color of their office stationery (or begin training to survive in the post-government economy). Let the free individuals who make up the market keep ourselves safe and our finances in working order. Get your pathetic, mentally diseased, carcasses out of the way and let the FREE MARKET do what it will inevitably do (as long as you stop meddling)! Collectivism is NEVER the solution. Only a traitor would even consider it.

--------------------------

Tyranny's "Black Hole"

The qualities of the cosmic anomaly called a "black hole" have some lessons to teach us about tyranny.

The more mass an object has, the stronger its gravitational field. Add enough mass and there will come a point where the gravity will be so great that the escape velocity of the body will be greater than the speed of light. The object will become invisible, although its existence can still be observed by looking at its effects on nearby matter and light. (This skips over the whole description of the object collapsing upon itself until it becomes a "singularity" of infinite density condensed to a single point which is smaller than an electron. Although that, too, has certain similarities to government)

If you are falling into a black hole, there is a point of no return, called the "event horizon", where you will disappear from the view of the outside world (or, possibly, appear to be frozen in time right at the event horizon to an outside observer). Yet you would not notice anything different, other than the constantly increasing gravitation and acceleration. Once you pass the event horizon, there is no escape, you must go into, or possibly through, the singularity. You will either be squeezed into oblivion and add to the mass of the object, or hypothetically you might come out elsewhere in the universe. Probably not a pleasant prospect either way.

That is just a complicated introduction to get you to this:

This is similar to falling into tyranny.

From the outside, such as through the lens of history, it may be obvious, though to you there is no clear point of no return. However, it is real and you really don't want to go there. Turn around before it is too late, because you won't be able to see it coming, and you may not make it to the other side. The real problem is that your family and friends will also be dragged along.

Much easier to avoid than to survive.


-----------------------------------------------

Obeying the State

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."- Robert A. Heinlein

There are times I do things that the state demands, that I would rather not do. Paying some taxes is one of those things, and hiding certain activities is another.

When I do obey the state, it is not because I think the state is right, it is to avoid being killed by its enforcers. When you obey to avoid being killed, you also accept that you may need to act in self defense. Especially if you see an opening. Time after time it is demonstrated that working within the system only works to increase state control. If you don't think that "the game" is rigged, you are not paying attention.

Is that really the situation the government wanted to bring about? Does intent even matter at this point?

Remember: Vote for the ONLY presidential candidate who is on your side and on the side of real liberty! Me! Spread the word far and wide.

Getting Along

I get along very well with almost everyone I meet. There are a few people who decide they aren't going to like me based upon my appearance. Even most of those change their mind after they get to know me. I can fully expect to go through my life with no major problems between myself and other individuals. I do expect there will be problems, though. All caused by different organs of the state and my refusal to simply obey. The only difficulties that arise are because of the state at one level or another.

Even when I have a deep difference of opinion with someone, it doesn't usually get too personal. As long as they don't force me to act as though I think they are right, and then force me to act against my principles, there will probably be no problem, at least from my end.


Individuals who have allowed themselves to become pawns of the state may have problems with me. I know that their "authority" is illegitimate. I know that almost every one of the rules they enforce are counterfeit. Their entire lives and purposes are based upon lies. They really don't like to encounter people who recognize that fact.

Preserving "Our Culture"

One of the main reasons expressed to oppose independent migrants is that they will supposedly overrun the country and destroy "our culture".

The culture changes all the time. Take a look at television shows, magazines, comedy routines, and popular music. Is it all the same as when you were young? Most of those who want to protect the culture are also quick to complain about the decline of that same culture.... which they then turn around and want to protect. Confused? Me too. Do you think immigrants are to blame for this "decline"? And that is just pop culture, not real life.

The predominant "culture" is just the "shared values" of the majority of society, or at least those members of society who are over a certain age. This predominant culture is already at odds with my values.

I value independence and innovation. The predominant culture values safety and conformity.

I value liberty. The majority seems to prefer "patriotism".

I value those who take responsibility; the culture would rather place blame.

I value your freedom to observe whichever religion (or none) that you have accepted, as long as you don't try to force me to pretend to agree with you. Society seems to enjoy the "we are righteously enlightened; they are monsters who eat babies" mentality when comparing religions.
I don't understand the obsession with sports and entertainment that seems to rule society.

I value justice; The culture I live among now claims torture is OK as long as it is "our side" doing it and as long as we call it something else.

Instead of becoming a short-sighted xenophobe who willingly sacrifices liberty on your altar to the "borders", try spreading a love of real liberty for ALL to your new neighbors. If they see a consistency in you, including a refusal to accept government handouts, they may be more receptive than you think. If nothing else, drown any authoritarian tendencies in lavish freedom. There are, and will always be, more good people than bad. They can't win without our help. Only by acting like the bad will we help them win.

You can't frighten me with your dire predictions of TEOTWAWKI from migrants. I already live surrounded by barbarians who think my refusal to bow to the state is a threat to them.

If "preserving our culture" is the best the statists can come up with as an excuse to "seal the borders" I'll risk it. After all, there is little left to value in this culture anyway.


...............................................................

Abortion: An Excerpt From Hope

This is an excerpt from a very good book dealing with a contentious subject. Read it please.
Abortion: An Excerpt From Hope

"Manifesto to an Obama Supporter" by Bill St.Clair

I recommend you read this: "Manifesto to an Obama Supporter" by Bill St.Clair

Job 1: Cripple "The Gang"

I have been reminded that I need to reiterate my primary campaign promise: As a libertarian, if elected, I would do everything in my power to cripple the BATFE. I would make it pointless for them to continue their war on gun owners. I would turn the White house into a "pardon factory"; churning out pardons as fast as possible for every person harassed, arrested, or convicted under one of the US's illegal victim disarmament "laws". And don't think I will forget about the "A", "T", and "E" victims, either. No part of that criminal organization's agenda is allowable under the Constitution and I will never forget or forgive.

This does not mean I would pardon anyone who actually attacked or robbed an innocent person. That is a real crime not a counterfeit BATFE "crime".

Any person convicted of any self-defense related charge, owning an unapproved gun, owning "too many" guns, carrying a gun in "the wrong place" or in "the wrong way", or any person being prosecuted for self-defensive actions against LEOs or any other government representatives who were attempting to enforce any counterfeit "law" would also be on the fast-track to a pardon.

