A family member was complaining about an arbitrary rule that resulted in an inconvenience because we happen to live on the losing side of a state line- everything we need generally lies on the other side, and because that is a different state, some things are off-limits to us and we have to go miles out of our way to something "in state". In this case it was a dog rescue group that wouldn't take in a starving dog that was rescued because "we don't take them from out of state".
My family member was griping that it was all "because of that imaginary line".
I agree. The thing is, she's perfectly fine with other imaginary lines. Why does the imaginary line between "Texas" and "New Mexico" on a map bother her, while the imaginary lines between "The USA" and "Mexico" or "Canada" are fine with her? (I'm kidding- I doubt she cares about the imaginary line that says where Canada begins.)
.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Strikers
Would the person who emailed me about hand-forged strikers please email again. It went to my "junk" box and I saw it just as I emptied the box- and it was too late and I can't get it back.
Sorry about that, and I hope you get this message.
.
Sorry about that, and I hope you get this message.
.
"Traffic stops" are the key
It's all well and good to have a plan and know how to defeat Stormtroopers and reavers who show up in masks and body armor at your house at 3AM, to kidnap or murder you and your family- after shooting Rex and stomping Fluffy for the sacred cause of Officer Safety, of course.
However, the reality is that most of the kidnappings will be done as the result of a "traffic stop". This is where they have gotten more people accustomed to forced encounters with agents of The State. And most people are trained and frightened into being compliant and cooperative. That is going to have to end if liberty is to ever return to the former America.
I'm sorry to be the one to have to break the news to you, if you haven't already realized it on your own. But it has come to this.
So, think about it and plan accordingly.
.
However, the reality is that most of the kidnappings will be done as the result of a "traffic stop". This is where they have gotten more people accustomed to forced encounters with agents of The State. And most people are trained and frightened into being compliant and cooperative. That is going to have to end if liberty is to ever return to the former America.
I'm sorry to be the one to have to break the news to you, if you haven't already realized it on your own. But it has come to this.
So, think about it and plan accordingly.
.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Go back in time- Kill Hitler
I love time travel stories, particularly tales of travel into the past and thoughts of "What would I do if I could go back in time? What would I try to change?"
There are lots of events in my own past I'd be tempted to change.
Beyond the personal, there are so many events I would like to witness first-hand to see for myself how badly misinformed I am due to errors of history or willful disinformation.
But one almost universal thought I hear connected to the idea of time travel is the assertion that "If I went back in time I'd kill Hitler."
Regardless of whether they'd smother newborn Hitler or shoot him just before he began to kill the innocents, they seem to be saying that they would, with the wisdom of information about the future, be bold enough to do something that would be seen by most contemporary observers to be an act of evil. In order to prevent an actual evil that would then (probably) never come to pass. They might even go down in history as an evil assassin. Or a baby murderer.
Sadly, by the time that killing Hitler was obviously the right thing to do, his security apparatus made chances of success almost nil.
I wonder what would happen if I could somehow send a message back in time to the 1930s, to people who might encounter Hitler before it was too late. Back before the tides of history became obvious. Back when an assassin would have been seen as evil.
Maybe we have dodged that bullet before. What would people say to the purely hypothetical claim that JFK was just days away from becoming a mass-murdering despot when he was shot? It seems highly unlikely, but since he was killed and we can't know what he would have done the next day, there could never be any real proof. A time-traveling assassin could do a lot of good while being judged to be a monster.
What would a time traveler from 50 years in our future do if he showed up tomorrow? Or, if he couldn't physically return to this point in time, but could send you a message, what might he tell you? What would you do about it?
Funny thing about today- it will be history soon enough. You are living in someone's "history" today. How will our grandchildren and their grandchildren view us? How do we view the Germans of the 1930s? I wonder what their ghosts might say to us if they could communicate.
.
There are lots of events in my own past I'd be tempted to change.
Beyond the personal, there are so many events I would like to witness first-hand to see for myself how badly misinformed I am due to errors of history or willful disinformation.
But one almost universal thought I hear connected to the idea of time travel is the assertion that "If I went back in time I'd kill Hitler."
Regardless of whether they'd smother newborn Hitler or shoot him just before he began to kill the innocents, they seem to be saying that they would, with the wisdom of information about the future, be bold enough to do something that would be seen by most contemporary observers to be an act of evil. In order to prevent an actual evil that would then (probably) never come to pass. They might even go down in history as an evil assassin. Or a baby murderer.
Sadly, by the time that killing Hitler was obviously the right thing to do, his security apparatus made chances of success almost nil.
