Law abiding citizen

I am sick of the term "law abiding citizen" and I am especially sick of it when used in reference to gun rights and gun control.
What does having the Right to defend yourself have to do with some State deciding whether or not you deserve that right based on how law abiding you are to its edicts and proclamations?
If the State says that guns are now illegal, and to own one would be to break the law, are you going to be a law abiding citizen then? What if the State, which is nothing more than a gang of thieves, is unethical; am I still supposed to be a law abiding citizen?
My Right to defend myself, my family, and my property predates the State. The 2nd amendment didn't invent the Right to be armed, it was already known that one had the Right to be armed.
What gives an illegitimate State the Right to say that only "law abiding citizens" can be armed? Abiding by what laws? Whose laws? The State's arbitrary law that merely is intended to enslave us?
Quit using that term. It's another way of saying law abiding serfs.
 Boot licking slaves.
You think when the colonist revolted against the King he thought that they were law abiding citizens? Should they have been disarmed because of it? Should they ever have been allowed to be armed?
Following the regulations, statutes and political laws of a State has nothing to do with the Right to be Armed.
Our Right to be armed is specifically to resist an overpowering and corrupt State; secondly, for personal self- defense, and lastly to be able to feed ourselves by hunting.
We know why Patrick Henry cherished the rifle.
An armed people.
Not a "Law abiding citizen".

Lew Rockwell

I thought I would put up a donation site for Lew Rockwell's LRC.

You can find it here.

Part 2: John Locke

Rothbard puts it this way, "If Liberty found its martyr in Algernon Sidney, it found its elaborated systematic defense in the 'Essay concerning Civil Government' of the noted philosopher, John Locke."
He goes on to say, " The Essay, we now know, was written in the early 1680s at about the same time as Sidney's Discourses; it was therefore written when Locke too was a Revolutionary plotter against Stuart Rule, and NOT, as had been assumed, as a conservative ex post facto rationale for the Glorious Revolution."
Locke starts his theory with the state of nature, where each man is able to maintain himself by mixing his labor with his hands. This gave the "mixer" ownership of land that was before unowned or unused. It becomes his private property, which he is able to sell, trade, or use to whatever benefit or detriment he chooses. Basically the fruits of your labor are yours.
The owner also has a Right to defend his property, which is now beyond just his own person, and this was the rationale that Locke used for the purpose of government, that governments are instituted among men to protect property. If the government fails to protect or, even worse, becomes destructive to private property, it is the Right of the people to remove that government, since the only reason men consent to its existence is merely to protect their property.
Locke put it this way, "Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war against the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence."
Locke's first Treatise was written to refute Sir Robert Filmer's "Natural Power of Kings" that claimed the absolute Monarch was ordained by God, saying Adam was the first Monarch ordained by God. Locke attacked this theory, and claimed if it were true then Adam's lineage would be the only rightful heirs to any kingdom. Locke also pointed out that God gave Adam dominion over the animals and land, NOT other humans.
We need to remember what was going on here--the King had been deposed, and some folks wanted to reinstate a monarch. Others did not. I think we can see that the ones who wanted to reinstate a monarch were the ones who would directly benefit from having one, a benefit of both finance, position and power. Of course the local serf doesn't benefit from having a monarch; Kings don't normally give land grants and positions of power and wealth to serfs plowing fields or working in textile mills. He gives gifts to his buddies, the ones who either help him into power, or the ones who help keep him in power.
 The revolutionary John Locke, on the other hand, sought to give people power over their own lives, and for them to keep the rewards of their labor, not to have it arbitrarily taken at whatever whim the monarch or his governors might have. He simply stated that men ought to be free, and any government that men agree to, can only exist at the pleasure of the society. And any violation by that government made itself not only useless but criminal.
Locke had a huge influence on Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence," and some even accused Jefferson of plagiarism. I don't really see it that way myself; nothing is new under the sun. If we can't look to our past great thinkers and expand upon them, what good are they? What good is it for us to discuss and pursue Liberty if our posterity cannot use what we find to progress even further?
Back to the point, and I will try to expand on this later: Revolution was first and had to be first thought of to be a Right of the people before they could actually revolt. Locke showed that this was not a bad thing, and that  people will normally not revolt until the abuses of the government finally become too much to bear. What the 17th century thinkers changed was the actual thought, that the people had not only a Right but a Duty to throw off the chains of oppression brought by any government, even a King that claimed a Divine right to rule. Our American Heritage of Secession and Revolution had to first be justified against thousands of years of thinking to the contrary.  And this thought was simply that the lowly man had just as much Right as the King himself, to be free to do as he pleased.
More from Locke; In all States and Conditions the true remedy of Force without Authority, is to oppose Force to it. The use of force without Authority, always puts him that uses it into a state of War, as the Aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly.