Some people may think this is too radical. When facing a metastasizing police-state, radical actions are needed.


-----------------------------------------

Opening the "Borders"... Why?

In a comment on a post on War on Guns I have been challenged by David Codrea to comment on my vision of ridding the world of "borders", and why I think it is necessary.

OK. Here goes:

David writes: "I'm not ready to admit any Al Quaeda operative who wants to come on over and stroll freely about." Who's to decide who is an Al Quaeda operative and who isn't? The feds are certainly not very good at it. I would much rather be "allowed" to defend myself and my property than to trust my safety to those who only want control. Many people don't take responsibility for their own safety because of the legal repercussions of doing so. I don't care what someone is or is claimed to be, but only what they do. Initiate force or fraud and I don't care if you are Al Quaeda, a cop, or BATFE, you are my enemy. Come to think of it, who really constitutes the bigger threat to my liberty? I'll bet you know the answer to that one.

David says: "That is not the world we are in, and not likely to be for the foreseeable future. .....Right now, like it or not, we have what we have. ....... In the structure that exists....." and I agree. He is pointing out, quite correctly, that the attitudes of the people and the governmental realities prevent a rational, reasonable, solution to bad guys moving to America and wreaking havoc. You don't cure cancer by removing one cancerous cell and then saying "See, you are still dying!" You must remove all the cancerous tumors and then make certain that any stragglers are destroyed before they can grow into a new tumor.

Tyranny is the same way. I don't think real freedom will ever be accomplished piecemeal. This is why I am a radical. That isn't a popular thing to say. People don't want to face the fact that they will have to relinquish their hold on their favorite bit of authoritarianism. And "immigration control" is a very popular piece of the tyranny machine.

The truth is, the freedom to travel, as long as you don't trespass on private property, is an indispensable part of individual liberty. If government owns all the land around us, or if it owns us and the immigrants as well, then government has the authority to declare independent migrants to be "illegal". Otherwise government is overstepping its authority even if it is a popular stance. Liberty may not always be "safe", but no one who knows liberty demands that it be.

Added: I realize that I left out one important fact, and that is that curing cancer (or tyranny) can be painful and some people choose to forgo the treatment and let nature take its course. That is their choice, but they do not have my permission to make that choice for me.

Libertarianism Frees You Twice

Libertarianism doesn't just free you, it frees you twice.

It frees you from holding onto false ideologies; allowing you to focus on what really matters.

It also frees you from the need to worry over other peoples' private lives; once again, allowing you to focus on more important things.

You may think this isn't a big deal, but think again. The more consistently libertarian I act, the easier my life gets. Try it for yourself and see if it doesn't hold true for you as well.


________________________________

"Lawful Purposes"

When the Supreme Court unconstitutionally ruled on the Constitutionality of DC's victim disarmament "laws", "Justice" Antonin Scalia was quoted as saying "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home." (emphasis mine)

I, for one, have a lot of problems with that statement. Not the least of which is in defining "lawful purposes".

Overthrowing a tyrannical government is never "lawful", yet is one of the primary reasons for the existence of the right to own and to carry arms. Perhaps we could squeak through by emphasizing the word "traditional". The war for independence certainly set up a tradition that we should follow. But then there is also the tradition of keeping the exact same, or better, arms that are current military issue. Of course, the parasites in government "service" have decreed that we may not do that either.

Scalia's mentioning of "self defense within the home" is a cowardly way to try to limit the right. "Self defense" is the same no matter if you are in your home, on the job, in the White House, or on a plane. It is an absolute, unlimited, human right that can never be legitimately subjected to "reasonable restrictions". As with all rights, your right to self defense can be respected or it can be violated. Those who violate it in any way are evil and they are your enemy. Never forget who those predators are.

Do not strive to be "lawful" or "law abiding". Strive to be right.

------------------------------------

"The Eternal Value of Privacy" by Bruce Schneier

If you are doing nothing wrong, why do you want privacy? This is why: "The Eternal Value of Privacy" by Bruce Schneier

Thoughts on Hurricane Ike

I don't know if I would have evacuated if I had been in the path of the hurricane. As it is, I am high and dry many hundreds of miles away, though still in Texas. But, had I been in the storm's path, what would I have done?

It would depend upon my assessment of the structural integrity of my house, and the elevation of my location. Each person should make decisions of that sort on their own without threats and panic-inducement from the authoriturds. That being said, I can't understand those clowns who choose to stay and then cry out for the government to rescue them when things don't go well. Grow up and take responsibility for your decisions. You are only giving the state an excuse to say "We told you so"

The really big danger of evacuating is that the "authorities" won't let you go home until they decide it is "safe". That might be the one factor that would cause me to ride it out even if I would have otherwise left. Let people make their own choices.

Given recent examples of government mishandling and exacerbation of natural disasters with incompetence and tyranny, I don't blame people for ignoring government's hand wringing and barked orders.

This is another reminder to stay prepared. Not all emergencies come with days of prior warning.
Then I hear people complaining about "price gouging" in the wake of the storm. Please. It's called "supply and demand" and is a feature of the free market that serves to distribute supplies to those who really need and want them. I am not surprised that the Socialist in Chief has a problem with the free market, but I am surprised that so few people correct his lies regarding this.

On a related note: I know how to stop a hurricane. A sufficiently large asteroid strike would make a hurricane go away in record time, though it wouldn't be any nicer for the people in the affected areas.

SiteMeter's Change- I'm Posting Blind Now

With the new format for SiteMeter, I can't access the data I had come to count on. I will no longer know if anyone is reading this. At least not easily enough that I will actually bother to check.

I'll probably uninstall the whole mess soon if they don't make it easier to use.

While frustrating, it might also be liberating.

Added: I guess I wasn't the only one having problems. They have gone back to the old style for now. I don't mind the new style as long as they have the same data as the old style, easily accessible. They didn't. I hope when they fix it, it has the features I want.
................................................

Diffuse Efforts to Undermine Tyranny

I thought I would put together a list of some of the freedom efforts being pursued. Some are more serious than others, some will irritate anarchists while some will irritate minarchists. Look into these, or others you may know of, and if you find one or more that you are interested in, join them and help the effort. Doing something is better than doing nothing.


