Smouldering Backlash Against NRA Sell-Outs

Here is a fine essay from L. Neil Smith by way of JPFO: The NRA Disgraces Itself -- Again. He is trying to think of a plan to get a message across to the NRA "leadership" that gun owners are fed up with being betrayed by our supposed friends. I will let you know when I find out the plan. Hold onto that NRA membership until then.

Immigration

I have seen people make the comment that the natives who lived on the land that is now America had no immigration policy, and "look what happened". I don't think this is a good analogy. I would agree that the natives owned the land that became America. The land was not "owned" individually as it is today, but was "owned" or occupied by the tribe. This is what the US government wants us to think the case is now: that "The United States owns America". It does not. I do not think the natives were under any obligation to "share" their land with the immigrants. The reasonable thing would have been for the immigrants to purchase or rent land from the original owners if an agreement could have been worked out (just as today's immigrants do). I don't know if that would have worked back then, because I doubt there would have been an agreement among the natives about who would receive the payment, since the territories were more fluid than today. There was also more of a tendency in those days to view anyone who was not of your culture as less than human. (That mental defect still appears in some of the loudest people today, unfortunately.) Even the natives did this among the different tribes or nations. Their name for their own tribe always meant "the people", and their names for the other tribes were usually not very complimentary or even insulting. The immigrants thought the natives were "backwards", "heathens", or "savages". Thinking in this way made it easier to justify killing the others. The resultant massacres were horrible. Both sides, the immigrants and the natives, committed terrible atrocities. The land was stolen and the less technologically advanced native people were subjugated and stripped of much of their culture and way of life.
The past cannot be repaired (which is a terrible tragedy). The best that can be done is to learn from past mistakes so you do not repeat them. Looking at how the USA is dealing with immigrants, especially those from Mexico, today, I don't think most people have learned from the past. Many people still try to think of these newcomers as "less than human" and don't see that they are paying rent and purchasing their land. They are not invading and stealing the homes and land. Yet, hearing the dabate, you would think they are. Once again I say, get rid of the welfare culture and you will remove incentives for people to move to America in order to be parasites. You will also pull the rug out from under the class of traditional, from-one-generation-to-the-next, parasites that has formed here since the welfare culture was created.

The Philosophy of Liberty

I was recently made aware of this good flash-animation presentation from The International Society for Individual Liberty that explains The Philosophy of Liberty. If you have the computer capability to watch it, I recommend that you do.

World Liberty-Aid

Why can't we have a world-wide concert event to highlight the looming, ever-growing disaster of government? If the environmentally conscious can have a world-wide extravaganza all about the environment, something that is mostly out of our control, then the politically conscious could surely have one about government, something that is totally under the control of people. Plus, since governments are the biggest enemy of the environment, it would fit right into the current theme. I suppose it is out of the question, since the loudest environmentalists are really, first and foremost, just socialists who use the environment as an excuse for more government controls of human activity. Or am I just being pessimistic?
The fascinating thing is that there are enough anti-government songs and films and books out there that you really could have a world-wide Liberty Woodstock (Libertystock?) of massive proportions. When people found out some of the side benefits of liberty they would flock to the events. It would only take a certain percentage of humans on earth to get riled up enough and we could rid ourselves of the scourge of government completely, at least for a while. I'd donate to that cause with my time and non-existent money.

Healthcare a "Basic Right"?

In my daily internet cruising, I ran across something somewhere (I can't find it now, of course) that asked why libertarians don't recognize "an obvious basic right to healthcare". Simple answer: because it doesn't exist. At least not in the way the "compassionate" socialists think of it. Most "healthcare rights" advocates think government (using stolen money) should provide the healthcare, or at least, force doctors to provide it. Nothing can be a basic right if it involves forcing someone else to do something against their will. A basic right can only be met by getting government out of the way. Allow people to self-medicate with whatever they see fit. Don't allow a government agency with a political agenda, and with favors to repay, to be the authority who decides which medications or procedures we are "allowed" to choose.

