Free West

New Websibes are up and earning!

2010-02-09T16:19:00.001-07:00

I have created a couple of cool websites that were quick and easy to setup. Both started making money within a day of going online.
Why is that relevant to this blog?
Because, the ability to created web pages that will generate an income for you, directly impact your ability to live where you want. I am assuming that if you are reading this blog, we have a few things in common. 1. We want more freedom and flexibility. 2. We are somewhat computer literate. 3. We either live in the mountain west, or want to live in the mountain west.

The ability to quickly create websites that immediately start earning money is a great opportunity. To see the sites and get an idea of what I am talking about, check out the sites.
The first one was http://www.top10wiigamereviews.com - the name clearly says what the site is about. At the same time, the name allows the search engine to shift it to the top of search engines without me spending money on advertising.
The second site is http://www.purepermaguard.com - like the site above, the name makes it climb in search engines.
There is a great deal more to know about building working websites that also earn money. I have created another new site specifically to help others learn how to run an online business. To learn more, go to www.WorkFromLaptop.info

2010

2010-01-13T15:46:00.002-07:00

Bless me father, it has been almost 2 years since my last blog post...
But what a two years! All the stuff I talked about - I made them happen.

Set up a self-sufficient homestead
Get food storage
Come up with a source of income that can be done from home

So now, I am creating a website to teach others how to run a business from their laptop. For many... this is the last obstacle to cross before really becoming free.

Also, a saw a really good website by a guy who made a home for $2000. For another $2000, he built a solar power plant for it. Very cool.

So if you can work from a laptop and build a house for under $5000, why are you still in the city?

Building Your Dream House...with dirt

2008-06-11T23:45:00.002-06:00

Well, I finally made it to Wyoming. My next step is to build a house on the new propery. Unfortunately, my property doesn't have lodge poles, so I guess I will build it with dirt.
Using the book "Earthbag Building" I am figuring out how to build my mortgage-free home. I'll keep you posted.
So far, I have 50 chickens, 4 goats, and a floating foundation on the house. I also have the radon barrier, and the plumbing stubbed in... so now I need to get the walls and roof on before the weather gets cool again.

For more info about earthbag homes, check out http://www.okokok.org/

Montana, Guns and Freedom

2008-02-06T17:09:00.000-07:00

Last month, I was the victim of a burglary. The burglars didn't come to my home, they came to my friend's office where I had a gun cabinet stored. The cabinet, which would have provided as a sufficient deterrent to keep small kids out, was no match for real criminals intent on stealing. But in this case, I feel like I was stolen from twice.

You see, after the police captured the criminal and recovered the stolen items, they told me they wouldn't return my firearms - 11 semi-auto pistols - unless I give them the serial numbers for the guns or unless I introduce them to someone I bought the guns from. Now even if I had that information - which I don't - I would resent that statement. When I asked the officer if the criminal confessed to stealing the guns that fit the description of my guns from the office, he told me he was not at liberty to say. Instead, the officer questioned ME for about 15 minutes while I raced through traffic to catch a flight, and almost missed because I turned into the wrong parking area while talking to him.

He proceeded to ask me a litany of questions like - if I owned any other guns, why did I have so many guns in a safe in Montana, did I belong to any clubs, did I have any political affiliations, how many other guns I have and where I keep them, and if I believed that the government would confiscate my guns. He also asked me why my friend and I cleaned up the office so quickly. Now try to imagine walking into your office - after the police had already been there - and finding a broken and empty gun cabinet, the contents of three shelves and cabinets strewn all over the place, bags dumped out, boxes emptied, personal effects thrown everywhere, etc. How long would most people take to clean up such a mess? A day? A week? A month? I think most people would clean it up as soon as possible. But the detective on the case finds it very curious that we cleaned it up two days after the burglary. He also finds it curious that I had 11 guns. Now there are no scientific facts about how many guns most people in Montana have, but when Gary Marbut was researching his excellent book, Gun Laws of Montana, he conducted several anonymous audience polls and asked how many guns people owned. The only thing to be written on the paper was the number of guns owned. While unscientific, I believe it serves as a good indicator of sportsmen in Montana as one is likely to find. You might be surprised to learn that the average number was 27. So what was so curious about my having 11 locked in a gun cabinet?

While the cop was "unable to discuss" whether the criminal confessed to taking my guns, he was able to share with me that when they recovered the guns that "there were very small children there" - and he seemed to be insinuating that I was somehow responsible for that or that I might somehow have been negligent. I found this extremely disturbing, considering that I had them locked in a gun cabinet in a locked office in a locked building! The funny thing is Montana is one of the rare states that protects owners even if a stolen gun is used in a crime - the owner is NOT liable, only the one in possession, who actually commits the crime, can be held liable. In fact, thanks to Gary Marbut, author of "Gun Laws of Montana" and President of Montana Shooting Sports Association, the law now protects all gun owners in Montana from absurd lawsuits if their stolen property is used in a crime. Gary also pointed out that Article 2 section 10 of the Montana Constitution has one of the strongest Right of Privacy laws in the country - making it my RIGHT to inform the detective that the intrusive, prying, personal questions that he asked me were none of his business. In retrospect I admit that I was probably not as polite to the detective as I should have been, but under the circumstances, I thought that I was much more polite to him than I would have been to anyone else who would dare ask me such personal questions.

The bottom line is that while I still believe that Montana is one of the top two states in the country to live, to raise a family, and for freedom, that even they are not immune to problems. Maybe this cop thought he stumbled across the next Timothy McVeigh or maybe he thought I was some crazy militia guy planning to take over Montana, or maybe he was just asking questions that he felt were normal. I'll never know. The problem I have with this incident is that I was the victim of a crime and the mere fact that guns were involved and that I value my privacy made ME the focus of his investigation and not the actual criminal!

If owning guns and wanting privacy make one seem suspicious to him, perhaps he would be more at home in New York, California, Boston, or Washington, DC. Because using that criteria, about 90% of the state should be under suspicion! I haven't broken any laws, I haven't harmed a soul, I haven't whined about losing my property, and I haven't caused ANYONE any problem - but I seem suspicious to him. The worst part of all is that I can't even imagine anything that I could say or do to dissuade him from his wacky idea. How does an innocent person convince a suspicious person of their innocence when the suspicion is based on the idea that by wanting privacy and owning guns, you are suspicious? So my question is, how many people in Montana would tolerate a police detective asking them that type of questioning? Hopefully, not very many, and judging by how nice the area is, I seriously doubt that there are very many.

In fact, what keeps states like Montana free is good people like Gary Marbut, who work tirelessly to remove bad laws and change well-intentioned laws that infringe on the rights of good people. I can honestly say, that Gary himself is largely responsible for Montana having the best gun laws in the country. Unfortunately, if more people like Gary don't get involved in local politics and weed out over zealous police officers who regard the constitution as just a piece of paper (or a barometer to cause suspicion) and those who believe in it as "people to be watched", "questionable", or "curious", then before you know it, they will begin losing their freedom - just as most of the country already has. I don't dislike this officer, and I suspect that he believes that he was "just doing his job". Maybe under different circumstances we would have gotten along better. But the problem is that when police begin to bend the law, interrogate victims, and infringe upon the freedoms of honest people because they think that they can get away with it, that soon the line between right and wrong becomes blurred and the cops can become as bad as some of the criminals.

While I was there, I actually saw a policeman stop in the snow and change someone's tire. It was refreshing, but incredible! It is also noteworthy to mention that most police would probably have never even caught the criminals, let alone recover the stolen property. So obviously, the police there are far superior to most I have ever encountered, so they must be doing something right. I hope that I was just over-sensitive to the treatment that I had and that they don't have a bad apple in the bunch. Time will tell. In the meantime, I almost wish that they hadn't recovered my property. Not knowing where it was - was easier than knowing that the police are keeping it to spite me. This is exactly the type of incident that polarizes the police and other citizens and leads cops and other citizens to develop an "us vs. them" mentality. I didn't get that feeling from anyone while I was there, but I certainly didn't appreciate being treated like a criminal over the phone by this cop - who I finally hung up on and I am still waiting for him to call me back.

Now I don't expect that the folks in that town need to worry about getting tazed, beaten, or jailed for bogus charges tomorrow, but it has to start somewhere. If they will keep my property today, will they steal yours tomorrow?

Nobody wants to believe that eminent domain laws will ever happen to them, or that the police will keep their property, but I am here to tell you first hand, that it can happen. So if you lose a coat, a computer, a bicycle, a firearm, or your i Pod - make damn sure you have the serial number or else the police may decide to keep it. I wonder what their policy is on lost pets? Mayber I better brand my dog before I go back, just in case. I guess the idea of police confiscating my guns isn't so far fetched now, is it? But don't worry, this sort of thing will never happen to you... and he was just doing his job.

QUIT THE NRA!

2007-12-20T17:45:00.000-07:00

As I have been saying for the past 7 years, the NRA is the WORST enemy that gun owners have. By continually writing and backing legislature that undermines the 2nd amendment, they have been the CAUSE of gun owners losing freedom.

Their latest assault has been referred to as the Veterans Disarmament Act, because it could be used to disarm hundreds of thousands of military veterans who are suffering the ailments that frequently follow combat stress.

The bill was sponsored by notorious gun grabbers like Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Chuck Schumer. The piece of legislation is question is H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. H.R. 2640 was carefully-crafted by the NRA and Members of Congress to protect the rights of gun owners, especially those who may have mental health issues such as PTSD.

Continuing the trend of most new legislation that takes away your constitutional rights, the NRA and the gun-grabbing sponsors will tell you that the bill will do the opposite of what it is really intended to do. They claim that it will not take guns out of the hands of gun owners. Bull! It gives more power to the Federal Government to decide who should be allowed to have guns. The BATFE is committed to disarming citizens. McCarthy and Schumer are committed to disarming citizens. And the organization that portends to fight for your gun rights has been using your membership dollars to write most of the gun laws on the books for the past 20 years. People and organizations that write gun control laws are NOT friends of the gun owner who believes that the 2nd amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms. Please join me in defunding the authors of gun control laws - quit the NRA!

Zogby Caught in LIE!

2007-11-20T19:27:00.000-07:00

Zogby publishes blatant lie on their homepage about their latest poll.
In the most recent blind poll by Zogby, 1009 likely voters overwhelmingly picked Ron Paul in over 90% of the categories. Despite that fact, their headline and most of the article about the poll published on their site says that Giuliani won the poll. They LIED about their own poll. In fact, Giuliani only won the poll question regarding name recognition.
There is no doubt that Zogby is compromised. They have no integrity. They don't care what the actual poll results are, they will pull out a small sample that will support whatever serves their agenda.
We only know about how significant the lie is , because the actual results were furnished to Jones Productions, who paid for this poll. The reason for paying for a blind survey was to combat the stream of bogus polls that have been reported on lately.

The 2 paragraphs below are excerpts from their published story:

Only those four candidates were included in the question, which was commissioned by Jones Productions, a media company based in Austin, Texas. The survey included 389 likely Republican primary or caucus voters and was conducted Nov. 14–17, 2007. It carries a margin of error of +/– 5.1 percentage points.

The blind bio question was also posed to a larger pool of 1,009 likely voters nationwide, including Democrats and independents, and Paul was the big winner among that universe of voters, winning 33%, compared to 19% for Giuliani, 15% for Romney, and 13% for Thompson.

Patriot Act - Gold - Nazi - FBI

2007-11-15T16:56:00.000-07:00

OK, the name of this article might change, but the correlation won't. The fact is that tyrannical regimes, intoxicated with power, have always taken away the rights of citizens. They have always tried to disarm their own people, have always killed and stolen the wealth of their citizenry.

Hitler disarmed German citizens, brutalized them, dehumanized them, and confiscated their gold, jewelry, and art.

Today, the FBI, a division of our own Stasi-like Homeland Security - not to be confused with Hitler's Fatherland Security - confiscated gold, silver, platinum and records from a legitimate, law-abiding, U.S. company. An enterprise which was in the business of minting ornamental, precious-metal coins of mostly sentimental value, coins not designed to supplant U.S. Currency. I'm sure it was pure coincidence that these brand new, uncirculated coins had the face of Ron Paul on them. Yes, Ron Paul... presidential candidate Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the Republican candidate who wants to end the income tax and end the war in Iraq. He is also the only presidential candidate who spoke out against the USA PATRIOT Act. (Click here to see articles and videos on Ron Paul's anti-USA PATRIOT act position)

USA PATRIOT Act and U.S. Citizens

Do you remember George Bush, Dick Cheney, Orrin Hatch, Robert Mueller, and John Ashcroft getting all red in the face and screaming at us that we NEEDED the PATRIOT Act in order to fight terrorism?

Do you remember them telling us over and over and over again how it would not affect Americans, that it was for stopping terrorists? NO? Well do you remember when Utah Senator Orrin Hatch demanded that we make the law permanent by removing its sunset provisions? You see, the only way it could get passed in the first place was by putting in a sunset clause. That way, the congress could review it later to see if it actually did what it had been designed to do. If it didn't, the act would die. Well, Senator Hatch, President Bush, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, and FBI Head Robert Mueller all insisted that the Act had proven to be a great success in keeping us safe and was a vital tool in the "War on Terror."

They proposed that the PATRIOT Act must be made permanent -- going so far as
to send Attorney General Ashcroft on a multi-state, Punch-and-Judy Show to sell the idea --
all the while insisting the law did not violate the rights of American citizens, and would never be used in the prosecution or punishment of ordinary, domestic crimes.

Of course everyone who has a third grade reading level can see that this law violates the rights guaranteed Americans in the Bill of Rights, but Orrin Hatch and John Ashcroft didn't think that was important.

Apparently, I have a different idea of what terrorism is. You see, MY idea of terrorism is having someone kick my door down, slam me to the floor, put a gun in my face, steal all my property and freeze my accounts. That is what happened today at the Liberty Dollar office in Evansville and at the Sunshine Mint. Today, when they used the FBI to enforce an illegal act of confiscation against a legitimate business -- under color of law, as outlined in the USA PATRIOT Act -- to MY mind, the FBI engaged in an act of domestic terrorism, just as they did when they killed women and children in Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge, ID. And of course, let us not forget that the FBI's behavior in the Oklahoma bombing is also still very questionable in a lot of minds. How many minds? More than a few... read about those who suspect the FBI knew about the Oklahoma City bombing. And I suppose that none of us would dare call into question the Bureau's competence just because they have lost millions of dollars worth of weapons and computers in the last couple of years.

So, now the beloved, and often misunderstood, FBI is involved in yet another travesty of justice. Now, they have again used the repulsive USA PATRIOT Act against U.S. Citizens to steal nearly $19 MILLION in gold, silver, platinum and cash from honest American citizens.

Now, I don't know about you, but I would call the loss of $19 million harm. Yeah, I would definitely call it harmful to a business if it lost its money, its records, and the means to operate, likely forever. And I would like the people of the United States to see the USA PATRIOT act for what it REALLY is. It is a way to take away your rights. It grants the government -- again under the color of law and in flagrant violation of the our Constitutional Guarantess -- the ability to go into ANY business ANY time and confiscate ANY and ALL records WITHOUT A WARRANT... as long as they SAY that they believe that business may be involved with terrorism. "Involved with terrorism" could mean something as innocuous as having someone who is believed to be in contact with terrorists to accidentally call your phone number. Or it could be nothing but the word of a trustworthy FBI agent.

The Terrorist Connection to the Coins

OK, so where was the terrorist connection to the Ron Paul coins or to the Sunshine Mint?
That's a good question. Now this hasn't been released to the media yet, but I think I have figured it out. You see, the people who support Ron Paul have started a Ron Paul rEVOLution. You know... revolution! Also, these people donated $4.3 million dollars to that "revolution" on November 5th. Hello... NOVEMBER FIFTH... Guy Fawkes Day! Guy Fawkes wanted to blow up Parliament! Don't you see... the terrorist connection is very clear. In fact, this theory was on one of the largest Political Talk Radio shows in the country and they had 2 expert witnesses concur with Glenn Beck's Theory.(see video).

