I've put more of my paintings on eBay for sale, and will be listing more things (whatever I can find) in the next few days. Please keep checking.
Thanks!
________________
Monday, January 21, 2008
"Public Resource"
When I was the "pet store guy" I had many brushes with the state bureaucracy. One such brush was with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Their minion dropped off a brochure about "Exotic Pets and Prohibited Wildlife" for me to hand out to the subjects. Reading through it I was so disgusted that I posted a copy in my store with the most moronic sentence highlighted. It said "As a public resource, wildlife belongs to the state of Colorado, to all citizens." (7th paragraph)
In other words, "the state", "public", and "citizen" are interchangeable to them. The word "public" can be a very nasty word, excusing all kinds of collectivist abominations. Same with the word "citizen", which seems to be just a way to describe someone who is fully absorbed into and complicit with the collective. You must look a ways down the list of definitions of each of those words to find something that isn't collectivist. With that way of thinking, "public" and "citizen" would mean the same thing as "state".
When did the state purchase the wildlife? Did I sign over ownership to that part of my food reserves to the state? Or when was a treaty signed by the wildlife agreeing to belong to the state? Probably at the same time I signed the agreement handing myself over to the state.
In other words, "the state", "public", and "citizen" are interchangeable to them. The word "public" can be a very nasty word, excusing all kinds of collectivist abominations. Same with the word "citizen", which seems to be just a way to describe someone who is fully absorbed into and complicit with the collective. You must look a ways down the list of definitions of each of those words to find something that isn't collectivist. With that way of thinking, "public" and "citizen" would mean the same thing as "state".
When did the state purchase the wildlife? Did I sign over ownership to that part of my food reserves to the state? Or when was a treaty signed by the wildlife agreeing to belong to the state? Probably at the same time I signed the agreement handing myself over to the state.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Wolves or a Coyote?
Forget any connotations that have previously gone along with "wolves" or "coyotes" for a few minutes. I am not talking about the "wolves and sheep", or "wolves and sheepdogs", or anything else like that. I have a different point here that doesn't involve those. It may not be original, but I just thought of it.
Wolves are pack animals. They need a leader. Either you are the leader, the alpha-wolf, or you are just a member of the collective pack. Wolves are the statists of the canine world.
Coyotes are loners. They will often hang out with their mate, but they don't travel in packs. There is no "alpha-coyote". They must prey on smaller or weaker prey than wolves do. Coyotes are the canine anarchists.
Because of these traits, wolves were selectively bred over thousands of years to become domestic dogs. With dogs the obedience programming has been stregthened and the aggression has been minimized. Their need for a leader makes them easily manipulated by a strong human "alpha-wolf". Coyotes, on the other hand, do not respond to orders. They don't get the concept of following an alpha animal. They have therefore not been domesticated to anywhere near the extent that wolves and their decendants have been.
The problem is that when a pack of wolves confront a lone coyote, the coyote will lose. It is a simple matter of numbers. When confronted by the state and its enablers and apologists, the anarchist will lose unless he fights an all-or-nothing battle with his mind and is lucky. Human anarchists have the advantage of having a strong mind. Knowing the disadvantages of "one against the pack", we can avoid getting into situations where we are devoured or displaced from our territory.
The pack works well for wolves, and for predatory statists. The question arises: are humans a pack animal which needs a leader? Or did we fall into this pattern because of the manipulation of the human wolves?
Wolves are pack animals. They need a leader. Either you are the leader, the alpha-wolf, or you are just a member of the collective pack. Wolves are the statists of the canine world.
Coyotes are loners. They will often hang out with their mate, but they don't travel in packs. There is no "alpha-coyote". They must prey on smaller or weaker prey than wolves do. Coyotes are the canine anarchists.
Because of these traits, wolves were selectively bred over thousands of years to become domestic dogs. With dogs the obedience programming has been stregthened and the aggression has been minimized. Their need for a leader makes them easily manipulated by a strong human "alpha-wolf". Coyotes, on the other hand, do not respond to orders. They don't get the concept of following an alpha animal. They have therefore not been domesticated to anywhere near the extent that wolves and their decendants have been.