But if they, who say it lays a foundation for Rebellion, mean that it may occasion Civil Wars, or Intestine Broils, to tell the People they are absolved from Obedience, when illegal attempts are made upon their Liberties or Properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those, who were their Magistrates, when they invade their Properties contrary to the trust put in them; and that therefore this Doctrine is not to be allow'd, being so destructive to the Peace of the World. They may as well say upon the same ground, that honest Men may not oppose Robbers or Pirates, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such Cases, it is not to be charged upon him, who defends his own right, but on him, that invades his Neighbours. If the innocent honest Man must quietly quit all he has for Peace sake, to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be consider'd, what a kind of Peace there will be in the World, which consists only in Violence and Rapine; and which is to be maintain'd only for the benefit of Robbers and Oppressors. Who would not think it an admirable Peace betwixt the Mighty and the Mean, when the Lamb, without resistance, yielded his Throat to be torn by the imperious Wolf?

The progression of Revolutionary thought in the 17th century, Part 1

I have lately undertaken to read Algernon Sidney on government. ... As often as I have read it, and fumbled it over, it now excites fresh admiration [i.e., wonder] that this work has excited so little interest in the literary world. As splendid an edition of it as the art of printing can produce—as well for the intrinsic merit of the work, as for the proof it brings of the bitter sufferings of the advocates of liberty from that time to this, and to show the slow progress of moral, philosophical, and political illumination in the world—ought to be now published in America.
John Adams to  Thomas Jefferson in 1823.

Algernon Sidney (or Sydney in England) was one of the leading theorist in the Republican movement in 17th century England. (Note: This Republican movement or "Republicanism" which was a "Laisse Faire" and "Natural Right" movement has nothing to do with the Republican party in today's U.S. politics, which more closely resembles corporate fascism).
Sidney's importance was more or less his stress on the Right to Revolution, and his death was seen as kind of a martyrdom in the Republican/Libertarian movement, as he was beheaded by King Charles ll, and his "Discourse Concerning Government" was actually used against him in court, as witness against him.
To Sidney, revolution and freedom were the Right, and Duty of an oppressed people.
"Revolution to Sidney was not an evil but the people's great weapon for the overthrow of Tyranny and for exercising their Right to popular government. There was nothing sacred about governments, which on the contrary should be changed as required." (Murray Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty" Volume 2, chapter 33)

Sidney championed law as "written reason" and as defense of Life, Liberty, and Property: " If there be no other law in a kingdom than the will of a Prince, there is no such thing as Liberty; and 'tis impossible for a man to have a Right to lands and goods, if he have no Liberty, and enjoys his life at the pleasure of another, as it is to enjoy either when he is deprived of them."
Sidney believed that government basically had an agreement or contract with the governed, and if the government failed in its duties, it simply needed to be removed. He also believed the People could not be made to give up their freedom, nor could they be bound to the government by dead hands of the past.
When he was being led to execution, in his "Dying speech" he said, "God has left nations the Liberty of setting up governments as best please them."
Injustice, to Sidney, made a government illegal. "Swords were given to men that none be slaves, but such as knew not how to use them."
In conclusion to part 1, I will leave with this from Sidney," Let the danger be never so great, there is a possibility of safety whilst men have life, hands, arms, and courage to use them, but the people must certainly perish, who tamely suffer themselves to be oppressed, by the injustice, cruelty, and malice of an ill magistrate."

