"Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it." -John Adams


Welcome to Patriot's Lament. We strive here to educate ourselves on Liberty. We will not worry ourselves so much with the daily antics of American politics, and drown ourselves in the murky waters of the political right or left.
Instead, we will look to the Intellectuals and Champions of Liberty, and draw on their wisdom of what it is to be a truly free people. We will learn from where our Providential Liberties are derived, and put the proper perspective of a Free Individual and the State.
Please join us!

Saturday, December 31, 2011

Happy New Year!!!

President Obama kicks it off with a bang!!!  NDAA

Funny how certain things can bring the American people together. Maybe Obama will unify us after all, just like he promised. We just misunderstood how he would go about it.  I mean a year ago, I never looked at the ACLU to be a champion of my freedoms. 
I certainly don't know what the New Year will bring, but I refuse to let them steal my Life, Liberty, and Property from me.
I refuse to live in fear of them.

Let us resolve as a people to make them utterly useless in our daily lives.
Let us refuse to give them our sanction.
Let us refuse to give them legitimacy.
Let us refuse to let them steal from our posterity.
Let us refuse to allow them to tell us what Rights we have.
Let us refuse to listen to them when they say we can do nothing.
Let us refuse to participate in their scam called democracy.
Let us refuse to allow them to divide us.
Let us refuse to allow ourselves to be detained.
Let us refuse to bow down.

It is time to make a decision. Will you, like sheep, be sent to the slaughter?
Will you decide that no one is responsible for your Liberty but you?
Will you decide that no one can either grant to you or take your Liberty from you?

Choose this day whom you will serve. My God is not the state. I refuse to bow my knee to it.

I will not submit!


"The time is near at hand, whether Americans will be free men, or slaves".

"Posterity, you will never know how much it cost this present generation to secure your Liberty. I hope you will make good use of it, if you do not, I will repent in heaven, that ever i took half the
pains to preserve it"!

Let us resolve not to be the generation that makes our predecessors repent of the struggle they imposed on themselves for people they would never know. For us.

Friends, let us be Resolved,  Live Free or Die, Death is not the worst of Evils!!!


Friday, December 30, 2011

The ideal government

If I must have a government.

The government I want:



The government I got:


The one I could accept:
 The one forced on me:

What I would be willing to let them have:
What they have stolen from me:






The average American lives here:


Their servant quarters are here:


It is absolutely impossible for anyone who claims to be rational to defend violence.

In my ongoing quest for the answer to the question, "What war made men more free?" I would like to explore one of the more recent defenses of libertarian rights, this being Hans Hoppe's "argumentation ethics" (Wikipedia entry for Argumentation Ethics).

Hoppe's basic thesis is that argumentation (discourse) is by nature a conflict-free (non-violent) way of interacting and that it requires individual control of resources (property rights). These presuppositions to discourse imply that the participants agree to both the non-aggression principle and by extension the idea of libertarian rights (i.e. self-ownership and property rights by extension). From this, Hoppe concludes that no one can argumentatively deny libertarian rights without self-contradiction.

Gary Madison makes a similar argument, but elaborates in greater detail. In his book, The Logic of Liberty, he argues that
the various values defended by liberalism are not arbitrary, a matter of mere personal preference, nor do they derive from some natural law. . . . Rather, they are nothing less and nothing more than what could be called the operative presuppositions or intrinsic features and demands of communicative rationality itself. In other words, they are values that are implicitly recognized and affirmed by everyone by the very fact of their engaging in communicative reason. This amounts to saying that no one can rationally deny them without at the same time denying reason, without self-contradiction, without in fact abandoning all attempts to persuade the other and to reach agreement.

Since recognition of these values implies renunciation of the legitimacy of violence, Madison concludes that
it is absolutely impossible for anyone who claims to be rational, which is to say human, outrightly to defend violence .... [As Paul Ricoeur writes:]'. . . violence is the opposite of discourse. . . . Violence is always the interruption of discourse: discourse is always the interruption of violence.' That violence is the opposite of discourse means that it can never justify itself—and is therefore not justifiable—for only through discourse can anything be justified. As the theory of rational argumentation and discussion, liberalism amounts, therefore, to a rejection of power politics.

My previous post provoked some very interesting comments, and I am actually working on a new post addressing some of those comments. A very thoughtful reader actually took a swing at the question posed at the beginning of this post, and I need to address that in greater detail. I hope to see responses from those who believe that violent resistance is some sort of solution. From a purely practical standpoint, I do not understand how it could be effective. From a purely philosophical standpoint, I do not see how it could be consistent. I could be wrong on both counts which is why I continue to pose the question. There is a myriad of strategies available for advancing liberty, but if we are chasing unicorns or tilting at windmills, we will never be effective. Maybe we just need to vote a little bit more... :-D

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Generalissimo Washington and Myths of the Revolution

While this site may be called "Patriot's Lament" and we often refer to things the so-called Founders said or did, I myself have no particular love for the way in which the Revolution was carried out nor the system of government that was set up in its aftermath (to be fair, I think many of the revolutionaries were also disappointed with the result). Along these lines, I have repeatedly posed the question, "What war made men more free?" to the readers of this blog and have yet to receive an answer of any sort.

In a previous post of mine, Fire in the head, peace in the heart, several commenters stated the "necessity of violence" and things of this sort, but when I posed the "what war has made men more free?" question, there was again silence.

In another post, Myth of War (and "Fighting for Freedom"), I linked to one of Stefan Molyneaux's videos where he dismantled the myth of one of the "Good Wars" (WWII). Josh and I had a little conversation in the thread, but again, no one tried to make the argument that any nation emerged from WWII more free than it entered it. On either side.

In yet another post, The Failure of Democracy, I linked to a video of Hans Hermann Hoppe dismantling the historicist position that democracy (or a representative republic, which is still democratic no matter how hard you try to deny it) had anything to do with the increased prosperity and freedom of the 20th century (which in fact is a myth in many ways). I also went straight for the throat of the "The Revolution made America free" argument and linked to Gary North's article "Tricked on the Fourth of July" where he briefly outlines the coup d'état that was the American Revolution.