Therefore, I suppose that the USA PATRIOT act is working exactly as planned. The FBI, used the "law" to take away money from Ron Paul supporters who have criticized the government and who would like to repeal unconstitutional laws like the USA PATRIOT Act. The biggest weapon of these rEVOLutionaries appears to be their money and their free speech. So, by stealing their money, taking away their coins with the image of Ron Paul, the FBI has effectively thwarted this sinister plot and stopped these rEVOLutionaries dead in their tracks. I'm sure that the honorable Orrin Hatch (self-proclaimed author of the USA PATRIOT act) would be very proud of this. But I'm not Orrin Hatch, and I was not born with a brain defect, so I can't really see how the FBI can justify this outrageous crime that they committed. So what I hope is that everyone who ordered a Ron Paul coin does is to join the class action lawsuit against the FBI. I also hope that, this December 16th, ALL Ron Paul supporters will show the FBI, Orrin Hatch, George Bush, and the mainstream media that they won't take this lying down! This December 16th marks the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Some Ron Paul supporters came up with an idea to have a Liber-tea Party and raise $10,000,000 for Ron Paul. Now that's my kind of party... I hope you will all join me there. - Fran

Making Money Online

2007-11-07T10:05:00.000-07:00

As the Internet continues to develop, people are beginning to harness new concepts on how to actually earn money with it. Far from using it as a business home page, now people have started using blogs and "myspace" type sites to rake in the revenue.

Yuwie.com | invite friends. hang out. get paid.

In fact, MySpace now has nearly 27,000,000 users and is earning about $200 MILLION a year in ad revenues! HUGE NUMBERS. And of that $200,000,000 in ad revenues, they pass $0 on to the people who provide the content and the traffic - most of the users are under 30 years old.
Say what? Yeah, the site is essentially a free place to blog, exchange music, and give you some face time. You can promote yourself, your business, and your ideas, but all the revenue goes to the geniuses who started it - as it should be. But in America, competition creates opportunity. So now, there is Yuwie. Yuwie is trying to create a copycat of MySpace but unlike MySpace, they are giving some of the ad money that it generates back to the users. Now THAT is a great idea. So while Yuwie only has 240,000 users - compared to the 27,000,000 MySpace users - there is a huge income potential for those who get there early and start building traffic. See my Yuwie site. I also just created a new "club" there called the Freedom Lounge.
Anothe distinct difference that I notice between the two sites is that Yuwie has attracted a ton of really hot girls. I think that they believe that the mere fact that they are hot will attract people to their site and thus bring them more money via ad revenue. Well, it got me to check out their sites, but I don't know if that is a good indicator. Regardless, there is a plethora of very hot looking girls. I would say that the ratio on Yuwie is around 4 or 5 girls to every guy. I'm not complaining, just making an observation.

The ‘Good Germans’ Among Us

2007-10-16T21:01:00.000-06:00

This was just sent to me from my good friend, who I will call "Bosnia Bill". It ran in the New York Times.

October 14, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

By FRANK RICH

“BUSH lies” doesn’t cut it anymore. It’s time to confront the darker reality that we are lying to ourselves.

Ten days ago The Times unearthed yet another round of secret Department of Justice memos countenancing torture. President Bush gave his standard response: “This government does not torture people.” Of course, it all depends on what the meaning of “torture” is. The whole point of these memos is to repeatedly recalibrate the definition so Mr. Bush can keep pleading innocent.

By any legal standards except those rubber-stamped by Alberto Gonzales, we are practicing torture, and we have known we are doing so ever since photographic proof emerged from Abu Ghraib more than three years ago. As Andrew Sullivan, once a Bush cheerleader, observed last weekend in The Sunday Times of London, America’s “enhanced interrogation” techniques have a grotesque provenance: “Verschärfte Vernehmung, enhanced or intensified interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what became known as the ‘third degree.’ It left no marks. It included hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation.”

Still, the drill remains the same. The administration gives its alibi (Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples). A few members of Congress squawk. The debate is labeled “politics.” We turn the page.

There has been scarcely more response to the similarly recurrent story of apparent war crimes committed by our contractors in Iraq. Call me cynical, but when Laura Bush spoke up last week about the human rights atrocities in Burma, it seemed less an act of selfless humanitarianism than another administration maneuver to change the subject from its own abuses.

As Mrs. Bush spoke, two women, both Armenian Christians, were gunned down in Baghdad by contractors underwritten by American taxpayers. On this matter, the White House has been silent. That incident followed the Sept. 16 massacre in Baghdad’s Nisour Square, where 17 Iraqis were killed by security forces from Blackwater USA, which had already been implicated in nearly 200 other shooting incidents since 2005. There has been no accountability. The State Department, Blackwater’s sugar daddy for most of its billion dollars in contracts, won’t even share its investigative findings with the United States military and the Iraqi government, both of which have deemed the killings criminal.

The gunmen who mowed down the two Christian women worked for a Dubai-based company managed by Australians, registered in Singapore and enlisted as a subcontractor by an American contractor headquartered in North Carolina. This is a plot out of “Syriana” by way of “Chinatown.” There will be no trial. We will never find out what happened. A new bill passed by the House to regulate contractor behavior will have little effect, even if it becomes law in its current form.

We can continue to blame the Bush administration for the horrors of Iraq — and should. Paul Bremer, our post-invasion viceroy and the recipient of a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his efforts, issued the order that allows contractors to elude Iraqi law, a folly second only to his disbanding of the Iraqi Army. But we must also examine our own responsibility for the hideous acts committed in our name in a war where we have now fought longer than we did in the one that put Verschärfte Vernehmung on the map.

I have always maintained that the American public was the least culpable of the players during the run-up to Iraq. The war was sold by a brilliant and fear-fueled White House propaganda campaign designed to stampede a nation still shellshocked by 9/11. Both Congress and the press — the powerful institutions that should have provided the checks, balances and due diligence of the administration’s case — failed to do their job. Had they done so, more Americans might have raised more objections. This perfect storm of democratic failure began at the top.

As the war has dragged on, it is hard to give Americans en masse a pass. We are too slow to notice, let alone protest, the calamities that have followed the original sin.

In April 2004, Stars and Stripes first reported that our troops were using makeshift vehicle armor fashioned out of sandbags, yet when a soldier complained to Donald Rumsfeld at a town meeting in Kuwait eight months later, he was successfully pilloried by the right. Proper armor procurement lagged for months more to come. Not until early this year, four years after the war’s first casualties, did a Washington Post investigation finally focus the country’s attention on the shoddy treatment of veterans, many of them victims of inadequate armor, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other military hospitals.

We first learned of the use of contractors as mercenaries when four Blackwater employees were strung up in Falluja in March 2004, just weeks before the first torture photos emerged from Abu Ghraib. We asked few questions. When reports surfaced early this summer that our contractors in Iraq (180,000, of whom some 48,000 are believed to be security personnel) now outnumber our postsurge troop strength, we yawned. Contractor casualties and contractor-inflicted casualties are kept off the books.

It was always the White House’s plan to coax us into a blissful ignorance about the war. Part of this was achieved with the usual Bush-Cheney secretiveness, from the torture memos to the prohibition of photos of military coffins. But the administration also invited our passive complicity by requiring no shared sacrifice. A country that knows there’s no such thing as a free lunch was all too easily persuaded there could be a free war.

Instead of taxing us for Iraq, the White House bought us off with tax cuts. Instead of mobilizing the needed troops, it kept a draft off the table by quietly purchasing its auxiliary army of contractors to finesse the overstretched military’s holes. With the war’s entire weight falling on a small voluntary force, amounting to less than 1 percent of the population, the rest of us were free to look the other way at whatever went down in Iraq.

We ignored the contractor scandal to our own peril. Ever since Falluja this auxiliary army has been a leading indicator of every element of the war’s failure: not only our inadequate troop strength but also our alienation of Iraqi hearts and minds and our rampant outsourcing to contractors rife with Bush-Cheney cronies and campaign contributors. Contractors remain a bellwether of the war’s progress today. When Blackwater was briefly suspended after the Nisour Square catastrophe, American diplomats were flatly forbidden from leaving the fortified Green Zone. So much for the surge’s great “success” in bringing security to Baghdad.

Last week Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq war combat veteran who directs Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, sketched for me the apocalypse to come. Should Baghdad implode, our contractors, not having to answer to the military chain of command, can simply “drop their guns and go home.” Vulnerable American troops could be deserted by those “who deliver their bullets and beans.”

This potential scenario is just one example of why it’s in our national self-interest to attend to Iraq policy the White House counts on us to ignore. Our national character is on the line too.. The extralegal contractors are both a slap at the sovereignty of the self-governing Iraq we supposedly support and an insult to those in uniform receiving as little as one-sixth the pay. Yet it took mass death in Nisour Square to fix even our fleeting attention on this long-metastasizing cancer in our battle plan.

Similarly, it took until December 2005, two and a half years after “Mission Accomplished,” for Mr. Bush to feel sufficient public pressure to acknowledge the large number of Iraqi casualties in the war. Even now, despite his repeated declaration that “America will not abandon the Iraqi people,” he has yet to address or intervene decisively in the tragedy of four million-plus Iraqi refugees, a disproportionate number of them children. He feels no pressure from the American public to do so, but hey, he pays lip service to Darfur.

Our moral trajectory over the Bush years could not be better dramatized than it was by a reunion of an elite group of two dozen World War II veterans in Washington this month. They were participants in a top-secret operation to interrogate some 4,000 Nazi prisoners of war. Until now, they have kept silent, but America’s recent record prompted them to talk to The Washington Post.

“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an M.I.T. physicist whose interrogation of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, took place over a chessboard. George Frenkel, 87, recalled that he “never laid hands on anyone” in his many interrogations, adding, “I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”

Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It’s up to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration policy every day. Let the war’s last supporters filibuster all night if they want to. There is nothing left to lose except whatever remains of our country’s good name.

Ron Paul Truckstop

2007-10-05T12:52:00.000-06:00

The Ron Paul Truck Stop is Coming This Weekend!
Updates from Earnest Hancock about the new truck stop.

by Ernest Hancock
http://www.ernesthancock.com

A month ago Jeff Cullen made a very generous offer after being greatly inspired by the Ron Paul Revolution. Jeff is a constitutionalist and understood immediately the effectiveness of the RPR logo and how it represented his emotions in this campaign cycle. As a long time supporter of Ron Paul's efforts Jeff has provided us with a very unique opportunity with very few conditions that are more than reasonable.

Almost 10 years ago Jeff bought an abandoned Stuckey's Truck Stop on the I-15 between Las Vegas and Los Angeles that is run by his brother and sister-in-law. They have been steadily restoring this property that runs for almost a mile along the interstate. The high angled roof is clearly visible from both directions of traffic and Jeff has asked that we paint a Ron Paul Revolution across the entire roof.

Jeff also has two very large 45' high billboards on the property to be painted as well, but there's more. Three semi trailers are on the property and can be placed so that 3 sides are able to be used for messages and short Ron Paul quotes.. In all, there are over a dozen large sign areas that are seen from both directions of traffic.

This stretch of interstate is one of the busiest in the entire nation with this highway being feed from the Los Angeles harbors that supply Las Vegas and communities eastward. We arrived on a Sunday and in the afternoon we were astounded by the traffic jam that stretched from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. We were told that the weekend traffic between the two cities encourage the truckers to travel the route at other times so the interstate is constantly busy. I was told that over 7 million vehicles pass this location a month and this opportunity is eagerly being taken advantage of, (heck, that's a lot more vehicles than there are people in the entire state of Arizona).

Jeff has also provided us with an entire wall of the general store for the display of Ron Paul Revolution material to be sold and given away to motorist.

When I and another Ron Paul Revolutionary drove the 6 hours to the Truck Stop to meet with the owner we also met the founder of www.Truckers4RonPaul.org to make plans. There are many truckers in support of Ron Paul and the r3VOLution and truckers have special needs (like very large magnetic signs)

Over the last few weeks we have been planning and preparing for this effort and a talented and skilled team has gotten time off from work and set aside other duties for the 4 day workfest to accomplish the tasks. Many printed materials and clothing items have arrived and are on their way to stock the facility.

Late Thursday night on the 4th of October the team will arrive to set up. The restaurant portion of the building is under construction so it has been offered as a sheltered sleeping area but most of us are planning on camping and cooking out. We do not plan to be leaving the work site until Monday afternoon on the 8th of October.

Two large trailers will accompany us and have as much equipment as we think we will need. Supplies and large rental equipment will come from Las Vegas and Barstow.

Ron Paul Revolutionaries in Las Vegas and Los Angeles have been preparing as well to meet with Phoenix Revolutionaries to make certain that this effort is a success. We waited until now to share this information more publicly so that there would not be any interference with the effort. Those that wish to help us with this effort are welcome and needed. But the curious would only be a distraction and we have a great deal to do in the allotted time available.

Saturday and Sunday will be the days that will require the most labor and we hope that those willing to be a small part of the effort will choose those days to come by early and help.

Please plan on bringing your own food and drink since we have not made any plans for anything but the basics for ourselves. If you were to contact me by phone 602 717 5900 on your way in then we will be able to ask you to stop for supplies that we need and didn't anticipate. The General store phone number to reach the Truck Stop and Jeff's brother Jim Cullen is 949-422-1856. We are very far from anywhere (40 miles closest).

We will have camping gear, ladders, projectors, computers, welders, canopies, work tables, power tools, plasma cutters, cutting torches, table saw, shelving etc. We are certain to need ¾ inch plywood, Bear Outdoor High Gloss Black, Yellow, White and Red paint (owner's request) and various hardware and other colors of paint. This effort is very expensive and we can use every sort of help that does not distract from the work. Those planning on adding to the workforce should plan on being as self sustaining as possible. If you have a strong back and no tools, cool. If you wish to supply meals and refreshment, great. If you desire conversation then another time would be much more welcome.

Here are directions and some requested information from the owner Jeff.

from southern california...no matter what freeway (s) you use...get to the interstate-15 northbound to las vegas...keep going through barstow, california...keep going about another 40 miles on the interstate 15 northbound ...you will exit at "AFTON ROAD"...turn left accross the freeway and we are the only building located in the area...easy to find...

from anywhere on the interstate 40...go westbound until you reach the interstate 15 and then go 40 miles northbound to "AFTON ROAD"...
(please note that there are shortcuts to take from the 40 to the 15 ...but i am only giving directions that are fool proof...

from anywhere north of our location on the interstate 15...go southbound through las vegas...past stateline...and past baker...to "AFTON ROAD"....

we are in the middle of "nowhere"...but we like to say "we are halfway to everywhere!!!!!!!!!!"

equipment rentals are best using the las vegas resource...many more companies to select from...barstow does have rental companies...but if the equipment is "down" or already rented ...this could be a problem...barstow now has a new "HOME DEPOT" ...

we have 110 and 220 power...

our building is very big and can handle very many people who want to "camp" inside the large area where the pool table is ...using cots...and /or sleeping bags...etc...that way the folks can use the indoor bathrooms during the night...much better...plus we have an outdoor shower where the picnic tables are...a person would need to maintain shorts on...but can indeed shower and clean up...etc...

anyone wanting to use a motel...tell them to look up "yermo" and there is a nice motel there...this time of year they will have not much problem getting a room...the motel is about 3 years old...so it's in great condition...an important part of the location of the motel is that it is between our ranch and barstow...so travel to barstow the next morning to get stuff might be made from the motel location ....making the motel use more plausible because then there would not be any waste of gas...just a thought...

i think moving the big trailers is going to need a big rig tractor...so i do not know how you plan to do that unless you have a trucker willing to help...

we use our bar-b-ques most every day...so the cooking is easy...if you have other ways to cook...great...

your plan sounds great...please know that you are welcome to stay at the ranch while the project goes on....and most of all know that you and all your team will always be welcome to return...

ron is really doing great and i know we can win....jeff.

let freedom ring!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here are some owner approved slogans and messages for some of the signs...

No PATRIOT Act

Health Freedom

Bring the Troops Home

Precious Metals = Sound Money

THE CONSTITUTION IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008...IN THE NAME OF RON PAUL!!!!