In a free world, healthcare would be a basic right. You would have the right to buy whatever healthcare you were able to afford, just as you do now. The difference would be that without government standing in the way, your choices would be greater, medications more plentiful and much more affordable, and you would not be forced to pay for the healthcare of anyone else. A similar example is that I have a right to own a fully automatic AR-15 even though the government interferes with this right through counterfeit "laws" which raise the price of the gun, and would punish me for owning one without their permission. Even if you disregard the "laws", no one has an obligation to provide me with the rifle. I can buy the gun I can afford, which may only be a yard sale BB gun. If someone decides to give me an AR-15, without being coerced into it, I would accept it. No one is forced to provide anything to anyone else, even if it is a basic right. It is only wrong to stand in the way of the free exercise of rights; not to refuse to subsidize someone else's rights.

...Governments Should be Afraid of Their People!

Guess what. They are! Do you think all of the draconian control-freak laws are imposed because the government wants to protect you? Hardly. They pass those laws to protect themselves; the parasites who attempt to rule over us. They are scared to death that Americans might get fed up and grow a backbone again. You and I are the ones that the authoritards want to protect themselves from. So they pass enabling acts "authorizing" huge illegal power grabs. They declare that free speech is treason and seek to insulate themselves from it. They "outlaw" any guns that might be highly effective in thinning the herds of jabbuts, while they demonize the rest. They try to convince you that voting is the only proper way to change America while ignoring that the anti-government rebellion in 1776 wasn't fought in the voting booth. Freedom is never won, and almost never increased, by voting. Government knows this and is outlawing true freedom as fast as it can get away with. Even a "good" ruler should never sleep well at night, but wake in terror at every sound. Watch them building their fortress of laws to protect themselves from the individuals in America. See their actions for what they truly are: panic that they may one day be held accountable.

Libertarian Friends

I love my friends. They do not understand me, though. I sometimes think it would be so nice to have some local libertarian friends to talk to and hang out with. I'm not even talking about having deep, philosophical discussions (though that might be nice, too) , but simply having friends who do not look at me oddly if I display one of the "quirks of libertarianism" in public. I have had aquaintances who called themselves "anarchists", but when you really looked at their beliefs, they were socialists in anarchist clothing; they hated the current regime, but only wanted to replace it with a new, socialist regime. I have had friends who loved guns, but who cheered the military slaughter of muslims, or advocated the beating of homosexuals. I have had friends who hated government sanctioned oppression and war-mongering, but stated that "there is no reason to have guns; they should all be destroyed". I have had some friends who have too much invested in the status quo, such as a dependency on welfare or family members in brutal government agencies, and so can't see the government for what it really is.

I have looked for MeetUp groups without success. It would be difficult to attend, since my statist girlfriend would insist on coming along. Sigh. What is a libertarian/anarchist to do?

Have a Happy, FREE, Independence Day

Enjoy the one blatantly anti-government holiday that is still officially recognized, although its message has been obscured and diluted. Don't wave the US Federal flag of stars and stripes on this day; instead proudly fly the American Gadsden "Dont Tread on Me" flag or the Time's Up flag. Declare your independence from the authoritarians and from the outdated notion that government is legitimate. It is not! No one is fit, morally or intellectually, to rule anyone other than themselves.

Spend the day exercising your rights. Don't limit yourself to the ones listed explicitly in the Bill of Rights. Explore those rights hinted at in Amendment IX. Now get off the computer and get out there! Have fun and survive for the coming new battle for independence.

Confession: I Don't Really Like Fireworks

I know. It is a sad confession to make. I don't like the noise. It makes me jumpy. I can live with it though, knowing as I do that it is a direct affront to the authoritarians. It is a reminder of freer days which control-crazy states are trying to restrict in every way possible. Ironic that the statists don't see their hypocrisy in trying to "outlaw" the symbol of independence on Independence Day. They encourage people to go to professional displays. That is not what "independence" is about. It is about taking the risk to do worthwhile things for yourself. If blowing up small explosive devices is worth the risk to you, don't allow any government thugs to deny you that pleasure.


I think a more appropriate way to declare your independence is by going out shooting. Noisy, but with a point. The thing about real liberty is that you do what is important to you, without asking anyone's permission, as long as you do not violate anyone's rights.


