The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Saturday, February 14, 2004

Valentine's Day Meeting on Property Forfeiture

On the way to the gun show (mentioned below), I stopped by a town meeting held by Accountability Utah discussing property forfeiture, specifically Citizens Initiative B which passed overwhelmingly four years ago and is now (once again) being attacked by our state legislature, this time via SB 175.

The room was, almost predictably, full of cops in uniform. They lined the back wall and had a guy filming the event with a video camera as well.

Intimidation tactics?

You bet.

You see, cops love asset forfeiture. On the federal level, it can be used to seize just about anything at any time. Many times lawsuits are filed by the government against an address, a car with a particular VIN number, etc. Yep, that's right, the defendent in the case is an inanimate object! They can take your house, car, guns, or whatever and the rightful owner has the burden of proof to prove that the item is innocent in order to get it back. This reverses the role of our courts, in which normally the accuser (prosecutor) must prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.

They want to be able to do this kind of thing on the local level. Obstensibly, it's to "fight drugs," but in reality it's to allow them to take whatever they want whenever they want it. It also allows police to be independent of the governing body as they will have less dependence on that elected body for their funding.

So...a room full of cops, citizens concerned about their rights, and a representative from the Attorney General's office and a representative from Senator Buttar's office (who's sponsoring SB 175).

What happens? It turns into a shouting match. At first, the interruptions were polite as someone tried to "clarify" or refute whatever had been said. Then they got meaner. Someone asked if we would "hear the other side of it too," and someone else asked if "they would be given equal time," and so forth.

The jackass from the Attorney General's office said that they should have say "in the interest of democracy." I yelled at him that he needs to read the Constitution, we don't live in a democracy!

The fact that they've held numerous "public meetings" of their own and rarely, if ever, have given US any input on things seems to matter little to them. They were there to quell the dissent. They failed. Most of us just got more pissed off at them.

As they finally stormed out of the room in "protest" of their not receiving "equal time" to talk, I shouted that I wanted to know how many of those cops were currently on the payroll and on the clock. How many of them were being paid by me to be there that day?

I stormed out with the cops, since I was due at the gun show. Inside, I think I was hoping to get harassed by a big man in uniform. I'm silly like that.

I did speak with a very nice gentleman from St. George, dressed in full uniform, who is a Lieutenant there. He told me he was not on the clock and was there on his own time. I can respect that, but he also said he couldn't vouch for the other cops in the room as they were all local.

This is how, on a local level, we see the jackboots exerting their control. They want the ability to treat us like sheep and cattle, taking what they want from us without a peep of protest. Well, I've got news for them. I'm red-headed and Scots by lineage. People like me don't bend over and take it. People like me don't kick you and punch you (unless we have to) either.

People like me burn your house down as you're sleeping at night. People like me cut the break lines on your car. People like me "accidentally" report unusual activity to your bank and get your accounts frozen. People like me will find all kinds of backdoor ways to fuck with you...and we don't forget what you've done...ever. People like me exact our revenge quietly and completely.

So go ahead with your little plans, go ahead and keep raping us of our rights. Eventually, someone like me will get fed up and will begin to exact revenge. Maybe not today, maybe not next week, maybe not even this year...but it's going to happen eventually. There are millions of people like me in this country. And all of us are getting sick and tired of tyranny...

All people like me...

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Happy Valentine's Day

Well, it's Valentine's Day. I hope you're having a good one. I'm spending my day at the gun show. Can't get any more romantic than that! YEEEEHAWWWW!

I didn't get you anything for VD (tee-hee), but oh well. I guess this little note and maybe a poem will have to do...

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Did you forget to pay your taxes?
They're comin' for you!

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Friday, February 13, 2004

Some Humor to Wake You Up

Here's a couple of cartoons to wake you up...


SPAM Animation

Got comments? Email me, dammit!


Here's a couple of great editorials I ran into today. They are awesome illustrations of libertarian thought on government. Read on!
Governed by Rules Not Men
I'm Only Interested in Freedom

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Clarence the Martian Slayer

My friend Fran sent me this link. Holy cow, this is addictive reading! Check it out! Fun and thoughtful.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Thursday, February 12, 2004

Is Bush a Liar? Did He Really Serve in the Guard?

I was sent this link today, which has streaming audio/video of a recent press conference with the White House's Press Secretary answering questions about Bush's military service.

So what is my, the Militant Libertarian's, take on this issue?

I don't really give a shit whether Bush served honorably, dishonorably, all his time, none of his time, or what. In fact, Bush could have joined the National Guard and had his specialty in Beer Swilling and it wouldn't make a lick of difference to me. Why? 'Cause it doesn't matter, that's why.