FREEDUMB vs.FREEDOM
vote Ron Paul President 2008

LET US PREY (NEW WORLD ORDER)
vs.
LET US PRAY (IN GOD WE TRUST)

Ron Paul
"Constitutional"
R3VOLUTION

These are just some of the ideas that have Jeff has shared with us but he is very tolerant and is looking for your creativity and a Ron Paul r3VOLution theme. There is plenty of message space available, do you have something to say?

Please contact me if you wish to be part of the effort and know when you will be arriving so we can schedule the work around the number of available workers (some things like the painting and erecting of the billboards will take quite a few hands).

We are already planning the next 3 BIG Ron Paul Revolution Projects, so stay tuned.

We hope many of you can join in the fun,

Ernie

Cops Gone Wild - Follow up to "I could name 9 things..."

2007-10-01T20:19:00.000-06:00

Since I posted the article on the young man who video taped an officer threatening to lock him up on bogus charges, some new information has come out.

First of all, before the incident, other officers had made death threats on him in an online message board. If young Darrow was afraid for his life during the traffic stop, it was with good reason. His life was threatened by police officers on an online forum! Here is the threat from the message board from a forum user calling himself "STL_FINEST", presented unedited:

in reply to "Who is this terd?"
I hope this little POS punk bastard tries his little video stunt with me when I pull him over alone- and I WILL pull him over - because I will see "his gun" and place a hunk of hot lead right where it belongs.

You can check out the story here

In case you missed it... the St. Louis COP is suggesting that he will kill Darrow in cold blood and later claim that he saw Darrow with a gun.
TheNewspaper.com verified the existence of the post which, until some time around July, was publicly available. It has since been deleted. The administrator of the CopTalk has the ability to confirm the identity of the poster who made the death threat and to verify his status as a law enforcement officer, but so far has not done so. When contacted by TheNewspaper this week, the forum owner had no comment beyond, "Sorry, the posting log I have access to only contains the most recent 300 messages, and that particular message cycled off some time ago."

Why are these officers above the law? Why aren't they treated like any other terrorist who makes death threats against citizens?

-----

In another follow up article, there is new video footage of police staking out Darrow's home and then speeding away trying (unsuccessfully)to avoid being video taped. To view the video and read the story go to:

Missouri: Police Stake Out Brett Darrow Home -

Now whoever believed that this was an isolated incident, should think again. Whoever still believes that the law treats all people equally, should think again. There are dozens of videos on YouTube showing police brutality, police shootings, and abuses of power. In a related story, a young girl in Palmdale had her wrist broken this week and was called "nappy head" by a security guard for not cleaning up her cake quick enough. They later arrested the girl AND a student who video taped the incident!

They are not investigating the bad cops behavior... instead, they are looking for revenge and lamenting that the footage was so damning that they had no choice but to fire the cop. In addition, you have an online message board administrator who seems to be protecting at least one cop who made a death threat against Darrow. Hmmm, very curious.

I wonder what would happen to me if I allowed people to post death threats against cops on my site. How long do you think it would take to get a court order to break into my home, slam me to the floor, terrify my kids, steal my computers, trash my home, and force me to turn over records of who made those threats? Why aren't the police or the FBI investigating those officers? Why are the REAL CRIMINALS in that case being treated differently? You know why. Because they are a part of the justice system and they have to protect their own at all cost. Darrow is a nobody. He is just a lowly civilian... expendable to protect the St. Louis PD reputation. Never mind the fact that they have bad cops in the department. That's not where the focus is. The focus continues to be on intimidating Darrow and eliminating him. What is incomprehensible to me is how they think this will help their reputation??? Don't these cops realize that it is a crime to make a death threat?

I find this entire event disturbing and disgusting. These new articles just reinforce the beliefs in my earlier post. Anyone who doubted that we have a police state and that the police have adopted an US vs THEM mentality, should need no further proof than this case and the events that have followed it.

---------
In other online forums, cops continue to make threats:
Click to open enlarged in new window.

Become a Dangerous Old Man

2007-10-01T16:42:00.000-06:00

A friend recently forwarded me this message, and I felt it was important enought to post here for all to see. I realize that it isn't Father's Day, but this message is one that is valuable any time of the year.
From: http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/

Happy Father's Day:

It hasn't been a great one here; but that is part of fatherhood, too.

Dad29 links to a unpopular speaker, quoting another -- apparently the only person ever thrown off the Oprah show. Here's what he said:

There is only one force in this world that is capable of controlling a teenage male: his father. Women, you can either let black men rule their households as husbands and fathers or hide in your homes with doors locked as they rule the streets in roving gangs.

OK, that's explosive. It manages to link the two most dangerous topics in America -- race and sex -- in a way that both endorses an unpopular viewpoint, and asserts that there is no other good alternative.

Let me repost, in honor of Father's Day and in the hope of relocating the discussion to firmer ground, an old post called "Social Harmony."

I was reading an article the other day, in the local newspaper, about an elderly Korean gentleman who has moved into town and opened a martial arts studio. He chastened the reporter who had come to interview him not to suggest that the martial arts were 'all about fighting.' "No!" he said. "The purpose is social harmony."

That is exactly right. The secret of social harmony is simple: Old men must be dangerous.

Very nearly all the violence that plagues, rather than protects, society is the work of young males between the ages of fourteen and thirty. A substantial amount of the violence that protects rather than plagues society is performed by other members of the same group. The reasons for this predisposition are generally rooted in biology, which is to say that they are not going anywhere, in spite of the current fashion that suggests doping half the young with Ritalin.

The question is how to move these young men from the first group (violent and predatory) into the second (violent, but protective). This is to ask: what is the difference between a street gang and the Marine Corps, or a thug and a policeman? In every case, we see that the good youths are guided and disciplined by old men. This is half the answer to the problem.

But do we not try to discipline and guide the others? If we catch them at their menace, don't we put them into prisons or programs where they are monitored, disciplined, and exposed to "rehabilitation"? The rates of recidivism are such that we can't say that these programs are successful at all, unless the person being "rehabilitated" wants and chooses to be. And this is the other half of the answer: the discipline and guidance must be voluntarily accepted. The Marine enlists; the criminal must likewise choose to accept what is offered.

The Eastern martial arts provide an experience very much like that of Boot Camp. The Master, like the Drill Instructor, is a disciplined man of great personal prowess. He is an exemplar. He asks nothing of you he can't, or won't, do himself--and there are very many things he can and will do that are beyond you, though you have all the help of youth and strength. It is on this ground that acceptance of discipline is won. It is the ground of admiration, and what wins the admiration of these young men is martial prowess.

Everyone who was once a young man will understand what I mean. Who could look forward, at the age of sixteen or eighteen, to a life of obedience, dressed in suits or uniforms, sitting or standing behind a desk? How were you to respect or care about the laws, or the wishes, of men who had accepted such a life? The difficulty is compounded in poor communities, where the jobs undertaken are often menial. How can you respect your father if your father is a servant? Would you not be accepting a place twice as low as his? Would you not rather take up the sword, and cut yourself a new place? Meekness in the old men of the community unmakes the social order: it encourages rebellion from the young.
The traditional martial arts tend to teach young men to undertake flashy and impressive, but not terribly effective, fighting techniques. Only as you grow older do the masters of the art teach you the real secrets--the subtle, quick, physically simple ways in which the human body can be destroyed. In this way, the old retain their power over the young--although they lack the speed and strength, they have in discipline in training more than enough to maintain the order. Social harmony is maintained in the dojo: the young revere the old, and seek to emulate them. Your father may be a servant, but he is still a warrior--and a more dangerous one than you. The father, being past that age in which biology makes us vicious, guides the son or neighbor to protect society rather than to rend it. It is not particularly different in the military.

If we would have a stable society, we must have dangerous old men. This means that, if you are yourself on your way to becoming an old man, you have a duty to society to begin your preparations. The martial arts are not the only road--my own grandfather did it through a simple combination of physical strength, personal discipline, and an accustomed habit of going armed about his business. There was never a more impressive figure--or, at least, there was never a boy more impressed than was I.

The martial virtues are exactly the ones needed. By a happy coincidence, having a society whose members adhere to and encourage those virtues makes us freer as well--we need fewer police, fewer courts, fewer prisons, fewer laws, and fewer lawyers. This is what Aristotle meant when he said that the virtues of the man are reflected in the society. Politics and ethics are naturally joined.

Happy Father's Day.

Disarm the Police - by Gary North

2007-10-01T12:38:00.000-06:00

On Lew Rockwell.com, Gary North just presented an excellent theory that coincides with my post below. Please read his article if if you get the opportunity.
Gary North Archives

"I Could Make Up 9 Things to Charge You With..."

2007-10-01T11:33:00.000-06:00

This post will upset a lot of you, but I will risk it.
When I first watched this video - the day after it circulated - I was very upset. Upset because I have been stopped when I felt that had to suck up to dishonest cops because I didn't have a camera running or an audio recorder running. When I saw this video, two things went through my mind.

1. If it had been me, I would have baited and antagonized that cop until he either beat me or threw me in jail under false pretenses. It wouldn't have taken much, as he seemed just begging for a reason to club this kid and throw him in jail. I then would have sued the department and the cop for all they were worth. I would see that the video of the violation surfaced on the Internet the day before the trial and I would go for a reward on the scale of the Rodney King case.

2. I wish the hell I had a setup like that in all of my vehicles.

Now, after further reflection and reading dozens of comments on blogs and news sites, I still feel the same way.

Several folks questioned if the kid had an issue with cops...

Well... I have an issue with cops! My issue stems from the fact that I have found most of them to believe that they are above the law, better (or more special/important) than "civilians", and that they are willing to lie/cheat/coerce/or collude with other officers to get a conviction, whether they believe the party in question is guilty or not.

I would love to see a company reduce the cost of these devices as they have done with cellular telephones. Imagine if these devices were available with nothing down and $15 a month....
Imagine every teen, black, woman, college kid, construction worker, constitutionalist, Arab, and Mexican, with one of these installed in their cars. It would serve exactly the same purpose as concealed carry of firearms; It would level the playing field and take the power away from the bullies. No longer would the bully/criminal/cop have an unfair advantage. No longer would the cops' testimony carry more weight than the drivers'. No longer would criminals assume that it was safe to "car jack" someone with no repercussions.
If an armed society is a polite society, then a cop fearful of being recorded would become a decent, law abiding human being again.

I personally would love nothing more than to see bad cops removed from the justice system.
If it is OK for cops to set up stings, road blocks, and the like, why isn't turnabout fair game? Why shouldn't these devices be used to root out the bad eggs on the police forces? Why not entrap cops into engaging in police brutality, sexual harassment, racism, and miscarriages of the law? In my opinion, that would be an excellent use for these devices - perhaps the ONLY way of reversing the current condition.

In most cities today, we are recorded on every street, parking lot, public building, place of business, and traffic stop. Yet, when the facts are in question or where foul play is suspected (think Pentagon 9/11) all the tapes are confiscated and held by a secret agency or law enforcement group. I'm sick of that.
I think that it is high time that the American public fight fire with fire. If the cops record every incident, either make it a law that every person stopped is entitled to a free copy of the video of their stop - on request at the time of their stop for free - or that the case can be dismissed and the incident expunged from their record.

I would like to see more of these cameras in use. I would like to see them as standard issue for all new cars. I would much rather have a camera than the damn "On-star" cellular devices that are currently installed in all new vehicles and used as tracking devices...

I don't want you to think I am anti-cop. I'm not. What I am against are abuses of power, trampling the rights of those not wealthy enough to defend themselves or smart enough to know how. I am against bullies. I am against using law enforcement officers as tax collectors. I am against intimidation by thugs with guns who believe that they are above the law because they have a gun and a badge. The sooner these people are removed from the field of justice, the better (and safer) we will all be. I believe it is also in the best interest of law enforcement agencies to support their removal. By doing so, they may once again restore the concept that the police are the good guys.

Two Patriot Act Provisions Ruled Unlawful

2007-09-27T11:31:00.000-06:00

Proving it's incumbent on administration and all
congressmen/senators who voted for PATRIOT Act to
resign with dishonor, and also repay all compensation
since that vote.

Link to Yahoo story

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law - with unparalleled success. A shift toa Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised", she wrote.

2 Patriot Act provisions ruled unlawful
By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer
Thu Sep 27, 12:51 AM ET

PORTLAND, Ore. - Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a
federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to
conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment".

Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train
bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the settlement, Mayfield
retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate suspected acts of terrorism.

Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law - with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited,
as well as ill-advised", she wrote.

By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights,
by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."

Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield, issued a statement on his behalf praising the judge, saying she "has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence,
and our nation's most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one's own home."

Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said the agency was reviewing the decision, and he declined to comment further.

The ruling probably won't have any immediate affect on enforcement under the Patriot Act, according to legal experts who predicted the government would quickly appeal.

"But it's an important first step", said Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project.

Jaffer noted that the Patriot Act carries dozens of provisions and that several have been challenged - but that this is one of the first major rulings on
Fourth Amendment rights.

"This is as clear a violation of the Fourth Amendment as you'll ever find", Jaffer said.

Garrett Epps, a constitutional law expert at the University of Oregon, said the ruling adds to the poor record that the Bush administration has piled up in defending the Patriot Act.

"It's embarrassing", Epps said. "It represents another judicial repudiation of this administration's terrorist surveillance policies."

A federal judge in New York this month handed the ACLU a victory in a challenge to the Patriot Act on behalf of an Internet service provider that was issued a
"national security letter" demanding customer phone and computer records. The judge in that case ruled the FBI must justify to a court the need for secrecy for more than a brief and reasonable period of time.

Mayfield, a Muslim convert, was taken into custody on May 6, 2004, because of a fingerprint found on a detonator at the scene of the Madrid bombing. The FBI said the print matched Mayfield's. He was released about two weeks later, and the FBI admitted it had erred in saying the fingerprints were his and later apologized to him.

Before his arrest, the FBI put Mayfield under 24-hour surveillance, listened to his phone calls and surreptitiously searched his home and law office.

The Mayfield case has been an embarrassment for the federal government. Last year, the Justice Department's internal watchdog faulted the FBI for sloppy work in
mistakenly linking Mayfield to the Madrid bombings. That report said federal prosecutors and FBI agents had made inaccurate and ambiguous statements to a federal judge to get arrest and criminal search warrants against Mayfield.

Congress passed the Patriot Act with little debate shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to help counter terrorist activities. It gave federal law enforcers the authority to search telephone and e-mail communications and expanded the Treasury Department's regulation of financial transactions involving foreign nationals. The law was renewed in 2005.

In early August, the Bush administration persuaded lawmakers to expand the government's power to listen in on any foreign communication it deemed of interest
without a court order, even if an American was a party. The expanded surveillance authority expires early next year.

As Congress takes a closer look at the law, many Democrats want to rein in language that many consider overly broad.
--

State Supreme Court Justice Relieved Over "Defeat" of J.A.I.L.

2007-09-21T17:02:00.000-06:00

It is clear that the system fears the passage of J.A.I.L. more than anything else. Five State Supreme Court Justices have expressed concern over the potential of the passage of J.A.I.L. in this country, with a sixth warning the other justices that they should be careful what they are saying about J.A.I.L. because one day they may be placed in a position of having to rule on J.A.I.L. and having to recuse themselves.

The fact is, that all of the judiciary in this country face a serious conflict when it comes to the passage of JAIL4Judges. J.A.I.L. propagates a method by which power is restored

directly to the People, and that is what concerns them. J.A.I.L., through the direct initiative process, does not seek nor ask for any government approval, because it both originates from the People, and returns to the People. It provides for a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. Isn't that what this country is supposed to be about?

When J.A.I.L. was first filed with the Secretary of State of California back in 1995, this author was questioned by the State Attorney General as to which branch of government the Special Grand Jury created by its provisions was accountable: the Legislative, the Executive, or the Judicial. He responded, None. The Special Grand Jury is the People, and not a part of any of the three branches of government. People do not give account to their government, but contrariwise, the government must give account to the People in the forum of the Grand Jury. The very thought of this concept brings sweat to the brows of "Public Servants."