So, get out there and set off all the fireworks you can. Legal, "illegal", whatever.... and thumb your nose at the authoritarians. If you get a chance, go shooting. Imagine your "favorite" authoritard's face on the bullseye. Remind them what "Independence" really means!

The Online Freedom Academy

A friend on The Claire Files started a thread about The Online Freedom Academy. I hadn't heard of it before, so I checked it out. It seems like a really good way to educate people about freedom. I would recommend that you look into it for yourself.

Why Do I Write?

Is writing about freedom "doing something" or is it just a way to soothe myself? Are there better things I could do? I am sure there probably are. There are many ways in which I am far from being free. Financial freedom is never to be mine. I have an amazing ability to repel money ... like two north poles of a magnet. It does not matter how well something works for everyone else, as soon as I try it, it stops making money and begins to cost. Even such seemingly simple things as having a "job". Romantic relationships have also been difficult for me all my life. I think a large part of that has been my unwilling vow of poverty. My previous wives only seemed to see me as a source of money (one of them still tries), and when I was never able to produce the funds to their satisfaction, they became disillusioned and angry. Marriages can not survive that forever. Then there is also the unfortunate experience that most women who I know do not understand or want freedom. They are content to let government "take care" of them so they don't need to worry about "those things". They tell me I am being difficult or weird. "Can't you just go along?" No, I am sorry, but I can't.

Is writing about freedom simply a way I use to try to express my frustration? A frustration that is really about myself? Am I searching for a way to be free of me? I have no answers, only questions. I wonder about those questions a lot.

People Should Not Be Afraid of Their Governments...

Yet many are, and for good reason. Governments across America and around the world are a major source of death, destruction, and yes, even chaos. Government thugs murder innocent people with impunity, and if people dare to fight back or even talk back, they are labeled (incorrectly) as "terrorists". It is often stated that people get the government they deserve. I don't believe that is right, since to me that is equivalent to saying a rape victim deserved to be assaulted because of the way she dressed. It is excusing the actions of the criminal.

People need to be educated. They need to recognize that they hold the power and the authority; not the immoral zombies with titles and badges who sit in offices bought with stolen money. Governments need to be afraid of the people again. I see a shift in this direction with the metastasizing of the police state. This is not to "protect society" as is claimed, but is only to protect government. As the government grows more and more afraid it will try harder to control the people more completely. It will give more people reasons to be afraid of government. In doing so it will put the final nail in its own coffin.

Average nonviolent people fear to write certain words in their blogs or emails because it might be seen as advocating violence against government thugs. Many times I edit sentences because I wonder how some idiot at the Department of Just-us might interpret what I have said. At the same time, government never fears to harass, kill, steal, or kidnap people - because they never are held accountable for their crimes. Government never hesitates to propose another tyranny-enabling law for fear of overdue and justified backlash. This needs to change. There needs to be a day where government authoritards are deeply fearful of every action they take or every word they utter officially because they know to their very core that they will be made to pay for their despotic ways.

Mummified Rulers - The Best Kind!

The recent identification of a mummy dug up in 1903 as the Egyptian Pharaoh/Queen Hatshepsut has got me wondering why we don't mummify (or just stuff) our Presidents. Do dead Rulers need to age like wine in order to become valuable? Maybe. They are a dime a dozen presently. Would they be more interesting if dug up 3500 years from now? It took over one hundred years for the mummy of Hatshepsut to be identified. With a little prior planning, future generations could be spared the frustration of trying to figure out which body (technical term: "people jerky") used to be which Ruler, although a plague of "John Adamses" and "George Bushes" complicates matters a bit, not to mention the "Johnsons" and the "Roosevelts". Cram a ceramic tablet engraved with the name and Wikipedia URL in the mummy's mouth to save future archaeologists time and effort. And why stop with only the President? We could stuff Congresscritters, Supreme Courtjesters, governators, and even local potentates. Speaking of "stuffing": there are a few big, modern pyramids in America that we could use as tombs. I have driven past the one in Memphis a few times. We could collect private donations to purchase one. I'm sure that as soon as word of our noble mission got out, many people would rush to help. How many mummies could fit into a building such as that? Since the walls are much thinner in these modern structures than in the pyramids of antiquity there is a much larger storage capacity. Skip the sarcophagi and stack the "mummies" like firewood and I'll bet you could fit millions in there. Especially with a little tamping after they get dry and crunchy. After all, comfort won't be a factor. This concept is thrilling to contemplate! Just wait though; some crybaby will probably whine that we should wait until they each die of natural causes before we stuff them.