What he did during his military service means nothing. I can look at him now and know I don't like him. He's busy making himself into America's first Dictator and the world's next attempted conqueror. That's enough for me. I don't need to know what he did or didn't do during his military career.

Now, as for Mr. Kerry, whose supporters are probably the biggest pushers of the "what did Bush do?" question:

He sucks too. I already don't really like Democrats (at least not those that are "popular" enough to be pushed for major office) and I have even less reason to like Mr. Kerry, since he's already held elected office on a national level and shown himself to be just another part of the scheme to villify our rights.

Folks, this Presidential campaign is not about who's the better man, what it is we need as Americans, or even which direction our nation will go after Nov. 2004.

This Presidential campaign is about who will best distract us from our current path towards destruction and which man can keep the illusion of a prosperous, free nation for the most people.

It's time to STOP worrying about partisan politics and START worrying about how free we truly free we will be next year...ten years from now, etc. When you die, will it be a peaceful death as a free man or woman? Or will you die in a battle to win your freedom back?

The way it's going, more and more of us, as true patriots, will find ourselves in the second situation and only those who are completely blindfolded to the truth will die peacefully.

Stop hiding from the truth and step forward with your fellow patriots and make your voice of dissent heard!

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

How Does Homosexual Marriage Relate to Thought Crimes & Property Forfeiture?

The following was sent to me by Daniel Newby, who I do not consider a libertarian, but do consider a Constitutionalist and fellow traveller in the fight against tyranny. Daniel Newby is one of the chief instigators of, though this piece was written separately from that endeavor.

"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 the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, Introduction

Consider the following statement from the New Testament:
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” -- Matthew 19:6
The above scripture, if taken literally, implies that the Creator of the Universe is the force that joins and binds two individuals together. Based upon this scripture and belief system, it would stand to reason that man is not rightfully permitted to separate what the Creator has joined together.

My question then is this: Why are we attempting to empower the state to recognize and validate this joining or separation of two individuals?

Under the same Christian belief system, men are also admonished to, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21) Is it natural and consistent to attempt to grant such powers of recognition to Caesar?

If the Creator is solely capable of joining or putting asunder, what is the legitimate role of government? Does government have the same power? Does government have lesser power or none at all?

Unless the state is God, it stands to reason that the state's only legitimate role is to recognize contractual arrangements for the purposes of potential litigation should conflicts or disputes occur.

In modern times, however, we have added the specter of tax breaks -- or the image of Caesar -- to compound the question. Today, when we debate the validity and power of Caesar’s marriage contract, we speak not only of the contract itself, but the financial incentives Caesar adds to the contract. Marriage bound by financial incentives does not appear consistent with rendering separate due to God and to Caesar. Neither does it give the impression that "the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32), but rather that Caesar must throw in some “bennies” in order to sufficiently bind the individual to his Creator.

Does the sanctity of marriage hinge on whether Caesar recognizes and condones the union of a man and woman? If it does, then why do we need our Creator at all? Let's cut out the middle man and rely upon the state solely. Or let Christians practice what they preach and demand that the state enforce contractual arrangements and leave the question of marriage to private individuals and structures.

But to claim as many do that marriage stands or falls based upon Caesar’s arm is to admit that God and Caesar cannot be separated. Even worse, it supposes that the Christian God is weak and incapable without the aid of Caesar.

So, what is the proper role of government in this instance? Let us consider how we treat other contractual arrangements. If two homosexual men were to enter into any business arrangement and one cheated the other financially, does the fact that they are homosexuals disqualify them from the benefits of appropriate litigation to enforce the contract? Of course not.

So, with marriage, I propose that we only let Caesar step in when litigation is unavoidable. Of course, deference needs to be paid to the true natural birth mother or natural father in cases of homosexual contracts, as they participated in the process of creation and therefore have some claim as to the results of that process. But otherwise, let the dispute be generally treated and resolved as would any contractual arrangement between two individuals.

I, for one, do not lose sleep over whether someone is homosexual or not. But I am not tolerant of efforts by some homosexuals (and others) to indoctrinate our children or attain special rights (example: thought crimes). At the same time, however, I am angered by non-homosexuals who want to use taxpayer dollars to teach children things they should learn in the sanctity of their homes.

This is the bottom line for me: If a homosexual can mind his own business and respect my right to find his behavior perverse and lamentable (and visa versa), then we should be able to get along all right. I will admittedly pity them for what I perceive to be self-destructive behavior, and I can tolerate their same opinion of me and my lifestyle if we ever discuss it. But the thought is not the crime. Using government to obtain supremacy is the crime.