Advocates For Self-Government

Alliance for the Separation of School and State

American Liberty Dollar

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Boston Tea Party

Cato Institute

Checkpoint USA

Constitution Preservation

Copper Cards

Covenant of Unanimous Consent

Flex Your Rights

Free America

Free State Project

Free State Wyoming

Fully Informed Jury Association

Give Me Liberty

International Society for Individual Liberty

Libertarian Majority

Libertarianism.com

Loving County

Republic of Lakotah

Seize Liberty Network

Simply Anarchy

Sovereigns of the High Frontier

Take Your Money Back

The On Line Freedom Academy

United States House of Repeals

Building Liberty's Gallows

Are you supplying rope, nails, assistance, or knowledge to those who are building the gallows they plan to hang you on?

If you support ANY government agency, program, branch, or function, you are.

The only justification for being part of the construction crew would be if you were making certain that faulty materials were being used so that the structure would collapse if it were used. Or if you had altered the blueprints so that those following them would end up with a useless product.

In that case you are making a sacrifice for liberty. Don't be surprised if you are not recognized as being on the side of liberty by a casual observer, and be prepared for whatever may come when those ducks come home to roost. It won't be a good time to be mistaken for an enabler.

The Upcoming Election Dilemma- Solved

You want "change"? I've got your "change" right here!

I have not been pushing my write-in campaign in order to avoid irritating you. It is time to speak up again. I am still serious in my promises to you.

Voting for the "OBAMcCAIN" creature is wasting your vote. There is no justification for it. Voting for the lesser of 2 (or 3 or..?) evils is wasting your vote. It is quite possible that voting at all is wasting your vote because it endorses a bad system and a terrible idea: tyranny of the majority.

So, what does a principled person with a conscience do?

The best possible way to spend your vote in this rigged game is by using it to send a message.

If you still think voting is a good idea, why would you vote for anyone other than the candidate who believes you know how to run your own life better than anyone else? That can only mean a real libertarian. I trust you to make the right decisions and be a responsible person. Does OBAMcCAIN? Absolutely not!

Why would you vote for someone who fears you enough to try to immorally take your guns out of your hands while in public (you know, where you need them the most)? Instead, if voting is to be worthwhile, vote for the person who has stated that you should be armed at all times if you so choose, including when in his presence. I'll take my chances with true liberty.

Why waste your vote on some joker who thinks other people own your body and are authorized to tell you what to do with it? Instead, if your vote is not to be wasted, vote for the person who knows that no one has the authority to do anything to your body without your permission, nor to prevent you from destroying your own body if that is your choice.

Why waste your vote on someone who might "allow" you to keep "more" of your money instead of recognizing that no one has any right to a cent of your money except for you? If you choose to vote, vote for the one who knows that your property belongs to you alone.

Why waste your vote on a candidate who supports the continued printing of counterfeit money by the Federal Reserve? Instead, vote for a candidate who will insist on a return to real money.

Why waste your vote on a candidate who thinks he and the rest of the Rulers own your personal property and can control "who, what, and why" you allow to be there. Your property is yours and no one else has any claim on it.

Why throw your vote away on some creep who wants to imprison your children for many hours every day, for more than 9 months a year, for 12 or more years, to train them to be good little cogs, all paid for with stolen money ransomed from homes? Your children and their education are your responsibility. You can do a better job... cheaper and without the Pavlovian training to jump at the sound of a bell... than the state. Vote for the person who will fight to free you and your children.

Why waste your vote on someone who believes that it is OK for "society" to tell people who are harming no innocent person that they are being bad and should be kidnapped and imprisoned? If you are harming no innocent person you are free to live your life however you see fit. No matter who is offended by your choices. This is absolutely non-negotiable in a free society.

Don't waste your vote. The only way to truly not waste it is by voting for yourself. I am volunteering to be your proxy. A vote for me is a vote for yourself. I am a true libertarian who acknowledges that you own your own life, and who will help you fight off any attempts to deny you that self-determination.

Write-in voting is inconvenient. The feds will refuse to count the votes. However, if there are enough of them, and they are mostly for one person, they may still refuse to acknowledge the votes, but they won't be able to ignore them. Those votes, if there are enough of them, will scare the "snot" out of them.

I still believe the wisest thing to do on election day is stay home and prepare, or go out and buy ammo. Many people still see value in voting, despite all the evidence to the contrary. If that is the case, please consider voting in self-defense this time.

If you spend your vote on me, and if I were to win, I promise to never cooperate with ANY branch of the federal (or any) government or with ANY federal (or other level) agency. This is the only way to empower liberty: hobble the state. I am the anti-body for authoritarianism. Inoculate the federal government with a dose of me. Or think of me as chemotherapy to fight off the metastasized cancer of government. Either way, I would be much better than the rest of the candidates.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Triumph of "Gun Control"

In quiet contemplation of "Gun Control Success Day", I post this illustration from Scott Bieser. Remember: They hate us because we are free.

Are You Part of the Reason Liberty is Dying?

Personally, there are a lot of activities I don't like. Guess what... my opinion is less than worthless. As long as you are not harming another innocent person I have no right to stop you, nor does government. In fact, since government is not a person, it has no "rights" at all.

Suppose your neighbor likes to get together with a group of like-minded people and lick stinging nettles and straddle electric fences on their own property. You may think they are crazy. You may decry the fact that they are harming themselves. You may even be disgusted at the fact that your neighbor gets a sexual thrill from his chosen activity. You can question the reasons behind it. You can try to convince your neighbor that he is damaging his body. But the second you try to use coercion, either personally or by attacking him with the state, you are doing wrong.

Now substitute a real-world activity for the nettles-and-electricity scenario (not claiming no ones does this, just that there are others easier to imagine). Do you love liberty enough to defend the right of the person doing the thing you hate the most, as long as they are not harming others? If not, why not?

Do you seek to throw the state at others in any way? Do you have any pet project that uses the state, but that you defend "just in this one instance"? Do you fall for the propaganda that serves to divide freedom lovers and empower the state as it attempts to control every aspect of our lives? Do you defend the speech rights of those who say hateful things, while still proclaiming that they are wrong, or do you seek to use the state to make them be quiet? If so, you are helping build government, not to dismantle it.