I wonder what would happen if I could somehow send a message back in time to the 1930s, to people who might encounter Hitler before it was too late. Back before the tides of history became obvious. Back when an assassin would have been seen as evil.
Maybe we have dodged that bullet before. What would people say to the purely hypothetical claim that JFK was just days away from becoming a mass-murdering despot when he was shot? It seems highly unlikely, but since he was killed and we can't know what he would have done the next day, there could never be any real proof. A time-traveling assassin could do a lot of good while being judged to be a monster.
What would a time traveler from 50 years in our future do if he showed up tomorrow? Or, if he couldn't physically return to this point in time, but could send you a message, what might he tell you? What would you do about it?
Funny thing about today- it will be history soon enough. You are living in someone's "history" today. How will our grandchildren and their grandchildren view us? How do we view the Germans of the 1930s? I wonder what their ghosts might say to us if they could communicate.
.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Self defense prevents massacres
Self defense prevents massacres
(My Clovis News Journal column for Winter Solstice/The Mayan Apocalypse/December 21, 2012.)
(My Clovis News Journal column for Winter Solstice/The Mayan Apocalypse/December 21, 2012.)
Mass murders.
Who commits them?
Where do they happen?
How can they be prevented?
How can they be stopped when prevention fails?
These seem to be the only reasonable questions to ask in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.
Who commits them? People who have mental problems; which have usually been treated with SSRI medications. People who, for various reasons, are already prohibited (illegally and unconstitutionally) from possessing the weapons they use to murder people.
Where do they happen? Almost exclusively in places where people have been told they are not allowed to be armed, and usually where there will be a crowd of distracted people and a bottle-neck to "control" entry.
How can they be prevented? By curing mental illness, or by force or the threat of force.
While seeking cures there needs to be an immediate solution, and there is.
People can be locked up before they start killing, or it can be made impossible for them to kill anyone. Therein lies a problem.
No expert can know who is really a threat. There's also the problem of "who gets to decide what constitutes a 'mental illness?'" Just like "drunk driving", the definition will creep to include anything the "authorities" want it to encompass.
There is also no way, short of killing the person, to make it impossible for them to harm someone. The brain is really the only weapon there is, and as long as it is conscious and able to control the body, it can kill. The tools used to accomplish that perverted goal are interchangeable and irrelevant.
So how about prevention through the threat of force? That works better. By letting these aggressive monsters know that they will not have an easy harvest, they may decide it isn't worth it- not enough infamy to bother. That police will eventually show up doesn't stop them because they know they'll have met their goal by that time. But a universally-armed society? That those they plan on killing will fight back and ruin the scheme removes much incentive.
Which leads to the final question: How can massacres be stopped when prevention fails? By the good violence of self defense. Immediately deployed. From several different sources at once. Sure, most of these monsters plan on dying, but they also plan on murdering a large number before that happens. Foil them. Any other suggestions are just the sounds of sheep bleating, begging the wolf to go away, while standing in the butcher's holding pen.
Who commits them?
Where do they happen?
How can they be prevented?
How can they be stopped when prevention fails?
These seem to be the only reasonable questions to ask in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.
Who commits them? People who have mental problems; which have usually been treated with SSRI medications. People who, for various reasons, are already prohibited (illegally and unconstitutionally) from possessing the weapons they use to murder people.
Where do they happen? Almost exclusively in places where people have been told they are not allowed to be armed, and usually where there will be a crowd of distracted people and a bottle-neck to "control" entry.
How can they be prevented? By curing mental illness, or by force or the threat of force.
While seeking cures there needs to be an immediate solution, and there is.
People can be locked up before they start killing, or it can be made impossible for them to kill anyone. Therein lies a problem.
No expert can know who is really a threat. There's also the problem of "who gets to decide what constitutes a 'mental illness?'" Just like "drunk driving", the definition will creep to include anything the "authorities" want it to encompass.
There is also no way, short of killing the person, to make it impossible for them to harm someone. The brain is really the only weapon there is, and as long as it is conscious and able to control the body, it can kill. The tools used to accomplish that perverted goal are interchangeable and irrelevant.
So how about prevention through the threat of force? That works better. By letting these aggressive monsters know that they will not have an easy harvest, they may decide it isn't worth it- not enough infamy to bother. That police will eventually show up doesn't stop them because they know they'll have met their goal by that time. But a universally-armed society? That those they plan on killing will fight back and ruin the scheme removes much incentive.
Which leads to the final question: How can massacres be stopped when prevention fails? By the good violence of self defense. Immediately deployed. From several different sources at once. Sure, most of these monsters plan on dying, but they also plan on murdering a large number before that happens. Foil them. Any other suggestions are just the sounds of sheep bleating, begging the wolf to go away, while standing in the butcher's holding pen.