Witness the words of State Supreme Court Justice Judith Meierhenry below just this week when she said she felt less threatened this year after South Dakota voters defeated the Judicial Accountability Amendment this past year. You can almost see her pulling out her handkerchief to wipe the sweat from her brow. She fails to state though that this affair required the entire participation of all the "government" of South Dakota in illegally using the People's (taxpayers') money to oppose the People's constitutional amendment, which participation included every legislator of both houses -- Republican and Democrat, the governor, the judiciary, the State Attorney General, county commissions, and city councils, aided by the financial support of the corporate oil companies, the banks, and insurance companies. They admit that it cost them a fortune to defeat J.A.I.L. with a hope it will never return again.

Even though their actions were in defiance of their own criminal statutes (South Dakota Codified Law 12-13-16 "Publication of False or Erroneous Information on Constitutional Amendment or Submitted Question as Misdemeanor") that provide for arrest and imprisonment of offenders (see www.sd-jail4judges.org), it was worth the risk because they have the chief law enforcement officer of the state (the State Attorney General) in on the plot with them.

It is ironic that they now use Constitution Day as the time to express their distaste for the J.A.I.L. Amendment that specifically provides for a means of assuring a constitutional government in South Dakota. The fact is, the se hypoctites render lip service to the Constitution, but their hearts and minds are far from the truth! J.A.I.L. campaigned on the theme, "It's All About Truth!" A visit to the above URL will bring the stirring music "His Truth is Marching On" (Battle Hymn of the Republic).

- Ron Branson -

* * *

Constitution Day forum
weighs judicial independenceBy Melanie Brandert
mbrander@argusleader.com
Published: September 18, 2007
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070918/NEWS/709180304/1001

A panel on judicial issues differed in its views on whether judicial independence is being threatened.

State Supreme Court Justice Judith Meierhenry said she felt less threatened this year after South Dakota voters defeated the judicial accountability amendment last year. Other states' issues dealt with retaining and electing judges.

"They really attempted in most cases ... to take away the independence of the judiciary," she said of ballot issues.

While John Van Patten, University of South Dakota Law School professor, said people will disagree on applications of an independent judiciary, fellow professor Chris Hutton said she was concerned about political groups using money to influence elections and inaccurate portrayal of a judicial decision.

"It's easy to mischaracterize what has happened in a case by capturing one small aspect of it or trying to give the wrong impression of it," she said.

The panel addressed several issues at a Constitution Day forum Monday at Augustana College's Gilbert Science Center Auditorium. The college and League of Women Voters held the event.

It was the 200th anniversary of the Constitution's signing.

Regarding whether Legislatures should scrutinize judges, Van Patten said the judicial system has built-in safeguards to deal with rogue decisions, noting appellate courts exist. Meierhenry said the system can stand to be reviewed.

On whether politics threatens the courts, Van Patten, also a constitutional scholar, said the intensity level with judicial nominations is greater. He said the 1916 nomination of Louis Brandeis, a Jew, drew controversy.

Christopher Madsen, local lawyer and former state lawmaker, said the system is working as it should.

"It is the Senate's job to push hard and ask tough questions," he said.

Rosa Diers, senior from Nisland, said enough judicial accountability exists. Voters have the power to elect judges.

How Can I Move West if I Don't Have A Job?

2007-09-21T14:38:00.000-06:00

From time to time, my blog strays down the political path, but the true purpose of this blog is to address the idea of freedom and help more people find it. Sometimes I post news articles that illustrate violations of our freedoms. This is done to stir the fire within you, to help motivate you towards freedom. Today's post is also to stir that fire, but it is more of a positive motivation rather than negative. It addresses the complicated issue of finding employment in a free state.

More and more people are finding the western states - Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nevada - to offer more freedom than other states. The biggest obstacle that people have stated for not moving to one of these states has been finding adequate employment. This post is meant to offer an alternative solution to that problem.

I have been running an international distribution company for about 5 years now. About 2 years ago, my business really turned a corner. I switched my focus to marketing my products primarily via the Internet. I still have a local warehouse, but rather than trying to develop local business and set up regional distributors, I switched my focus and decided to expand my drop-ship business. Now, over 90% of my business is coming from the Internet. Some from my retail customers who find my website and others who are my distributors, now use a site set up exclusively for them. By doing this, I significantly reduced my expenses, reduced the time spent on the business, and was able to lower prices and increase sales.

The other thing I started doing differently, was to become a distributor for other companies who would drop ship their products for me. Now, rather than tying up my cash in inventory, I can simply market their products on my site, and when someone buys from me, the order is shipped directly to my customer by the supplier. I never see the product, but I make money on it. It saves me and the customer from paying for the shipping twice.

There is another type of Internet marketing that I believe has the capacity to surpass my direct sales business and the drop ship business. That is called affiliate marketing. With affiliate programs, you market someone else's product and embed your unique code in the link to their web page. If the customer buys the product, you receive a commission. There is no additional cost to the customer for this. Affiliates have replaced traditional advertising and their commission is a built in "marketing cost" for that supplier. Everyone wins. The beauty of this is that for less than the cost of advertising, businesses can get multiple points of presence and only pay for advertising costs once actual sales have been made. This helps businesses market their products, helps control their marketing costs, and helps them target niche business through their affiliates, that they otherwise wouldn't be able to penetrate economically.

At the same time, it helps folks who have a desire to be in business for themselves, but don't want all the headaches and costs associated with a brick and mortar storefront, employees, inventory, etc. The other obvious advantages to this are that you can gradually build a business to replace your income, and that once you have, you will not be tied to a geographic location. Whether this becomes your full time income or is just used to supplement your income is up to you.

In the past, in order for one to be successful with an affiliate program, they would either have to be comfortable making websites, or at least have a friend or partner who is. However, now almost anyone with some imagination can begin making very good money with these programs. There are even some Internet businesses that will allow you to simply fill out an online form, and then it will completely create a custom site for you will all your affiliate infromation, and will begin making money for you automatically. You do NOTHING ELSE, and it collects money for you and sends it to you.

So what does this have to do with you? Chances are that the idea of a home based/Internet based business sounds great, but you don't have any idea how to get started. To be honest, the amount of information is daunting. But as I did it for myselt, I kept notes and now have converted those notes into a step by step tool... a how to do it.

I created a web site specifically for people who want more freedom. Freedom from their commute, their current budget, their boss, their spouse, or their restrictive state. This site is the answer to the "IF ONLY..." problem.

If you have wondered if an Internet business could provide you with a good income, check out the site. If you dream of independence, but are no closer to that dream than you were last year, check out the site. On it, you are guided step-by-step, in laymen's terms through the entire process of starting up an Internet business. There are also brief descriptions/reviews of books and programs and links to more detailed information. There is also a special offer that gives you over 20 ebooks that cover in great detail all the topics discussed on the site. If you go through the whole site and feel that you still need more detailed information, then order the books. The cost for all 24 books is less that the cost of one ebook on most sites. There is actually a $700 savings on the bundle. If you have been wishing you could think of a way to afford to live where you want, I urge you to go and check out the site IndependenceMarket.com. The site is unique in that it is not 700 pages of hype and fluff to get at a little nugget of truth. It is just very straight forward, step-by-step instruction on how to set up your own income stream over the Internet. You can start as small or as slow as you want, but all the information is there to teach you how to make a tremendous income.

PS - Since publishing the site, I have read several ebooks by "masters" of this or that. I honestly believe that my site provides BETTER information than some of these books that cost $37 each. But my site is free. I am actually considering pulling the site and republishing it as an ebook. I'm not sure if it is ready for that yet, but maybe soon. In the meantime, it is there to help you and I hope you will send me any feedback you have on the site. Check it out now. IndependenceMarket.com

Computer Troubles

2007-09-19T23:03:00.000-06:00

This has been a rough week. Between fixing old computers and trying to set up new ones, I have spent about 12 hours on the phone with tech support. Nasty.
The good news is that I have learned about some good products and greatly improved my productivity.
On my new Dell Latitude - right out of the box - I was unable to get my printer to work properly. So after 2 days of loading my programs and data into the new PC, I had to wipe it clean and reinstall the operating system. This time it worked properly. Next was getting my other PCs to work properly. The best program I have found to speed up the computer, get rid of the unwanted programs in the start up group, clean the registry so that everything works the way it is supposed to ... is called RegCure. The first time I ran it on my old computer, it found over 750 errors! Then it fixed them all. This only took about 10 minutes, including downloading the program. I figure that the time I saved since installing it, has already paid for the program. There is no way I could have made my PC that fast without this program.
The other program that I have used that fixes all the problems, speeds things up, and protects my privacy is PcOptimizer Pro. Both of them have a satisfaction guarantee, so there is nothing to lose but wasted time.

Now here is another tip. If you are looking for low cost web hosting, try $4.95 per month for 3 domains hosted. That works out to less than $2 per site! NTC Hosting is the lowest cost hosting I have seen. They even provide 2 free months of web hosting, free website builder, and free setup, 10 GB data transfer and 1000 MB disk space. Very nice.

Quick News on Ron Paul

2007-09-18T00:56:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul has been busy traveling and giving campaign speeches. I was lucky enough to attend one in Salt Lake City this past weekend. For the best coverage on the event, check out - John's article

In other Ron Paul news, I heard through the grapevine that a new Ron Paul truck stop/truck plaza may be in the works right on I-15 in California. This is big news and may involve a visit/speech from Ron Paul.

Freshwater Organics on Target for $1500 Ron Paul Donation

2007-09-07T15:25:00.000-06:00

Freshwater Organics reports a slow start to the fundraising campaign, but even at the present rate of sales, they are on target to raise $1500 by the end of September. The single donor maximum donation is $2300. Therefore if sales pick up only slightly over the next 20 days, it will be possible to reach the maximum allowable donation.

Sales Update
The one day sales total for 9/6/07 minus shipping costs = $155 - That will net a $77.50 donation to the Ron Paul Campaign. A good start, but far from the maximum allowable by law. Thank you for your business. At this rate, we will be able to raise $1500 by the end of the month. My goal is to reach the $2300 maximum donation.

* 1/2 of total sales less shipping costs. Donation is based on gross retail sales made on all products sold via www.freshwaterorganics.com . Total donation maximum equal to amount allowable by law.

Hannity and Other Vermin

2007-09-07T00:21:00.000-06:00

Smug, dishonest, sellout, scum... just a few words that come to mind when I think of Sean Hannity. If anyone watched the NH debate yesterday and the ass kissing spin fest that followed, they know what I'm talking about. The coolade drinkers at Fox and Freaks were up to their old antics. Hannity proved once again that there are no lengths to which he will not go to hide the truth to America.
Does anybody really believe that Sean is unaware of how the phone text polling works? Why is it beyond Sean's comprehension that 33% of the callers would prefer a candidate that answers a direct question with a direct answer, who wants to end the phoney war, and who wants to restore constitutionally protected freedoms? Does he really believe that given a choise between an America with lower taxes, less government, more privacy, and a nation that protects its own sovereignty rather than agressive wars and nation building - that people would voluntarily choose an America with eroding freedoms, rising inflation, a promise of more debt, unending war, and a police state with national ID cards and more gun restrictions??? Does he really think so little of people? No. It isn't possible. He is a phoney who is trying desparately to become one of the elite by hanging on to the coat tails of the power machine and being a good little lackey. He has lost all credibility by backing the wrong horse. He backed slavery instead of freedom. "Let freedom ring?" you bet. Old Sean has dug himself a hole and after the regime change, he'll be lucky if he can get a job selling newspapers. Won't that be sweet justice?

Business Pledges 1/2 of September Sales to Ron Paul Campaign

2007-09-05T18:29:00.000-06:00

For Immediate Release 9/5/07

Freshwater Organics pledges to donate ½ of all September sales to Ron Paul campaign

"We are hopeful that this fund-raising promotion will help create awareness for Ron Paul -- the Republican Presidential candidate from Texas, and that the fund raising idea will spread to other on line stores".- Fran Tully

Salt Lake City, UT, September 4, 2007: In an effort to help create awareness and raise money for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, Freshwater Organics has pledged to give 50% of all September sales to the Ron Paul campaign. Freshwater Organics (www.freshwaterorganics.com ) is the Utah based distributor of Perma-Guard food-grade, organic, Diatomaceous Earth products. Fran Tully, owner of Freshwater Organics, hatched the idea for the fund raiser when he was watching Ron Paul videos on YouTube. “It occurred to me that Ron Paul and my products have a lot in common”, said Tully. “Both Paul and diatomaceous earth (DE) were virtually unknown by most of America; And both DE and Ron Paul have had sudden busts of popularity due widely to word of mouth and the assistance of the Internet. Once people learn about them, they wonder why more people haven’t heard about this, and then word of mouth helps raise awareness as friends tell friends about their great new discovery.”

Freshwater Organic’s customer base is made up of folks from all walks of life. About the only thing that they all have in common is that they are all free-thinking people who are looking for an alternative to how things have always been done. “For over 30 years, the government has tried to run us out of business with over-regulation, exorbitant fees, and by not allowing us to tell people what our products can do. They even force us to put frightening labeling on some of our packaging, despite the government’s own tests showing that our products are as safe as spring water. Our customers totally understand that the government has been trying to get rid of us, but thanks to our customers, their testimonials and word of mouth, we are now selling more product all over the world than ever before.”

Tully continues, “it is exactly the same with the Ron Paul campaign. Our current government doesn’t want you to know about Ron Paul because if he gets elected, the party is over. As soon as people hear about what he has to offer, they want more and want everyone they know to hear about him as well. But there are a lot of people out there who will go to great lengths to see that his message is stifled and that he remains out of the main stream media. But when something is good, and it’s time has come - be it Ron Paul or diatomaceous earth - the people will see that the message is spread. It has been like that throughout the history of this country. Thanks to the Internet, a small handful of unconscionable people can no longer dictate what people believe, eat, drink, think, or how they vote.”

Freshwater Organics sells organic products that are based on food-grade diatomaceous earth – which is made from the fossilized remains of diatoms. Diatoms are one celled plants that are the water-based equivalent of grass. Their products are 79% natural silica and are used as anti-caking agents, desiccants, feed additives for chickens, horses, cows, pigs, pets, and other livestock to eliminate parasites, odors, and flies.

According to Tully, “over the past two years, the largest growth in our business has been DE for human consumption. After seeing the affects of our products on their animals, people have started using our products themselves. They claim relief of dozens of maladies ranging from parasites to arthritis, and the list is growing all the time. We also have a growing number of people using it in their grain storage, to keep grain bug free indefinitely. The other big burst in sales is in our insecticide products. Not only have they proven to be the absolute best solution for bed bugs, which has now made resurgence after being gone for nearly 50 years, but they are also safe on pets as young as 2 days old and can be used in organic gardening and applied even up to the day of harvesting.”

Tully hopes that their promotion to raise a donation for Ron Paul inspires other businesses to act similarly. “It is not easy to donate such a large part of sales to a political campaign, but I honestly believe that Ron Paul may be our last hope of returning some of the freedoms that have been stolen from us by self-serving politicians over the years. In the last decade we have lost more freedom, incurred more debt, and seen greater inflation than I ever before in American history. Ron Paul’s voting record and integrity are something that any business person will find refreshing. Ron Paul’s presidency would be the best thing that ever happened to the American entrepreneur.” Freshwater Organics has set up a special web page with details about the promotion at http://freshwaterorganics.com/specials.html

For more information on Ron Paul, go to www.ronpaul2008.com

Ron Paul Revolutionaries - Who doesn't want him elected?

2007-09-05T17:43:00.000-06:00

It seems that Ron Paul may indeed have a chance to win the Presidential election. That is if there is no foul play, no corruption, no cheating. But then, who would do such a thing? Well, we know that the electronic voting boxes can be hacked, we know that more votes can be counted than there are voters, and we know that voters who are not of the right "type" can be "disenfranchised".
We are still a long way from the actual race and just look at what has already happened:
He has been attacked during the debates by other candidates.
He has been attacked after the debates by the media.
He has been excluded from debates.
His supporters have been ordered to remove Ron Paul signs from their own front lawns.
His supporters have been denied access to polling places where straw polls are being held, even though they paid for a seat.
Supporters have been denied access at debates.
Media has completely under-represented the number of supporters who turn out for Paul and over-represented the numbers who turn out for other candidates.
Media has suggested that his winning poll numbers are a dishonest manipulation of the Internet and not a realistic representation of the actual number of supporters.