In this time of mega-state Big-Brotherism, we must fight even harder against those who would infringe on even the most bizarre and unpopular victimless activity. Otherwise we are playing right into the hands of the worse enemy human civilization has ever known: government. They know the game of "divide and conquer" and they have been using it for millennia. Don't play their game. Join with your neighbors and smash the state.


..........................................................................

Extremists Defending Absolute Human Rights

The defense of absolute human rights is only an "extreme" position to those who wish to violate those human rights. Violating absolute human rights always leads to death. When you are called "an extremist", remember who is speaking.

Is your accuser dressed in black bullet-proof clothing; riding in an armored personnel carrier, carrying weapons that he would kill you for possessing?

Is the speaker sitting in an office thinking up new ways to take what belongs to you, while counting on those with the "prohibited-to-you" weapons to enforce the theft?

Is the speaker calling for you and your friends and family to be killed to make way for a new, enlightened world?

Is your accuser wanting to see a river of blood usher in his version of "justice"?

Can you tell the difference between extremism in defense of liberty and extremism in the cause of tyranny? Yeah? So can I.


----------------------------------

Threatening Your Values

My mother has a calendar from the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family hanging in the house. Speaking about the group's activism, it has the statement "...when a moral issue threatens the values we hold dear...". That phrase makes me wonder: How can your values be threatened? Either they are your values or not. If you get new information which shows you that your values were wrong you can either change them, or go into denial mode. You may feel threatened by new information or different views, but your values are not.

There is some obfuscation at work here. They are not really worried about their values at all. What the group is really worried about is not being able to impose their values upon others who may have different values. My values recognize that as wrong. They should be worried; the era of legitimized coercion is coming to a close.

Anarchy: Freedom From Statist Filth

Your life is an empty vase. You fill it with things that add value. You try to keep the bad things out. Of course, "value" and "bad" are subjective and will vary from person to person.

As long as your vase is not contaminated by the excrement of "state" you are in a condition of "anarchy". You are free of state coercion. If you allow your vase to be smeared with the state, or allow a dollop of the state to be placed inside, you are no longer living in anarchy. Even a microscopic amount will cause your liberty-health to suffer.

It can be difficult to clean up the contamination, but the effort is well worth it. And once clean, you will fight harder against new contamination.


************************************

Children and Guns: France and Beyond

I was recently asked my opinion of "children and guns" by a reporter from France. Here is the article: McKenzie, the 11-year-old who can field strip and reassemble a rifle in 53 secs.

Conformity

I have never been good at conformity. I figured that out at an early age.

I recently read an article in The Libertarian Enterprise that contained an admonition for men to stop cutting their hair short, as it is "the preferred hairstyle of imperialists and mass murderers throughout history". While I much prefer long hair (on men and women), and I have noticed a tendency for the worst Liberty Eradication Operatives (LEOs) to have that ridiculous tiny rug in the center of their otherwise scraped-bare scalp, I can't really condone a call for conformity in hair-cuts either.

Just because evil people have adopted a symbol does not make that symbol evil. Whether it is swastikas, suits and ties, or short hair. Still, with an entire history of fashion available to us today, why exclusively choose the incredibly unimaginative dress of mainstream society? And if your choice of hair-style and clothing can make the statists uncomfortable, why not go for it?

Liberty, remember?

______________________________

Note: The pic above was for my niece who wanted to see me in "pirate mode". I don't usually dress quite like that. Yes, she put eye makeup on me and then wouldn't help me remove it. The things I do for people!

Psychotic Libertarian Blog!

I am pleased to note that I was the 5th entry when someone did a Google search for "psychotic libertarian blog". Of course, the search results are based upon words in my blog, not peoples' opinion of me. Or so I believe....

Jury Rights Day, September 5th

Don't forget that September 5th is Jury Rights Day. Support the Fully Informed Jury Association!

What Do You Mean By "Freedom"?

Recently, on the War on Guns blog, MamaLiberty made an observation. I quote the relevant points:

"I had it all explained to me by a politician the other day. ....... He was
telling a room full of people ........that all of the laws are necessary in
order to preserve our freedom. .......Then it dawned on me. We are not using the
word "freedom" in the same way. What politicians mean by "freedom" is freedom
from risk, from being offended or challenged with any real responsibility for
ourselves or our lives. "

Sadly, politicians aren't the only ones. Listen to a song recorded since "9/11" that contains the word "freedom". Chances are the singer is singing about that same kind of false freedom. Ask a person on the street if they are "free". Then question them about their answer.

It has been said that if you tell a person that they are free long enough, they will believe you no matter what the truth is. Well, if you redefine "freedom" to mean the opposite of "freedom", I guess the result is the same.



-----------------------------------------

Choosing Your Enemies

I suspect it may be an unfortunate fact of being human that we all "need" someone to dislike. This is why racism, sexism, religious wars, and gay-bashing is a problem. But, not all "dislikes" are arbitrary like those.

If that is the case, that we all "need" someone to dislike, I am happy to choose to dislike those who choose to harm innocent people: the statists and authoritarians. Of course, the statists and authoritarians choose to dislike those who disagree with them, even though they harm no one. They even threaten to make a "river of blood" flow. Guess who is the dangerous, bad person. It isn't us "radicals" of the libertarian variety, that's for sure.

We libertarians would stand alongside those who are hated, belittled, or denigrated by the statists, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion, and fight for their right to live unmolested. By some peoples' standards, that makes us racists. Go figure.

The Tragic "Cop-ification" of Gun Magazines

Not all (or even most) honest gun owners are cop-worshippers. That is something gun magazines would do well to acknowledge.

I was a charter subscriber to Concealed Carry Magazine. After a few wonderful issues I even wrote the editor praising his avoidance of the term "legally licensed" which seems to always precede "concealed carry" in the other gun magazines I subscribe to. He wrote back expressing agreement and his disdain for the term. That was then, this is now.

Now, just like all the other gun magazines I get, it has been taken over by either cops, or cop-worshippers, judging by the articles. "Legally licensed" is scattered throughout the articles, and enthusiasm for cops, and belittling of real freedoms, is rampant. Their weekly email newsletter even highlighted a drug test for home use to "check out" friends and family members. Absolutely unbelievable!