PS: I should have mentioned Ron Paul in order to get more hits on my blog today. Oops, I guess I just did!

Race Baiting

Government loves to keep people divided and uneasy. Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on schools and race has once again fanned the flames. Forget for a moment that government has no business "educating" anyone. No, wait, don't ever forget that fact! When will people learn that race will stop being an issue when they stop making it an issue? When will government forms stop including that section with the boxes to check to assign yourself a race? Probably never. It is a great source of strife they can use to divide the population into easily manageable groups, and then pit the groups against one another in order to grab more power for themselves.

I am a big fan of refusing to fill out government paperwork altogether. If you feel the need to allow the government to waste some of your time anyway, then skip that whole "race section" completely. Maybe it is "illegal" to skip that section. Then be a good firefly (freedom outlaw) and skip it anyway. After all, there is a good libertarian tradition of civil disobedience. Nothing is more civil than not allowing yourself to be used as a weapon against other people. Or monkeywrench the database by always checking "other". That is probably the most truthful answer in 99% of the cases. My DNA is so mixed up there is no telling what is in there, and I would be willing to bet yours is too.

Hot Libertarian Topics

I have nothing to say (for once), so I will let my mind wander a bit. It is very small and shouldn't be left to wander alone for too long. Kinda like when I used to take my kids into the mountains and say "If you get attacked by a bear, scream really loud and I will come shoot it." They never screamed and were always right where I left them.

So, anyway. Ron Paul is still shocking people with his libertarian answers to some issues. The issues for which he has only Rep(tile)ublican answers ("immigration"?) shock no one. No one except libertarians, anyway. He should start giving libertarian answers to those questions too. Just to shock the general populace more. Couldn't hurt, and it might get him more attention. I notice his webpage has "borrowed" Alexander Hope's slogan. He isn't quite Alex Hope, but maybe with a little encouragement....

In other current events, a jabbut (jack-booted thug) in Hot Springs, Arkansas was caught on video choking skateboarders. This shocks no one anymore; we are getting desensitized to the thuggery of the authoritards. It does make some of us really mad, though. Well, me at least.

Wayne Fincher is still in jail for owning guns the tyrants are scared of (and hurting no one). Red's Trading Post is still being harrassed by the BATFE (Barbaric "Anti-Truth and -Freedom " Extremists) who have hissy fits over paperwork while ignoring the total lack of integrity in their dead, fishy heads.

Ed Brown seems to be going crazy because of the seige. The feds have ruined this man's life simply because he wants to keep his own money. Money that he and his wife earned; not the federal government. Just because he doesn't want to give in to thieves with badges. Sad.

I'm getting a growing number of hits on this blog from countries other than America. Welcome guys! We are all in this together, and I appreciate your interest.

In other words, it is a typical day in America. Get out there and enjoy it while you still can.

Idiots Have Freedom of Speech, Too

First this:

NEWS RELEASE
CCRKBA DRAFTS LEGISLATION TO STOP
JACKSON-STYLE GUN SHOP PROTESTS

BELLEVUE, WA – After denouncing the demagoguery of Rev. Jesse Jackson in
his continued protests at a suburban Chicago-area gun shop, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today announced that it has drafted federal legislation that would prevent such protests from interfering with legal businesses.

“This is not an attack on the First Amendment rights of Jesse Jackson or
anyone else,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “But it would put an end to
the kind of publicity-seeking shenanigans that Jackson and his cohort, anti-gun
Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, have been conducting at Chuck’s Gun Shop in
suburban Riverdale for the past three weeks. We’re working on Capitol Hill right
now to gather sponsors.

“Nobody is saying Jackson can’t protest a gun shop,” Gottlieb added. “We
are, however, seeking the same protection from interference that is now
guaranteed by federal statute to reproductive health services facilities.”