The problem is that when a pack of wolves confront a lone coyote, the coyote will lose. It is a simple matter of numbers. When confronted by the state and its enablers and apologists, the anarchist will lose unless he fights an all-or-nothing battle with his mind and is lucky. Human anarchists have the advantage of having a strong mind. Knowing the disadvantages of "one against the pack", we can avoid getting into situations where we are devoured or displaced from our territory.
The pack works well for wolves, and for predatory statists. The question arises: are humans a pack animal which needs a leader? Or did we fall into this pattern because of the manipulation of the human wolves?
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Thank You!
I just wanted to take a moment to thank those who have stepped up to help me out in my time of financial difficulty. It really makes me glad to be associated with people like you! Thanks again!
"....And Bingo Was His Name-O"
A family once decided they needed a big dog for protection so they picked out a puppy. He was of a breed well-known for aggression, but the family thought they knew how to train him properly.
Almost from the first, the dog had a tendency towards misbehavior. Killing a chicken here and there; roaming onto the neighbors' property and growling at them, or even biting some. His food bowl was guarded jealously and with suspicion. The family always defended the dog's honor and claimed his intentions were good, but never stopped his behavior.
Through the years he became more and more of a problem. Each time he misbehaved and got away with it, it made it harder for the family to face the truth about him, and it solidified the bad habits in his personality.
Eventually he began to attack family members at home, too. The others would scold the wounded, saying they must have tormented the dog or something. If anything, the dog would get a harsh "look", but was never really punished.
So now, the family lives with a very aggressive dog. Some members, those who have seen the dog attack without provocation, now fear and loathe the dog. Other refuse to see the truth. Now only a few choices remain for the family. Either keep going as they are until the dog either kills the family, or take the responsible initiative to take the dog on a one-way "walk". There is no Cesar Millan for this dog. And "Government" is his name-o.
Almost from the first, the dog had a tendency towards misbehavior. Killing a chicken here and there; roaming onto the neighbors' property and growling at them, or even biting some. His food bowl was guarded jealously and with suspicion. The family always defended the dog's honor and claimed his intentions were good, but never stopped his behavior.
Through the years he became more and more of a problem. Each time he misbehaved and got away with it, it made it harder for the family to face the truth about him, and it solidified the bad habits in his personality.
Eventually he began to attack family members at home, too. The others would scold the wounded, saying they must have tormented the dog or something. If anything, the dog would get a harsh "look", but was never really punished.
So now, the family lives with a very aggressive dog. Some members, those who have seen the dog attack without provocation, now fear and loathe the dog. Other refuse to see the truth. Now only a few choices remain for the family. Either keep going as they are until the dog either kills the family, or take the responsible initiative to take the dog on a one-way "walk". There is no Cesar Millan for this dog. And "Government" is his name-o.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Help!
I am in a financial bind (worse than usual) and I am selling my gold. If you have been wanting to buy gold, this might be a good time for you to look at what I am selling on eBay.
Edited to add: I am also selling some original paintings that I have painted in years past.
*********************************
Edited to add: I am also selling some original paintings that I have painted in years past.
*********************************
Wealth: The Silencer
If I were wealthy, or even "comfortable", you would probably not be reading these words. That is a terrible admission, isn't it? If that were the case, I would be living in a decent house surrounded by a large amount of acreage. I would be doing as I want, hopefully shielded from local governmental eyes by a large buffer-zone, and by my silence.
I might attract some unwanted attention with some of my activities, though. I probably can't totally avoid being a troublemaker. I would be shooting daily, practicing my survival skills (and trading skills with carefully selected people as well), and generally minding my own business. I would probably be setting up an off-grid homestead that government could consider a "compound", but would probably not attract attention because I would not talk about it. I would probably not leave my property very often if I had my choice. I have hermit-like tendencies.
That is my ideal life. Wealth would silence me.
I am not one of those who wish to turn society upside down, hoping to move to the top in the upheaval, as is the case in many revolutions. I simply wish to free society from the parasites (governmental and freelance) that are feeding off it. That would be enough to improve life immeasurably. I want a politics-free world. Unfortunately it is not wise to ignore politics under the current circumstances; not while the police state is being established.