These magazines need to realize that cops are not the friend of the average, peaceable gun owner. In fact, as Hurricane Katrina, as well as a thousand incidents in a thousand cities and small towns every day, should have illustrated, cops are worse enemies to us than are the "violent criminals" who we are told to fear and despise.

I let my subscription to Concealed Carry lapse after writing the editor once again, this time expressing my building disappointment. I got a response from an assistant, who said the message would be passed along. I heard nothing more. I have better ways to spend my money than to send it to enemies of real freedom.

Gun Giveaway

I shouldn't do this since it probably lowers my chances of winning, but if you haven't signed up for the Gallery of Guns monthly giveaway, you should do so. They have a new one each month. I have yet to win, and with my fuzzy resident status, it might be difficult to take delivery, what with all the illegal gun "laws" being enforced these days.

The "Bigtime"

I didn't make this joke video, but I like it anyway: Who is Kent McManigal? The sad part is, that generic "news" story is about as in-depth as the "real" ones get.

Thanks to The War on Guns.

A Really Good Time to Sneak Up and Say "BOO!"

Assuming that the guy's cap really indicates his employer. Which, judging by his intelligence, I'm guessing it does.

Agreement

As a libertarian/anarchist I believe that I should not attack or steal from other individuals. That isn't a very radical position. Except for sociopaths, there is little disagreement over this.

I think even most statists believe in the same ethics for individuals. Where they go terribly wrong is that they think that agents of the state are exempt and have a different ethical standard. They are desperate for a reason to justify this unjustifiable insanity. So they call those acts by different names. Or they simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

I refuse to do either.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Liberty Works For Me

I have never run into a situation where liberty doesn't work. With all the nebulous "what if"s out there nothing has ever happened that "required" me to initiate force.

That doesn't mean that my life has gone perfectly. Just like everyone else, some things have seemed unsolvable.

In order to "fix" some things, people would probably need to commit murder. Since that violates just about every legal, moral, and ethical code in existence (not just my personal one) I can discount that "shortcoming". The unforeseen consequences would undoubtedly be worse than the situation which was "fixed". Plus, it would just be wrong. As they say "extreme cases make for bad law". So it is with personal philosophies. Since liberty continues to work, I will continue to live it. It is the right thing to do.

"Criminals For Gun Control" Video

Check out this video: Criminals For Gun Control. Obviously, this applies to the badged ones as well as the free-lancers.

Scared of a Plant

No government that is so afraid of a plant that it lies, kidnaps, and kills people deserves any respect. It deserves scorn and contempt. And not just from us anarchists, but from the statists, too.


I mean, your government is supposed to be such a big, strong daddy that it keeps you safe from "those other people" who are scary to you. It supposedly knows all the answers and tells you how to best live your life. But when confronted by a plant that has been used medicinally and recreationally for thousands of years without killing anyone (also used for rope that has killed countless people, both good and bad, but that's another issue) this big, strong state gets so scared that it behaves irrationally and spreads absurd propaganda about the feared plant through the national media; propaganda that knowledgeable people laugh at. And you still think your government is "big and strong"? Pshaw.

Keep Hoping, Statists

I think there are a good many people out there who are desperately hoping that libertarianism and its more radical child, anarchy, can never work. They have a lot invested in statism and keep looking for reasons why liberty "can't" work.


It is up to libertarians and anarchists to prove them wrong.

We can do this in our private and public lives on a daily basis. We can do this when we have a conflict between ourselves or with statists by taking the high road. We can do this by never initiating government contact when there is a conflict. If they initiate it, we can still deal with the situation in a principled way, though it may be harder.

Prove to the statists that the state is not only unnecessary, but undesirable, to us, at least. Show them that they are being ridiculous when they claim we will all kill one another without the guns of the state pointed at our heads; keeping us in line. Let them keep hoping while we keep proving them dead wrong.


-----------------------------------------------

Libertarian and Anarchist

I have had a revelation. I have always maintained that libertarianism and anarchism are related, as in "Anarchism is libertarianism in full bloom". I think I just figured out a deeper relationship.

"Libertarianism" describes my interations with other individuals. I respect their rights and expect them to also respect mine.

"Anarchism" describes my interactions with Rulers of any sort. I ignore their illegitimate authority until the issue is forced, and then I regard them as the parasites upon civilization that they have proven themselves to be throughout all of recorded history.

Learning "Obedience to Authority"

Public schools (and their private counterparts) are not really in existence to teach you science, history, geography, language skills, or math. They are there to teach you to obey authority and jump at the sound of a bell.

It has been estimated that you can be taught all the skills you need in order to take care of your own education in about 100 hours. The rest of the time, usually 12 years of formal schooling, is used for teaching you something that is much more difficult. It teaches you to betray yourself. This lesson didn't set well for some of us.

In high school, when a teacher used a small pickled flounder as an example in a test and called it a skate (as an example of chondrichthyes) I refused to go along. The teacher got very angry at my insistence, but I felt it was important to not give the kids false information. He never admitted he was deceiving the class, but he knew I knew.

I'm sure my life would be easier had I absorbed my lessons in obedience, but I would not trade my independence for ease. Well.... maybe sometimes.

----------------------------------

Libertarian, But.....

You have probably noticed, as have I, how many supposed libertarians cling to government at some level. It is as if they are scared to take that last step. They come up with excuse after excuse for why that last vestige of government is necessary to keep us all from killing each other.

Often they point to the Constitution, the "founders", religion, or their own military career as justification for their beliefs. They resort to insults such as the over-used "If you don't like it, move". Brilliant, Sherlock. And where exactly would you suggest as fertile ground for freedom? The entire globe is infected with your statism.

I am so tired of hearing them make excuses for blocking freedom. If you are scared, fine. Get out of the way and at least stop being a traitor to liberty. This really makes me angry. Governments should have "friends" like these.

So, should we simply write those people off as hopeless? I don't know, but I think they are even more stubborn and dangerous than flaming statists.



-------------------------------------------------------

True Environmentalists Don't Support Socialism

I love the natural world. I value unspoiled wilderness and wildlife. I can't stand litter and can't fathom why some people are ignorant enough to toss trash on the ground instead of putting it in trash containers. It has never hurt me even a tiny bit to hold onto my trash for a few minutes. People who crap in their nest by polluting and damaging the world are no friends of mine. But neither are the people who think that Law Pollution is the answer to trash and chemical pollution.