.
Property theft on grand scales
I saw this top map on Facebook. I can't verify its accuracy. I also won't debate whether a particular State is "better" than some other State. Are they based on "taxation" and coercion? That's all I need to know.
What that map does make me think of is another map, concerning someone else who was in a place first (and, no, no one was in either of these places in "the beginning", but migrated there at some point) and lost their land/property and freedom to someone else who decided that god had given the land to them, because of their obvious superiority and because they won god's favor. Or something.
It just doesn't smell right to me, in either case.
Of course, it wouldn't be an issue at all without governments behind it. People should be free to keep their property, or sell or trade it, to anyone for any reason. People should also be free to use any means at their disposal to defend their property from those who want to steal it. Neither of the illustrations show consensual property redistribution, but theft and aggression. And no one should ever be subject to some government or its "laws" simply because of where they live or because of who outnumbers them.
.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Sheriffs discover nullification
While I suppose I am glad that there are some sheriffs making nullification-type noises concerning proposed anti-gun edicts, I would be more impressed if they realized that the next anti-liberty "laws" are just a continuation of the evil anti-liberty "laws" they enforce every day. And have been enforcing since they took office.
Mr. Shire Reeve:
If you accept any "federal money", equipment, supplies, or oversight, you are already an oathbreaker.
If you enforce any anti-drug "laws", you are already an oathbreaker.
If you have ever arrested anyone on any "weapons charges", you are already an oathbreaker.
If you allow federal "law enforcement" to operate in your employers' territory in order to commit any of those acts, you are already an oathbreaker.
What's one more violation to you? Why make a fuss now, when you have been happy to betray your neighbors thus far? Is it to fool people into believing you have principles? Is it to cover your... "self"... when your neighbors start picking up pitchforks and lighting torches? Are you trying to give yourself plausible deniability?
I won't be fooled. Some of your neighbors probably won't be fooled, either.
You have already chosen your side. Unless you switch sides, unequivocally, now- and immediately cease and desist your unconstitutional, immoral, and unethical actions this instant.
Past violations can be forgiven. Future actions will be tallied.
Where will you be standing when the account comes due?
(The other side of the coin: Law enforcers openly admit to being criminals)
.
Mr. Shire Reeve:
If you accept any "federal money", equipment, supplies, or oversight, you are already an oathbreaker.
If you enforce any anti-drug "laws", you are already an oathbreaker.
If you have ever arrested anyone on any "weapons charges", you are already an oathbreaker.
If you allow federal "law enforcement" to operate in your employers' territory in order to commit any of those acts, you are already an oathbreaker.
What's one more violation to you? Why make a fuss now, when you have been happy to betray your neighbors thus far? Is it to fool people into believing you have principles? Is it to cover your... "self"... when your neighbors start picking up pitchforks and lighting torches? Are you trying to give yourself plausible deniability?
I won't be fooled. Some of your neighbors probably won't be fooled, either.
You have already chosen your side. Unless you switch sides, unequivocally, now- and immediately cease and desist your unconstitutional, immoral, and unethical actions this instant.
Past violations can be forgiven. Future actions will be tallied.
Where will you be standing when the account comes due?
(The other side of the coin: Law enforcers openly admit to being criminals)
.
Unveiling: Money
If the US government can do it, so can I. After all, no State has rights not held by the individuals who make it up, and no individual has more rights than any other. And if rights are imaginary, then no one has a right to rule me or coerce me, so...
Here is the one and only 1 Million Money Note in existence. So far, anyway.
I authorize myself- through my own Constitution- to issue Money in whatever form I see fit (it says so right on the back of the note).
The current exchange rate for a "Money" is 1 Money to $0.75 (in Federal Reserve Notes). Silver and gold are given preference in exchange, and get better rates, though.
Acceptance is not mandatory, but is purely voluntary. Laziness on my part, and my inability to issue Money electronically, ensures that Money will never hyperinflate itself in the way US Dollars are guaranteed to do.
But, just like Federal Reserve Notes or US coins, it is only really worth the material, the paper or metal, that makes it up. Only the belief it is worth more makes it worth more.
.
Here is the one and only 1 Million Money Note in existence. So far, anyway.
I authorize myself- through my own Constitution- to issue Money in whatever form I see fit (it says so right on the back of the note).
The current exchange rate for a "Money" is 1 Money to $0.75 (in Federal Reserve Notes). Silver and gold are given preference in exchange, and get better rates, though.
Acceptance is not mandatory, but is purely voluntary. Laziness on my part, and my inability to issue Money electronically, ensures that Money will never hyperinflate itself in the way US Dollars are guaranteed to do.