Added CCRKBA Public Affairs Director John Snyder, “It is against the law
for anti-abortion activists to block access to these clinics, and it should be
just as illegal for anti-gunners to block access to gun shops. This is neither a
First or Second Amendment issue but rather a Fourteenth Amendment issue relating to equal protection.”

Jackson and Pfleger have been demonstrating at or near Chuck’s Gun Shop for
the past few weeks. Last Saturday, both men were arrested by Riverdale police
after their activities created access problems for Chuck’s customers.

Under CCRKBA’s proposal, anyone who uses force, a threat of force, or
physical obstruction, or intimidates or intentionally injures another person who
is attempting to enter a gun shop, or who operates such a store, would be
criminally liable. Three weeks ago, Pfleger caused considerable alarm by telling
a crowd that he would find gun shop owner John Riggio and “snuff him
out.”

“This proposal would provide protection to law-abiding firearms retailers
and their customers nationwide,” Gottlieb stated. “Chuck’s is a legal business,
operating under state and federal statutes. Jackson and his followers don’t have
to like it or agree with it, but under this proposal, they will have to accept
the fact that a firearms dealer has as much right to operate a business as they
have to shoot off their mouths. They have no right at all to prevent public
access to a gun shop, or to intimidate or otherwise discourage customers from
entering.”

Now, the commentary. Jesse Jackson is a two-faced media-whore. Michael Pfleger is an anti-christian. They still have the absolute right to say whatever they wish to say. Freedom of Speech, ya know. But ... while they have a right to display their infantile, coercive ways, they do not have a right, no one does, to initiate (or threaten to initiate) force or fraud. Once they do, they should be subject to darwinization (not terribly applicable, I know, since Pfleger has supposedly done us that favor with his "priestly" vows of celibacy). Are Jackson and Pfleger trespassing? I would bet they are, if they are able to effectively block the entrance. What is the ethical method of dealing with intentional, hostile, repeat trespassers? If the gun store owner or one of his customers is touched in an unwelcome way or if these clods threaten to initiate force (as has already been done on video by Pfleger) while trying to go about their business, then force has been initiated .... with all the ramifications that go along with it. New laws are not the way to solve boorish or dangerous behavior. Dealing justly with these control freaks, under the constraints of the Zero Aggression Principle, is the proper response, and one that would lower the chances of bad behavior like this happening in the future. We have been too "nice" for too long; allowing parasites to get away with behavior that should not be tolerated. Time's up, vermin!

Tyranny Fears....

What are the things tyrants fear the most? Guns and brains. In the hands of the people, anyway. They love their own guns (pointed at us) and their own brains (insane with lust for control).

Tyranny fears guns, because regardless of whatever "laws" and security it enforces, there is always the risk of a patriot doing the world a favor by culling a mentally diseased control-freak from the herd. Leaders have no reason to fear armed regular people. Leaders do not drag us along behind them. Rulers force us along a path that we have no desire to be on. This makes us cranky. This means if we get a chance to rid ourselves of the tyrant, we will take it. It is therefore necessary, in the tyrant's unbalanced mind, to impose more draconian edicts on us to take away our weaponry. As if this will stop the inevitable. No one who wants to take your gun, any gun, away from you does it for your benefit. They do it so that they can do bad things to you that you might resist effectively if you were armed. Once they utter an intention to pass a "law" regulating some aspect of gun ownership they have declared that they intend to hurt you in some way. Never forget that fact.

Tyranny fears brains possibly more than it fears guns. They have tried to sabotage knowledge through government controlled "education". They may have delayed their downfall by a generation or two. Some people are immune to the mind-numbing effects. Anyone with a mind can devise an effective weapon, even a gun, from things that are so common in an industrialized country that it is completely impossible to prevent. This scares tyrants out of their minds. And it should. They can outlaw, confiscate, and destroy every gun and bullet in the world, and by the next morning there could be enough new guns and ammunition to cause Rulers to have a very bad, very short, day. As long as the knowledge still exists. (On this note, I recommend that everyone immediately go to this website and buy this guy's book(s). Do it now... I will wait...) Besides the danger to tyrants of "us peasants" making guns, the awareness of what constitutes tyranny and oppression is dangerous for them. If we thought they were justified in their "governments" we would probably be content in our shackles. Knowledge of liberty, the Zero Aggression Principle, and the Covenant of Unanimous Consent make for a smoldering volcano lying just below the surface. Rulers never know which new rule will cause an eruption. We know that what they attempt to do is wrong. We know how to make weapons, poisons, and traps. We know how to communicate our knowledge to others. To get rid of the knowledge, they will have to kill us all, burn all the books, and erase the internet. They can't do that. They have lost; they just don't know it yet.