I might attract some unwanted attention with some of my activities, though. I probably can't totally avoid being a troublemaker. I would be shooting daily, practicing my survival skills (and trading skills with carefully selected people as well), and generally minding my own business. I would probably be setting up an off-grid homestead that government could consider a "compound", but would probably not attract attention because I would not talk about it. I would probably not leave my property very often if I had my choice. I have hermit-like tendencies.
That is my ideal life. Wealth would silence me.
I am not one of those who wish to turn society upside down, hoping to move to the top in the upheaval, as is the case in many revolutions. I simply wish to free society from the parasites (governmental and freelance) that are feeding off it. That would be enough to improve life immeasurably. I want a politics-free world. Unfortunately it is not wise to ignore politics under the current circumstances; not while the police state is being established.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
"Do Not Attempt"
Does anyone else ever notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen during car commercials? You know, the one that says "Professional driver on a closed course - Do not attempt". The sad thing is that when the disclaimer sneaks in, about half the time , rather than leaping from rooftop to rooftop, the car is simply cruising down a straight road. If we really are not competent to attempt that, what is the point in having a car?
That is the mindset of the government. "We" are to be considered stupid, incompetent children who are not able to look out for ourselves. Our defense is to be left to the professionals (who often kill us by "mistake"); our health is subject to government oversight; our consciences don't work properly so we need government holding a gun to our head to make sure we do not run amok "burning and pillaging" one another.
Life does not yet come with a disclaimer: "Profession human in a controlled environment. Do not attempt". Celebrate that oversite by living without permission.
That is the mindset of the government. "We" are to be considered stupid, incompetent children who are not able to look out for ourselves. Our defense is to be left to the professionals (who often kill us by "mistake"); our health is subject to government oversight; our consciences don't work properly so we need government holding a gun to our head to make sure we do not run amok "burning and pillaging" one another.
Life does not yet come with a disclaimer: "Profession human in a controlled environment. Do not attempt". Celebrate that oversite by living without permission.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Roswell, Texas
I have been interested in the Roswell, New Mexico UFO story since I first heard about it in the early 1970s while living in Waco, Texas (not in the mid-80s when some people try to say the story really started). Since I began life on Earth in the region of Roswell, New Mexico, it made more of an impression with me than it might have otherwise. Not to start any rumors, but it might explain some things....
Anyway, when I heard L. Neil was basing a tale on the event, I had to check it out. I didn't start reading it until a few months ago, but after I did, I kept waiting anxiously for each new installment. I became apprehensive when I realized the story was winding down and began to dread each new panel, fearing that it would be the last. My fears were realized last week when I got to the panel that said "The End".
I got a kick out of the historical figures who populated the alternate-universe Federated States of Texas. (Roswell is in Texas in this universe, which is not that much of a stretch; Texas was originally much larger until it got divided among many other current states. Even the part of Colorado I lived in was once part of Texas.) Scott Biesser's artwork is amazing, and perfectly complements the story written by L. Neil and Rex May. The only disappointment for me was that the story didn't incorporate as much of the original Roswell incident as I had expected. Once I got over that, though, I got drawn into the world presented and enjoyed it immensely.
If you enjoy graphic novels, or if you want an introduction to them, head over to Big Head Press and check out Roswell, Texas by L. Neil Smith and Scott Biesser. I think you will enjoy it.
Anyway, when I heard L. Neil was basing a tale on the event, I had to check it out. I didn't start reading it until a few months ago, but after I did, I kept waiting anxiously for each new installment. I became apprehensive when I realized the story was winding down and began to dread each new panel, fearing that it would be the last. My fears were realized last week when I got to the panel that said "The End".
I got a kick out of the historical figures who populated the alternate-universe Federated States of Texas. (Roswell is in Texas in this universe, which is not that much of a stretch; Texas was originally much larger until it got divided among many other current states. Even the part of Colorado I lived in was once part of Texas.) Scott Biesser's artwork is amazing, and perfectly complements the story written by L. Neil and Rex May. The only disappointment for me was that the story didn't incorporate as much of the original Roswell incident as I had expected. Once I got over that, though, I got drawn into the world presented and enjoyed it immensely.
If you enjoy graphic novels, or if you want an introduction to them, head over to Big Head Press and check out Roswell, Texas by L. Neil Smith and Scott Biesser. I think you will enjoy it.