Today, I want to share another interesting article that is excerpted from Murray Rothbard's comprehensive history of the founding of America, "Conceived in Liberty." Here are links to Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, and Volume 4.

The title of the article is, "Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty." There are many interesting aspects to this account of how the Continental Army was transformed into a traditional European type army and how the individualistic rag-tag volunteer spirit was crushed (which probably actually made the army far less effective against the British). Sure to be unpopular with some "Patriots," but it again brings to mind the question, "What war made men more free?"

My favorite part or the article however, is at the very end where Rothbard points out the main strategic error made by the British when they came to wage war in the colonies:
For Britain, the character of the war had now unpleasantly changed; from trying to teach a lesson to revolutionaries, Britain now faced an international, trans-Atlantic, even a worldwide conflict.

The first thing to do was end the occupation of Philadelphia, which at best had been a waste of time. Howe had thought of Philadelphia as equivalent to a European capital: the hub and nerve center of administrative, commercial, political, and military life. But in a decentralized people's war such as the Americans were waging, there was no fixed nerve center; indeed, there was scarcely any central government at all. All this gave the Americans a flexibility and an ability to absorb invading armies in a manner highly statified Europe could not understand.

I wonder if there is a lesson for modern day America to be found here? Perhaps not only in the types of "enemies" the U.S. government's imperial forces are waging centralized war against, but in the very way we think about political structure. One of the themes of "Patriotic movements" everywhere is to establish alternative political systems (continental congress, any of the ridiculous "sovereign citizen" plans to reestablish so called "de-jure" government, strengthening of state power in order to resist federal power, etc). Don't all of these ideas cling to the fundamental idea of a fixed nerve center? Don't they all on some level call for this so that force can be centralized in order to resist force? Don't they all make the only mistake that can make any sort of movement extraordinarily easy to co-opt and/or defeat?

What if all of this effort to centralize resistive force is effort that has been taken from our ability to create totally alternative solutions that simply make the existing system redundant? In every aspect of civilization save one, old and unsustainable ideas disappear not because of protest, violence, or revolution (in the sense that we normally think of it) but simply because forward progress makes them redundant. Henry Ford did not wage war with the horse drawn carriage industry. The Wright Brothers did not advocate that people vote against the pony express. Advances in science, engineering, medicine, art, philosophy, everything except politics happen because specific individuals make the decision to pursue excellence in the field they are passionate about. The pursuit of excellence is a positive and creative use of energy. New ideas, new ways of living, new paradigms spring fourth. These are the forces that shake old political establishments to their core not through threats of force, but through a much greater threat; the threat of making the political establishment redundant.

What if the most effective strategy for achieving liberty is simply making the state and all the "services" that go with it redundant? What happens when we simply walk away from "Philadelphia" instead of trying to hold on to it or re-take it? What if it is both realistically and logically impossible for war to make men free? What could we create as individuals if all our energy wasn't focused on resisting? I think the most important part of these questions isn't answering them, but simply asking them.

Monday, December 26, 2011

Anarchy and Christmas

In this episode we discuss the anarchic nature of the Christmas Story. Steve reads an article from Dollar Vigilante (link below) about this exact topic and we discuss the many aspects of civil disobedience involved in the birth of Christ.

Dollar Vigilante: The Anarchic Story of Christmas

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Grace does it again

My daughter painted this for me for Christmas.
I think she has me figured out.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Latest two episodes

Here are the latest two episodes of Patriot's Lament radio show. In the first episode we discussed the interesting contradiction where conservative radio hosts take the side of the feds while the Occupy Fairbanks guys are actually standing up for people's rights. How strange.

In the second episode, Josh and Steve explore the idea that all rights are property rights.

Common Sense and the Myth of State Sovereignty


All Rights are Property Rights


As mentioned in the Property Rights episode, here is a simple video on the principle of self-ownership.

The Philosophy of Liberty

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Democracy, the CIA way



A little knowledge from our friend Sam. Whenever you hear our government tell us how we are the "beacon of Democracy" remember this.