Those who embrace government protection of the environment are ignoring the fact that governments the world over are the worst despoilers of the natural world. They also fight against technological civilization while glamorizing tribal herdsmen; ignoring the fact that technology usually lessens the impact of the individual on the environment.

I have nothing against tribal herdsmen nor against high-tech societies. I have a lot against those who think the solution to anything is the growth of government control at the expense of the individual's liberty. Once again, government is not the answer. People generally protect that which they own, but even in the cases where they don't, they OWN the property, not the government, not society, not the neighbors. Taking their use of their own property is theft.

If you pollute or otherwise damage your neighbor's property, you should be held accountable. Your damage is not OK. Not even if you are a government weapon facility.

To give the biggest, worst polluter and despoiler the authority to tell others how to dispose of or use their own property is socialism. It is wrong. Real environmentalists support private property. They will educate property owners so they will understand how taking care of the environment helps their own interests. And they will leave those alone who do not go along.


**************************

Life As It Should Be

Do what you want and don't bother me.

That should be enough. Initiate force against me and you are bothering me. Victimize innocent people and you are bothering me. Steal, murder, or kidnap under color of "law" and you are bothering me. Otherwise meddle in stuff that is none of your business, and you are definitely bothering me.

I don't want anything from anyone except to live in peace and to not be victimized by the state if I need to defend that peace. That is the essence of libertarianism and of anarchy. Is that too much to ask?

Open Letter to the NRA (With Updates)

Dear NRA,

I have written you numerous times. Your only response has been those infuriatingly vapid "thank you for contacting us" form letter emails. This email, and any responses from you will be published on my blogs and sent to my friends and contacts who may also be NRA members. I am tired of being ignored. I am tired of being sold down the river by your support of authoritarianism. I am sick of being shoved aside and sacrificed to your police-state buddies, their liberty destroying programs, and your absolutely delusional assessment of the situation. I regret ever joining your organization, and especially regret shelling out the money for a life-membership. I may as well have joined one of the other victim disarmament gangs.

My September 2008 copy of your official journal, America's 1st Freedom, arrived this week. Can you say "last straw"? I am angry and I will be heard.

In past Presidential (and other) elections* you have ignored the true pro-gun candidates of the Libertarian Party in order to endorse your darlings of the Republican Party. Now look where it has gotten you. In this copy of America's 1st Freedom, you go to great lengths to decry Obama's anti-gun history while ignoring McCain's even more disturbing anti-gun history. I say "even more disturbing" simply because this is the traitor you are pushing as the gun-owners' candidate! The man is a traitor in more ways than one, and on gun ownership is no better than the other traitor, Obama. Only McCain lies more smoothly because of your help. His history is swept under the rug, again with your help. Stop it NOW! In this election, partly because of your ignorance, the LP doesn't even have a pro-gun candidate. Did you orchestrate this situation on purpose? Because you couldn't have sabotaged gun owners any more thoroughly if you had.

Then, once again in America's 1st Freedom, your official voice, we are treated to an absolutely delusional assessment of the Heller decision. You crow about the "victory" while ignoring the fact that the black-robed traitors have effectively rubber-stamped any victim-disarming scheme short of an all-out ban. Any permits, restrictions, or other infringements are well within the scope of the "allowed" prohibitions. "Shall not be infringed" could not be any more clear. Where is the wiggle-room?

Stop supporting and endorsing police-state programs such as PROJECT EXILE. Stop supporting the enforcers who prop up these programs. No LEO ("Liberty Eradication Operative") who has ever enforced even one gun law is worthy of your adoration. Authoritarianism and gun rights are mutually exclusive. Choose sides and stop sitting on the fence. It makes you look like fools.

"Concealed Carry legislation" is unnecessary. Don't pass new laws, just strike the old illegal laws from the books. Or ignore them. Whatever you do, don't train people to beg for permission to exercise their basic human rights. It is a dangerous, slippery, slope that leads nowhere good.

Stop advocating the disarmament of children and teachers in government schools. Is there any place more dangerous than where parents can not be to protect their children? Bad people will always find a way. Stop giving them the advantage by supporting hideously cruel "gun-free" zones.

The Second Amendment prohibits the Federal government from passing or enforcing any law regarding personal weapons of any sort. That means your call to "enforce the laws we already have" is dead wrong. There is no way that enforcing any gun law helps me or the rest of us average, non-violent gun owners. Any prohibitions against "felons", "mentally ill", or anyone else possessing any type of guns, does not help anyone but the state, and does not make you or me safer in any way. Any prohibition or restriction on any sort of gun is prohibited by the Second Amendment. Yes, that includes machine guns. Any limitation of where or when or HOW (openly or concealed) anyone can carry any type of personal weapon is strictly prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Stop tip-toeing around the issues. You may shock or scare some people, but really, how much more can the gun-banners hate you anyway? Stop catering to them. Start standing up for the people who want to be on your side. A principled stand will show you are worthy of the support of gun owners again. Maybe some of those "as long as I can keep my deer rifle..." gun owners will get a clue and follow your lead. If nothing else, you can see who is really supportive of the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms.

I will not resign my membership, but feel free to kick me out. I, and principled members like me, will continue to be your conscience. Will you continue to ignore us?

Signed,
Kent McManigal
NRA Life member (#-------)

Added: Four days and counting and no response other than the "we received your email" reply.

An "answer" from NRA; five days later, and obviously a somewhat dated form letter. Notice how my points were completely ignored:

Dear Sir,

Please know that the NRA is a non-partisan organization. When considering candidates for endorsement, our political action committee, the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF), reviews several aspects of a candidate's campaign. In addition to determining a candidate's position on the Second Amendment and firearms ownership rights, we also review other factors such as viability, likelihood of making a runoff, campaign strategies, methods and staffing, and, finally, whether or not a candidate has a possibility of success in a particular district or state. Obviously, some districts are so one-sided in relation to partisan politics that support for any other candidates or parties would be fruitless and wasteful.

NRA-PVF has an obligation to our contributing membership to support and assist the best pro-gun candidate, and you can rest assured that all serious candidates are considered and reviewed. Regardless of party affiliation, all candidates are given the same consideration. But when it comes to a pro-gun incumbent running against a pro-gun challenger, we will almost always side with the incumbent.