For more on Algernon Sidney, read Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty."

The Second Amendment Was Never About Personal Protection

By David Kramer from Lew Rockwell.com.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal protection. Owning a gun back in colonial times was like owning a knife and fork. The idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a gun would be as ridiculous back then as the idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a knife and fork would seem ridiculous to us today. In fact, a number of colonies had laws requiring one to own a gun.
The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia to fight Federal government tyranny. That being said, the FIRST sort of weapon to do that today would be an assault weapon, i.e., NOT a .38 caliber pistol. So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.
The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on.
Let's hear it for voluntaryism.
UPDATE: My libertarian friend David Sack sent me this:

"Someone at the office asked me, yesterday, what type of “arms” I thought the Second Amendment protects. The answer to that is those arms of the same caliber and quantity as the armed federal officers who come to your door have."

Say What?

So if you don't believe and regurgitate the police story, they will have you prosecuted? If you doubt or say anything contrary to "Their microphone" you will be hunted down? And prosecuted?
And the NRA wants these jokers to be at every school?
We don't need more State to fix the State. Come on, folks.
So is the 1st amendment null and void?

Gun control is gun violence

From Jim today:

If you advocate gun control, you are advocating gun violence...gun control IS gun violence.

"What you're advocating is, that the president should write on a piece of paper something that says, if you own one of these, you have to hand them over, and if you don't we're going to send men with guns to your house. Not just to take away your guns, (and by the way, they're going to have semi automatic rifles when they show up at your house) but to take you away and put you in a cage. Not because you did anything wrong, not because you threatened anybody, but because you owned a piece of hardware that the government didn't approve of. THAT IS GUN VIOLENCE! Every law is a threat backed by the ability and the willingness to use deadly force. The government isn't asking nicely. When they pass a gun law, they say, if you disobey this we put you in a cage. And we will use whatever level of force that it takes to get you in our custody and cage you, and if you resist, when we show up with guns, and you resist, we will shoot you. So if you're out there advocating gun control thinking that's peaceful and compassionate, think about what you're actually advocating. You're actually advocating that millions of people who haven't threatened or hurt anyone should be threatened with violence by men with guns for owning a thing...so, gun control is the euphemism for it, gun violence is what it actually is.

 

 

Larkin Rose

Patriot's Lament November 17, 2012: Cox Fallout/FBI lies!!

In this episode we, well, for some reason we get our episode cut off. Yes, we record and save all of our episodes and this one "blanked out," only the first 19 minutes recorded. Very odd. I am sure it is not because we bash the lying FBI and their stupid interview on the Michael Dukes show. NAHHHH, they wouldn't do that. I mean come on, a bunch of child-killing constitution-violating nazi thugs would lie and try to keep the truth from being told??? Figure it out for yourselves, the COX 241 case was a set up and a sham, and good folks, not to mention innocent children, are suffering to THIS DAY because of it. I hope you FBI agents can sleep well. Or not!!!  Do you have dreams of sugar plums and swastikas? You liars, you are the enemy of Liberty, wake up!! Stand with your fellow serfs and reject what you have become!!! Or be content with being our enemy, the State,

Patriot's Lament November 24, 2012: Freak Out and Dumbed Down

In this episode we discuss what would happen in an economic collapse. It would be nice to think folks would come together, but with so many relying on the State, we know that people are going to freak out.
In the second hour, we talk about how to educate ourselves for what is coming, and suggest some books and literature to enrich your lives.