To be frank, I would rather live next to a homosexual who respected my rights and left me alone than I would a heterosexual who claimed to worship God on Sunday and then attempted to rob me of my rights and property on Monday. But that is precisely the weakness of many who refer to themselves as Christians. They attempt to teach a supreme God who requires the recognition of the state to have any real validity and staying power. What they forget is that it is wrong to use the force of Caesar to establish religion.

I have often heard the argument that consenting adult homosexuals harm the community by their very influence and therefore we must band together to curtail their rights. I find that argument difficult to accept or to defend with regard to both Caesar's contract and those God-given rights granted to all men. Again, I know many individuals who call themselves Christians who probably do more damage to the community than do most homosexuals. Are we simply repulsed at thinking about how they engage in sexual activities? This does not seem to be sufficient justification to refuse to honor Caesar’s contractual recognition for the purposes of potential litigation.

And even further, if the shoe were on the other foot and the homosexual leaders increased their hold over our government, would their disdain for heterosexual practices cause them to return the favor? I believe this is why we are having a hard time defeating efforts to grant special rights for homosexuals today precisely because we are morally backwards with regard to our entire philosophy on the role of our Creator and the role of Caesar.

The recent marriage debate has given me great pause with regard to all of the fundamental rights we are losing ground on. This debate has explained to my satisfaction the apparent dichotomy of thinking that allows someone like Senator Chris Buttars to promote Caesar’s heterosexual-only contract recognition while simultaneously allowing Caesar to destroy the God-granted right of man to own property and to receive due process (Senate Bill 175).

It is all about empowering Caesar to -- at gun point -- take over the role of our Creator. Sen. Buttars is at least consistent. But that does not make him, or others, right.

Daniel B. Newby

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Wednesday, February 11, 2004

Great, another boring meeting

Well, tonight I have an SEC (State Executive Committee) meeting with the other leadership of the Libertarian Party of Utah. Luckily, most of these people are interesting and nice to be around. Not to mention I'll get to see Charlie's great collection of US-issue historic military firearms again.

The downer is that the agenda is all the usual b.s. that generally bores the hell out of people like me who aren't big on details and just wanna stir the soup. Oh well. This is what I get for failing to convince other LPers not to vote for me last year. :) At least I'm not Chair.

I'm down on meetings nowadays. I think it's the fact that I have so many of them (this is what happens when you get famous and important). I had a lunch meeting with several people, including Richard Mack (LP nominee for governor). There was another Saturday with some chumps who'll never pay me a dime, but wanted all the free advice they could get.

There is a gun show again this weekend. I'm looking forward to that. Plus a whole day of devil worship (aka Dungeons and Dragons) on Sunday.

More good news: my friend Dale who didn't show up for coffee this morning was NOT raided by the feds. So my cryptic phone message on his machine on which I claimed to be "Anigo Mantoya" was all for naught. :)

All right, shoot me, I'm rambling this afternoon. I had some time to kill and hadn't really posted anything today. So here you go, you blog junkies. Another dose of freedom from the M-Lib!

Now I'm gonna go make some Hamburger Helper before I leave.

Got comments? Email me, punk!

The Price of Liberty

The Price of Liberty
by Scott Kauzlarich

I have a good friend who is a Republican and in the past I’ve tried to steer him towards libertarianism. While he shares a general fear of big government, he was never convinced that a crisis is at hand – at least not a crisis big enough to warrant a shift in politics.

One common refrain I heard from him is that if the government ever started shutting down newspapers and arresting people for speaking their minds, he’d become a libertarian and take to the streets. So would everyone else, the reasoning goes.

When I first heard this argument, it made perfect sense to me. No one can take away the freedom of Americans. Not us, by God. We’d man the ramparts as soon as anyone really tried to take our freedom. But as the years have gone by, I now recognize this argument for what it is: Utter nonsense.

For starters, essential liberty is taken away all the time, in broad daylight, and no one is setting up barricades in the streets to get it back. Another sobering fact is that these days the people most likely to lead the fight for liberty are the very people who find themselves in hot water.

Need some examples? Right here in Iowa the government is cracking down on a group of anti-war activists at Drake University in Des Moines. Back in November, Drake held a conference sponsored by the National Lawyers Guild featuring workshops on such subversive topics as U.S. foreign policy and the economic roots of terrorism. The next day, a small protest was held at the Iowa National Guard headquarters and 12 people were arrested.

As if seeing white-haired seniors being led away in handcuffs by Iowa’s finest wasn’t startling enough, the federal government is now issuing subpoenas to four of the peace activists and Drake University. Apparently, the workshops and the protest drew the attention of the FBI and are enough to begin a federal grand jury investigation.