But, just like Federal Reserve Notes or US coins, it is only really worth the material, the paper or metal, that makes it up. Only the belief it is worth more makes it worth more.
.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Law enforcers openly admit to being criminals
"We will uphold whatever laws that are actually enacted."
Then you will be violating your oath of office as well as declaring yourself a domestic enemy.
"Shall not be infringed" doesn't leave any room to wiggle.
And, before you grasp at the "well-regulated militia" part remember that when the words were penned, "well-regulated" meant "well-practiced" and "fine tuned"; not what anti-liberty bigots want it to mean. And the militia is everyone capable of holding and shooting a gun.
There is no room left for your feelings or concerns. The Bill of Rights leaves no room for any anti-gun "laws"- not against "felons" possessing guns; not against semi-automatic or fully automatic guns; not against where the guns may be carried.
The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" anyone any rights- it takes away authority. The only thing the Bill of Rights did was make it a very serious crime for government employees to pass or enforce any "law" dealing with guns in any way. If you don't like that then you need to immediately remove yourself from any position of "authority".
Unfortunately, the sheriffs who have announced they will not be enforcing any further unconstitutional "laws" are lying. You know it and I know it. Because they will still be enforcing anti-drug "laws", and taking federal handouts, and assisting federal (and illegal) law enforcement agencies. And, when push comes to shove, they will roll over and betray their employers to the feds in order to keep their "job".
.
Then you will be violating your oath of office as well as declaring yourself a domestic enemy.
"Shall not be infringed" doesn't leave any room to wiggle.
And, before you grasp at the "well-regulated militia" part remember that when the words were penned, "well-regulated" meant "well-practiced" and "fine tuned"; not what anti-liberty bigots want it to mean. And the militia is everyone capable of holding and shooting a gun.
There is no room left for your feelings or concerns. The Bill of Rights leaves no room for any anti-gun "laws"- not against "felons" possessing guns; not against semi-automatic or fully automatic guns; not against where the guns may be carried.
The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" anyone any rights- it takes away authority. The only thing the Bill of Rights did was make it a very serious crime for government employees to pass or enforce any "law" dealing with guns in any way. If you don't like that then you need to immediately remove yourself from any position of "authority".
Unfortunately, the sheriffs who have announced they will not be enforcing any further unconstitutional "laws" are lying. You know it and I know it. Because they will still be enforcing anti-drug "laws", and taking federal handouts, and assisting federal (and illegal) law enforcement agencies. And, when push comes to shove, they will roll over and betray their employers to the feds in order to keep their "job".
.
"Too much liberty"?
I wish cops would just leave everyone alone. Yes, I mean everyone.
Like Thomas Jefferson, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." (1791) He would have hated, and fought against, the current police state that infests the former America.
I am tired of seeing cops everywhere. L. Neil Smith once (or probably more) said America has 10 times more police than any civilized country should tolerate. Well, I'd say the situation is at least an order of magnitude worse now. But I don't want any police. Not one.
Let me deal with bad drivers, robbers, rapists, jaywalkers, thieves, murderers, unlicensed pharmacists, drunks, in my own way- without initiating force- IF I FEEL THE "NEED" TO "DEAL WITH THEM" AT ALL! If you are too weak or too cowardly to deal with them on your own, I might even volunteer to assist you as long as you don't "ask" for my help through some coercive agent. But I will warn you right now- if they are not attacking anyone, nor stealing, you are on your own because what they are doing is none of my business. Nor yours.
I have no use for cops, and really, neither do you. They need to just go away. Forever.
.
Like Thomas Jefferson, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." (1791) He would have hated, and fought against, the current police state that infests the former America.
I am tired of seeing cops everywhere. L. Neil Smith once (or probably more) said America has 10 times more police than any civilized country should tolerate. Well, I'd say the situation is at least an order of magnitude worse now. But I don't want any police. Not one.
Let me deal with bad drivers, robbers, rapists, jaywalkers, thieves, murderers, unlicensed pharmacists, drunks, in my own way- without initiating force- IF I FEEL THE "NEED" TO "DEAL WITH THEM" AT ALL! If you are too weak or too cowardly to deal with them on your own, I might even volunteer to assist you as long as you don't "ask" for my help through some coercive agent. But I will warn you right now- if they are not attacking anyone, nor stealing, you are on your own because what they are doing is none of my business. Nor yours.
I have no use for cops, and really, neither do you. They need to just go away. Forever.
.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Gun Appreciation Day
Yes, I appreciate guns. I appreciate the pleasure they have brought into my life. I love the way they feel and smell. I enjoy handling them and shooting them.