But we know all this. So ask yourself, "who would gain if Ron Paul is elected?" The answer is easy. Anyone who works for a private company. Anyone who owns or desires to own a small business. Anyone who is attending or will attend school in the future. Anyone who pays taxes. Anyone who wants to reverse inflation. Anyone who wants to be make their own decisions regarding their health and well-being. Anyone who loves freedom and believes that the constitution was a tool to restrain the government. Anyone who cares about privacy. Anyone who wants to retain the right to self-defense.

So if all that is true, who would want to skew the polls? Who would want to fraudulently steal the election? Who would doctor the results so that he never becomes the President of the United States? That answer is just as easy. Anyone who is a part of the current criminal cabal who is in the process of destroying our country. Anyone who has contracts with the criminals who are currently destroying our country. Anyone who is profiting from the undeclared "wars" that we are engaging in. Anyone who is a government employing working for one of the many government agencies that are not covered in the constitution as the role of government. Anyone not willing to give up their current manipulating of the system and is dependent on the government's use of force to steal from his neighbors and give part of what they earn to him. All those who condone the abuse of government as long as they are getting "their share" of the spoils. When you think about it, that is a very large number of people.

I think the real trick is not to find people who want freedom, but rather to convince those who gave up hope and decided to enter the rats den for a free crust of bread. If Ron Paul is going to win, he needs to convince the grandmothers, the unwed 17 year old public school drop out, and the people who work at the convenience store that their lives will be better without the government hand outs. He needs to convey to the people cheering for more killing, more wars, and more troops, that they have been brainwashed and manipulated by a manufactured fear. He needs to have parents understand that by getting the federal government out of the education business, that kids may actually enjoy learning and becoming productive.

The truth is that a lot of people who want freedom have been conditioned to believe that it doesn't exist, that it never existed, and they are afraid that to believe in it one more time and give everything they have to work for change may be more than they can take. They just can't bare to fail again. They just couldn't stand to see the corrupt criminals in charge steal the election right under their nose again. So rather than believe change is possible, rather than making one last attempt to climb out of the stew pot, rather than writing a check to someone who can make a difference, they will just grab the remote control and their microwaved food and sit back on the sofa and slip into their comatose state of unthinking, uncaring, unbelieving. But these are the people who have to be shaken out of their comas. They have to be slapped in the face with the reality that there is no next time. They need to believe that it is up to THEM to save themselves. If they can't afford to make a donation, then shop somewhere where the owner of that business will make a donation. If they can't talk to people, they can lick stamps or use the phone. They can put a bumper sticker on their car. They can pass out videos, they can make a banner. Then can get involved! This group of people who quit years ago need to be revived. If they will believe and get involved, there just may be hope for this country yet.

Front Sight For All

2007-07-12T14:06:00.000-06:00

Front Sight Firearms Training Institute

Ignatius Piazza - founder of Front Sight

Ignatius Piazza Blog

Front Sight - in Guns & Ammo

Front Sight - in New York Times

Ignatius Piazza - in Times Democrat

Front Sight - in US News & World Report

Ignatius Piazza - in Washington Post

Front Sight - in El Pais Seminal

Ignatius Piazza - in Forbes Magazine

Ignatius Piazza - on World Net Daily

Front Sight - in Los Angeles Times

Front Sight - in Gun Web

My Experience at Front Sight

Front Sight - on CNN

Front Sight - in Financial Times

Front Sight - on USA Today

Ignatius Piazza - in National Enquirer

Front Sight - in Pajaronian Register

Front Sight - in Black Belt Magazine

Front Sight - in Icon Magazine

Front Sight - in London Times

Ignatius Piazza - in Fort Worth Star Telegram

Ignatius Piazza - in El Mercurio

Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Life

Ignatius Piazza - in Chicago Tribune

Ignatius Piazza - on Reform America

Front Sight - on BBC News

Front Sight - in The Mail on Sunday Review

Front Sight - in Santa Cruz Sentinel

Ignatius Piazza - in Gun World

Front Sight - in Sierra Times

Ignatius Piazza - in Handvapen Guiden

Front Sight - in Cybercast News Service

Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Sun

Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Mercury

Ignatius Piazza - in Playboy

Ignatius Piazza - in San Francisco Chronicle

Ignatius Piazza - in Small Arms Review

Libertarian Gasbags Struggle With Reading Comprehension

2007-01-24T17:38:00.000-07:00

A couple of days ago, as a matter of courtesy, I sent a couple of talk show hosts a copy of a post that I published in this Blog. The post criticized them (Ian and Mark of Free Talk Live ) for discouraging their listeners from bearing arms if they chose to visit Ed Brown. You can read the gasbag post here.
The following day, they spent nearly an hour of their show bashing me and doing their best to translate my true intent and meaning of the post. Sadly, they only succeeded at showing their lack of reading comprehension. Had they simply responded back to me privately, I would have been happy to clear up any misconceptions. Instead, they took the post as not only a personal attack, but also an attack on the Free State Project, and a wish that they would die.
So now I will spend a few minutes trying to undue some of the damage that they may have done to my reputation. Hopefully, they didn't willfully misrepresent my intentions.

Error 1
They label the broadcast - "Divisive Hit Piece on FTL / West vs. East"

I lived in the East for more than 1/2 of my adult life. Their is a distinct difference in the attitude in the East towards guns and those who participate in the gun culture. My post was not meant as a "divisive hit piece", it was simply an opinion of mine contrasting attitudes in the east to those in the west. That's what Blogs are; places to post one's opinion about things that interest them. I know many of the Free Staters and several people in New Hampshire. While they may be strong advocates for gun rights, they can't really control the opinion or attitude of the general public who may not be a part of the FSP or the LP. My point was that the attitude of the general public in the North Eastern US is very different from the general attitude of the people living in UT, AZ, WY, CO, MT, and NV.

Error 2
Ian: "It's clear that he has never been to NH or talked to anybody from NH."

Wrong. I have been to NH and I know several people from NH. During the middle stages of the FSF, I met several and liked them all very much.

Error 3
West/East bias. "It is absurd to think that people in the west love their guns more than people in NH..."

People in the above mentioned states shoot more than people in the east. This can be verified by gun sales, ammo sales, gun show records, hunting licenses, CCW permits, and personal observation.
While the gun laws in NH are better than most other eastern states, as a whole, gun laws are more onerous in the east than the above mentioned states.

Error 4
Ian: "...I just got here. It's been 5 months. I'm not ready to check out... it's not time for me to die in a hail of gunfire... my roommate is also very valuable in the FSP and I'd hate to see him buy it in this particular issue."

It appears that Ian is assuming that by not being armed, he is somehow safer than those who choose to keep and bear arms. That is an interesting assumption. I always feel safer when I have the means of self-defense. I also noticed that Randy Weaver's wife was killed in a "hail of gun fire" even though she was only armed with an infant in her arms. It seems to me that Ian's remarks are another example of the contrast between the perception of guns in the east vs guns in many western states.

Error 5
Ian: "Some People haven't gotten over the fact that the FSP membership...5000 members...NH won far and above over 2nd runner up... it has the best culture of liberty."

Ian took an opportunity to make a plug for the FSP. My piece was not sour grapes for the FSP voting for NH. Although there was quite a bit of controversy over the vote and whether there were actually 5000 member or a smaller number, if Ian will check the record, I had no problem with the vote. In fact, over a year before the vote, I suggested at the FSP meeting in MT that we have an eastern state and a western state. Although, coincidentally, Free Talk Live has also fallen victim to fraud. Check out the FTL Shrine and notice the Hall of Shame. It seems that not all those who enjoy liberty oriented radio are honest. So spouting that the vote "wasn't close" and that the membership overwhelmingly decided, is still a sore spot for some. So Ian is correct that some haven't gotten over the vote, but incorrect to allege that I am among that group.

Error 6
Ian: "This guy Fran is upset about us and the FSP in general"

I'm not sure upset is the correct word. Disappointed is more accurate. Regarding the FSP in general, I am not upset about the organization. In fact, I am very supportive about it and continue to refer people to them. I understand that the west is not for everyone.

Error 7
Freedom activists in the eastern states don't place the same emphasis shooting and the 2nd amendment: Ian again takes my statement as a personal attack on him, the FSP, and NH.

The fact is that I have lived in four states in the eastern US. The facts clearly show that gun owners rights in the eastern seaboard have declined at a much greater rate than in the states I listed earlier - UT, AZ, WY, CO, MT, and NV. For more clarification on gun restrictions, go to www.packing.org
Rather than accepting this rather common idea, Ian twisted my words and suggested that I was only speaking about the FSP. Again, a comprehension error on his part.

Error 8
Mark: "This is where it goes to...it's sour grapes over where the FSP ended up."

Wrong. I am not talking about the FSP vote, I am imaging how a different culture might react to a similar problem in a different geographic area. I have lived in the east and in the west. Especially in Wyoming and Montana, there is a different culture; it is almost a "cowboy" culture. More respectful, more independent, and more rugged. They shoot, hunt, carry concealed weapons, and rely more on members of their community to handle problems than the government.

Error 9
Ian: "This guy has one version of defending freedom, and that's the only version that is acceptable to him."

The blog post was addressing Ian and Mark's discomfort about guns and their effort to discourage others to bear arms. The article didn't attempt to discuss any of the multitude of ideas that I have about how to defend freedom. Ian is way off base here. Just another example of someone reading one thing and interpreting it to mean something completely different.

Error 10
Mark: "No, Ian... he is asking you to lay down your life...to die for freedom... to pick up your AK47, go to Plainfield, NH and sit out on that compound... Basically, he said you should go lay down your life because you're a libertarian talk show host and you advocate freedom, so you should go and die there with Ed Brown."
Ian: "Yeah, that's what he's saying."
Mark: "That's exactly what he's saying!"

Jesus, did these guys go to public school??? Is this really what they think they read? Nowhere in the post do I say that I wish ANYBODY should die. Nowhere do I say that I believe or want ANYBODY to lay down their life. And certainly, I don't believe that anyone should plan on dying with Ed Brown. I find it curious that both of these self-proclaimed 2nd amendment advocates and gun owners should equate advocating the means for self-defense with a death sentence. It seems that they both are convinced that anyone foolish enough to carry a gun near Ed Brown's property is "going to die". I think that is a little dramatic. But hey, if that is how the "gun culture" and "freedom culture" in NH perceives anyone who carries a gun, maybe it is a good thing that they are planning to have all the gun experts and 2nd amendment folks speak to the FSP. There is a world of difference between discouraging someone from bringing a gun to the home of an accused tax evader and sending someone to face a firing squad. I know I can be a little distrustful of government at times, but I certainly an not afraid of getting gunned down by a Sheriff because I choose to carry a gun. I'd call their behavior a border line phobia. (Ian, tell me again how it is absurd to say there is a stronger gun culture in the west. :-) )

Error 11
Ian: "I'm not ready to die in a hail of gunfire over Ed Brown."

Once again, Ian insinuates that if he carried a gun to the Brown residence, that he would be cut down in a hail of gunfire. Now who is being absurd? If the IRS is so dangerous, careless, and trigger happy, what makes Ian believe that he would be safe if he weren't carrying a gun? Does he think there is a magic bullet proof shield around people who don't carry guns???

Error 12
Ian read a section from my email adding emphasis where there was none and none was intended:

The fact that the talk show hosts seemed to be trying to dissuade others to bear arms to the Brown residents shows what cowards they really are and what a poor understanding they really have of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is the right that allows us the means to defend all the other rights. It is in place to insure our means to fight against a tyrannical government. Standing up against the decision by a kangaroo court with no jurisdiction over the unconstitutional IRS's faulty charges is EXACTLY what guns are for and what the 2nd amendment was created to protect.

Ian: "I agree completely...Just because I agree with the meaning of the 2nd amendment, doesn't mean I have to die".

Of course it doesn't; where did you read that I thought you should die? Ian needs to improve on his reading comprehension and stop believing that his listeners are hoping for his demise. C'mon Ian, have a little more self-esteem.

Mark: "A coward is someone who sees something as the right thing to do, and chooses not to do it."

Actually, here is the definition of coward:
cowÂ·ard
Ânoun 1. a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.
Âadjective 2. lacking courage; very fearful or timid.
3. proceeding from or expressive of fear or timidity:

In my opinion, Mark and Ian appeared timid when they assumed that anyone who carried a gun to the Brown property would be killed. They appear overly intimidated about the prospect of someone getting shot simply because they opt to exercise their right to bear arms for self-defense. That is cowardly, and I stand by the statement. It wasn't enough for Ian to choose for himself... he was also fearful for ANYONE who might carry a gun that they would be "choosing to die with Ed Brown".

Error 13
Ian compares KT Ordinance - who was charged with manufacturing receivers so that someone could build their own, off the record firearm - with the Ed Brown standoff.

Now this isn't a reading comprehension problem, this is just Ian's desperate act to grab at straws. The IRS tax code is law. Ed Brown has studied the code and understands that the law is on his side. KT Ordinance is a class 3 manufacturer. They also have a book of codes to follow. They understand full well that every receiver must be registered with the ATF, also a division of the IRS. Although I disagree with it, it is the law. In Ed's case, the IRS may disagree with him, but as the law is written, Ed is in the right. I suspect that the folks at KT Ordinance are good people, they just acted outside the written law.

Error 14
Mark: "I don't know why we should wait. Why don't we just pick up guns and start shooting cops and bureaucratsats here in Keane."
Ian: "You know, Fran would be excited by that..."

Be careful boys. Both of those remarks were uncalled for and extremely irresponsible. I never advocated shooting anyone. I never advocated initiating violence. Your comments are slanderous and offensive.

Error 15
Ian read: "if this happened in Wyoming or Montana,...I would like to believe that most of the supporters would be skilled rifleman with battle rifles, side arms, and a willingness to stand side by side with their fellow statesman against unfair treatment by the government".
Mark: "That doesn't make any sense either." Then goes on to discuss the FSP vote.

C'mon guys... this has nothing to do with the FSP vote. The paragraph is contrasting the attitude of "moral support" with the attitude of "supporting with skilled, armed defenders" someone who is being unfairly tormented by a government acting outside the law. Think hard, I know you can see the difference if you try.

Despite Ian and Mark's challenge with comprehending 3rd grade level writing, I will continue to listen to their programming. It is unfortunate for everyone that they saw my post as a personal attack and tortured their entire listening audience for an hour with this one topic, but hopefully, no one will hold it against them. I believe that overall, they do an excellent job of presenting a libertarian perspective on current events and I believe that they are an important asset for NH, the FSP, and the entire libertarian community. I hope that their audience grows, and that their success will spawn other shows that imitate their format.
I am glad that the FSP is actively promoting the gun culture and hope that they will be successful at keeping new gun legislation to a minimum.
I appreciate them taking the time to read my entire post on the air. There are very few radio shows left who would give a critic that much attention. Considering they didn't give me the opportunity to speak for myself against their attacks, I remain hopeful that some listeners might put more emphasis on my words as written, rather than their failed attempt to interpret it into a "divisive hit piece".

If you enjoy talk radio and lively discussion, I encourage you to go to Free Talk Live or to iTunes and download their podcasts.