Drake, an expensive private college best known for its law school and an annual track meet, also received a gag order from a federal judge barring any of its employees from talking about the subpoenas. This seems entirely fitting, since the whole affair is an attack on free speech generally.

Will any Iowans emerge from the snow to protest this ridiculous exercise of federal police power? Not likely. When these people are hauled into court next week, there will be no outrage. The Des Moines Register will run a few headlines and the local poo-bahs will make a few remarks, but that’s about it. As long as no one is trucked off to a gulag, we’ll let it slide.

One thing you can be sure of, there will be fewer such conferences in the future. I certainly wouldn’t want to participate or organize an event in which the parting gift is a federal subpoena. I doubt that Drake University wants one either.

By now you may have heard about the silly "free-speech zones" used to shield President Bush and other government officials from the opinions of certain citizens. This is where authorities take a group of protesters or someone holding up a sign of disagreement and escort them so far away from the action as to make them wonder why they left home.

Given enough time, free-speech zones and subpoenas in the heartland will achieve the same result as if newspapers were shut down and people were arrested for speaking their minds. We will simply stay home, mind our own business, and let the government do as it pleases.

There are some of us who never thought we’d see such things in America, but I can’t say I’m one of them. It doesn’t surprise me because when it comes to protecting freedom you can’t know for sure what form tyranny will take. It makes sense that if freedom is to be lost in America, it will be lost in a way we’ve not yet seen, or will not recognize until it is too late.

Many Americans can only envision a loss of liberty at the hands of foreign invaders, or jack-booted demagogues screaming into microphones while secret police whisk us away in the night. It is much harder to see how our own democratic government could pull the rug out from under us. Thus, I can understand why, when libertarians warn of losing freedom, we are sometimes greeted as alarmists.

I understand the apathy, but it is no less troubling. Like the French huddled behind the obsolete Maginot Line in 1940, a lot of Americans are only ready to fight yesterday’s war – all the while blinded to real threats to freedom that go unchecked.

Let us not forget Wendell Phillips’ warning: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Let us hope that for our countrymen, the standard required to sit up and take notice of lost liberty is being lowered.

Scott Kauzlarich is a professor of history and government at Ellsworth Community College in Iowa Falls, Iowa.

Copyright © 2004
Got comments? Email me

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Night Crawler

Got comments? Email me, punk!

The Libertarian Problem and How to Fix It

In a forum, in response to a message I wrote regarding immigration (see below) and in a forum in which I've been on a crusade to show people that government is the root of our problems, not some bogey man like immigration, Kathryn Graham (well-known Libertarian author) said the following:

Superbly said, Aaron. But we won't change these attitudes so easily. It's a kind of brainwashing, and our friends on this list have heard from the cradle that illegal immigrants are the cause of all their ills, just as the Germans of the 1930s had heard for years that Jews were the reason it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. When the hardships are real - and they are right now - the nicest human beings can be driven to do the ugliest things to a group or class of people. It isn't really racism - our friends on this list don't hate Mexicans in Mexico, any more than some of our more ignorant Southerners in America hate blacks in Africa, or the German people would have hated Jews in Israel if Israel had existed then.

Oddly enough, the REAL root cause of the problem is the one they've been touting all along, even though they haven't figured it out yet. America has lost its moral compass, and with it, the ability to educate its children. Since we live in a world where we must work so many hours just to survive and feed a family, the most basic education - that of parents teaching the simple concepts of right and wrong to their children - has fallen by the wayside.

Socialism is so dangerous because it sounds so much like kindness when it is really the utmost in cruelty. It is easy to hate an underclass, particularly when said underclass really does commit crimes, and hard to remember that we ourselves created that very underclass through our "kindest" acts. You are so very right when you say that gangs are
formed for the purpose of survival. The very social programs that we have created to "help" the unfortunate are an ugly trap that destroys human dignity and prevents the very people we meant to "help" from maintaining their dignity and learning the skills all men need to survive honorably in this country. When you can make $200 per week working in a convenience store, $350 per week on welfare, and $2000 per week selling drugs, the result is inevitable.

The only answer is education. And government education is only perpetuating the problem. You can maintain power over a population easily when you give them something real to hate, and the most damnable problem in America is that our leaders know this, and have quite deliberately done so. When illegal immigration wasn't enough, they gave us drugs. When drugs weren't enough, they gave us terror. Give Americans something to hate, and a flag to wave, and they will make Hitler look like the biggest pussy that ever walked.