More "Laws" to Ignore
This relates to my point about illegal laws and counterfeit "laws": Who Shall Guard the Guards? by Mike Vanderboegh. And here is another take on this declaration of war by The State against you and me: US vs Olofson: A pseudolegal Case by L. Neil Smith.
Err on the Side of Freedom, Please
I will begin by making a couple of assumptions. You and I are human. All humans make mistakes. That being the case, wouldn't it be better to make certain that we always err on the side of liberty instead of on the side of governmental "authority" and power? If there is a question of "is government allowed to do this?" I think it is always better to assume that the answer is an unequivocal "NO!" until clearly shown otherwise. But maybe that is just my nature as an anarchist who values peace, rights, and liberty over the death, chaos, and slavery that government invariably brings.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Silly "Moral Superiority"
I am a night-owl. Even as a very young child, and all through my life, it has been about the same, with only minor changes. No matter what time I go to bed, and even if I can then go to sleep, I am at my best during the hours between midnight and 2 AM (normally). I am at my absolute worst between the hours of 5 AM and 10 AM. Which is really bad for most of the jobs I have held. I have had bosses lecture me about how if I "would just get in the habit of going to bed earlier you would adjust". It didn't work during 12 years of government schooling, so why would it now? I suppose I could adjust to living on a diet of broken glass and arsenic as well. You can just see the moral superiority of the "morning people" dripping from their jaws as they tell me how to "fix" myself.
I also think that almost everyone, male and female, looks better with longish hair. It is just my preference. Yet I have tolerated (with strained tolerance) the endless comments and lectures about how I would look so much better, or could get a better job, or be taken more seriously, etc. if I would cut my hair. It seems to me that a lot of people don't have short hair for any reason other than they think it is morally superior. I am not talking about people who really like their own hair short, but those who dislike other people's long hair. There is a difference.
These two things are unrelated: one is a physiological part of my makeup, the other is an opinion, yet the one thing that ties them together is that I have never heard a night-owl lecturing a morning person that they are wrong or bad for their biological clock's setting. I have also never known of a long haired person requiring that others not cut their hair shorter than a standard length or lecturing short haired people about needing to take pride in their appearance by letting their hair grow a little.
I also think that almost everyone, male and female, looks better with longish hair. It is just my preference. Yet I have tolerated (with strained tolerance) the endless comments and lectures about how I would look so much better, or could get a better job, or be taken more seriously, etc. if I would cut my hair. It seems to me that a lot of people don't have short hair for any reason other than they think it is morally superior. I am not talking about people who really like their own hair short, but those who dislike other people's long hair. There is a difference.
These two things are unrelated: one is a physiological part of my makeup, the other is an opinion, yet the one thing that ties them together is that I have never heard a night-owl lecturing a morning person that they are wrong or bad for their biological clock's setting. I have also never known of a long haired person requiring that others not cut their hair shorter than a standard length or lecturing short haired people about needing to take pride in their appearance by letting their hair grow a little.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Petitioning Our "Leaders"
A while back at the urging of David Codrea of The War on Guns, I sent emails to "my" congressmen in regard to the nomination of Michael Sullivan as director of the BATFE. I finally got a response from Senator Bob Casey. He wrote:
Here is my response to him (which I had trouble getting to go through for a while):
Dear Mr. McManigal:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the nomination of Michael J. Sullivan of Massachusetts to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.
Mr. Sullivan’s nomination was voted out of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on November 8, 2007. His nomination is currently pending before the full United States Senate. I am currently in the process of evaluating Mr. Sullivan’s personal, professional, and academic accomplishments. At the appropriate time, I will make a judgment on Mr. Sullivan’s nomination. It is important that we have strong, effective leadership at the top of the ATF. Please be assured that when making a decision, I will have your views in mind.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to frequently visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov/. In the months ahead, I will continue to develop the site in order to allow you to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington. If you wish to e-mail me, you can do so on the web site.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator
Here is my response to him (which I had trouble getting to go through for a while):
Mr. Casey,
I realize you are no friend to peaceable gun owners, but this matter goes beyond this single issue.