Spreading Democracy—The CIA Way
One of the more persistent arguments that arises when discussing and debating US foreign policy with people is the idea that US foreign policy is geared at spreading democracy to the less fortunate savages in foreign lands.  I believe this argument begs the question as “democracy” as a less than desirable political system from my point of view.  But without even getting into the details of democracy, versus republics versus what-have-you I want to examine the premise that the US is benignly attempting to spread democracy to the world.  To narrow the scope even further, we will look at the history and effect of a single American organization, the CIA, to prove that this argument is patently false despite its widespread persistence.
On April 2, 1917 Wilson famously declared “the world must be made safe for democracy” as he asked Congress for a Declaration of War against Germany.  Since then we’ve heard this idea espoused countless ways with it showing up in monologues by radio talk show hosts, during presidential campaign debates, in the editorials of national and local newspapers and during a debate with a friend, or a stranger online.  It seems that the first logical step to take to verify or falsify this statement is to take a look at the regimes the United States currently supports around the world and see if the US does indeed support populist and democratic governments.
One can immediately point to Europe and countries like Australia, the famed Western civilization, as examples of American allies who practice some form of democratic government.  But then there are the counter examples who stick out like a sore thumb.  Saudi Arabia, the stalwart ally of the United States in the middle east, is a brutal repressive monarchy with well known human rights abuses.  Pakistan, while its executive branch is elected, indirectly, suffers massive political pressure from the military, which is regarded as the most powerful political force in the nation.  Kuwait is another monarchy and was obviously a crucial ally for the staging of both the Iraq wars as well as being a strategic base for current US operations in the middle east.  Of course pundits will be quick to point out that though we generally want to support democracies sometimes we must bow to exigencies in order to support a greater good which is why we sometimes support dictators.  Accepting that premise (which I don’t) we have to at least modify our supposition to “America sometimes supports democracies.” 
The next step is to examine the history of the United States and its relationship to dictators around the world.  Entire books have been written on this subject, and I will refer to some of them at the end of this article, but I will constrain myself to looking at a few examples.  The curious and motivated reader can refer to the sources I will cite for more information.
  The CIA was created in the aftermath of World War II in 1947 and was from the very beginning outside of congressional oversight, accountable to the President through the National Security Council.  In 1948 the CIA established a covert action portion of the agency with instructions in its charter including "propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world." 
One of its first tests was in Iran in 1953.  Many Americans remember the embarrassing and infuriating Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 when students seized the American embassy in Iran and held 52 hostages for a total of 444 days.  In the current GOP nomination debates, Rick Santorum likes to point out this instance as an example of Iran’s hostility towards the United States declaring “we’ve been at war with Iran since 1979!”  What Santorum and many other Americans are missing is the precursor to this event, the prime mover which caused the blowback in 1979.  In 1951 the Iranian parliament nationalized the country’s oil industry angering the British who had previously controlled it.  In 1953 the British intelligence agencies collaborated with the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government and restore the Shah as a dictator.  In addition the CIA trained the SAVAK, a secret police force which brutally repressed the Iranian populace to keep the Shah in power.  Twenty-six years later, the people revolted against this tyrannical rule and took revenge on the foreign entity whom they viewed as responsible—the United States.  In light of Iranian history the hostage crisis of 1979 takes on a new light.
Fresh off the success in Iran, the CIA then flexed its burgeoning capabilities by deposing another democratically elected leader, this time in Guatemala.  Jacob Arbenz had threatened the United Fruit Company, a company owned by the Rockefellers, in which the current CIA director, Allen Dulles had owned stock.  After Arbenz was overthrown by the CIA the dictators that replaced him are estimated to have killed 100,000 Guatemalans over the course of the next four decades.
A similar case happens in Haiti in 1959 when the CIA helps “Papa Doc” Duvalier into power where his police force kill 100,000 Haitians during his reign of terror.  Then, from 1957-1973 the CIA attempts multiple coups to try to negate democratic elections happening in Laos.  When things don’t go the way the CIA wants the US resorts to bombing Laos.  More bombs were dropped on Laos than the cumulative total of all bombs dropped by the US in World War II.
In 1961 there is the Bay of Pigs in Cuba.  In 1963 there are two democratic regimes overthrown, one in the Dominican Republic and one in Ecuador.  In 1971 – Bolivia, 1973 – Chile, 1975 – Australia. 
I could go on and on and on.  But the point is we have to now modify our original statement even further.  “The US supports democracies, sometimes, when it’s convenient, and doesn’t interfere with US 'strategic' interests—that is, the profits of corporations with political connections.”
There is nothing noble about this side of US foreign policy, the secret side.  The side that has generated massive blowback by angering people the world over.  In order to understand the current world situation and how to win the “war” on terror, it is crucial for Americans to examine the dark, hidden side of US foreign policy.  “We support democracies” is a blatant lie and is intended only as propaganda to hoodwink the average American citizen who has not bothered to examine what the pages of history have to tell us.

References and Reading Material
For a great overview of the history of the CIA visit http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html.   For more in depth looks at the CIA in particular and US foreign policy in general:
 Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II, by William Blunn
Imperial Hubris, by Michael Scheuer
Blowback, by Chalmers Johnson


Thanks Sam!

Monday, December 19, 2011

Yes folks, it's called Fascism

Here is a little ammo for the Occupy Fairbanks guys, I got this off of Lew Rockwell's blog. Everyone of us who sees this should be be very, very, angry. Pass this info on to your friends and family. Wake some people up!
We are truly being robbed.
Keep it up Occupy Fairbanks. This has got to be shown to the People.
Chart on the government/business Fascist connection.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Alaska Senator Murkowski defends her vote for the Detention Act

Or at least she tries to. Pretty pathetic. I want you to see how the header of her letter tells us how "wise" our representatives are.
PHFFFT!
Actually the header of her letter makes me want to puke.
Then in her second paragraph she tell us, the Citizens, that we just don't understand and don't take our security seriously enough. We are basically stupid, and thank God these people are there to "govern" us pathetic folks.

What an arrogant, elitist person. Actually I think she is a treacherous *CENSORED* traitor but what do I know?
Here is her letter, in the newsminer.
Get on there and comment and let her know what we think!!

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Maybe the first American to be held indefinitely....or should be

See this story here to see what I mean. Since Holder has given assistance to terrorists, then I nominate him to be the first American to be held under S.1867.
If it was you, do you think for one minute you would still be walking free?
I'm sure his excuses are just as good for this as the whole "Fast and Furious" insanity. Again, the good 'ol FBI trying to stop terrorists by aiding and abetting them.
Eric Holder

They want us to remember this:
and I agree, we SHOULD.

Repeat after me.......


I got this from the "Arctic Patriot" blog.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

The big O to sign detention bill into law

Well, foregoing party politics, for the good of all Americans, the house and the senate agree, and the white house is expected to sign the bill, see it here.
That's nice. After watching the repub presidential debate tonight, I'd say all but one guy there will gladly put it to use.
It sure makes me feel safer, and I will sleep better at night knowing this is happening now, the use of predator UAV's on Americans, read that story here. Actually, google that story, there are a few good differing views.
Just found this story on it here: drones, coming soon over a home near you?
I wonder when they are going to make us REALLY safe and start employing the UAV's with these in the U.S.A.:
You know you're safe when you go in the backyard for a BBQ with the kids and see this happening:


"Look kids, someone is being protected!"


I know, I know, silly silly alarmist Josh, it can't happen here.

Go back to your football game.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Occupy Fairbanks braces for fines.