McCain certainly is not perfect, but he is far better than Obama on gun issues. Obama has a near perfect anti-gun record, while McCain has voted on the wrong side only a few times. McCain voted to restrict our lobbying activities (McCain-Feingold) and to increase regulations at gun shows, but he voted against the Clinton gun bans and voted to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, among many other pro-gun votes.

As for the Heller decision, with Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Kennedy, our individual right to keep and bear arms was formally recognized by the highest court in the land (Justices Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens).

The Washington D.C. gun ban is now overturned, and this new precedent will be the foundation for furthering the protection and expansion of our right to keep and bear arms, both legislatively and judicially, especially in areas with restrictions as severe as California's.

Further, NRA has already filed five lawsuits challenging local gun bans in San Francisco, and in Chicago and several of its suburbs. The San Francisco lawsuit challenges a local ordinance and lease provisions that prohibit possession of guns by residents of public housing in San Francisco. The Chicago case challenges a handgun ban nearly identical to the law struck down yesterday in Washington, D.C. The other Illinois suits challenge handgun bans in the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park.

All five suits raise the issue of the application of the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, known in constitutional law as "incorporation." Because Washington, D.C. is not a state, incorporation was not specifically addressed in yesterday's Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, but the decision did repeatedly equate the Second Amendment to the First and Fourth Amendments, which have applied to the states for 80 years.

We believe violent criminals who use guns during the commission of crimes should serve long, mandatory prison sentences. We will not change our stance on that issue. We believe that crime control, rather than gun control, is the solution to the violent crime problem.

We don't support the idea of "gun-free zones": http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=260

We are not all-powerful. We cannot suddenly have all anti-gun laws repealed. However, we are the most powerful lobbying organization in the country and we will continue to use our influence to steer legislation in a way that will protect the right to keep and bear arms. Although we may not get everything we want all of the time, everything we do is aimed at improving the current situation.

We do not cater to anyone but our members, fellow gun owners, and others who believe in the sanctity of the Second Amendment. I hope this helps.

Cordially,
Angus McClellan
NRA-ILA Grassroots

Added 9-24-2008:

So... I got my NRA magazine again and I see an election primer, spelling out which politicians are "pro-gun", at least by your reckoning. How in the world am I supposed to trust what you say? Your organization gives good marks to anti-gun oppressors who might have supported one of your pet pieces of legislation while ignoring TRUE pro-gun people who haven't had a chance to help out the cause because you refuse to endorse them. I might as well be voting blind.

-

*Of course, this was written well before I realized the stupidity of participating in the rigged game known as "elections". Abstain from Beans!

.

A Bully Will Arise...

How do you counter the argument that in an anarchistic society a big thug will arise to become the Ruler?

I know that it is a silly objection because that is already the situation we find ourselves in: The strongest, least ethical, monsters have set themselves up as "our government" and made rules that protect themselves to our detriment. I also realize that a fully armed population, willing to defend themselves from tyrants, is the remedy to this, but few people will accept that.

This is the objection to liberty that I find most difficult to dispell, even though I don't believe it myself. How do you convince people, who base their entire lives on this premise, that they are wrong?

Barge World

I don't know if you ever read Scott Adams' Dilbert Blog, but this idea has always sounded good to me: Barge World. Not as "the only way" but as "one possible way".

Stop the Pledge of Allegiance

The following came to my inbox. I am familiar with Rex Curry's investigations and consider this information vital to overturning statism.

For publication (or Letter to Editor)

The official Olympic salute originated in the United States, as did the Nazi salute. Both gestures are products of the early Pledge of Allegiance to the flag in American Schools. http://rexcurry.net/olympics.html

Another school year is here and it is time to teach students about their right to reject the Pledge of Allegiance and its robotic ritualism. Please help inform the public about new discoveries showing that the Pledge was the origin of the notorious stiff-arm salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis). http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html

The Beijing Olympics did not use the official Olympic salute, and the opening ceremony substituted extended arm waiving that was a odd reminder of the stiff-armed salute from older Olympic games. http://rexcurry.net/bookchapter1a1c.html

While China rejected the salute for the Olympic games, China continues to use the stiff-armed gesture officially. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html

A photograph is at http://rexcurry.net/nazi-salute-taipei-times-roc-republic-of-china-government-officials-sworn.jpg

Mao Zegong's portrait and dogma is present at the Olympic games in Beijing. Mao still holds one of the worst records for mass murder with Hitler and Stalin.Mao was part of the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was apart): ~60 million killed under the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; ~50 million under the Peoples' Republic of China; ~20 million under the National Socialist German Workers' Party. If mass murder were an Olympic event, Mao would have taken a medal. http://rexcurry.net/yuan-china-socialism.html

Beijing is slated to be one of the first cities to host one of five new Wholecaust Museums with Moscow, Berlin, New York City, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles. http://rexcurry.net/wholecaust-museum.html

Another school year is here and it is time to teach students about their right to reject the Pledge of Allegiance and its robotic ritualism. Please help inform the public about new discoveries showing that the Pledge was the origin of the notorious stiff-arm salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis). http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html

New documentary video movies expose the shocking facts on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BssWWZ3XEe4 and as a school resource for teachers on teachertube http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=77b16a03aa81f09499f2

The government also popularized robotic chanting to flags. The swastika was popularized as S-shaped symbolism for "socialism" in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the United States, eventually migrating to Germany with the straight-arm gesture. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html

A frightening photograph is at http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg

More amazing photographs are at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html

Those historical facts explain the enormous size and scope of government today, and the USA's growing police state. They are reasons for massive reductions in government, taxation, spending and socialism.

"Stop The Pledge" (STP), a pressure group, works to repeal laws in those states that still retain a daily Pledge ritual in government schools. The group needs help in notifying the public to contribute information (via email at pledge-of-allegiance@earthlink.net or the contact info below) for a study of how many students are taught the whole history of the Pledge; how many students still chant robotically each day; and how many students feel they would be disciplined or persecuted for refusals. Many students say that they sit during the Pledge because they "refuse to kiss the government's butt every morning." STP pays students to reject robotic ritualism and to"take the pledge not to pledge."