Related Posts -
Carrying Guns can be Dangerous
Libertarian gas bags in New Hampshire

Carrying Guns can be Dangerous

2007-01-24T10:41:00.000-07:00

Regarding the comments I have received on the "gas bag" posting, I want to clarify a little.
First of all, if someone wishes to support Ed Brown by documenting the events, bringing MRE's, as a look out, or as an armed supporter, I am all for it and am sure that Ed will appreciate their support.
My post was not meant to call anyone a "wuss", but rather to call into question why a libertarian radio show would try to encourage citizens to show up for a standoff unarmed.
I don't advocate initiating violence, and it is clear that the Browns don't either. My opinion is that one should never willingly give up their right to self defense. I live in a relatively nice, low crime area of Utah, but I am always carrying a weapon for self defense. I have a difficult time imagining why someone would go to a place where the suspect that innocent people might be shot at without the means of defending themselves or others. As many concealed carry folks have learned, often the fact that you are willing to kill and have the means to kill is often enough to end a confrontation. I think that a "Waco" or "Ruby Ridge" type situation would have significantly different results if 500 people showed up with rifles and refused to allow the FBI to slaughter innocent people. It is amazing how well mannered people can be when they know that they aren't the only ones with guns.
If people showing their support believe that innocent people will be shot at, why would they NOT be prepared to shoot back. On the other hand, if they believe that the police and other government agents will not start shooting people, then why wouldn't they exercise their right to keep and bear arms?
The reason is because where ever government is involved, they want to be the only ones with guns. They feel safer when no one but them have guns. Why give them the upper hand? Why allow them to disarm you when you intend no one any harm? Why allow them to intimidate you and strip you of your rights without a fight? Hell, with all the video cameras there, why not use this opportunity to show the world that just because someone is armed, doesn't mean that they are unreasonable.
If NH is the "Live Free or Die" state, why aren't people willing to defend their right to a fair trial, and their right to peaceably bear arms, by carrying weapons? I know that there are a lot of good people in NH and a lot of good folks showing up to support the Browns; I just can't understand why they would willingly show up to slaughter without any way to protect themselves. I believe that it is fear of the unknown. The fact is that they don't know what the government will do, but they fear that the government will resort to slaughtering innocents. If that is their belief, why show up and if they are showing up, why not possess the means for resistance and maybe create a "Mexican stand off"?

Related Posts -
Libertarian Gasbags Struggle With Reading Comprehension
Libertarian gas bags in New Hampshire

Libertarian gas bags in New Hampshire

2007-01-22T18:33:00.000-07:00

I have been following closely the case of Ed Brown, the New Hampshire man who has been charged as a tax evader for failing to pay income tax for the past 11 years. Based on the information I have gathered, the Browns are absolutely correct and the actions of the court and the IRS are extremely questionable. Ed Brown has essentially decided to stay on his property and not allow the IRS or the courts to jail him as a result of their kangaroo court proceedings.
For the most accurate and complete coverage of this situation, visit Quest for Fair Trial in Concord, NH.
I have also been listening to coverage of the case via MP3's, videos, and Podcasts. One Podcast in particular caused me to write this article. While listening to Ian and Mark over at Free Talk Live, I was again reminded of the monumental difference there is between folks in the east and folks in the west.
While I enjoy their program, recommend it to others, and do my best to listen to all the Free Talk Live podcasts, Ian said something during the 1/20/07 podcast that I found very disturbing. Ian (I believe) mentioned that he and his friends were planning to go visit Ed Brown, but that he would not be armed. He also mentioned how distressed he was to learn that his roommate was planning to bring a gun. He went on to say that Ed Brown's 'fellow militia members' were not at the Brown residence and that this was probably a good thing, because they might all show up carrying AK47s.

Free Talk Live appears to me to be one of the loudest voices of the Free State Project. Back when the FSP was in its early stages, I signed on my support but opted out of several states, including New Hampshire. The biggest reason behind my opt outs was that I didn't believe that those states offered a realistic environment for a "Free State". One of the reasons was that shooting and second amendment issues didn't appear to be an important aspect of the "freedom" activists in the eastern states.

After thinking about the Browns, the FSP, and Free Talk Live's broadcast, I couldn't help but imagine how different it might be if the Free State Project had selected Wyoming or Montana as the Free State. I also imagined what would happen if someone in MT or WYO were convicted of tax evasion and decided to make a stand against the government and extended an invitation to all to come and take a stand with him. I have a difficult time imagining a Free State Wyoming radio host who preached freedom and chided people for not defending their rights, expressing concern or worry that supporters would be bringing side arms or (God forbid) AK47s with them to support someone facing a potential “Ruby Ridge” type event.
The libertarians as a whole are big talkers, but as Rick Stanley found out first-hand, when it comes to action and standing beside those who are on the right side of our Rights, the Constitution, and Freedom, they are seldom by your side.
The fact that the talk show hosts seemed to be trying to dissuade others to bear arms to the Brown residents shows what cowards they really are and what a poor understanding they really have of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is the right that allows us the means to defend all the other rights. It is in place to insure our means to fight against a tyrannical government. Standing up against the decision by a kangaroo court with no jurisdiction over the unconstitutional IRA's faulty charges is EXACTLY what guns are for and what the 2nd amendment was created to protect.

When New Hampshire adopted General John Stark's quote, "Live Free or Die" as their state motto, didn't they expect someone to actually stand up to the tyrants?

I may never know how conditions might be different if the Browns lived in Wyoming or Montana, or if the FSP had chosen one of those states as the "Free State", but I would like to believe that most of the supporters would be skilled rifleman with battle rifles, side arms, and a willingness to stand side by side with their fellow statesman against unfair treatment by the government.

See these related posts -
Carrying Guns Can Be Dangerous
Libertarian Gasbags Struggle with Reading Comprehension

Freedom Soldiers

2007-01-07T17:06:00.000-07:00

Here is a message I received from Rick Stanley that is worth republishing. I hope you enjoy it. - F

There is a new breed of political activist growing in this nation. A breed I am both honored to be part of, and shed light on, for Echo readers. For sake of
another term, I'll refer to this new breed as America's "Freedom Soldiers".

There are many leaders in this country that point out our failings, painful
situations and glaring problems. Frankly, anyone can do that, point a finger at
the other guy, and call it a day. Freedom soldiers look at America's problems
and say "lets come together, work as citizen patriots, and find a positive solution; then implement our plan".
His name is John Diamond, an author and fellow patriot; whom I honestly think will not mind, if a refer to him as a "Freedom Soldier". John has written a fabulous new book, "The Rise of America". His book is an in depth look at where America was, under a government that stayed within Constitutional boundaries, where it is today, and How we need to do a 180 degree turn, and get back to a Constitutionally limited republic.
When you are a journalist interviewing someone for a column piece, the main goal is to get to the heart and soul of that person. What motivates them? Why have they written this book, produced that movie or drafted a piece of legislation?
John's book doesn't serve to point fingers and make tons of money by doing so.
He was very straight forward when he told me "its not about the money for me, I want get information out to the public, and win this battle, to restore America."

John actually never intended to write a book. His research into America's
Constitution, James Madison's notes on the federal convention, the federalist
papers, etc., was for personal growth and muse. After three years of intense
research, and seeing how far our government had strayed, he simply said "I Have to do something."
John is not interested in changing the whole world by himself, and is not touting to have all the answers. He merely sees himself as one good citizen, a freedom soldier, doing his duty, to help America be a better place. He wants all of us to work with him, to do just a little bit of work, per citizen, and see a positive movement spring forth.
He has gone the extra mile, by creating study guides and teaching aids for his book. Thus allowing the academic world complete access on how to teach and share his book and research.
It is rare to find a person who will say, "If I only speak to three people at one interview aboutthat'sook, then thats fine." Again John is not looking for glory and recognition, he has already, and will continue to do the very heavy lifting, of promoting his book, his ideas for a positive solution, and his hope that many of us will listen.
After I interviewed John, my wife-to-be and I, took a morning walk around the neighborhood. I told her for the first time, I feel like this is really coming together. A guy in Ohio with a good idea and a positive book, A guy up in Michigan trying to do his little part, some people in other parts of the country, all lending a hand and a positive attitude.
Maybe that is John's greatest tool he brings to this important battle, to save America, his can do positive attitude.
I'm thankful I've met John, interviewed him, and shared his new book in this small column. I can honestly tell you, I consider John a new friend, a freedom soldier doing his small part and a man of deep love for his nation. Take some time and check out his book, it will be time very well spent.

Conversation With A Terrorist

2006-11-16T11:46:00.000-07:00

I recently spoke with a terrorist. No, I am not kidding. Rather than go into too much detail, I will include an excerpt from a recent email from him. I have verified the authenticity of these claims and of this email. All of his statements are a matter of public record.
I will be interviewing him soon and will make the interview available to you as an MP3 that you can listen to or download.

Illegally Arrested As a "Terrorist"
Under The U.S. Patriot Act

(By Peter MacDonald )

.... A Madbury, New Hampshire family
(strangers to me) called me on the phone. They were having a zoning issue problem and wanted me to help them. Their lawyers had depleted their savings and hung them out to dry. They read my letters to the editor and asked me for help. It seemed that the Madbury, N.H. elected officials were trying to run this family out of Madbury.

I went to court with this family before Judge Peter Fauver in Strafford Superior Court who made me the attorney of record to represent this family.
....

I took the case to the N.H. Supreme Court. This court, knowing all the criminal violations of the N.H. and United States Constitutions, ruled the Case "Moot".
.... Judge Fauver made a statement in court that - "Attorneys take an oath to protect each others character and that oath will not be violated in his court" The N.H. Supreme Court ruling clearly honored this illegal, biased, and criminal act.

I took the case to the First District Court in Concord N.H. Federal Judge McAuliffe ruled that judges have immunity from criminal acts made by their decisions. Discrimination is a criminal violation of our Constitution. Judge Fauver ruled it was legal for the Madbury government to use the power intrusted in them by the voters to seek personal revenge against other citizens.

The N.H. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Judge Fauver. Now a federal judge rules to protect other judges. A judge's first act in all decisions from the bench must be to protect the Constitutional rights of all citizens against abusive government acts. I fought this case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. They ruled the case the same.

The N.H. State police came to my house to order me to stop representing this Madbury N.H. family. I did not. The N.H. State Police then came to my house a second time and arrested me under the U.S. Patriot Act.

I am now declared to be a Terrorist because I dared to defy the government's orders to stop representing a fellow American who is exposing corrupt government actions. I was arrested and placed in jail as a Terrorist for 6 months.

Governor Benson, N.H., wrote the Veterans Hospital to declare that I was a Terrorist, and that they were to have my V.A. medical benefits discontinued. I wrote Governor Benson to ask why he would do such a criminal act. I was arrested again a placed back in jail for speaking out.

Our Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to petition our public officials for redress of grievances at any time and that right can not be diminished even by a judge. ....

Peter MacDonald
Lee, N.H. 03824
Former Sgt., USMC

New Orleans - Tolerance Test

2006-05-07T12:56:00.000-06:00

Something about the New Orleans disaster has been disturbing me. I couldn't quite put my finger on it until I read Robert Tracinski's article at The Intellectual Activist http://tiadaily.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1026. The news coverage and the violation of rights in the aftermath of the flood were not only sensational, but downright disturbing. As I considered it, I shared with my wife that this did not seem to me a situation that would be unique to New Orleans or a black community, but rather something that we could expect to see in any major metropolitan urban setting. The entitlement mentality and the senseless violence are both symptoms that have been making themselves known for decades.
I found it interesting that not a single newscaster or talk show host dared to state the obvious. Instead, they begged for our compassion, our donations, and our understanding. Now, no doubt, in addition to the hundreds of millions in private donations, the government will take even more of our money (taxes) and give more handouts to those who are demanding that we do something. There are folks from New Orleans in Salt Lake City now who have been assured that FEMA will pay for the next six months of their rent. Frankly, it irritates me considerably to hear these flood victims saying, "what I want to know is whose gonna pay my bills?!" or whining about getting free debit cards with ONLY $2000 in cash attached to them.

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. And they don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

People living in piles of their own trash, while petulantly complaining that other people aren't doing enough to take care of them and then shooting at those who come to rescue them - this is not just a description of the chaos at the Superdome. It is a perfect summary of the 40-year history of the welfare state and its public housing projects.

The welfare state - and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages - is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.

Excerpt from An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State
by Robert Tracinski Sep 02, 2005 Please read the full story here http://tiadaily.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1026

I believe that the incidents that we witnessed in the aftermath of the New Orleans flood - releasing prisoners, demanding that citizens leave their homes, illegal searches of homes, seizing of all "civilian" weapons, and installing trained killers and mercenaries (Blackwater security personnel) was a test... an exercise if you will. (By the way, when did security folks and police officers become non-civilians? Why is their right to self-defense greater than mine or yours?)

By test, I mean that our government used this crisis to test the limits of U.S. citizens. It is important for those in power to know the limits that we will allow ourselves to be pushed. How many violations of our rights will we as a people tolerate before we say, "no more" and resist.

Well, now we know that folks will tolerate, and media outlets will not report, when private paramilitary forces are "deputized" by state law enforcement agencies. We know that the Department of Homeland Security can contract mercenaries and give them the authority to use lethal force without criticism or repercussion from we the people. We know that these "contract law enforcement officers" will be authorized to actually engage in general law enforcement activities including "securing neighborhoods" and "confronting criminals."

My questions is, under what authority are Blackwater's men operating? Who is paying these men? One of the "security" folks was overheard on his cell phone complaining that Blackwater was only paying him $350 a day plus per diem. One mercenary said, they've been told they could be in New Orleans for up to 6 months. "This is a trend," he told us. "You're going to see a lot more guys like us in these situations."

OK, maybe I am more paranoid than most, but for me, the thought that at the whim of my governor or the Department of Homeland Security, my city might be under the control of a private, for hire, elite military force worries me and seems like it might be just a little bit unconstitutional.

What's worse is that our government will use this crisis and the sensationalism of it to get more control, raise taxes, and erode our rights even further.

Now that we all know that Americans will tolerate this treatment of welfare recipients with an entitlement mentality, how long do you think it will be before they do tests on other populations? Who will be next? Religious conservatives? Yuppies? Retired people? Rural farming communities? Will there ever be a point when Americans will show some spine and say enough is enough, we will not stand for another infringement of our rights? Well if there is such a point - and I seriously doubt that there is - we'd better reach it soon, while we still have the means to resist.

Fran

Free West... More Than Ever

2005-07-08T16:14:00.000-06:00

After re-examining my original reason for starting this blog, I realize that I have recently strayed from my original ideas and succumbed to posting political rants and commentary on current news events. I had planned on leaving that commentary to other sites and simply focusing on why a "free west" was just good common sense.
I will try to move my focus back to my original intent and ask your help in keeping me focused. In the future, if I start to stray, drop me a message telling me to stay on topic.
Now, more than ever, the idea of a "free zone" seems imperative. The world leaders at the G8 are determined to establish a one world government. I have friends who plan to move to Argentina and Costa Rica to escape what America has become, but as far as I know, they are losing their freedom there as well. No, I think that the answer is for liberty minded folks who seek freedom; the only answer is to band together with as many like minded folks as possible and relocate to a quiet little place that will allow you to live as freely as possible. Taxes will increase, laws restricting our freedoms will increase, gas prices will rise, and foreign hatred for Americans will increase due to our insistence in sticking our nose in the business and politics of other nations. But, in your own little "free zone" you can elect your own sheriff, mayor, county clerk, and other local office holders. You can either home school your own kids or school them at a private school that you and your friends establish. You can make your own biodiesel and you can raise 50%-70% of your own food without pesticides or herbicides. You and your friends can establish your own "underground economy" that may allow you to acquire most of your needs through bartering or a voucher system which may reduce your tax burden and make you more independent.
I believe that the best chance for a free zone is within the borders of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. However, if enough people can get together and agree to work together and help defend each other's freedom, I suppose it might be possible anywhere.
I have been throwing around an idea with some others to establish a camp for teaching survival skills, gun safety, and marksmanship skills.
Can you imagine a place where young men and women could go for a week and actually learn skills that might actually save their life someday? A camp without TV's, vending machines, ice cream, and video games; A place where the optional two day survival test will give them more self-confidence and self-esteem than 12 years of public school. Wouldn't that be great for a kid from New York, Chicago, New Jersey, or California who otherwise would never learn these things?
Someone else suggested a camp for these wimpy, emasculated men who now seem to be everywhere - "Man Camp". Man Camp would be similar to the other camp but could also teach how to cook with a Dutch oven, ride a horse, ride an ATV, fly fish, throw darts, find decent cigars and scotch, sharpen a knife, do an oil change, work with basic tools, and skeet shooting. What better gift could a wife give to her man?