Libertarians have failed consistently for many, many years in their most important job. To persuade, we must teach. And we have not done this. Aside from the friendships we have found here, the greatest value to us politically in a list like this is that it helps to show us what we have failed to teach, and what we must do to succeed.

We are called the party of principle because we teach the non-aggression principle, which is the most fundamental morality of all. We teach it admirably to other Libertarians (who already understand it), but we aren't teaching it to other Americans. That must change. For the non-Libertarians here, who probably hate pacifism (and rightly so, in the context in which they learned it), I am refering to the *initiation* of force, not the response to it. A typical Libertarian is a soft-spoken and gentle individual who carries a monster .45 and will become hell on wheels in a heartbeat if attacked -but never harm a hair on a single head otherwise. That's who I am, and who Aaron is. The problem here is that it is sometimes difficult to recognize who is really attacking you.

To remain human, and preserve decency, we must learn that initiating force against another human being is the worst crime of all, and force can take many forms. Forcing other humans to adopt a dependent attitude is the root cause of the problems we all see in illegal immigration. Immigration cannot be stopped, and the only way to solve the problems it has caused for us is to teach our newcomers here to live free and to stand proudly on their own feet, as we as individuals do. Then other cultures enrich our own instead of destroying it.


Got comments? Email me, punk!

Illegal Immigration & You

The following is an excerpt from an email conversation in an online forum. I've removed names to protect the privacy of others involved. It started with an off-hand comment by someone (neither of us involved in this conversation) regarding immigration. Many threads were produced, but all of them are probably summed up (minus the more militant "kill all the Mexicans" jackasses who posted) here.

The subject of illegal immigration is pretty touchy. If you say that they're "illegal immigrants," then the left-leaners will label you a "racist" and spit hatred at you for your bigotry. If you say that they're "migrant workers," then the right-leaners will call you a "liberal" and accuse you of helping them destroy our country.

Well, a Libertarian is neither left nor right. On the subject of illegal immigration, we're right in the middle. Yes, it's illegal
for them to be here. No, it shouldn't be illegal. In a truly free market, labor is a commodity like any other and is also freely traded.

That scares the hell out of most people to hear. Well, we have [a history of] 100+ years of basically open immigration in this nation and it didn't screw us over then (though they did try to blame the great depression on the Irish immigrants, if you'll recall).

ANYWAY, there's a great article on the subject of illegal immigration and how it's just a blind for the real problems in this country. You can read that here:

The problem with immigration is NOT the economy, supposedly lost American jobs due to the cheap labor, etc., etc. It's that we live in a nanny state in which our 50% income tax goes into paying for everything under the sun and then some so that we can have "social justice" and "equality."

This paragraph of the article sums it up:
"So, what's the real difference between the immigrants of today and those of the past centuries? Not much. All have come seeking greater individual freedom and economic opportunity. What has changed over that span is the US government and how much it actually meddles in the economy. In the 1800s and early 1900s America was mostly a free market economy with the majority of law abiding, hard working immigrants seeking the chance to participate in and
contribute to a free American economy with plenty of opportunities for advancement. Industrious immigrants worked their way up the economic ladder leaving room at the bottom for newer arrivals to fill. America today has a greater resemblance to a socialist state than its free market beginnings."

Aaron, that is not true. We did not have open immigration. We had rasonable standards that let most people in, but diseased people, criminals and sundry other very undesirable people were kept out. That changed during the Rooseveldt administration when he ordered Jews fleeing the Nazis to be rejected. Since then it has been somewhat harder for legal immigration, but illegal immigration has been rampant. I like immigrants because the increase the vitality of the nation, but I oppose amnesty for illegals because if the do not respect our laws, they are already halfway to being criminals. I know it is not all of them, but without some control, we will get the worst coming in.

The only "criminals" they kept out were the notorious ones. Otherwise, they had no way of knowing the person was a criminal. That means their "filter" was ineffective and basically nonexistent.

From the early 1700s to the mid 1800s there were NO checks of incoming passengers on ships, nor was there any "paperwork" requirement or other application for citizenship.

Aaron, we are living in a very different age. During the 1700's & 1800's most of the people coming here were fleeing oppresive governments. The reason there was no paperwork is governments did not have any on most of their people, apart from the nobility and leading citizens. The rest of the population were mere serfs. Today, that is far less true. While some oppressive governments still exist, the largest reason for coming to America is economic opportunity. The filter is very effective for screening out criminals when the legal process is used. We are not living in a bygone era, but rather in a dangerous time that requires prudence.

Furthermore, the ability of the nation to preserve the liberties we all cherish is a function of controlling the dilution of our culture. English speaking is only one function. Many people are coming from countries where they could not own a gun, so they naturally accept that people should not own a gun, despite learning our constitution and the 2nd amendment
better than our school children today. Again, we need prudence and time to asssimilate people from other lands. A glut of anything always produces a natural counter effect.