I appreciate the fact that guns have helped feed hungry people for hundreds of years.
I appreciate the fact that guns have helped good people resist- and kill- tyrants, thieves, thugs, home invaders, drunk husbands, jealous girlfriends, rabid dogs, and various other vermin.
I appreciate the fact that guns have provided countless hours of enjoyment for "plinkers", and target shooters, and Buckskinners, and "Cowboy Action Shooters", and gunsmiths, and movie goers.
Guns have been abused by bad guys. Bison were indiscriminately slaughtered. Genocides were carried out. Helpful signs are damaged (and by "helpful" I am obviously not talking about "stop signs" or "speed limit signs" or any other Nanny State excuses for highway robbery).
I have lost two friends to bad guys with guns. Another friend was shot by a mugger, but survived. Would my dead friends have survived if they had been in possession of a gun at the time they were attacked? I don't know, but they couldn't have been hurt any worse. I am not stupid enough to blame the tool the bad guys used. Yes, that is what it requires to blame guns for the bad guys' actions: stupidity on a monumental scale.
I blame bad guys for all they take from life, and I appreciate guns for all the good they bring to life.
.
I appreciate the fact that guns have helped feed hungry people for hundreds of years.
I appreciate the fact that guns have helped good people resist- and kill- tyrants, thieves, thugs, home invaders, drunk husbands, jealous girlfriends, rabid dogs, and various other vermin.
I appreciate the fact that guns have provided countless hours of enjoyment for "plinkers", and target shooters, and Buckskinners, and "Cowboy Action Shooters", and gunsmiths, and movie goers.
Guns have been abused by bad guys. Bison were indiscriminately slaughtered. Genocides were carried out. Helpful signs are damaged (and by "helpful" I am obviously not talking about "stop signs" or "speed limit signs" or any other Nanny State excuses for highway robbery).
I have lost two friends to bad guys with guns. Another friend was shot by a mugger, but survived. Would my dead friends have survived if they had been in possession of a gun at the time they were attacked? I don't know, but they couldn't have been hurt any worse. I am not stupid enough to blame the tool the bad guys used. Yes, that is what it requires to blame guns for the bad guys' actions: stupidity on a monumental scale.
I blame bad guys for all they take from life, and I appreciate guns for all the good they bring to life.
.
Gun Appreciation Day- To the NRA:
I have been trying to send the following letter to the NRA, and their "contact form" has managed to prevent the message from being sent. Very well.
Here it is:
.
Here it is:
Not ONE MORE INCH!
If NRA 'compromises' one iota on ANYTHING anti-gun, no matter how pragmatic it may be, I will renounce my life membership and publicize it on my blog, on facebook and twitter, and in my newspaper column.
No anti-gun 'law' is constitutional- not one. Not the 1934 NFA, not carry permits, not prohibitions on felons possessing guns. Stop calling for the reavers of 'law enforcement' to 'enforce the laws already on the books'- you are supposed to be on OUR side; not theirs. Stop pretending there is any legitimacy to any anti-gun 'law'.
I am tired of the tsunami of 'compromise' sweeping away liberty and making 'criminals' out of decent people.
I am tired of NRA supporting anti-gun puppeticians who are in 'useful positions', and ignoring candidates who are actually pro-gun, just because they might not win. Washington DC, and its lesser, more local partners in tyranny need to be warned that gun owners will not obey one more 'law', and any attempt to inflict another 'law' on us will result in more of us seeing the stupidity of obeying the counterfeit 'laws' we have obeyed up to this point.
If the penalty for owning a semi-auto is just as draconian as the penalty for owning a full-auto, why settle for the lesser weapon?
Rights don't come from government or a constitution. Rights can be respected or violated. Period. I am tired of seeing them violated with NRA's 'compromising' consent.
.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
My "NRA" tag
I don't know if you have noticed, but I "tag" most of my pro-gun posts with my NRA tag.
Not because I think the NRA is pro-gun, but because I enjoy ridiculing their anti-liberty stance by demonstrating how real pro-gun looks.
.
Not because I think the NRA is pro-gun, but because I enjoy ridiculing their anti-liberty stance by demonstrating how real pro-gun looks.
.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Be ready. Be vigilant.
Keep a close watch for the next couple of weeks. Be observant beyond your normal level. Stay as alert as you can manage- and push the awareness envelope.
Because, I hate to suggest it, but judging by the past I suspect America is ripe for another mass shooting- they always seem to happen when the feds and their slimy familiars are seeking support for new anti-gun "laws". Not saying that these events are "triggered" or called into action, but...
You might be the person to stop it before it happens.