Our Enemy, the State

When I heard about all those little kids getting gunned down, I was pretty saddened, to say the least.
It's sickening.
Reminded me of another reason my wife and I home school our kids. I hear the gun control folks foaming at the mouth, getting excited thinking their agenda might finally win the day. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste.
 When really the only way to stop public school shootings is to end public schools.

But then, I listened to Obama, and heard reports of his crocodile tears, and I listened to the governor of Connecticut, and heard how he was mourning. I listened to a chief of police, and how sad he was.

And I don't believe any of them.

These Statists, I would bet, didn't even blink when 30-40 young children were murdered by Our Enemy the State in Waco. Burned to death. Did any of these people speak up when 14-year-old Sammy Weaver was shot in the back by Our Enemy the State? Which of these spoke up when that little girl in Montana was severely burned when a flash bang grenade blew up in her face, thrown into her window by Our Enemy, the State? Are we to believe that these people, who not only allow, but promote Our Enemy the State's TSA "officers" degrading little boys and girls who merely wish to fly on a commercial airplane with their parents to go see grandma for Christmas are truly saddened by 20 little kids getting shot?
Do you believe Our Enemy the State's President cries when he finds out that 20-30 or more little kids get blown up by a drone missile? Weekly? Do you believe someone who is an official of Our Enemy the State who thinks the President has the authority to kill, is worried about some little kids? Do you think Our Enemy the State is saddened by little kids dying who happened to make it out of the womb alive?

I don't. I don't believe any of it. These people, Our Enemy the State, are murderers. They do not care about you. They are not there to protect you. They are the ruling class, and yours is to serve.
They dominate every aspect of your life, they claim your life, and the right to take that life.
What makes me more sick is to see the clamoring serfs begging Our Enemy the State to do something, like it's some benevolent god, looking out for the safety of its worshipers, like a mother hen, gathering her chicks under her wings to protect them from the hawk.

To save us from our enemies.

Rather, I say our enemy IS the State.

You won't hear any mainstream media, or "conservative" talk show hosts, talk about the fact that of all the school shootings in the last 10 years, the shooters have been on a prescribed medication, usually one that was given to them by Our Enemy the State's schools in the first place. No, we can't talk about the adulterous affair Our Enemy the State has with big pharma. We can't talk about the fact that all these shootings happen in "gun free zones."
Look to Our Enemy the State to make some hay off of the misery of these folks' dead children. Prepare for what "restrictions" they will put on us now to protect us, even more than we are protected.
Don't talk about the fact that the reason Our Enemy the State says we need them is to protect us, and they failed again to do so, miserably. Funny, if you go to where they hang out, (courts, state buildings) they sure as heck will make sure you don't have any way to harm THEM.

I don't want their protection, but our Enemy, the State, says if I don't accept their protection, and pay for it at the price they set, they will kill me.

 Perhaps someday they will anyway.

A Viper Lived in Johnny's House

A viper lived in Johnny's house, so
all in the family understood
that they must watch their steps although
the snake had not struck — they knew it could....

Read the rest here. 

Can you be pro-life, AND pro-war?

This article is fantastic. Perfect. Amazing. I suggest you read it, then read it again. You "pro-life" Christians need to ask yourselves these questions, and realize the world is seeing through your hypocrisy. And rejecting you for it.
Instead of listening to war-mongering "pastors" like Tim LaHaye, Bauer, and Hagee, read your bible!! Ask yourself, and be honest, really, what would Jesus do?
The answer is obvious. Christ isn't just against American abortions.
Get real.
 Modern industrial war, once unleashed, produces an instant Auschwitz for the unborn—that’s fact, not conjecture.
Mass abortions are the necessary and one hundred per cent inevitable consequence of modern war.
Morally, that which a person is certain will occur, if he or she makes a particular choice, represents a choice
for which he or she is responsible before God. A person cannot morally claim he or she does not intend the
abortions that are absolutely certain to take place, by claiming he or she only intends to preserve the mother’s
bodily health or the health of the body politic. Health is being preserved at the cost of knowingly and
willing killing in utero life.
So, where is the Church’s pro-life voice for the voice-less children in the womb in Iraq, who are daily being
chopped to pieces by military abortions? Or, is
abortion by war the great exception to the inviolable
right to life of the innocent child in utero? If so, how
many abortifacient military actions is a desert oil
field worth in the eyes of God? How many abortions
are justified to destroy non-existent WMDs? How
many does God permit in order to get rid of a two-bit dictator who sits on a black gold mine? How many? 1?
100? 1000? 10,000? Where are the pro-life protests of industrial high-tech war on the unborn?