Let me know what you think - comments

Lost Liberty Hotel

2005-06-30T14:23:00.000-06:00

Over at "Sunni & Conspirators" website, they have started to discuss why the Lost Liberty Hotel isn't morally correct or Libertarian in nature.
Well, I am one who believes in fighting fire with fire. The Supreme Court decision last week was a clear declaration of war on the rights of property owners. I suggest that war isn't pretty. In this war, we are clearly outnumbered. The government has seemingly unlimited manpower, money, weapons, lawyers, and court room clout. They have demonstrated time and again that there is nothing they won't do to gain more power. They have denied citizens their right to redress of grievance; They have jailed people for wearing a gun in a peaceful bill of rights rally; They have killed innocent people and stolen land for years without so much as an apology. I think that this latest court ruling is astonishing. The powers that be have gotten so bold that they don't even TRY to hide their motivation or complete disregard for constitutional law anymore. The "activists" have been snickered at for years and are constantly reminded to "use legal means" if you have a problem with government.
While I, like Sunni, am opposed to "using the law as a club when it suits me", in this case, due to the dire circumstances that this new ruling poses, I think it might be the quickest way to reverse the ruling and provide the fewest casualties. Besides, now that the law provides that cities can take private lands, wouldn't it be a good idea to see that the courts a jammed with cases from those who have been offenders of property rights for years. I think it has a kind of poetic justice. Let a few judges, Attorney Generals, Mayors, and Governors lose all their money in a few property rights battles and I think the law might change in short order. Until then, at least the courts will be too busy to go after the common folks for a while.
Until people are ready to start using their guns to remove the tyrants as Jefferson suggested, the Lost Liberty Hotel will serve as an interim solution.

FT

Supreme Court Nullifies 5th Amendment!

2005-06-23T13:15:00.000-06:00

Folks, they have finally done it. The following WSJ article shows how The Supreme Court has eliminated your rights as a land owner. They have decided that city government can now determine what is the best use for your land. Just because you own deed and title, pay taxes, and have built something for generations to pass on to your heirs, doesn't mean a thing. Now, government can simply pay you what THEY say is fair value for your dream and send you packing. Therefore, if Donald Trump bribes your city officials into putting a casino in your neighborhood, your home and all your neighbor's homes will legally be bull-dozed and a casino that provides more revenue and more jobs will be erected instead. Welcome to the United Soviet States of America. This will end those petty lawsuits regarding whether or not Walmart, K-Mart, or Target have a right to build where your city park was planned. Be sure to re-elect all those politicians who have made this possible. Be sure to reward all those who have helped to shred our once-important constitution. Thanks to them, we have pared our bill of rights down to a more manageable size.

(Dale's Notes)This news will further embolden, if such is possible, the already incredibly arrogant city governments of Utah. This country is rapidly morphing into some kind of tinny, Orwellian stage-play. Government is tripping over itself in an effort to rake-in all of the powers left lying about and unclaimed by a citizenry that is so stupid and pacified that even the highest hopes of the bureaucrats are now far exceeded.

Here it is, Supreme Court sanction for one of the worst phenomenon of present- day America: property condemnation -- zoning rule tyranny -- flouting of the 4th Amendment. The fox runs the hen house. And, its not so much a conspiracy as it is the rise of a privileged and empowered class which recognizes, perhaps subliminally, that the act of upholding an arrogation of power by one branch of the family inherently indemnifies the other's unlawful influence.

Utah in particular, it seems to me, is a very dangerous place, where a random contact with one of these people (police/judges/bureaucrats) can incur more severe penalties than anywhere else -- in the U.S. -- that I know of.

But, anyone can see that the problem is also pandemic. Where in contemporary America can one not find a ready supply of compliant soccer moms? Where is there not a politically potent majority of urbanized, group-grope, 'what's best for everybody', state-minded, "responsible" people? This is the medium without which the now hyper-mutating organism of government could not have arisen.

The blatant us-against-them hostility which we have all experienced at the hands of all levels of government is the true, unveiled nature of maternalism co-mingled with coercive power. Despite all of the warnings and foretelling talk, I guess that I never thought that I would actually live to see the day when the bureaucrats coalesced into such an exquisitely uniform front of open hostility towards the unconnected, toward the non-government-employed citizen -- nationwide.

Its time for savvy folks to flee Utah. And personally, if I had the capital to do so, I would leave the U.S., not wishing to be a first hand witness, and possible victim, of the final permutation this country must now assume. -D.W.

Read and leave comments - http://freewest.blogspot.com/2005/06/supreme-court-nullifies-4th-amendment_23.html

The Wall Street Journal

June 23, 2005 11:28 a.m. EDT

WORLD NEWS

High Court Rules Governments Can Seize Land for Private Use

Associated Press June 23, 2005 11:28 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home in New London, Conn., even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use" and if "just compensation" is provided.

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities shouldn't have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," Justice O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. (Kelo et al v. City of New London)

Michigan Ruling

In other court action Thursday, justices struck down a Michigan law that barred state-paid legal help for poor defendants who plead guilty but then want to appeal.

The one-of-a-kind law had been challenged by Antonio Dwayne Halbert, who pleaded no contest in 2001 to two child-molestation charges and received up to 30 years in prison. He wanted a state-appointed lawyer to help him contest the way his sentence was calculated.

But Michigan's 1994 law, designed to clear a backlog of thousands of cases, barred automatic appeals for defendants who plead guilty or no contest. There are some exceptions, including if a prosecutor seeks an appeal. Those defendants may ask the Michigan Court of Appeals for permission to appeal, but that request is seldom granted.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Mr. Halbert had a right to an attorney. "Navigating the appellate process without a lawyer's assistance is a perilous endeavor for a layperson, and well beyond the competence of individuals, like Halbert, who have little education, learning disabilities, and mental impairments," she wrote.

Had justices upheld the law, other states likely would have copied it as a way of cutting back appeals and unclogging courts. Seventeen states filed arguments supporting Michigan. Opponents argued that the law discriminates against the poor.

Justice John Paul Stevens, during arguments in the case, had said that defendants aren't always represented at trial by able attorneys. "If that counsel happens to be incompetent, that's the end of the ball game," Justice Stevens said.

The 17 states supporting Michigan were: Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington. The case is Halbert v. Michigan.

Copyright Â© 2005 Associated Press URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111953671238667630,00.html

Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111642390345836898,00.html Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.

TOTALLY AWESOME Prevention of Crime!

2005-05-31T20:58:00.000-06:00

In Utah today, the radio is airing a news story that “Super Dell”, founder of Totally Awesome Computers, was charged with “brandishing a firearm” in an argument at his paragliding business. This sounded very fishy to me. I have met Dell on a few occasions and he did not strike me as irrational or one unfamiliar with firearm law. So I called Dell directly and as I suspected, the news got it wrong... again. Here are the facts as told to me directly by Dell:

He was chased by not one, but THREE young men in Draper who jumped out of their car and came towards him in a very threatening manner. One of the young men picked up a rock. In an effort to prepare for the worst, he put his hand on his gun to make sure that it was accessible and would clear his clothing if he needed it. He never even pulled his weapon out of his pants.
However, seeing that he was armed, the three men quickly changed their attitude and no longer appeared to be a threat.

Now, this appears to me to be a clear example of another crime prevented because a responsible citizen chose to exercise their right to carry a firearm. Situations like the one faced by Dell today are a perfect example of why people should carry a gun at all times. Those of you who know Dell know that he is about 150 lbs soaking wet. By contrast, I am 6' 2", 260 lbs. and have studied martial arts. However, If three men chased me, jumped out of their car and ran towards me swearing and picking up rocks, MY gun would be out and pointed directly at their chests immediately. In fact, I challenge you to find a police officer in the world who wouldn’t do exactly the same thing.

Utah law ONLY allows CCW permit holders to brandish their weapon if they believe that their life is in imminent danger and you intend to mortally shoot the perpetrator. However, sometimes, when a gun is produced, the threat immediately vanishes and so does the need to shoot to stop a crime. I would say, without question that Dell was fully within his rights to brandish his weapon. Frankly, I am surprised that he chose not to.
Hopefully, this weak attempt by the media to paint permit holders in a bad light, while trying to harm the reputation of one of the most successful entrepreneurs in Utah history (not to mention one of the biggest advertisers in Utah) will not only backfire on them but will also serve as an opportunity to educate folks on the need to carry and the proper use of personally carried firearms.

What if Dell had not had a gun? What if his attackers had pummeled him with rocks, fists, and boots and then drove off leaving him a broken, bloody mess? Would the police have protected him? Would the police have made any effort to find his attackers? What if it were Dell’s wife who was attacked? Would the media have even covered the story?

The fact is that it is not the job of the police to protect individuals. The fact is that Dell should be commended for having the courage to take personal responsibility for his own safety and well being, and for taking on the responsibility of carrying a loaded gun with him every day. Perhaps if more people did, there would be fewer assaults, rapes, and violent crimes. Rather than the media spinning the story to once again make the gun owner out to be the threat to society, maybe just ONCE, they could present the story accurately. Just once, I’d like to hear a news story like this:

“TODAY, LOCAL BUSINESSMAN AND CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT HOLDER, DELL SCHANZE, PREVENTED ANOTHER VIOLENT CRIME. THREE MEN WHO APPEARED TO BE DRUG-CRAZED-LUNATICS OR UNDER THE GRIP OF ROAD RAGE, WERE APREHENDED BY POLICE AND CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED ASSAULT WITH DEADLY WEAPONS. SCHANZE TOLD LOCAL POLICE THAT IT WAS A GOOD THING HE HAD HIS GUN TODAY, OTHERWISE HE WOULD NO DOUBT HAVE BEEN BEATEN, WOUNDED, AND PERMANENTLY SCARRED BY THE THREE MEN WHO ATTACKED HIM WITH ROCKS TODAY. LOCAL POLICE THANKED SCHANZE FOR HIS COOL HEAD AND FOR HIS ASSISTANCE IN AVERTING A CERTAIN ATTACK. THE POLICE ALSO COMMENTED THAT EVERYONE WOULD BE SAFER AND THAT THEIR JOB WOULD BE MUCH EASIER IF MORE CITIZENS WERE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CARRYING A WEAPON FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION.”

Can you imagine what a field day the media would have had if Dell – the owner of Totally Awesome Guns and Range – had been left for dead by these punks because he wasn’t carrying a gun?
I believe that everyone who has had the misfortune of being harassed by some punk under the influence of road rage owes a debt of gratitude to Dell. I hope his businesses continue to thrive and that his courage will encourage others to take personal responsibility for their own safety.

Fran Tully
www.freewest.blogspot.com

Laissez Faire Books - Hypocrites!

2005-05-08T21:12:00.000-06:00

A few months back, I wrote a review on THE BLACK ARROW, the fantastic new novel by Vin Suprynowicz. I proclaimed it to be one of the best "freedom books" of our generation. I heard from Vin yesterday and he told me that Laissez Faire Books had requested a copy of his book and after reviewing it, had declined to carry it. Their reason was:

'We have decided not to carry THE BLACK ARROW. While we are confident that we could sell some and that we will have customers looking for it, we are concerned about offending our customers with what we see as the gratuitous vulgar sexual content. I couldn't see any good reason for including it, and I think it makes the book inappropriate for a significant segment of our market.

Thanks,
Kathleen

------------------
Kathleen Hiserodt
Laissez Faire Books
7123 Interstate 30, Suite 42
Little Rock, AR 72209
501-975-3650
http://LFB.com

I was astounded to hear this for several reasons. First of all, after reading the book, I fail to find anything to substantiate their reason. The following email from Amy Willard (a long time Colorado Republican and office holder in the local Republican party organization who's trying to arrange a book signing for Vin while he is visit there in early June.) puts a finer point on my understanding:

Vin,

The response from Laissez Faire Books just shows how far off center their moral compass has become. They have become so acclimatized to moral decay and gratuitous sexual content that they don't recognize when this type of content is used to make value statements.

Laissez Faire Books should get someone to actually read The Black Arrow instead of just looking at the picture and flipping the pages. My guess is that their current staff haven't actually read either The Black Arrow or Atlas Shrugged. They do carry Atlas Shrugged. I've seen it featured prominently in their catalogs.

Atlas Shrugged has quite a bit of "gratuitous vulgar sexual content", with an emphasis on "gratuitous". The sexual content in The Black Arrow was clearly there to make value statements and it was obvious to the reader, at least to this reader, the moral points that were being made. There was nothing gratuitous about it.

You are quite welcome to share my response with Laissez Faire Books.

Amy Willard

In fact, in "Atlas Shrugged," Dagney Taggart has sex with THREE men she's not married to! Despite that, LFB has chosen NOT to censor sale of that book to their customers.

Another had the following comment:

"...even if "Black Arrow" ISN'T the Next Great Freedom Novel, the chances that the Next Great Freedom Novel will read like a Franklin W. Dixon "Hardy Boys" adventure ("Gosh, chums, whatever shall we do?") is slim enough, that these folks have virtually guaranteed they WON'T stock the Next Great Freedom Novel, no matter WHO the hell writes it. And perhaps that IS something Libertarians and other freedom fighters need to know."

Indeed! Can you imagine a an organization whose parent company is The Center for Libertarian Thought censoring the libertarian books that their clients should read? If it weren't so disturbing, it would be comical.

"The primary focus of the Center for Libertarian Thought is to support libertarian scholarship and to distribute libertarian-oriented books worldwide. We also work to keep the "classics of liberty" in print and available. We strive to do this through the following CLT programs:

* Laissez Faire Books: This division promotes and distributes libertarian-oriented books worldwide."

Perhaps they should add "Except when the books contain love scenes," so that their customers know that despite all their talk about being libertarian, they choose to control what their customers should read.

Isn't it curious that the same company who chose the name LAISSEZ FAIRE would choose to act as a Nanny and suppress the best libertarian book of the year? The very term "LAISSEZ FAIRE", as defined by their own site means "leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives".
Maybe a more appropriate name would be "LESS THAN FAIR".

Kathleen Hiserodt, the editor at LFB, has once again proven that fact IS stranger than fiction. Perhaps there are a few libertarian readers out there who would like to personally thank Ms. Hiserodt and LFB for protecting them from themselves. If so, you can phone them at 501-975-3650.

I asked Vin for a comment and all he had to say was, "As a private outfit, LFB of course has the right to stock or not stock any book they choose."
Yeah, I suppose that is true, but I think it is important for those interested in freedom, liberty, and libertarianism to know the kind of hypocrites they are dealing with at LFB. I know that if I were in Vin's shoes, I wouldn't ALLOW LFB the opportunity to sell ANY of my books - past, current or future!

As Amy said, the book does an excellent job of making a moral statement about sex - the opposite of vulgar gratuitous sex. In "The Black Arrow," it's the BAD GUYS who are after sex without commitment, while the HEROES consistently aim to get knocked up and get married.

After you have communicated your thanks to LFB for their consideration and censorship, you might want to go to http://www.endervidualism.com/salon/intvw/vinandscott.htm and read an interview by Sunni Maravillosa where Vin and Scott Bieser, the artist, spent some time discussing the sexuality in the novel.

In an effort to help my visitors fully grasp our appreciation for the mothering efforts of LFB, I welcome your feedback, not only on the topic of LFB and their nearly suicidal reluctance of some oh-so-correct "Junior Republican" Libertarians to embrace the "culture of freedom" when it involves sex or sexiness or drugs or tattooed bikers promoting legalized prostitution or whatever -- cutting themselves off from the cultural revolution and ALL KINDS or lively and energetic potential constituencies -- but also specifically on the topic of sexuality as used in "The Black Arrow," where one of the government's most serious crimes is DESTROYING families. Sex in "The Black Arrow" is represented as the furthest thing from James Bond boffing the stewardess in the galley, or characters in TV dramas conducting little government-approved reminder courses for us on "always using a condom," which have become the norm for "expressing sexuality" in statist, NON-Freedom fiction.

If for some bizarre reason you haven't yet ordered your own copy of THE BLACK ARROW, please go to http://www.libertybookshop.us/mall/The-Black-Arrow.htm and do so at once. Only when top authors can earn a great living promoting freedom, will we be able to truly spread the word.

"An absolutely wonderful read. ... 'The Black Arrow' is a fantastic book ... the 'Gone With the Wind' of our time. ... Good plot action, well rounded characters, the dialogue 'rings true' ... I am, frankly, blown away; I'd read it all over again tomorrow, but I want to get it
into others' hands. I am just SO tickled it's SO good!!!!"