Sure, that will not be reported by the "mainstream" media, but that's OK. You are not looking for fame anyway, but looking to live by the Zero Aggression Principle. Right?
Don't depend on someone else carrying your load for you. Be ready. Be vigilant. "Don't leave home without it." The war is here- denying it won't make the truth go away.
You watch my back- I'll watch yours.
And, thank you in advance.
.
Because, I hate to suggest it, but judging by the past I suspect America is ripe for another mass shooting- they always seem to happen when the feds and their slimy familiars are seeking support for new anti-gun "laws". Not saying that these events are "triggered" or called into action, but...
You might be the person to stop it before it happens.
Sure, that will not be reported by the "mainstream" media, but that's OK. You are not looking for fame anyway, but looking to live by the Zero Aggression Principle. Right?
Don't depend on someone else carrying your load for you. Be ready. Be vigilant. "Don't leave home without it." The war is here- denying it won't make the truth go away.
You watch my back- I'll watch yours.
And, thank you in advance.
.
Blame not the tyrant, blame the people who obey him
I haven't got a clue what anti-liberty "executive orders" Obama has proclaimed concerning guns. I'm sure I will find out what most of them are in the coming days. However, I could not possibly care less what he thinks will become "law" just because he declares it so.
Real law is discovered, not created by rulers.
Real law, also called Natural Law, says you have the right to own anything you want, as long as you didn't get it through theft, fraud, force, or threat of force. Anything. Any weapon at all. Yes, even nuclear bombs.
The possession of anything can never be a violation of any real law. Only initiation of force (or a credible threat to initiate force) and theft violate real law. If you hurt someone or damage their property it doesn't matter what you use to hurt them- YOU are the guilty one, not your tool. Anyone who believes otherwise is a superstitious idiot. Yes, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, and probably just about everyone else who works for the government in some capacity- I am speaking to you.
Obama is violating real law- Natural Law- by pretending he can take your property and/or liberty. By violating your fundamental liberty to own anything you wish, and to defend your life, liberty, and property in any way you see fit with any tool you wish to use, he has declared war on you. Just as Bush the Decider did before him by imposing the Patriot Act. They are no different than a mugger in a dark alley demanding "Your money or your life".
Only people who plan on obeying Obama's anti-liberty proclamations worry about what they might be. I don't worry about it. I know he is the sworn enemy of liberty, and as such he has declared that he is my mortal enemy. This is not news to me.
I will not obey. Not one more inch.
Molon Labe!
.
Real law is discovered, not created by rulers.
Real law, also called Natural Law, says you have the right to own anything you want, as long as you didn't get it through theft, fraud, force, or threat of force. Anything. Any weapon at all. Yes, even nuclear bombs.
The possession of anything can never be a violation of any real law. Only initiation of force (or a credible threat to initiate force) and theft violate real law. If you hurt someone or damage their property it doesn't matter what you use to hurt them- YOU are the guilty one, not your tool. Anyone who believes otherwise is a superstitious idiot. Yes, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, and probably just about everyone else who works for the government in some capacity- I am speaking to you.
Obama is violating real law- Natural Law- by pretending he can take your property and/or liberty. By violating your fundamental liberty to own anything you wish, and to defend your life, liberty, and property in any way you see fit with any tool you wish to use, he has declared war on you. Just as Bush the Decider did before him by imposing the Patriot Act. They are no different than a mugger in a dark alley demanding "Your money or your life".
Only people who plan on obeying Obama's anti-liberty proclamations worry about what they might be. I don't worry about it. I know he is the sworn enemy of liberty, and as such he has declared that he is my mortal enemy. This is not news to me.
I will not obey. Not one more inch.
Molon Labe!
.
And how we'll burn in the camps...
And how we'll burn in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every cop, when he went out at night to make an arrest or man a "checkpoint", had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?
Or if, during examples of mass oppression, as for example traveling in "border" states, or entering airports, or when "laws" forbid the tools of self defense, people would not simply sit there too scared to resist, paling with terror at every arbitrary demand and at every flash of the red and blue lights, but would understand they have nothing left to lose and will boldly set up an ambush of half a dozen people with pistols, rifles, machetes, axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else is at hand?... The law enforcement departments would very quickly suffer a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Washington DC's thirst, the cursed State will grind to a halt!
If...if...Most Americans don't love freedom enough. And even more – most have no awareness of the real situation.... They purely and simply deserve everything that happens afterward. And the truly innocent will be dragged along with the complacent.
With apologies, or sincere thanks, to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
.