The ATF has a sordid history of abusing its authority. Mike Sullivan has contributed to this abusive atmosphere greatly during his tenure. He has also demonstrated a lack of intergrity in carrying out his duties as US Attorney of Massachussets. His office has been cited by a judge for "extraordinary misconduct".
You say "It is important that we have strong, effective leadership at the top of the ATF." Leaders lead; they do not make up the rules as they go along, as Mike Sullivan has been doing. One only need examine the campaign of intimidation against gun retailers which has been accelerated under Sullivan's "leadership". With an agency of questionable Constitutional authority, such as BATFE, it is imperative that the new director errs on the side of individual liberty rather than on the side of governmental control and power.
I am confident that you are not ignorant of this man's history. To say that you are wiating for the appropriate time to make a judgement on his nomination makes me think that you value his stance against the Second Amendment and against American gun owners more than you are troubled by his ethical shortcomings. This is deeply disturbing to me. Michael J. Sullivan has no business having any position of authority. I hope you will not ignore these facts.
Sincerely,
Kent McManigal
"Illegal Laws" and "Counterfeit Laws"
This point was inspired by a comment from my friend Eric Sundwall. He stated "I still think Kent should be utilizing 'illegitimate' laws as opposed to 'illegal' laws. Something cannot be A and not A." Perhaps.
Imagine for a moment that no Bill of Rights exists. It must be easy to imagine, since the feds do it every day. Now suppose that the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, said that all witches must be burned at the stake. Then suppose the Congress passed a law a few years later, without amending the Constitution, that said that witches were free to practice whatever religion they liked, as is everyone else. According to the Constitution that law would be illegal (but it would not be counterfeit). Even the corrupt Supreme Court has stated that any law which violates the Constitution is not a law that must be obeyed.
Or suppose the new law allows witches to live, as long as they pay a "religion tax". That law would be illegal according to this imaginary Constitution, and it would also be counterfeit as it attempts to regulate or control something other than aggression or fraud.
Now suppose the Constitution says that the right of the people to own and to carry weapons shall not be infringed, yet Congress passes laws which say what kinds of guns the people can own, forbid certain people from owning any guns at all, dictate how those guns must be sold, sets up a huge vindictive agency to punish people who own and sell guns, and so forth. That bunch of laws would be both illegal, according to the Constitution (and a former incarnation of the Supreme Court) and counterfeit. In most cases counterfeit "laws" are also illegal, but not always.
If the Constitution blocks or violates individual liberty, it is wrong. Never forget that. I hope that has cleared up any confusion.
Imagine for a moment that no Bill of Rights exists. It must be easy to imagine, since the feds do it every day. Now suppose that the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, said that all witches must be burned at the stake. Then suppose the Congress passed a law a few years later, without amending the Constitution, that said that witches were free to practice whatever religion they liked, as is everyone else. According to the Constitution that law would be illegal (but it would not be counterfeit). Even the corrupt Supreme Court has stated that any law which violates the Constitution is not a law that must be obeyed.
Or suppose the new law allows witches to live, as long as they pay a "religion tax". That law would be illegal according to this imaginary Constitution, and it would also be counterfeit as it attempts to regulate or control something other than aggression or fraud.
Now suppose the Constitution says that the right of the people to own and to carry weapons shall not be infringed, yet Congress passes laws which say what kinds of guns the people can own, forbid certain people from owning any guns at all, dictate how those guns must be sold, sets up a huge vindictive agency to punish people who own and sell guns, and so forth. That bunch of laws would be both illegal, according to the Constitution (and a former incarnation of the Supreme Court) and counterfeit. In most cases counterfeit "laws" are also illegal, but not always.
If the Constitution blocks or violates individual liberty, it is wrong. Never forget that. I hope that has cleared up any confusion.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Is Anything "Unconstitutional"?
In the comments to a previous blog, my friend ElfNinosMom stated that: "The Constitution created Congress, and gave Congress the power to make laws. One of those laws is the FECA, and the FEC was created by Congress to enforce and administer the FECA. It's therefore not illegal, and it's not unconstitutional."
That makes me ask: Using that yardstick, how could anything be unconstitutional?
So..... What of the Constitution? The current situation makes me think that it was a contract which one party, the US Government, broke unilaterally. I guess that means it "expired".