Pressure mounts on the Occupy Fairbanks folks. They are looking at stiff penalties, up to and at least $50. lol
See the story in the news miner here.
Keep it up guys, I'll donate $50. The state claims they are damaging the grass. Seriously, that's what our money is stolen for, to give people jobs to tell us that these guys are killing grass that is under 8 inches of snow in ground that has been frozen 3 feet deep for a month.
It's a wonder more folks in this borough don't do some peaceful defiance of other ordinances, what do you have to lose? All they can do is fine you $50? Hah!  And that's too much for people to risk? I know there are plenty of ordinances that folks gripe about every day here, well these guys are paving the way, one way, of how to get your point across, and they have proven they can't do a dang thing to you. Come on you conservatives, you going to let these "commies" show you up on standing for our Rights? Put on the song, have you been to jail for justice and get out there and occupy yourself!

Rotten laws stay on the books till folks with guts defy it!

Michael Anderson update.

He has been released. That's all I know for now, he will be getting back to town tonight. That's good enough for me, for now.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Mike Anderson

Michael had his hearing today, a week after his arrest. Still no charges. He was not released and no bail was allowed. He will be flown to Anchorage in cuffs and made to testify at a grand jury. He was promised, (insert very loud laughing here) that he will be released afterwards and will be free to go.

Uh-huh.


A must read.

It's all over but the rounding up.

 I am sure you are going to love this video. Just to get rid of any remaining doubts.



Good to know in this struggling economy that there looks to be quite a few job openings coming up.


Sunday, December 11, 2011

Fire in the head, peace in the heart

We've received quite a bit of traffic and comments lately for obvious reasons (read down the blog for more info). I thank the many readers for the supportive and informative comments. Some of the comments however have been disturbingly violent. I will remind our readers that if we desire to really change society, we are going to have to raise the moral standard of society, starting with ourselves, then going outward to the people we know.

This is real work. This is hard work. This will take time.

The means we use will determine what ends we achieve. If we desire peaceful and prosperous ends, then we must only pursue peaceful means. Violent means cannot achieve peaceful ends. This is true without exception. Peace exists in the absence of violence, not because of it and certainly not in its presence. This is in fact the myth of the state, that violence can create peace and order. It cannot and we must reject this myth by being peaceful ourselves.

Below are a few of my favorite quotes regarding this topic. These are the things I think about every day when I wake up and ask myself "how am I going to live today?" You may or may not choose to take them to heart, but they are the driving force behind every conscious action I take.

The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism.
-Murray Rothbard

Acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved.
-Seraphim of Sarov

Fire in the head, peace in the heart.
-Samael

I will also ask our readers to take the time to watch Leonard Read's excellent presentation: "How to Advance Liberty"

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Are you a terrorist?

Today on the show, there was a disagreement of what a terrorist is according to the Federal government and whether or not those definitions could be used to detain indefinitely American citizens that fit those definitions.

The question is, Are you a terrorist?

Senator Rand Paul was not grandstanding when he gave a definition of who the Federal government considers potential terrorist. He not only inferred, but flat out said that S.1867, because of the vagueness of the bill, could be used to indefinitely detain American citizens that fall under the guise of a potential terrorist. What was he referring to in particular? Well, you can check this link out, FBI "communities against terrorism" list.
This is a real list, my brother has gotten a similar one sent to his store by the ATF.
There is also the MIAC report. This spreads the wealth, so to speak. Do you have a Gadsden flag? Terrorist!
And then there is this story, where federal agents are trying to get information on people who store food.

There are other "lists" that DHS and the FBI have on potential terrorists. They include every last one of you.

Watch again Rand Paul question Sen. McCain on S.1867 here.  McCain had every opportunity to mock Rand Paul and call him an alarmist nut job, but he didn't. In fact, when questioned if this bill would authorize for American citizens who might be considered terrorist to be detained indefinitely, McCain flatly said," Well, I think this is what Americans want." This is DIRECTLY AFTER Rand Paul gives a definition of what a terrorist suspect is.
So happy days are over.
This is not a fantasy story.
These folks are not Mary Poppins.

You are dealing with this:

Actually, that picture is kind of old, they have updated a bit:

 
These actions are put into effect incrementally, to boil the frog slowly so to speak. Even my little girls can play connect the dots. These people are showing us the dots, connecting them for us, and we still want to hide our heads in the sand, saying no they won't and they are screaming "Yes we can"?  You can't say they lack good faith, they are giving us fair warning.
You must ask yourself and be willing to answer honestly, not with your definition, but with the government's: "Am I a Terrorist?"

Friday, December 9, 2011

Saturday 12/10/2011 - Radio Show + Meet Occupy Fairbanks at Noon

Be sure to tune into 660 KFAR tomorrow at 10 am Alaska time for Patriots Lament radio. Listen live on the web here: LISTEN LIVE

We will be discussing Tuesday's events, and the aftermath of it, along with some very pertinent questions that have yet to be answered.

Also tomorrow there will be an "Open Carry" rally at Veteran's Memorial park starting at 12:00 noon. The local Occupy Fairbanks guys, who we have found to be very solid individuals, are inviting everyone to join them in this; tea party, patriots, whatever, let's quit letting ourselves be divided and stand in unity for a change for our RIGHTS as a People.

Here's what Occupy Dave said about the event:
The event starts at noon tomorrow at the park. We're calling it a "come learn about all your liberties and open carry event." The main focus will be on discussing and educating people about the Bill of Rights and the illustrative open expression of the second amendment. While the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of our inherent liberties (it says so right there in #9) the Amendments are a good start.
See you there!

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Individual Liberty themed American founders' quotes

Back to top. This has been given renewed meaning these last days. Thanks again David.


Just put this together tonight. Josh's kids recorded some of the stronger quotes from early American thinkers. I just put a slideshow over it (with my own anti-state inclinations). Let me know what you think.


The superficial appearance of being right

Today I met with Occupy Fairbanks Dave for coffee. Upon sitting down, he pushed a book across the table and told me to read one paragraph.

Here it is for your benefit:
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

Here is the rest: Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Do the federal government's actions even have appearance of being right anymore? Oh how far we have fallen.

Also, isn't it interesting that an Occupy organizer is reading common sense and is deeply moved by it while some (certainly not all) "conservatives" go on various forms of media and tell us to bow down and obey? Isn't that strange?