Self Righteousness

Is it "self righteousness" to say what you really believe?

I often do a Dogpile or Google search on myself to see what crops up. I ran across a forum where I was being discussed (as a minor part of a SelectSmart discussion). One of the posters was infuriated by me, saying that I am "self righteous" and that everything I say is "the Libertarian Party line". Strange argument.

I don't know if I am self righteous or not. I do know that I am much more radical than the LP. Last summer's LP reform has seen to that. He claims that I am "saying the same stuff that the LP was saying 11 years ago, using the same wording half the time." So? I was not a member of the LP back then and never read any of their literature. How many ways are there to say the same thing? Maybe everything I say is strictly libertarian in nature, but I am libertarian, what else can I do? If a physicist says things that happen to agree precisely with the way the world really operates does it make him wrong? Do you demand that he incorporate creationism into his observations to soothe your bruised ego? Gimme a break!

OK. Let's go to Dictionary.com to look up "self righteous". Hmmm. "confident of one's own righteousness" does not fit me. I am confident of my rightness, but not of my righteousness, and there is a big difference in the two. I am not saying I am not righteous. I do try to be. I don't believe anyone can judge that in themselves. So we go on to the next part: "smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others" is the exact opposite of what libertarianism is all about. There are many behaviors that I find personally repugnant that I defend on a daily basis, precisely because I understand that my personal opinion on these things is trumped by individual liberty. As long as no one else is being hurt people should be free to live however they see fit.

The poster in question has no personal knowledge of me. How can he decide if I am self righteous or not? I think he is simply threatened by my confidence that I am right, and maybe afraid he is wrong. If you think I am wrong, tell me so in the comments. Others have. You may not convince me but I will not delete anything you say (unless you decide your comments make you look foolish and ask me to delete them, as I have done for one person in the past). Perhaps your words of wisdom will keep some other misguided person from embracing individual liberty and responsibility. I still think I (and others who think like me) are right, and those who worship the state are dead wrong. If I doubted that for an instant I would shut up and stop blogging.

"Conspiracy Realists of the World Unite!" by Wilt Alston

By way of The Libertarian Enterprise and KarenDeCoster.com comes this article by Wilt Alston about 9/11.
Conspiracy Realists of the World Unite!

Wanted: A Frontier

For the first time in all of human history, there is no readily accessible frontier available for those of us who need to move beyond the grasp of "civilization". Never pretend it is not a NEED. This is a tragedy that may spell the end of our species if it is not remedied soon. Social pressures and nonsensical "rules" are not easy for some people to deal with. These people need to be able to move to freer spaces. To force them to stay in crowded, regulated areas is a recipe for disaster. This does not mean they are bad people; just that over-management has unintended, but entirely predictable, consequences.

Without going underground, undersea, extra-dimensional, into interplanetary space, or building a new continent, we are trapped. Of these options, I think leaving Earth completely is the best long-term option. Governments will try to prevent it if they discover your plans, and will risk everything to shoot you down upon launch. Can't allow any subjects to declare independence, you know. The problem is that projects like this will probably be large group projects and will be prone to becoming "governmental" in their complexity and administration. Maybe it would be possible to form a group based upon Unanimous Consent. It's worth a try.


There is also the fact that a planet-wide catastrophe could cause human extinction. It is imperative that humans get spread out away from our planetary cradle before that happens if we want to survive. If left to governmental agencies, we will never leave Earth in large enough numbers to form sustainable populations elsewhere. If any of you have a nice Firefly-class ship full of kind-hearted "pirates", I can clean toilets for passage.