Read the whole article here.

Patriot's Lament November 10, 2012: Majority Rule and Worth Your Time To Prepare

In this episode THE ELECTIONS ARE FINALLY OVER!!! And of course there is great weeping and gnashing of teeth that Obama has won yet again. But we point out, nothing would have changed would Romney have won. Do you think the national debt would have been fixed? We also ask, are you better off now than 4 years ago? Aaron and I are, much better off, and it has nothing to do with who is president of the U.S.
So people, make your life better, it's YOUR responsibility, not the State. If you rely on it, you will be no better off than the people in New York and New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy. Be a MAN. Prepare for what is coming and quit letting the State decide how your life will be. And all you "Revolutionaries," you are no different, you just want your king to rule. We want no kings.

One of my favorites

I literally tear up whenever I hear this song. There is a difference between the land that you love, and the State that claims it.

Choose.

 

1

My country, 'tis of thee,

Sweet land of liberty,

Of thee I sing;

Land where my fathers died,

Land of the pilgrims' pride,

From ev'ry mountainside

Let freedom ring!

2

My native country, thee,

Land of the noble free,

Thy name I love;

I love thy rocks and rills,

Thy woods and templed hills;

My heart with rapture thrills,

Like that above.

3

Let music swell the breeze,

And ring from all the trees

Sweet freedom's song;

Let mortal tongues awake;

Let all that breathe partake;

Let rocks their silence break,

The sound prolong.

Notice there are no references to the government, or the State. Not to Congress, not to the Supreme Court, not to a President.  We are a people whose heritage is Liberty. We may have forgotten, no doubt, but where else in the world do people say, "I have a Right! I am free to..."

Folks, we can and we should be free. Free from government abuse, free to keep the earnings of our toil, free to speak, free to keep, free to be.

Divorce yourself from the State. Don't worry yourself about what man is in "control." Is he really in control of you?  Who can rule over you? Who should? And who should you wish to rule over?

I wish from the bottom of my heart that we would desire to be Free men again.

 Independent.

There are a lot of good people still in this land, the Remnant. Desire to be free. Learn what it is to be free. Get back to your roots, and be free men.

4

Our fathers' God to Thee,

Author of liberty,

To Thee we sing.

Long may our land be bright,

With freedom's holy light,

Protect us by Thy might,

Great God our King.

Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle

I have often opined that if we actually would get back to 1787, I would much prefer it to today's government. Basically because Thomas Jefferson was still around, and the principles of Liberty were not totally lost on the Jeffersonian Republicans (not to ever, and may it never be, mistaken for the "republican party" of Lincoln and today.)
I still like to think of the time when total Liberty, or in another term, ANARCHY, ruled America, and for 11 whole years, when Jefferson penned that Man should and, of Right, ought to be Free, with the God-given Right of Life, Liberty, and Property, the Declaration of Independence.
For 11 years Americans were a free people. Then, some folks that the American people like to glorify, decided to make a constitution. Now, the delegates that ratified the Constitution had no authority from the people who sent them there to do so; they were merely supposed to strengthen the Articles of Confederation, yet monetary and mercantile interest proved the day.
And won.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali.