"In the United States, we don't much govern at gunpoint"

From the LewRockwell.com Blog

"In the United States, we don't much govern at gunpoint," babbled Judge James Zagel while sentencing Illinois’ former Thief-in-Chief Rod Blagojevich, to 14 years in prison. "We require willing ... participation.”

That would explain the battalions of armed cops stalking among us, those threatening letters prospective jurors receive, cowed passengers submitting to sexual assault at airports, and the 2 million inmates, most of them political prisoners rather than actual criminals like Rod, currently languishing in stir, among other atrocities.

Isn’t a judge who’s clearly bonkers grounds for a mistrial? Gee whilikers, Zagel, get some help: you’re way out of touch with reality.


Some of us are becoming intimately familiar with how they "don't govern much at gunpoint." It's time to bury these myths. Santa Claus isn't real. The tooth fairy isn't real. And government is not a peaceful or voluntary institution. It exists only through violent predation on the peaceful and voluntary economic actions of its milk cows. It is starting to view us as beef cows.

Update

Using "procedural" crookedness, (to me, anyway) the Feds are now able to hold Michael until next Monday. So much for the arraignment and bail hearing he has the Right to within 24 hours.
We will keep an update here, of course, as things unfold in this mess.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

The Question

EDIT: I have been told by some people who know, that Don Young would be the best guy to contact regarding this. He's the most outspoken of all the people listed here for sure, so if you are going to focus your efforts, I'd encourage you to focus them towards calling his office.

For those of you who are looking for something to "do" regarding the unjust actions taken by the FBI yesterday (in particular, the ones in Fairbanks) here are some people to address your grievances to.

1. Contact the Alaska Delegation in D.C.
Don Young - 1-866-990-5979 or 202-225-5765
Lisa Murkowski - 202-224-6665
Mark Begich - 202-224-3004


2. Contact the Fairbanks Delegation in Juneau and the Governor

Ask any/all of the following state representatives/governor the following question: "Who has jurisdiction in the State of Alaska?" Do not accept a cop-out answer. We know the answer to this already, but make them admit it. Smash the myth of state sovereignty or make them stand up and assert it.

Sean Parnell - http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell/contact/email-the-governor.html

Joe Thomas - Senator_Joe_Thomas@legis.state.ak.us
456-8161
Joe Paskvan - Senator_Joe_Paskvan@legis.state.ak.us
451-4347
John Coghill - Senator_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us
488-1546


Bob Miller - Representative_Bob_Miller@legis.state.ak.us
452-6084
David Guttenberg - Representative_David_Guttenberg@legis.state.ak.us
456-8172
Scott Kawasaki - Representative_Scott_Kawasaki@legis.state.ak.us
456-7423
Steve Thompson -Representative_Steve_Thompson@legis.state.ak.us
452-1088
Tammie Wilson -Representative_Tammie_Wilson@legis.state.ak.us
488-0857

Who has jurisdiction Mr. Parnell? Do you? Be honest.

I have added the reps phone #, please call, call, call.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

More info from the news minus

Here is the story on the news minus here.

Notice the feds are saying he wasn't arrested. HAHA so getting hauled off in cuffs isn't being arrested? What, they just want to have tea and he can go? The comments will make you puke, more people defending the feds.

It won't happen in America, yeah, well it just did.

This morning while I was working on a bid for a job, my phone quit working. I tried it a few more times and then thought about it for a minute and then asked my wife, is your phone working? It wasn't.
So I sat and waited.
Then they came.
I watched them scatter.
My wife came running down the stairs yelling, "Josh, there are a bunch of men surrounding our house and they have guns!!"
I have 8 children, all of them watching the scene unfold before their eyes. Dozens of agents wearing body armor and carrying machine guns, swarm around our house.
I think over my options, (there is only one, they kill kids) and I walk to the door, and yell loud enough for the thugs outside and my family inside to hear, "It's the FBI , don't be scared, just be quiet and sit down!" I open the door and am looking at Michael Anderson's wife. They have her in front of them, between us, and she is crying.
"How can I help you?"
"Mr. Bennett, we are here for Michael Anderson!"
"Do you have a warrant?"
They walk right in. My mind is screaming to demand to see the warrant, when I am told, "Mr. Bennett, we don't want any trouble, and I don't want to frighten your children."  He's a little late for that. He ignores my request about the warrant, and proceeds to find and arrest Michael Anderson. I stand in my living room and watch the agents running around here to there. I look at one who is holding his rifle next to a car. He looks at me for a second, then moves behind the car and continues to watch. I look at my 6-year-old twin girls; they are scared to death. I hold my hands out far from my sides for "them" to see.
Michael is brought upstairs, his 4-year-old son is screaming at the agents, "Don't take my dad, don't take my dad!" I ask what he is being charged with, and am told he is being held as a witness. "You guys arrest your witnesses now?" I ask about the warrant again. But it's done. They go out the door. They put Mike in the car, and spend a few more minutes running around the house for some reason, guns in the open.
Now they are gone.
One of the twins asks me, "Poppa, why did they come here with guns?" I say they were scared.
"Why poppa? Why are they scared of us, we don't hurt people, and we wouldn't hurt them". I tell her they just wanted to come and get Mike, and it's ok because now they are gone. She says," I know why they came and took Mr. Anderson, Poppa, because they know he didn't do anything wrong, and they don't want him to tell other people". HA! Out of the mouths of babes. She is right, one agent could have come and actually served the warrant, and produced the same outcome. That must not be enough fun for them. I talked to my older sons...were they afraid? Yes. One said," Dad, there were guys running all over with guns, how could we not be?" I told them it's ok. I was too.
I hope they enjoyed terrorizing my family.
Thugs.
Criminals in costumes.


I just talked with Michael from the jail. He was never shown a warrant, even after asking numerous times for it. He is not being charged with anything. He was arrested as a "witness" and has a bail hearing in the morning. For what? He's been out of jail for over a month, obviously he is not a threat, and isn't going anywhere.