This, to me, is heavy-handed thinking brought on by the McCarthy era and the general attitude of the mid 1900s.

Were we to have a truly free economy, truly free (and fair) trade, and truly libertarian foreign relations (i.e. NONE except economic), we'd have no reason to fear anyone coming here for whatever reason they have.

We didn't have those fears in the 17-1800s and we shouldn't have them now.

Instead, we have an oppressive government, an oppressive market (thanks to government), an oppressive economy (thanks again to gov't), and oppressive relations with foreign nations (thanks to a colonialist gov't).

We as a [should be THE] people have NOT done our duty to oversee our gov't's doings and, therefore, have failed to keep it from becoming what it is today.

If you've read "The People's Pottage" by Garett Garrett, you know that in the 1930s, Americans still commonly referred to government as "our government." By the 1950s, that was replaced with "the govenrment" as if it was an entity all its own and not controlled or owned by the individual American.

We need to take the government BACK and make it OUR government again. To do this, we need to shed these stupid ideas of fighting left-wing and right-wing, fighting individual tree branches (like immigration) and instead go for the root.

Immigration is only one, small issue in the face of many others. All of them are connected to the same tree of oppression, which needs to be chopped down.

It's amazing to me how socialists can work together so well to undermine our government and even our way of yhinking. Meanwhile, conservatives of all types (fiscal, gov't, libertarians, etc.) can't agree on anything to work together - we're too busy nitpicking over our details..."You are pro abortion, I can't have anything to do with your protests" "you are pro-immigration, I can't have anything to do with your protests" "you are anti-war-in-Iraq, I can't
have..." and so forth.


This is why freedom is destined to die in this nation. Not one of us who espouses true freedom can do anything and the groups of us who do so are innefectual because we're all disparate.

This is why the fascist power-mongering in current gov't will soon finish us all off. Individuals standing on the doorstep shooting it out with the jackboots will save nothing adn will never be mentioned beyond a three-word blurb in the evening news.

We're all dead.

I plan to die on my porch when they come for me because I have no other choice. I will not bow to their yoke and I cannot find enough others to stand with me to make a real difference. Thereofore, I have one choice left...I will die on my front porch and be nothing more than a news blurb like so many others.

Got comments? Email me, punk!

Monday, February 09, 2004

You may not be interested in the 9TH Circuit Court, but its interested in you.

Who Was that Fat Lady?
by Edgar Steele
6 January 2004

America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. -- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution (1999)

They have treated me and others like me with utter contempt. They have confiscated our property and put people in maximum-security prisons over ownership of fender washers, claiming they were unassembled silencer parts. ... They have shot a man's wife in the head because his gun's buttstock was too short. ... They burned 90 people alive over a disputed two hundred dollar tax. -- John Ross, Unintended Consequences (1996)

It ain't over until the fat lady sings. -- Old Southern American saying (concerning church service)

"It ain't over 'til it's over." -- Yogi Berra (1973)

It's over.

The fat lady has sung.

Elvis has left the building.

The great American experiment finally fizzled on December 1, 2003, when the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a 9th Federal Circuit decision which gutted the Second Amendment. It was a nice run -- over two hundred years -- but all good things must end...I least, that's what they say.

We all know how saying nothing sometimes can be among the most profound of statements. Ask any husband.

Nowhere is silence so profound as when offered by the Supremes. And, never has their silence been so overwhelming as on December 1, 2003. That's when the US Supreme Court issued its ruling, refusing to hear an appeal in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer. That made Silveira the law of the land, you see.

Here's the background, briefly: California's legislatively-crafted "assault weapon" ban was stronger than the national ban. Both bans essentially outlaw any rifle that looks like it means business, regardless of capability -- I kid you not, cosmetics really is the upshot of these bans.

Silveira sued in a losing attempt to overturn the more-stringent California ban. Silveira unsuccessfully appealed up through the legal system to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Next stop: US Supreme Court, which now has "denied cert," which means it allows the ruling below to stand.

Here's the real kicker, though. Silveira doesn't just nationalize the California definition of assault weapon. In Silveira, the 9th Circuit Court made the following pronouncement: there is no individual right to bear arms contained within the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

That means that no American citizen, since December 1, 2003, has a fundamental right to possess a firearm.

You heard me right. You no longer have a right to own a gun.

Mind you, here is the Second Amendment, in full: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Not just some people, but the people. You and me, in other words.