Hamilton's first move was for funding all the obligations of the government at face value, thereby putting the interests of the speculator on a par with those of the original holder, and fusing both classes into a solid bulwark of support for the government. This was inflation on a large scale, for the values represented by the government's securities were in great part — probably 60 percent — notoriously fictitious, and were so regarded even by their holders. A feeble minority in Congress, led by Madison, tried to amend Hamilton's measure in a small way, by proposing a fair discrimination against the speculator, but without success.

 Hamilton's bill contained a supplementary measure which reached out after the state creditors, united them with the mass of federal creditors, and applied a second fusing heat. The several states which had at their own expense supplied troops for the Revolutionary army, had borrowed money from their citizens for that purpose; and now Hamilton proposed that the federal government should assume these debts, again at face value — another huge inflation, resulting in "twenty millions of stock divided among favored States, and thrown in as pabulum to the stock-jobbing herd," as Mr. Jefferson put it.

 The point being, while we do face adversity, and the Rights of Man have been and are trampled, to say that one would want to "go back" is to be ignorant of fact.
Instead, let's "MOVE FORWARD." Just as Jefferson did with John Locke.
Let's take the lessons learned from the good of the Founders, and take the good from the dissidents of this Country that promoted Liberty VS. Statism, (Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard) and let us progress to a New Liberty, one of Individualism, Voluntarism, and the Golden Rule.

Read the rest of Albert Jay Nock's "Liberty vs. the Constitution" here.

Patriot's Lament November 3, 2012: Obamney Inflation and Economics

In this episode we talk about Romney being a crony capitalist, not a free market one. We talk about the impossibility of voting for freedom, and how property owners were the only ones that should have a vote.
14-year-old Israel educates us on taxation through inflation, and we argue with Randy about whether there is even ONE thing good to be said about Romney. We also make the charge that the republican party uses abortion as red meat every time there is an election, but given the chance to actually do something about it, they never do.

Richard Maybury

Richard Maybury, author of the Uncle Eric series, will be on our radio program again this coming Saturday in the 9 a.m. Alaskan time hour.
Don't miss it! The last time Richard was on was a fantastic 2 hours of education.
To visit his website, just click on his name on the right side of the blog page.

Patriot's Lament October 27, 2012: That's The Breaks and Pants Off Protest

In this episode, we award Congressman Peter King with our "Piece of Crap Award." Listen and you will see why. We then delve into Romans 13, and try to answer the question of whom shall we serve, in what we feel is an oft-misquoted chapter of the Bible. In the next hour we talk about the Church and say that when a church gets a 501-C3 they subject themselves to the whim of the State, and compromise themselves.
We then answer the question:  "Did Jesus say we must pay taxes?" Again, we ask, if you cannot serve 2 masters, WHO THEN SHALL WE SERVE? Steve, at the end of the show, protests the "saggy pants ban" in Florida, by taking off his pants. I am so thankful that we are not a live video feed program. Your eyes would cry for the rest of your life.
 

Obama publicly supports Pakistani retaliation against America

I may have my story headline a little mixed up, but I am somewhat confused.
Here is the story: Obama praises Gaza ceasefire.

The part I am confused about is this quote from the White House: "The president made clear that no country can be expected to tolerate rocket attacks against civilians."
Er,  uh, Mr. Obama, that's what some of us have been saying for a while, and exactly what Ron Paul meant by blow back.
Read this, Drone attacks in Pakistan.
One of the sick things in that story is that the U.S. drones, controlled by U.S. citizens by the way, double tap the strike area; they wait until people come to pick up the dead bodies and strike again. I have a friend who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he confirmed to me that this was a common practice. Muslims have to bury their dead immediately,  so wait for a few minutes and there will be another crowd to blow up. And they are usually civilians the second time around. 
Now, we are attacking an area deep in Pakistan because the people there hate the U.S. I have had people even justify these attacks because of simply that, "Well those people hate us"!
Yep, they sure do. It's called circular reasoning and it's not a very logical way to think things through.
"We kill them, cause they hate us"! "We hate them cause they kill us"! "Oh yeah!! Well we are going to kill you even more because you hate us"! "Oh yeah!! Well we are going to hate you even more cause you kill us"!