It is no secret that I don't think the Constitution is sacred. Either it created the current mess or it did nothing to prevent it. Anything in the Constitution that violates individual liberty is just as abhorent (and null and void) in my eyes as any edict from Osama or Napoleon. This is not a case of me making up my own rules, but of holding everyone, including myself, to the same standards of behavior.
The current government claims to get its authority from the Constitution. If that is the case, it should be held very strictly to the letter and intent of the law. No quibbling; no "interpreting", and no breaking the laws. After all, they demand the same of us with regards to all the millions upon millions of laws they claim apply to us. Right?
___________________________________
That makes me ask: Using that yardstick, how could anything be unconstitutional?
So..... What of the Constitution? The current situation makes me think that it was a contract which one party, the US Government, broke unilaterally. I guess that means it "expired".
It is no secret that I don't think the Constitution is sacred. Either it created the current mess or it did nothing to prevent it. Anything in the Constitution that violates individual liberty is just as abhorent (and null and void) in my eyes as any edict from Osama or Napoleon. This is not a case of me making up my own rules, but of holding everyone, including myself, to the same standards of behavior.
The current government claims to get its authority from the Constitution. If that is the case, it should be held very strictly to the letter and intent of the law. No quibbling; no "interpreting", and no breaking the laws. After all, they demand the same of us with regards to all the millions upon millions of laws they claim apply to us. Right?
___________________________________
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Growing Up
If parents do their job well, their children will grow up and will no longer need to be parented. To have your grown kids needing to be parented by a spouse or the nanny-state is a failure as a parent. It means that somehow you did not help your child become an adult.
Yet it seems this is the normal state of the world today. Look around you and you will see most people being parented in some way. Welfare hands them money, food, and housing. Government tells them what to do to be "safe" or how they must behave. Everywhere they turn they are being told how to live. No adult would stoop to taking handouts or instructions from some big maternal government. Yet, the supposed adults (as measured in years) think nothing of it in most cases.
Their parents failed to help them become healthy, independent adults. Is it too late for them? Blaming your upbringing only goes so far. Once someone reaches the age that they should be an adult, it is their responsibility if they do not "mature". How old is too old to finally become an adult? I wish I knew the answer to that. What I do know is that the welfare trough needs to be emptied and turned into a planter or something. It may be painful, but continuing to coddle these big children is not doing them a favor. Handing your life over to someone else is not a healthy thing to do. It hurts you and it gives your surrogate parent way too much power over your life.
Yet it seems this is the normal state of the world today. Look around you and you will see most people being parented in some way. Welfare hands them money, food, and housing. Government tells them what to do to be "safe" or how they must behave. Everywhere they turn they are being told how to live. No adult would stoop to taking handouts or instructions from some big maternal government. Yet, the supposed adults (as measured in years) think nothing of it in most cases.
Their parents failed to help them become healthy, independent adults. Is it too late for them? Blaming your upbringing only goes so far. Once someone reaches the age that they should be an adult, it is their responsibility if they do not "mature". How old is too old to finally become an adult? I wish I knew the answer to that. What I do know is that the welfare trough needs to be emptied and turned into a planter or something. It may be painful, but continuing to coddle these big children is not doing them a favor. Handing your life over to someone else is not a healthy thing to do. It hurts you and it gives your surrogate parent way too much power over your life.
Friday, January 11, 2008
The FEC: Rigging Elections Since 1975
The first question when dealing with any governmental agency should be: "Where in the Constitution does it specifically authorize your agency's existence?" If they cannot answer, then the agency, bureau, or commission is not a legal group. An illegal group should not be "obeyed" or listened to. If the government gets its authorization to exist from the Constitution, then they should be forced to play by the rules and follow that Constitution, right?
I mention this because Federal Election Commission regulations demand that a candidate must do certain things that accomplish nothing other than protect the status quo.
In order to have an "official, FEC sanctioned" campaign, I am required to appoint a campaign committee, and that committee is required to open a bank account. The bank account requires a Social Security number. Do you even realize how many unconstitutional requirements there are in that string of demands? How can a libertarian justify obeying illegal demands from an illegal governmental bureaucracy?