And it's a fundamental (God-given) right, therefore the government can't mess around with it...ever. "Unalienable rights," was how the Declaration of Independence described these fundamental rights. Unless we let it. We just did, by tolerating this sort of behavior from our government.

Mind you, the Ninth Circuit Court's judges didn't just come out and say you don't have a right to a gun. They did it in legalese: they merely "affirmed" a prior decision of their own, in which they said as much.

So, the US Supremes affirm the ruling of a lesser court (by silence, thereby making it the law of America, nonetheless, because contrary rulings from other jurisdictions will not be tolerated), which affirmed its own prior ruling, which says you have no right to own a gun.

Like thieves in the night, with stealth, the black-robed dictators steal your rights.

All this silence and misdirection clearly tells you how they feel about what it is they are doing. Yet, they go ahead and do it anyway. And the average American is too stupefied to know any better...or, worse, care. No, it does get worse: many who care and understand actually applaud this result.

The ground now has been set for blanket bans and confiscation. What? Cold, dead fingers, you say? Yeah, sure. When martial law is declared, hardly anybody will resist.

What? Martial law never will be declared in America, you say? Yeah, right. Just wait until the next Reichstag event which occurs on US soil. The smart money is betting that happens within a month or two, by the way.

Some will ask, "What's the big deal, anyway? Guns are no match for government munitions these days, anyway. Guns really are good only for hunting. Who needs hunting, with the Safeway just down the street?"

Here's my response, which echoes that of America's founding fathers: The Second Amendment's guarantee of the individual's right to bear arms actually comprises the teeth of the Constitution; what enables us to enforce the provisions of the Constitution against an out-of-control government.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Sound familiar? It should. It is from the second paragraph of the American Declaration of Independence.

Furthermore, small arms are scarcely outmoded. One need look only to the debacle occurring in Iraq at this moment for the proof of that statement.

And as for the Safeway? America's supply line is about 3 days long - no more, certainly. In a crunch, you can bet that all the publicly-available food will disappear overnight...into government hands, for consumption exclusively by "our leaders." Safely tucked away in all those nice, little underground shelters they built for themselves with our tax money in recent years.

Does the current system of elections in America constitute "Consent of the Governed?" Scarcely. Hardly anybody votes these days, it seems. We realize that any candidate allowed to run for office already has been vetted by the real powers that be. You think Howard Dean will be any different from Bush II? Really? Nobody who could make a difference will make a difference because such a person is not allowed to run for any level.

I recently had a list member write to tell me, "Your legal talent is wasted on commentary. We suffer not from a lack of commentary. We suffer from a lack of lawyers who will file lawsuits on behalf of pro-white candidates/activists. One of the root causes for this is because the better educated, more affluent pro-white lawyers while sympathetic don't respect those who need legal help. It's a class thing." I disagree. What is pointless is the filing of lawsuits; the attempt to work within the system. The system is broken...irretrievably.

In fact, precisely what now is needed is commentary to awaken our fellow Americans to the tyranny growing in America.

The single best piece of commentary I have seen on the Silveira case is by another lawyer: "Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira" by Peter J. Mancus. ( His is a passionate and
brilliant, albeit lengthy, article worthy of your time. Among Mr. Mancus' observations:

"What value is the 'right to petition to redress grievances' or to file a lawsuit (which is a form of the right to petition government for a redress of a legitimate grievance) when the petition or lawsuit or both crashes into the solid legal wall of government immunity or the government refuses to hear the petition (lawsuit) or refuses to take it seriously or refuses to apply the applicable law correctly? That is what happened with Silveira at the Federal 9th Circuit...

"How viable is the 'right of self-defense' if you must first beg government's permission to defend your life with a gun, when government thinks it has the power to withhold its permission, with immunity, and to criminally prosecute you if it catches you packing a gun without its permission?...

"(T)he entire purpose of the U.S. Bill of Rights was to take away government's unfettered discretion, but, guess what, government now claims it has that very discretion that the Framers intended to deny to government, and, to exacerbate matters, government now hides behind its immunities when it commits wrongdoing, and, still worse, it has the gall to accuse citizens of hiding behind their rights and being "gun nuts" or worse when they refuse to go along to get along...

"We are on an increasingly steeper slope toward a free fall into tyranny. The U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of Silveira made that slope steeper -- much steeper. That fact is simply not appreciated by some...

"I am afraid that a violent confrontation with our own Government(s) looms ahead...

"We are in a downward spiral toward some flashpoint where a hardcore of no-nonsense "no more" constitutionalists will press the issue and not submit to perceived, insufferable oppression...

