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.