If you are seriously afraid of these people in Pakistan, maybe you should have some therapy. Mental.
These people live in tents, most don't have shoes, they are still riding on goats to get around, they live a basic subsistence lifestyle and sometimes can barely feed themselves.
Come on.
There is no justification for it. You simply have men that love power that want to use it.
Maybe that's why some of you support it? It makes you feel stronger, knowing your government can kill people who don't like you. I mean no joke! Anyone who hates the U.S. has got to be crazy!

Anyway, I am glad to hear Obama has had a change of heart, and it sounds like he has realized the error of his ways.
Or maybe you should hope they don't run out of targets over there and start a new kill list in the U.S.

Hmm, now I am hurting my own head.

The last Statesman

Ron Paul gives his farewell address to congress. There won't be another like him. Too bad America wouldn't listen to him, payment is coming due.

Patriot's Lament October 20, 2012: People vs The State and Guest Robert Murphy

In this episode, we start off congratulating the State for coming up with the most brilliant of all bogey men, terrorism. We go on to talk about wars we start in our "interest," and explain how embargoes are acts of war. We have a caller that scolds us for being "anti american" and we ask what we have said that was untrue. USA right or wrong? If Liberty is our goal, we need to expose our faults and rectify them! In the second hour, Robert Murphy is our guest. We talk about voluntary societies and Bob explains how things could work, and why even though we don't know all the answers, even at its worst, it is better than having a State. Thanks, Bob! You were awesome!

Patriot's Lament October 13, 2012: Lew Rockwell and End Of Land Of The Free

In this episode, we have a very special guest, the great Lew Rockwell. We talk with him about Ron Paul, voting, the Mises Institute, and Murray Rothbard. Congrats on 30 years, Mises! In the second hour we have some soldiers call and talk about war, and we discuss whether voting changes anything. We also talk about taxes and the immoral practice the State has of stealing people's property for not paying fealty.

Haha.

Patriot's Lament October 6, 2012: Imagine An Island and You Don't Own It

In this episode we have fun talking about the appropriation of property, and imagine ourselves on an island. Obviously we are trying to expand on Hans Hoppe.
Do you own your property? The callers ask some great questions, and make some great comments.

A discussion

Here is part of a discussion I am having. Well, aren't we all having this discussion in some fashion or another?

It is in response to this:

If you are going to put your faith in government for anything, including protecting your “rights” you will ultimately

be disappointed and a lot poorer.

James Madison, the so-called Father of the Constitution, said (from his reading of John Locke, the father of “property Rights”) that good government's only function is to protect property, and that was to be the end of good government. That’s it. He called any other function of the State unjust. Even here we have a problem, in that the State must first expropriate (Steal) a portion of that same property to provide the protection. The individual has no choice whether or not he wants or needs that protection.

Even small government conservatives offer the same thing as the big government liberals, the State.

Having local control of tax money further obfuscates the real question, are taxes moral, or are they just theft, whether a huge government forces you to pay them, or a tiny local government? It still comes down to theft, a minority stealing from one to spend the way they want for the “good of all.”

That’s what I say is crap.  

We should not want state control of our public schools, we should abolish them.  Limited government is a fallacy.

Government is force and violence that the individual would be locked up for if he tried the same things government does.

Government = Force/violence/theft

Limited government = limited force/violence/theft?

So that is the better option? Are we as individuals able to “opt out”? No matter how close to home a local government is, it will still spend money in ways that some find immoral. So who decides how the tax(theft) money is spent? A majority? Who decides if that allocation of the theft is moral? The majority?

Then you are back to square one, majority, mob rule, where the rights of the minority are crushed.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits  drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law',  because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the  individual."  Thomas Jefferson

How many “Constitutional conservatives” do you know actually believe that? Even small government advocates have plenty of duties they think the government needs to perform.