"I know 'the gun solution' (political assassination, open rebellion, etc.) is fraught with peril and inadequate and morally complex and legally illegal. But, what is left? When we peacefully claim our birthrights, peacefully pursue a lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court and are stiff-armed while we point to what is written in the Constitution, we are mocked,
scorned, ridiculed, rebuffed, ignored, dismissed, and rejected...

"(I)t is not about guns. It never was about guns. It is really about this: 1) liberty; 2) ordinary citizens retaining a legally enforceable right to retain the most efficient, pragmatic means to enforce the rest of their rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution -- privately owned, registered or unregistered, firearms; 3) holding government accountable; 4) keeping
government from indefinitely blowing through Constitutional red lights, violating the Constitution's commands; 5) forcing government to wear its Constitutional collar, connected to a Constitutional chain, staked firmly into the bedrock of Constitutional law.

"Now, when government slips that Constitutional collar and refuses to put it back on and wear it compliantly and honor the Constitution's commands, with the judiciary's blessings, what then?

"How does one make a snarly, robust, active, gargantuan government wear a collar it does not want to wear? How does one get close to the beast's teeth and claws to put on that collar and survive?...

"Before Silveira and now with Silveira, the peaceful, legal way was tried...It failed because the Black Robes and the system failed...

"Currently, the United States is not led, run, nor operated per its own Constitution's rules and commands. Our governments are out of control, and we, the People, have lost control of our own governments...

"When Governments succeed in manipulating us to focus on, and to chose between, Security versus Liberty, they win. They win because the instant we choose either, we forfeit the other, and we will inevitably lose what we chose. We especially lose when we choose Security. That choice makes us too dependent on Governments to protect us. Governments cannot protect us in all ways at all times. Governments can, and do, however, use this issue to manipulate us against ourselves, to surrender more Liberty so it can increase its powers over us and tie us down with its chains rather than we tie it down with the Constitution's chains..."

Keep in mind that Mr. Mancus, like myself, is a lawyer. He well appreciates what he dare not say aloud concerning judges and our government, on pain of being disbarred. Outspoken as are both he and I, still we are incapable of
advocating things that you might legally advocate.

It is not yet illegal to bury weapons, so I can in all seriousness advise you to bury those you previously acquired "off paper," via private sales. Do it properly, with ammunition and in well-sealed, watertight containers. Be innovative and bury them where metal detectors will not ferret them out. Keep a couple, the ones for which the dealer ran background checks, to hand to the nice soldiers who inevitably will come to your door, gun registration lists in hand. At that point, it will be illegal for me to tell you to withhold any guns from the government, so the guns you bury today will be an issue only between your conscience and yourself.

Oh...and I don't know who that fat lady was, either. All I know is that, as she left the stage, I saw she was wearing a yarmulke.


Got comments? Email me, punk!

Letter to the Judges

Well, I promised I'd write a letter to the judge on behalf of Jeff "Hunter" Jordan, who was arrested by the Ohio State Highway Patrol for "gun crimes."

I'm afraid I have to renig on that promise.

I've tried four times now to write a good letter to the judge and just cannot do it. Not because the case against Jeff isn't bullshit, but because if I send any of these letters, I'll end up in jail myself. I had this same problem when I attempted to write to the judge on behalf of Rick Stanley, a Constitutional Activist in Colorado.

Everything I write to these judges comes out, in the end, as a (possibly veiled) threat. In our current nanny-state of "protect the elitists" this isn't to be done. It's called "tampering" as if the judge has anything to do with the outcome of the case (which the judge DOESN'T in a real courtroom, but does now in our kangaroo "set only the powerful man free" courts).

So I guess, in my own self-interest, I won't be sending these letters to the judges. I guess they can read Unintended Consequences like the rest of us and draw their own conclusions as to what may happen in this country if we continue down the road we're on...

Sorry, Jeff and Rick. I can't help you this time. Good luck with your cases and hopefully, for the two of you, the Constitution will be adhered to and your cases will be thrown out for the shams that they are.

To find out more about Jeff "Hunter" Jordan's case:

To find out more about Rick Stanley's predicament:

Got comments? Email me, punk!

Sunday, February 08, 2004

Civil Disobedience - additions to the documents area

On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
Henry David Thoreau
[1849, original title: Resistance to Civil Government]

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

You can read more great stuff in the documents section of this site, recently updated! Click "Documents" to the left.

Got comments? Email me, punk!

Musings on Kalifornia

Not too long ago, I tried to get together a group of people, some trucks with compressors on them, and go out to California to the fault line.

The plan was to jackhammer the fault until it finally gave the sunk the Kommunist Republik of Kalifornia into the ocean once and for all.

We had trouble finding the trucks...

Got comments? Email me, punk!