I guess that's my story for now. I seriously think if I hear another person tell me "it can't happen here," I may sock him in the nose.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Occupy Fairbanks + Call of the Week!

Here's the latest show from this last Saturday. It was a lot of fun having the Occupy guys in studio with us. It was fun to show that far from being card carrying communists, they are constitution carrying Americans who believe in the rights of the individual and oppose the police state that has grown up around us. It's long past time to set petty differences aside and stand in unity for our rights, which as Dave pointed out in the show are ours by nature of our humanity. Not by permission. Not because of a piece of paper.

This in striking contrast to a few of our callers, including our Call of the Week caller Randy. Randy introduced us to a new legal theory that I have termed the "Bad Dude Theory of Justice" or BDTOJ. The crux of this theory is that some people can kill whoever they want whenever they want. This was the first time we had a caller advocate outright murder on air. Well done Randy. Bold move. Most people would not be so brazen in calling for bloodshed of innocents who have not been indicted, charged, tried, or convicted. I think we all learned a lot about what so many in the Religious Right stand for. Innocent blood covering their hands.

I am still looking for that verse where Jesus called for this. If you can find it, please clue me in by posting in the comments section below.

Patriot's Lament - December 3, 2011 - Occupy Fairbanks joins us in the studio


Call of the Week! Randy and the "Bad Dude Theory of Justice" (BDTOJ)

Sunday, December 4, 2011

To the "conservatives"

Just a little note to folks out there who claim to be for freedom and rights, who claim to know the founding fathers' mind in reference to Liberty.
I know who you are, and so do you: the same ones who are bellowing out against the OWS folks, the same "constitutional conservatives" who spew supposed words of freedom, but actually know nothing of it. Who scream of their 2nd amendment Rights and crouch, kneel and whimper anytime someone stands up to the government. Yeah, the guys who talk about the "line in the sand." 72 hour go bags, but won't even resist the most minuscule dictate from the state, even when it has no power to enforce.
I say you know nothing of Freedom, Liberty, or the Revolutionaries in this country from the past. If you did, you would stand up for ANYONE who stands against the government, and demands their Rights.
You would be the ones calling on the crown to "lock up these insane anarchists, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Henry"! "Why we have laws that must be obeyed!"

Chickens. That's all you are, blowhard loud-mouthed chickens.

Specifically, I am talking about the occupy Fairbanks folks, and those of you who want to see the government crush them. Shame on you. Our Founders would be the first to put you outside their circle. They actually knew of you and mocked you before you were even born.

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to always be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all." -- Thomas Jefferson

Don't you people know when you won't stand up for another man's Rights, you are destroying your own?
Shall I find a quote from another founding father that says that, or will you just take my word for it?

Pull your head out, this is reality, today, in the United States of America

We had a caller yesterday, who refused to believe the senate would pass a bill that targets Americans, and went on to show his racist views when he said he had no problems with murder, as long as it wasn't a U.S. citizen that was killed.
His pie in the sky la  la land views just do not face up to reality. Sen. Rand Paul's amendment to S.1867 that would specifically protect Americans from being detained indefinitely without due process, was rejected by the U.S. senate this week.
We here are not alarmist. We aren't living in fear; we choose to face reality. Facing it is the only way you will survive it. Not seeing reality is actually living in fear, and we are called to not live in fear.
The Republican party today is truly the Fascist party of America, no ifs, ands or buts.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

Choose to ignore what is happening today at your own peril. I seriously believe some will refuse to believe it even as they are hauled off to a camp.
Please watch the following video, this is a former member of the Reagan administration, telling us the truth, and about what is happening to you NOW. The Constitution of the United States has been nullified by the U.S. senate, by the same people who swore an oath to uphold and defend it, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.They have become themselves domestic enemies of the Constitution and the people of the united States. 
Figure it out.

But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
John Adams

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy

On this week's show, we ran out of time to mention Murray Rothbard's excellent analysis of the connection of financial institutions and war. Here are links to the book in print, online, in .pdf for download, and in epub format for your e-reader.

This will be the book for our next Campaign for Liberty Book Discussion.

From mises.org
Murray N. Rothbard Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy

This fiery monograph shows a side of Murray Rothbard not seen in his theoretical treatise: his ability to employ "power elite" analysis to understand the relationship between money, power, and war.

Rather than allow the left to dominate this approach to history; Rothbard shows how wealthy elites are only able to manipulate world affairs via their connection to state power. Those mainstream historians might deride Rothbard's history as a "conspiracy" approach; Rothbard himself is only out to show that world affairs are not random historical forces but the consequence of choices and paths chosen by real human beings.

Here he gives the grim details of how a network of banks, bond dealers, and Wall Street insiders have both favored war and profited from it.

The contents of this volume include a long and thoughtful introduction by Anthony Gregory and an afterword by Justin Raimondo.


Get a print copy
Read online in your browser
Download the .PDF
Download the .epub

Promises of Security

In a state-run society the government promises you security. But it's a false promise predicated on the idea that the opposite of security is risk.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The opposite of security is insecurity, and the only way to overcome insecurity is to take risks.

The gentle government that promises to hold your hand as you cross the street refuses to let go on the other side.

-Theodore Forstmann

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

The Chain of Obedience

Power exists only when there is obedience.



Humans exist in perfect freedom. Obedience is a choice. Government is therefore an illusion.
...
It is daft to moan about crime. Government cannot stop a thief, a lunatic, or a kid playing with matches. It took the Nazis twenty years to flatter and frighten the German nation into collective obedience -- and still someone shoved a bomb under the Fuhrer's conference table. The state does not and cannot triumph by coercion. Ayn Rand was correct: Evil requires the sanction of the victim.
...
The practical enterprise of coercive government is to take life, liberty, and property for the enrichment and satisfaction of government officials. Motives are another story. Tyrants always think well of themselves and explain their activities as some kind of public service. Hitler certainly did.

-Wolf DeVoon

Read DeVoon's complete essay: Government is a Quack Faith Healer

Read also - Etienne de la Boeite's revolutionary work The Politics of Obedience

We're after power and we mean it.

From Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged
"We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them...you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden."

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

The Senate passes S.1867

You had better figure out what these stand for:









Or learn from History and get out while you can:










No excuses!











Tyrant senators pass S.1867, 93 to 7. Welcome American, to the battlefield






The mere fact you are reading this makes you a terror suspect, and don't kid yourself that you are not.

Sen. Rand Paul gives the warning of S.1867.


Occupy Yourself!

Here's last Saturday's show. We talked about the ongoing battle between the Occupy Fairbanks group and the Borough concerning the right of the protesters to continue to peacefully protest the fascism that exists in our current system. Respect to the Occupy group for not backing down!

We then discuss the responsibility each of us has as an individual to prepare for the future. No excuses.

The Failure of Democracy

I've been working on piecing together some posts on institutional failures. These are not failures of particular individuals, but instead inherent structural failures of the institutions that are supposed to deliver us from the realities of life. Last week I posted on the failure of any war in the 20th century to "secure freedom" and the empirical fact that the nations that participated in the 20th century wars were less free after each war (this is true of "both" sides in each of these wars).

Today, we will explore democracy. Instead of looking at it from a moral standpoint by discussing the legitimacy of mob rule, I'd like to discuss it in a value free way. In other words, regardless of what you think about individual rights vs group rights (if they can even exist), let's simply ask the question: has it worked? Does the institution of democracy allow people to be more free or more prosperous relative to the alternatives?

In the video below, Hans Hoppe outlines the logical line of thought that answers this question with a resounding "no." He also notes that historians simply look at empirical data points and assume correlation is causation. 20th century rich, 19th century poor. 20th century democracy, 19th century monarchy. Monarchy bad. Democracy good. But of course, if we are intellectually honest we have to admit that correlation is not causation, we have to admit that by every economic metric taxation was lower in the 19th century than the 20th century, we have to admit that freedom of mobility was significantly greater in the 19th century (tho the means of travel were not as convenient), we have to admit that war was waged on a profoundly lesser scale in the 19th century ... continental Europe's first "peaceful century" since its emergence after the decline of Rome. And on and on and on.

Hoppe provides more insights here:


But, you might say, the American colonies were better off without the King! We waged a war for freedom (???) and this is why America was so prosperous! Could it be that America was prosperous only to the extent that colonists could head west into the "anarchy" of the wilderness and escape the new American State? Could it be that this is why this prosperity has been in decline since the last frontiers became absorbed by the Kingless tyranny of American Democracy (which retained all of the power of the king, but simply placed it in the hands of temporary caretakers)?

If you are interested in challenging the mythology of the American Revolution "freeing the colonies" read on here: Tricked on the Fourth of July, by Gary North

What about when Jesus, er, Ronald Reagan was President? Republicans praise him for his tax cuts (and ignore the fact that he raised the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years). Democrats deride him for his tax cuts (and ignore the fact that he saved all their favorite social programs by raising the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years). Harry Browne on the other hand was literate. Using this dangerous skill of reading and combining it with some simple analytics and critical thinking, he found that under Reagan, the national tax burden increased by 65%.
Reagan is known as a tax-cutter, and the term "Reaganomics" implies dramatic cuts in tax rates. But after pushing through a tax cut to be implemented over three years, he cooperated during the second year in the largest tax increase in American history up to that time. The nation's annual tax load increased by 65% during his time in office.

See also: Gary North's analysis of Reagan

So this would mean that Republican praise and Democrat derision are both misplaced. But I think paying attention to the man is a waste of time and energy. How about the institution itself? What if there are fundamental structural problems with the state itself and specifically the democratic state? If these problems are structural and/or institutional, what does this say about the ability to change outcomes simply by putting the "right people" in office?

Think about it. I will offer some of my thoughts on that tomorrow.

Monday, November 28, 2011

DOJ seizes 150 websites for selling "conterfeit goods"

Wonder when they'll seize the Federal Reserve site for counterfeiting money? These little exercises are no doubt a test for public tolerance of government meddling in the internet to see how much control they can take and how quickly they can accomplish it.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69212.html

This seems to be aimed squarely at the agora. What defines a counterfeit good? One not registered, trademarked, or otherwise traded under the purview of the state.

I love their cute little logo, "Protection is our trademark."

By the way, so-called intellectual property is bull because it requires the initiation of force against peaceful parties in order to be upheld. Read Stephan Kinsella's excellent book: Against Intellectual Property for an in depth analysis. Or, watch his lecture on IP.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Canada in for a housing collapse?

Yet another very interesting interview on Jeff Berwick's Anarchast. Chris Horlacher discusses the state of the mortgage market in Canada. Definitely worth watching.

Well, John McCain and Lyndsay Graham are good conservatives, here to PROTECT YOU!!

HAHA, here we go again, the dead elephant party (credit to AP for that nametag) is out to protect us from, well, from everything you or they can possibly imagine. Senator Graham states that this law finally puts it on the books that the American homeland is the battlefield. Where has he been? A lot of us have known that for a long, long time.
Or does he think this is just a nifty flag?

S.1867

This bill was drafted in part by Sen.John McCain, along with his good friend, Sen.Carl Levin. Good to see bipartisanship, that's what the American people want right?
I've looked through the actual bill last night, and while one part of the bill exempts "American Citizens," the secretary of defense can waive that if he deems it is a "national security interest";, we already know the President can kill you if he decides.
 Gingrich told us the other night that this war wasn't going to end in our lifetimes. I wonder if he included himself in that? The greatest part was the thunderous applause he got when he called for a more powerful, more reaching Patriot Act.
Goodbye Posse Comitatus, goodbye Habeas Corpus.

Goodbye America, whatever is left of you.

molṑn labé

Well, if we don't vote in good conservatives, the commies will take over...


Here is a good story from Tom Woods, you have got to click the link on his page that has the whole quote from Charles kraut-ur hammer.

Never trust the Neo-Cons!