And none of these things answers the first problem. If the Founders of this Country said that government's only role in society was to protect property, (John Locke said the only reason people come to form society is for the protection of property) then how can we defend any other role the State has decided in its wisdom to control?

The State is not your friend, it is your enemy, whether large, small, limited or otherwise. It should be abolished at every level.

This idea is not un-American, as the government is not America.

It is the essence of Liberty.

Fuuuuhhhhhhhtttball... :-)

Did you think this would be funny cause I put a smiley face in the title?


The systematic thwarting, simply put – of a normal man’s inclination to be a man.
The average man has virtually no real control over his life in modern America. He must Submit and Obey at every turn, from the moment he awakes to the moment he lays his head down on the pillow at night. He must never raise his voice, at work or in public. He must avoid confrontation at all costs. (This lesson, in particular, is really being hammered home to today’s boys – who are told in no uncertain terms by the authorities that they cannot even defend themselves when attacked by a bully. And the boys’ fathers are told they must teach them to accept this.)
He stews in silent, impotent fury as a cop half his age lectures him about “buckling up for safety” in front of his kids. Or as he submits to having his wife and kids get fondled by useless-eater (and probably pedophilic) blue-shirted poltroons at the airport. He must put up with being told what to do – and even worse, what not to do – by smarmy little busybodies, stretchpants-wearing fraus. From the PTA to the DMV to the HOA, he is hectored and hemmed in at every turn.
He probably can’t even paint his own damn house without first begging permission from the local Gertrud Schlotz-Klink… and if he doesn’t beg permission first, the old bag will just make a call. A lien or some other encumbrance will be put on his place. Or, the thug scrum will come. So, he surrenders. He Submits… and Obeys. He Does What He is Told. And along the way, he becomes something less than a man. At some gut level, he knows it, too. And the rage boils within him, silently, helplessly… .
He feels emasculated – because he has been emasculated.

Full article here.

Revoluuuuuution!

Wow.
What is going on? Obama won the election folks, fair and square. Oh, but you are mad? Why? You espouse democracy, you participated in it (HELLOOO you voted) and now because your majority didn't win, the system is broke? Hmm.
I don't know what to think. We here have been going on and on about the system and how you should NOT participate in it, you insisted we were stupid, now you gambled and lost, and you're mad?
Praise God! We had one more opinion in transition of power and it happened again without civil war! Isn't that great?
You want to tell me that YOU HAVE TO VOTE and when it doesn't pan out the way you want, you want to fight?
Voting = gambling. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
Here is the part you have refused to understand.
Voting.
You ALWAYS lose and the State ALWAYS wins.
Did the State have anything to lose whether Obama won, or Romney won?
Or is it a win/win for the State?
You want a revolution now? (insert mocking) constitution and democracy.
Quit your griping. Own up to what you have been propping up. You made your bed, sleep in it.
And you Christians?
 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.
Get over it.
You chose your god, live with it. His name is democracy.
You cling to a constitution, where did it stop this from happening?
HA, you don't even know what it stood for in the first place. You still think it gave you rights.
Robama, he means nothing to me.  
Still the same state, still the same master, still the same serfs. 
Revolution? You don't even have a clue what it means. And even in your definition, you won't do a thing. You haven't yet, you think you can justify it now because of a vote you participated in and therefore is justified?  
The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of the globe. And when and where are they to cease?But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. ... This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.
John Adams

Let's talk when you can tell me what he actually meant.

Otherwise, quit your griping and face the consequences of your choice. Democracy comes with a price, it's time to pay.

 

How some see the U.S. elections

I bet these kids would like some hope and change from the U.S. government even more than the serfs that voted yesterday.

What now, Republican party?

You had your chance with a Champion of Liberty, you shot him down and mocked him, you knew best and told us who we had to choose.

We said no.

You got what you deserved.

Ron Paul was your last chance.

You blew it.

You mocked us.

Now the people who Love Liberty mock you.