Or if, during examples of mass oppression, as for example traveling in "border" states, or entering airports, or when "laws" forbid the tools of self defense, people would not simply sit there too scared to resist, paling with terror at every arbitrary demand and at every flash of the red and blue lights, but would understand they have nothing left to lose and will boldly set up an ambush of half a dozen people with pistols, rifles, machetes, axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else is at hand?... The law enforcement departments would very quickly suffer a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Washington DC's thirst, the cursed State will grind to a halt!
If...if...Most Americans don't love freedom enough. And even more – most have no awareness of the real situation.... They purely and simply deserve everything that happens afterward. And the truly innocent will be dragged along with the complacent.
With apologies, or sincere thanks, to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Constitution is ultimate authority
Constitution is ultimate authority
Should you "render unto Caesar" anything that he, in his modern incarnation, demands?
Basically, to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's just means don't take, or keep, that which isn't yours. Don't steal. If you have someone else's property, give it back. Does your money automatically belong to the government just because someone passed a law permitting them to take it? Absolutely not. Should you pay for services you use, regardless of who provides them? Yes, you should. Should you be forced to pay for services you neither want nor need? If so, everyone should start sending me a monthly check for picking up litter, and for preaching liberty.
But what about submitting to government simply because it is the government? Do you have an obligation to obey every edict that comes from a government official simply because of his position? No.
In America no person, agency, or office is the governmental authority. The Constitution is. Those who refuse to abide by the letter and intent of that authority have no legitimate power over you. In fact by using coercion and violence on people who are harming no one else, and even against those who are doing "good work", they cause fear in good people and show themselves to be false authorities in violation of the Constitution.
Sure, the Constitution has its own problems, but as long as you choose to play the game, it is your rule book. If you seek political office, the Constitution is not to be "interpreted" to be more convenient for your ambitions. Once you violate any of its provisions, whether by trying to regulate immigration, by passing or enforcing "laws" against gun ownership or possession, or by regulating which substances people may introduce into their own bloodstream, you have lost all authority. No one has any obligation to honor or obey you any longer.
In America the Constitution was written to hobble the government, not to ensnare the people. Any ruling that goes against that higher power is a ruling that goes against the spirit of the Constitution- even if you approve. Those acts erode authority rather than enhancing it.
Every time this happens you can stop submitting, honoring, and complying- with a clear conscience.
If you feel called to support the earthly powers-that-be, don't misguidedly throw your support behind those who are in fact its worst enemy.
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 14, 2012. Trying to speak to those who would be on the side of liberty if they can get free of certain obsessions.)
Are you among those torn between feeling you should support the government, and knowing it does wrong? Should you "render unto Caesar" anything that he, in his modern incarnation, demands?
Basically, to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's just means don't take, or keep, that which isn't yours. Don't steal. If you have someone else's property, give it back. Does your money automatically belong to the government just because someone passed a law permitting them to take it? Absolutely not. Should you pay for services you use, regardless of who provides them? Yes, you should. Should you be forced to pay for services you neither want nor need? If so, everyone should start sending me a monthly check for picking up litter, and for preaching liberty.
But what about submitting to government simply because it is the government? Do you have an obligation to obey every edict that comes from a government official simply because of his position? No.
In America no person, agency, or office is the governmental authority. The Constitution is. Those who refuse to abide by the letter and intent of that authority have no legitimate power over you. In fact by using coercion and violence on people who are harming no one else, and even against those who are doing "good work", they cause fear in good people and show themselves to be false authorities in violation of the Constitution.
Sure, the Constitution has its own problems, but as long as you choose to play the game, it is your rule book. If you seek political office, the Constitution is not to be "interpreted" to be more convenient for your ambitions. Once you violate any of its provisions, whether by trying to regulate immigration, by passing or enforcing "laws" against gun ownership or possession, or by regulating which substances people may introduce into their own bloodstream, you have lost all authority. No one has any obligation to honor or obey you any longer.
In America the Constitution was written to hobble the government, not to ensnare the people. Any ruling that goes against that higher power is a ruling that goes against the spirit of the Constitution- even if you approve. Those acts erode authority rather than enhancing it.
Every time this happens you can stop submitting, honoring, and complying- with a clear conscience.
If you feel called to support the earthly powers-that-be, don't misguidedly throw your support behind those who are in fact its worst enemy.
.
"The wrong hands"
One thing I hear from almost every "side" in the "gun debate" is this idea that "we" need to keep guns "out of the wrong hands".
Just whose hands are "wrong"? And who is this "we" who'll be doing the "keep away"? Government employees? I laugh at the absurdity of that suggestion.
I suppose "the wrong hands" are those who want to hurt you. If that's the case, cops and other government employees have the "wrongest" hands of all, along with the thuggish members of freelance gangs. Don't make a distinction where none exists.