I do agree that there should be oversights to protect elections from fraud, if elections are deemed to be necessary. That oversight should not be from a governmental agency or commission. "Fox guarding the hen house"? That doesn't even begin to describe to conflict of interest that the FEC demonstrates. It is just as bad an idea as having judges work for the government instead of for the individual people. You will have an obligation to whosoever hands you your paycheck, regardless of where the money originates.
That is why I remain a stubborn, principled, write-in candidate. Judge me if you want to, but that is where I stand.
***********************************
I mention this because Federal Election Commission regulations demand that a candidate must do certain things that accomplish nothing other than protect the status quo.
In order to have an "official, FEC sanctioned" campaign, I am required to appoint a campaign committee, and that committee is required to open a bank account. The bank account requires a Social Security number. Do you even realize how many unconstitutional requirements there are in that string of demands? How can a libertarian justify obeying illegal demands from an illegal governmental bureaucracy?
I do agree that there should be oversights to protect elections from fraud, if elections are deemed to be necessary. That oversight should not be from a governmental agency or commission. "Fox guarding the hen house"? That doesn't even begin to describe to conflict of interest that the FEC demonstrates. It is just as bad an idea as having judges work for the government instead of for the individual people. You will have an obligation to whosoever hands you your paycheck, regardless of where the money originates.
That is why I remain a stubborn, principled, write-in candidate. Judge me if you want to, but that is where I stand.
***********************************
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
I Don't Care!
The big stink about whether Ron Paul is a racist or not seems ridiculous to me. Even if he is, it isn't the first thing I disagree with him about. I don't care what bizarre or bad ideas someone has as long as they will not try to force their ideas upon me by "law". This is where Ron Paul differs from the racists who are the "mainstream" candidates sanctioned by the powers-that-be and the "mainstream" media. He would not promote "laws" to establish racist governmental policies. The other Demopublican clowns have been passing their twisted racist, sexist, and genocidal laws against America for decades. They have a proven record of holding views that make an issue of race and passing "laws" based on this corrupt notion. How is that better?
The Six Things Americans Should Know
Here is a good Second Amendment primer from JPFO: The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment
____________________________
____________________________
Enforcers Keep Murdering More of Us
There are times I sit on a blog idea for a few days until I cool down somewhat. Just so I don't say something overly truthful. This is one of those occasions.
If you have been paying attention to the news, you are probably as disgusted as I am over all the murder-by-cop that has been occurring recently. Almost every day new instances slip through the mass media news filter, IF you look in the right places. For the most part the news is ignored.
It is way past time for the free, reasonable people of this country to stand up as a Great Wall of Opposition to the occupying army that the police forces across America have become. Do not submit. Do not back down. Defend your neighbors from these murderous predators. Do not ever forget or forgive what these badged monsters are doing. These murders are NOT justifiable. Any police "spokescreatures" who excuse these abuses might as well have pulled the trigger themselves. The bosses are accountable whether they want to be or not.
Even if all drugs were really bad, no drug "law" is important enough to kill people over. None. No drug "law" is important enough to destroy families over. No, not ONE. Even the worst addict in the world has the right to destroy his own life as long as he doesn't cross the line to initiating force or fraud. When a cop commits one of these raids he becomes worse than the worst non-violent drug abuser. These crimes must be stopped. We need civilization again.
If you have been paying attention to the news, you are probably as disgusted as I am over all the murder-by-cop that has been occurring recently. Almost every day new instances slip through the mass media news filter, IF you look in the right places. For the most part the news is ignored.
It is way past time for the free, reasonable people of this country to stand up as a Great Wall of Opposition to the occupying army that the police forces across America have become. Do not submit. Do not back down. Defend your neighbors from these murderous predators. Do not ever forget or forgive what these badged monsters are doing. These murders are NOT justifiable. Any police "spokescreatures" who excuse these abuses might as well have pulled the trigger themselves. The bosses are accountable whether they want to be or not.
Even if all drugs were really bad, no drug "law" is important enough to kill people over. None. No drug "law" is important enough to destroy families over. No, not ONE. Even the worst addict in the world has the right to destroy his own life as long as he doesn't cross the line to initiating force or fraud. When a cop commits one of these raids he becomes worse than the worst non-violent drug abuser. These crimes must be stopped. We need civilization again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)