The ongoing Pledge litigation in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California includes these issues in the brief by Attorney Rex Curry at http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/pledge/docs/2006-06-13%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Rex%20Curry.pdf

The brief is archived under "current litigation" athttp://www.restorethepledge.com

Dr. Curry showed that the early Pledge Of Allegiance did not use an ancient Roman salute, and that the 'ancient Roman salute' myth came from the Pledge Of Allegiance. http://rexcurry.net/roman-salute-metropolitan-museum-of-art.html

Government schools in the USA popularized the straight-arm salute for three decades before, and through, the creation of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSGWP). People were persecuted for refusing to perform robotic chanting to the national flag at the same time in the USA and Germany (to the American flag, and to the German symbol flag).

The dogma behind the Pledge was the same dogma that led to the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): ~60 million slaughtered under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; ~50 million under thePeoples' Republic of China; ~20 million under the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It was the worst slaughter of humanity ever.

The author of the Pledge (1892), Francis Bellamy, was a self-proclaimed National Socialist, as was his cousin Edward Bellamy, author of an international bestseller that launched the Nationalism movement globally. Edward's book was translated into every major language, including German. The Bellamy boys promoted "Military Socialism." They wanted government to take over all schools and impose robotic chanting to flags. When the government granted their wish, government schools imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official policy. That behavior even outlasted German National Socialism. http://rexcurry.net/pledgebackward.html

Children are coerced into the robotic ritualism of the socialist's pledge daily, and never learn of America's anti government libertarianism. In addition to the notorious salute, American socialists (e.g. Edward Bellamy teamed with the Theosophical Society) also bear some blame for the notorious symbol used by the National Socialist German Workers Party on its Swastika flag. While Edward and the Theosophical Society worked together,the swastika symbol was used by the Society. It was used as alphabetical symbolism for socialism, and adopted later by German socialists as their flag symbol. The NSGWP had clear roots in National Socialism promoted in theUSA. http://rexcurry.net/theosophy-madame-blavatsky-theosophical-society.html

Although an ancient symbol, the swastika was altered for use as overlapping S-letters for 'socialism.' It was deliberately turned 45 degrees counterclockwise and always oriented in the S-direction. Similar alphabetic symbolism is still visible as the Volkswagen VW logo. http://rexcurry.net/swastika3swastika.jpg

American soldiers used the swastika symbol in WWI (against Germany) and the symbol was used by the American military during WWII. http://rexcurry.net/45th-infantry-division-swastika-sooner-soldiers.html

The discoveries are part of the growing work of the historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets"). They have been reviewed and verified on Wikipedia. Every journalist who has examined the new discoveries has confirmed them. The research is receiving growing media coverage http://rexcurry.net/audio-rex-curry-podcast-radio.html

Fan mail is also growing for work exposing the Pledge's poisonous pedigree http://rexcurry.net/pledge_heart.html

The USA is still the worst example in the world of bizarre laws that require robotic chanting to a national flag in government schools every day for 12 years. It has changed generations of Americans from libertarians to authoritarians. The government bamboozled individuals into believing that robotic group-chanting in government schools is a beautiful expression of freedom. http://rexcurry.net/pledgetragedy.html

Real Americans don't pledge allegiance to big government. Help educate students in the new school year.

For more information contact -

Tinny Ray
Stop The Pledge
P.O. Box 8816
Tampa, FL 33674-8816
pledge-of-allegiance@earthlink.net

"A Few Bad Apples"

I hesitated to post this that I found on War on Guns. It infuriated me. Be warned that these pillars of the (statist) community use some pretty colorful language. "We're the Only Ones Audio Blogging Enough"

If "good cops" exist, why are scum like these LEOs allowed to survive?

The Media's Election Manipulation

I have decided that the "mainstream media" may not really be "Leftists". Most are obviously not "Rightists" either. What they are: "Opportunists".

They want and promote the candidate who they think will make the biggest mess. That way they manufacture their own news. McCain was obviously the worst "Republican" candidate, so they pushed him to the top of the compost heap. They had a hard time choosing between Obama and Clinton II, but ultimately chose the one with the most disturbing (to the conservatives) background. After all, some of Hitlary's abominations might have been Bill's fault.

I think they have missed some opportunities, such as Ron Paul or me. Either of us could have given them a lot of news stories by completely overturning the status-quo had we been elected. But our actions would have derailed decades or centuries of more news, so that couldn't be allowed. Therefore it is "more of the same, only worse if possible".

..................................................

Swimming in the Sea of Statism

Being immersed in statism can give one a perspective on its absurdity that would be lacking if one were only surrounded by libertarians and anarchists. I constantly get exposed to statist ideas that give me the opportunity to deconstruct them and find the flaws. Usually it is not even that difficult, since accepting statism is a matter of simply not considering the alternatives. It is a matter of "We have always done it this way!"

Many times I keep my mouth shut and listen to see what will be said in defense of statism. Sometimes, at first, the ideas seem to have some validity. However, after just a little thought, the flaws start to become apparent and the statist dogma starts to unravel.

Not Paying Attention

I don't feel too sorry for people who sit on the toilet and fall in because someone left the seat up. Why can't they look for themselves? I do. Usually. I don't feel too sorry for myself when I do something stupid because I wasn't paying attention, either.

With that in mind I don't feel too sorry for people who are surprised when they run up against the US police state. There is ample evidence and warning. In case you aren't paying attention, I will tell you again: You are living in a police state where the "law" is your enemy, and its enforcers are out to kill, or at least enslave, you. Pay attention or don't ask me for pity.

Water "Safety", Brady Gun-Hater Style

Suppose I teach my kids "water safety" in a similar way to the "gun safety" recommended by those mass-murderer enablers of the Brady Campaign. To them, ignorance equals safety. Don't let kids near water... don't teach them to swim.....marginalize those who enjoy water sports, and blame them for drownings, floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis..... forbid drawings or discussions of water.... make exceptions to water bans for professionals such as firefighters..... demonize The Little Mermaid for glamorizing water to kids..... Then act shocked when children drown.

Do they not realize the absurdity of their approach; their "campaign"? Or, as is more likely, do they not care? Their advocacy kills children. Their campaign seeks to take away the most effective tool for defending the small and weak from the big and strong. Yet, they pretend moral superiority. Lest they whine "but water is essential for life" I would remind them that "self-defense is also essential for life". Taking away either one is murderous and insane.