There is no possible way- NONE- to keep guns out of "the wrong hands" without also keeping them out of a lot of the right hands. Even the "minor" layers of difficulties that any good person could easily pass through tend to dissuade a lot of people from going to the trouble to own or to carry a gun. It adds expense to the cost of a gun, either in dollars or in time. Since dollars are nothing but a placeholder for time you traded to someone else, there is no difference. A lot of good people also don't like being treated like a criminal by a gang of demonstrable criminals- and then told by the brainless criminal drones with FBI computers whether or not they are "worthy" of defensive tools. It is incredibly insulting.
And bad people will never be inconvenienced in the slightest. They'll buy or steal what they want- whichever is easiest.
I would prefer to live in a society where guns are freely and openly available, with absolutely zero restrictions on anyone, so that more good people will not feel like criminals for owning and carrying weapons. Good people outnumber the truly bad ones. Any additional liberty will empower the good more than the bad (who already do whatever they feel like anyway).
So, if you are truly a pro-liberty person, stop giving any attention to the absurd "wrong hands" nonsense. It makes you look like an anti-liberty bigot.
.
Just whose hands are "wrong"? And who is this "we" who'll be doing the "keep away"? Government employees? I laugh at the absurdity of that suggestion.
I suppose "the wrong hands" are those who want to hurt you. If that's the case, cops and other government employees have the "wrongest" hands of all, along with the thuggish members of freelance gangs. Don't make a distinction where none exists.
There is no possible way- NONE- to keep guns out of "the wrong hands" without also keeping them out of a lot of the right hands. Even the "minor" layers of difficulties that any good person could easily pass through tend to dissuade a lot of people from going to the trouble to own or to carry a gun. It adds expense to the cost of a gun, either in dollars or in time. Since dollars are nothing but a placeholder for time you traded to someone else, there is no difference. A lot of good people also don't like being treated like a criminal by a gang of demonstrable criminals- and then told by the brainless criminal drones with FBI computers whether or not they are "worthy" of defensive tools. It is incredibly insulting.
And bad people will never be inconvenienced in the slightest. They'll buy or steal what they want- whichever is easiest.
I would prefer to live in a society where guns are freely and openly available, with absolutely zero restrictions on anyone, so that more good people will not feel like criminals for owning and carrying weapons. Good people outnumber the truly bad ones. Any additional liberty will empower the good more than the bad (who already do whatever they feel like anyway).
So, if you are truly a pro-liberty person, stop giving any attention to the absurd "wrong hands" nonsense. It makes you look like an anti-liberty bigot.
.
Monday, January 14, 2013
The Trillion Dollar Coin questions
I keep thinking about the proposed $1 Trillion platinum coin.
If it were lost through government employee stupidity or negligence and I found it, would it be honored for $1 Trillion? Would I then be a trillionaire? (Leaving aside the fact that the criminals of The State would claim it was theirs, no matter how negligent they were.)
If it were stolen, could it be spent anywhere?
If the answers to these two questions are "no", then it is not a real trillion dollar coin, but a counterfeit.
.
If it were lost through government employee stupidity or negligence and I found it, would it be honored for $1 Trillion? Would I then be a trillionaire? (Leaving aside the fact that the criminals of The State would claim it was theirs, no matter how negligent they were.)
If it were stolen, could it be spent anywhere?
If the answers to these two questions are "no", then it is not a real trillion dollar coin, but a counterfeit.
.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
As dumb as they seem?
Politicians can't really be as dumb as they seem, can they?
I include all the appointed bureaucrats such as all the Secretaries of This and That- and especially Ben Bernanke. Ignorance must truly be bliss.
But, anyway, either they are all really, really dumb, or they are smart enough to appear to be dumb. Judging by the actions they take and the things they advocate I have a hard time accepting that premise.
I'll try to not underestimate them if I have to avoid them or deal with them, but it is still pretty hard to accept that they may not be as dumb as they seem. What amazes me the most is how many people- statists, anyway- don't see it, but instead praise these clowns for their "wisdom".
If that's "wisdom" or "intelligence" I want no part of it.
.
I include all the appointed bureaucrats such as all the Secretaries of This and That- and especially Ben Bernanke. Ignorance must truly be bliss.
But, anyway, either they are all really, really dumb, or they are smart enough to appear to be dumb. Judging by the actions they take and the things they advocate I have a hard time accepting that premise.
I'll try to not underestimate them if I have to avoid them or deal with them, but it is still pretty hard to accept that they may not be as dumb as they seem. What amazes me the most is how many people- statists, anyway- don't see it, but instead praise these clowns for their "wisdom".
If that's "wisdom" or "intelligence" I want no part of it.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)