Friday, November 25, 2011

The Myth of War (and "Fighting for Freedom")

In this video Stefan Molyneaux asks a very interesting question of the interventionists who would seek to use war as a means of "freeing people more quickly."

If you're not going to be willing to go up against your own government (and get killed as you inevitably will, which is why I don't suggest it, cause it won't work). If you're not willing to go and do it, how the ... how the hell can you make that decision for somebody else and say, "Yes, it was worth killing all those people beacause it ended the tyranny more quickly."?


In addition, he asks the following question of every major war of the 20th century ... "More free or less free afterwards?" Of course we know the answer, but for some reason keep believing that the military "fights for our freedom" against all evidence otherwise.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Happy Thanksgiving

So I was going to write a post about the Pilgrims and Bradford and Miles Standish and all the misinformation we get about them.
Meh.
Happy Thanksgiving. We spend enough time talking about what's wrong, but we all have something to be thankful for.
So think on that, and enjoy the day.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Hi, I am here to protect you, bow to me!

To all those who think Obama is the antichrist and anything is better than him, ( I had a conversation with a friend yesterday who went off on me that "I don't care who it is,  I'm voting for him as long as they beat Obama, no one could be worse") I would beg to differ. Obama, who I despise, is a milk toast girl scout compared to the fascist that wants to be your next POTUS. And "O" is bad? Does anyone out there remember "W"? The father of the "Patriot act"? The man who decimated our Liberty? (Yes I know, we are our own protectors of Liberty).
The conservative fascist party of America has plans for you, and Liberty has no place in it. You weak fools, don't you know that we are going to protect you whether you like it or not? The Grinch said, (Newt) This isn't going to end in our lifetime. Fear the terrorist you fools! They are going to kill you! Turn a blind eye while I molest your women, and fondle your children! It is all for the good of the state!
These guys don't even like the Patriot Act; they think it is weak. They want racial profiling, and a stronger police state, all in the name of "security." Sorry, guys, I will take my chances with the Islamic radicals. I know you not only want to kill me, you actually have the ability.
I am a sad man. Sad that my fellow man not only allows this to happen, he applauds it. Sad that my fellow man is willing to give up all for some jack booted fascist protection.
You are going to fall, America. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The terror in your borders will be the nightmare stories of great-grandfathers to come. You are a slave, America. And your master will demand blood.
I hope the remnant will stay true to Liberty, and will be the Light guiding the way from the ashes.

Gingrich wants to protect you, idiot.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Ron Paul

 
While I don't have any hope in a "political" solution to what we face today, I sure do love this guy.


Sound Money: David Giessel on The Michael Dukes Show

Back in August Michael Dukes graciously invited me to join him in the studio to discuss sound money and the history of money in America. Here is the audio recording for your enjoyment.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Michael Maloney explains how our money works

Tonight I had a discussion with a friend about how debt based money is borrowed into existence in a way that is mathematically impossible to re-pay ... and then how the fractional reserve money multiplier exacerbates this impossibility which speeds the demise of this mathematically unsustainable system.

At the Casey Summit "When Money Dies" Michael Maloney gave the keynote presentation and explained this system better than I've ever seen it done using some cool PowerPoint graphics. He has used this before in other presentations and I've included a YouTube video of it below.

The most important takeaway from this is that there is no way to "save" the current system. It is impossible. It was impossible from day one. At best the day of reckoning can be pushed back (and consequently made that much worse).

I do not necessarily agree with his use of technical chart analysis or his characterization of wealth cycles, but his understanding and explanation of the current money system is second to none. Enjoy!



A follow up to the previous "what if" post by Larken Rose

That question, (is it ever ok to shoot a cop) even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.
In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder have been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.
People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country,” their OWN “government,” and their OWN “law enforcers,” in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.
Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about “working within the system”–the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that ”the system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should “illegally” resist–that if they want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,” which is what anyone who resists “legal” injustice is automatically labelled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so “illegally”–i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.
If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.
Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop ”just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.
Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.
There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of ”government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The message from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without probable cause … but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”
Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it? "You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us.” (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. “Department of Justice.”) “You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you.” (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians about that one.) “You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a ’plea agreement’), you can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a ”right”–what does the term “right” even mean–if you have an obligation to allow jackboots to violate your so-called “rights”? It makes the term absolutely meaningless.
To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL ”government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.
Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called ”law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow ”government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.
Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called ”government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

What if?

Most people I know would say that if a person breaks into your home in the middle of the night, you would have the right to defend your home. I know I sure think you have the right to defend your home.

Now, what if the person breaking into your home is wearing a blue (or black) costume and has a badge?

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Soooooupercommitteeee

For some reason I have been watching the news on the supercommittee and all the bull coming from both sides. (I say "for some reason" because a friend of mine told me that every minute you spend on worthless things is a minute you don't spend on things that matter). And I can't think of anything more worthless than congress.
These idiots are not even willing to cut one fiat dollar from their spending. NOT ONE! The only solution they have is to steal more wealth from us. Where does this stop? Do we just sit by until they pillage every cent we produce? What choice do we have? If they decide to take every dime you make, what will stop them? I can hear the local preacher, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"! "and unto god what is god's!" Yes! Bow to your god. If he claims a thousand cattle on the hill, he obviously owns them. Uh huh.
I love the biblical story where the pharisees ask the disciples,"Doesn't your master pay the temple tax?" They are quick to say, "YES!" Jesus, I am sure, rolled His eyes and told them, basically so they would not be liars, "Go and catch a fish and take a coin from its mouth and pay the tax!" But do we owe it?
If a bunch of crooks claim everything you own, do you owe it?
How patient we are, and foolish. We vote for a gang of fools, and expect great things to come from them, even though their track record tells us otherwise. So what will the supercommittee give us?
Nothing.
What will they take from us?
Well, that depends on you and me, doesn't it?
One of my sons asked me about the stamp tax today. He asked,"How much was it, and was this the tax that started the Revolution"?
I answered with the truth, and we talked about the tea tax, but I was not looking forward to the followup question,"That's all it was? How much do we pay now?"

Indeed, how much do we pay now.