"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 29, 2012

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".

Friday, December 28, 2012

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?

Thursday, December 27, 2012

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."

Saturday, December 22, 2012

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?

Friday, December 21, 2012

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.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

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. 

Saturday, December 1, 2012

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.