-- South Carolina Libertarian Party activist Mary Lou Seymour

"Vin shoots a wild, bright spark of freedom into a dark, stylized, near-future America. The book's got it all: A freedom underground (literally), and plenty of sex and rock 'n roll. Think Tim Burton's treatment of Batman's Gotham City and you'll come close to the ambiance of 'The Black Arrow.' But for a freedom lover, Vin's hero beats Batman any day."

-- Claire Wolfe, author of "101 Things to do 'Til the Revolution" and "Don't Shoot the Bastards ... Yet"

PS - Sunni Marivillosa has posted an open letter to Ms. H. and also has several excellent comments on her site. Messages on her open letter just keep getting better and better -- especially those from Ms.Hiserodt:

http://www.sunnimaravillosa.com/archives/00000297.html#comments

And check this outstanding blog which also has a new posting on this subject:

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2005/05/black-arrow-blues.html

Please post a comment
Go here to read comments - http://freewest.blogspot.com/2005/05/laissez-faire-books-hypocrites_08.html

City Planners with Nose Trouble

2005-05-06T20:35:00.000-06:00

Why is it that our esteemed city planners feel that it is their duty to tell private home owners what surface they can park their RV's on?
Last night I attended the planning committee's meeting. One of the items on the agenda was due to my raising a stink at having the city code enforcement officers advise me that my RV must be parked on a concrete slab.
Last night at the meeting, I let the committee know exactly how I feel about their decision to look into the code and advise the city council to "toughen" it.

I am concerned that the Planners and Council are overstepping the authority granted them by the community.
Why is the city planning committee involved in where I park or what the surface is?
I am told that the reason is that the homes are not as aesthetically acceptable. What possible concern is it to the city if my RV is parked on wood, gravel, clay, asphalt, or concrete. All of these are used for roads and bridges, why should the council presume that we need concrete at a cost of nearly $6,000, when gravel costs a fraction of that and can be done by the homeowner?
Why is the planning committee involved with a 30 year old home?
When I bought my home, I signed no covenants. I deliberately avoided gated or planned communities. Years ago, I lived in Boca Raton. There, the members of the planned communities determined what color you could paint your home and your shutters, what vehicles you could park in your driveway (no pickup trucks, not even with a cap), and how many vehicles you could park on your own property. I am tired of planners and councilmen deciding what changes need to be made. It is my opinion that it is none of your business where I park or what surface I park on. I am the one who has to live with my neighbors and I am the one who will suffer or benefit by the effect of my property values. If my neighbors have an issue with where I park, I would be happy to discuss it with them and do my best to accommodate them. I am tired of neighbors calling the city to enforce their will on my private property.

I wish more folks would attend these meetings and let them know that we are sick of their continual intrusions on our property rights.

Field Test - Utilikilts

2005-04-18T10:37:00.000-06:00

It's about FREEDOM.
I got a chance to test out my Utilikilt this weekend. I took the family camping in the mountains. Despite the snow and brisk evening and early morning temperatures, I was very comfortable. The Utilikilt is modeled after a traditional kilt, but has heavy cargo pockets and is made from your choice of colors and material. For my UK, I chose a heavy cloth with a woodland camo design. The waist band on the UK is about 3.5 inches, and each UK is custom designed to fit the owner's body type. Mine is 6'2", 250 lbs. with a beer gut and not much of a butt. On my outdoor outings, I like to have my survival tools. This weekend, I wore my Gerber multi-tool, Busse Battle Mistress, and a full-sized .45 caliber Glock. What is interesting is that I hardly remembered that my Glock was on. I believe this was due to the waistband resting in a spot that makes wearing a heavy load not uncomfortable. I also felt that the pleats in the kilt made my 15 inch battle mistress much less conspicuous. I never felt the kilt slipping, or the need to hike it up or adjust. I also noticed that just pulling my t-shirt out allowed me to completely conceal the Glock. That is a real bonus with summer right around the corner.

For hiking and jumping across creeks, the UK was outstanding. Very comfortable even if I did get a couple of cold splashes of stream water on areas that are normally covered. I did sustained a LOT of scratches and small punctures on my shins from briars, sticks, and from breaking firewood that I wouldn't have gotten if I were wearing thick jeans or BDU's. I also noticed that when I had to kneel, my knee was on the ground - not as comfortable as kneeling with pants. However, I believe the trade off is worth it.

I admit it was also a bit awkward manually pulling fabric under my butt when I sat on a seat. Bending over is a new experience too. I learned to be aware of which direction the wind is coming from. Once or twice, I had the feeling I was giving the neighbors a glimpse of my plumber's crack from the ground up, but nobody said anything, so I don't know for sure. Oddly, NOBODY even commented on the fact that I was wearing a kilt except for my 5 year old daughter who said, "Dad, why are you wearing a skirt?" and my 7 year old who lifted the back up to see what I had on underneath. Her gasp and snicker said it all. In stores, it was amazing that people hardly even seemed to notice. Clerks smiled to greet me, but no more than usual and never appeared to glance down or raise an eyebrow. The funniest was the National Guardsman who noticed me, did a double take, and then pretended not to notice me. Several times I would notice him looking at me, but when I would look right at him, he always seemed to be busy reading ingredients on bottles. I thing he was concerned that the camo kilt might become summer issue BDU's. :-)

When "nature called" another convenient aspect of the UK shined. For those who are modest or travel outdoors with groups, you can have plenty of privacy with the UK and still take care of business.

I also laid on a hammock for a while. It felt great and I must admit, some naughty ideas crossed my mind. I was so comfortable, I think I actually rested. If my family were not on the trip, I probably would have slept in the hammock overnight.

After two days in the woods, I was glad to throw it in the washing machine when I got home. From the washer, I just shook it, laid it flat, snapped the pleats and let it dry on the floor.

No seams, less heat, lots of cargo space, freedom of movement, and a great unique look all make the UK my new favorite clothing. I can't wait to get a couple of different colors. I think tan and black will be next.

If you desire Freedom, you can get it right away with the Utilikilt. For a good look at the UK and some very entertaining "Mock-U-Mercials" check out http://utilikilts.com/commercial04.html
FT

"Special" DEA Agent Shoots Himself in the Foot...LITERALLY

2005-04-18T10:14:00.000-06:00

Found on Militant Libertarian today posted by Militant Libertarian

Proper Firearms Safety
Watch this federal police officer (DEA Agent) in front of a class of Fourth Graders shoot himself in the foot while giving a "gun safety" speech. Funny, he claims to be "the only one in [the] room special enough to carry a Glock .40."

He makes several classic safety mistakes: he fails to remove the magazine, fails to check the chamber for a round when handed the gun by his compadre, and he fails to keep his finger off the trigger (obviously) when NOT intending to fire the gun.

This, of course, is one of the "police" that are the only people "properly trained" to carry weapons in our society with the full faith of the public...

Oh boy.

Click here to view it (not graphic or bloody).

Special thanks to the Firearms Coalition (firearmscoalition.org) for posting this to the 'Net.

Why Do All the "FREE ZONES" Have to be so Cold?

2005-03-22T18:02:00.000-07:00

There are several groups now seeking havens for "free zones", or communities where one might have a better chance of living with limited government. The Free State Project voted to move to New Hampshire, the Free State Wyoming group has chosen five counties in Wyoming, and other groups are considering Idaho or Montana.
People have whined, "why do all the free zones have to be in area's that are so cold?"
One of my favorite responses to this is from Ken Royce; he says, "because the socialist have already taken over all the warm areas."
The truth is that parts of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are not only bearable, but damn-near balmy.
There are parts of Idaho that are in the "banana belt" and areas in Montana and Wyoming whose temperatures are within 5 degrees of Salt Lake City year round.

To find out how your current cities weather compares with towns in some of these "free zones", go to

http://www.weather.com/activities/other/other/weather/climo-compare.html

Why I Think Our Judicial System Doesn't Work

2005-03-21T22:00:00.000-07:00

Here are two stories that really upset me. In the first, the refusal of the police to help a woman, resulted in her children being murdered.
The second story is about a judge whose bias resulted in a woman being murdered despite her begging the judge for help. Incidentally, this is the same judge who recently ruled to starve Terri Schindler Schiavo to death.
Isn't it great to live in the country with the best judicial system on earth? - FT

Police Refuse to Help Desparate Woman - Children Murdered

Frightened by her estranged husband Simon's erratic behavior, Jessica Gonzales took out a restraining order against him. When Simon kidnapped the couple's three
children, Jessica called the police multiple times begging for help, and even told them where the children were.

Despite Simon's volatile history, despite his blatant violation of the restraining order, despite Jessica's information on where the children could be found, and
despite Colorado law that violators of restraining orders must be arrested ... it wasn't until Simon showed up at the Castle Rock police station and began firing upon it that Castle Rock's finest responded. After killing Simon with return fire, police found the gunshot bodies of the couple's three children in Simon's truck, murdered by their own father.

Do you have the right to police protection? That's the question the US Supreme Court will be deciding in the case of Gonzalez vs. Castle Rock
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/17/60minutes/main681416.shtml

or http://tinyurl.com/5lz9z

Events such as this do not prove the need for "gun control" -- they prove the utter inability of the police to protect individuals from violent crime. Even Castle Rock's police chief Tony Lane said in a letter to _60 Minutes_,
"[Restraining orders] do not protect society from the Simon Gonzales of the world." Indeed, especially when police have neither the obligation nor the inclination to enforce them.
________________________

Retired Sheriff Speaks About Judge Greer
By John J McDougall - Retired Florida Sheriff of Lee County Florida

Imagine for a moment that you are a Circuit Court Judge. A terrified woman comes before your Court pleading for her life. She testifies, under oath, that her violent and demented husband raped her, set her clothes on fire and threatens to kill her. She needs your help and petitions your court for an Injunction for Protection. What would you do? Well, this is what a real Circuit Court Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida; by the name of Judge George W. Greer decided.
He actually had this exact case come before his bench seven years ago, when Helene Ball McGee, from Dunedin Florida pleaded with him to grant her an Injunction for Protection. Helene was in absolute fear for her life. Judge George W. Greer, however, refused to help her, because (according to him) she had not shown him enough proof that her husband was physically violent yet. Two weeks later her deranged husband, Bobby Lane McGee, stabbed her to death. Perhaps if Bobby Lane McGee, had raped Judge Greer first, he would have had a much better insight into the physically violent nature of her husband.
Now this same gender-biased Judge, with utter disdain for women, is the same Judge in charge of the Terri Schindler Schiavo Case. True to form, this Judge continues to ignore the Constitutional rights of Due Process for Terri Schindler Schiavo, in much the same way he did to Helene Ball McGee, who was violently murdered seven years ago this month. Terri who is physically disabled, has trouble swallowing food on her own and because of this Judge Greer has seen fit to order her feeding tube removed. Her Court appointed 'Guardian' husband who has since abandoned her for another woman, (with whom he has fathered two children) wants her dead and has asked Judge Greer's permission to use hundreds of thousands of dollars from her Medical Trust Fund Money to pay his blood-sucking lawyers to find a way to make this happen.
It worked. Judge George W. Greer has now ignored her parents plea for help and has ordered Terri's execution by starvation and dehydration to begin on March 18, 2005. This cruel, torturous, and horrifying death of yet another woman before his Court will take up to 10 days of horrific suffering to cause her to die. But Judge Greer is not without mercy, no sir; he will allow her parents permission to stay and watch their daughter starve to death.
What is wrong with this picture? Is this the same United States of America, whose US Supreme Court is inscribed with the words, 'Equal Justice under law.' While Terri starves and cries out for justice; our distinguished Supreme Court Justices will be too busy to hear, because they will be deciding how best to abolish those embarrassing 'Ten Commandments' of which, the Fifth Commandment is, 'Thou shall not kill.'
God help us. Every person of conscience in this Country should be ready to travel to the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court House, in Pinellas County Florida, and scream at the top of their lungs, that this is Murder! This is Murder! This is Murder!

John J McDougall, retired Florida Sheriff of Lee County Florida

Drugs, not Thugs! - Police start program to drug ADD kids into submission.

2005-03-17T13:40:00.000-07:00

Coming soon to a police state near you:

Police fight attention disorder

The aggressive behaviour associated with attention deficit disorders can sometimes land children in trouble with the law.
Without the right care and treatment these children's lives can be ruined at a tender age.

With this in mind, police in east Lancashire have launched an initiative to help such vulnerable children avoid the risk of getting involved in crime.

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4347991.stm

How long before this program is adopted by our public school system? Are you SURE you don't want to home school?

FREE SPEECH ZONES

2005-03-17T02:06:00.000-07:00

Ever since folks started speaking out against Bush, America has adopted "free speech zones". These are small restricted or roped in areas where folks can exercise their first amendment right to free speech. These are generally found about 4 blocks away from any human activity and media reporters. In other words, you can exercise your right to free speech as long as nobody can hear or see you.
When I grew up, the free speech zone was everything within the boundaries of the United States. But, times have changed.
Below is a story showing how one group of activists was threatened if they did not comply with the "free speech zone" rules. The disturbing part about this is that today it happened to people wanting to inform citizens about the lies regarding marijuana, tomorrow, it could be gun groups, tax groups, home schoolers, or religious groups. If we don't stand up for the rights of others, why should we expect others to stand up for OUR rights? 'We must all hang together or we will surely hang separately'.

# # # #
(If they can do this to NORML, they can do it to gun owners, too. Or libertarians. Or anyone who's message the government doesn't like. Then they can send in the headbreakers who can hide behind badges.)

Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:59:48 EST
From: midlandsnorml@aol.com
Subject: FREE SPEECH PROHIBITED OUTSIDE A 20 FOOT PUBLIC AREA

My name is Henry Koch and I am the President of Midlands NORML, the Columbia, SC chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Last year we were forced to bring suit against the city of Columbia and the Three Rivers Music Festival Association, through the ACLU, in US District
Court. Three Rivers was creating barriers and arguably attempting to completely exclude us from participating in an annual three day publicly funded music and arts festival which is held on public property because they don't like our literature. The lawsuit is centered around first amendment violations.

The day the festival started, Judge Cameron Currie set aside our case since we could no longer prove damage. The festival attorney promised the court that NORML would not be removed from the festival, nor harmed in any way should we leave our booth to distribute literature to festival attendees. Judge Currie continued the case - she didn't rule nor dismiss in the event there might be a need to continue the case the following year.

Festival organizers threatened to remove us from the festival if we left our 100 sq. ft (10x10) space to pass out literature or speak to anyone who didn't approach us first and specifically request information. This conditional free speech policy that the festival organizers attempted to enforce violates free speech as outlined in the US Constitution.

In previous years non-profit organizations (NPO's) paid a nominal fee to
attend the festival - $250 compared to over $1000 for merchandise and food
vendors.

This year, in their continued efforts to exclude Midlands NORML or
significantly suppress our ability to get our message out to as many people as possible, they have removed the NPO status and increased the fee to $1060.00. All organizations, including university sanctioned student groups, must pay the same fees for-profit merchandise vendors pay.

An article in The State newspaper by John Drake stated this policy change was made because of NORML. Mr. Drake told me that he received that information in an email from Virginia Bedford, President of the Three Rivers Music Festival.

This year the free speech zone has been extended to 1,100 Sq. Ft. within
which we will be permitted to exercise our constitutional rights to freedom of speech up to 20 feet from our tent. Evidently, beyond that 20 foot barrier, the Three Rivers organizers have declared that the United States Constitution does not apply and free speech is strictly prohibited.

Ms. Bedford told me, that if someone not affiliated with NORML hands out our literature outside the authorized free speech zone, we will be removed from the festival. She then went on to state that if I want to sue her after the festival is over that is okay with her.

Ms. Bedford is knowingly planning on breaking laws and violating the United States Constitution. She knows she will be culpable for these violations, yet feels this tactic is justified to suppress our message.

Ms. Bedford told me that all vendors will be watched closely for violations of the twenty foot limit and that Midlands NORML would be watched closest of all since we broke the rules last year by violating the festival's limited free speech policy.

I suspect that someone working with the festival organizers might sabotage
us. They could employ a number of tactics, including the distribution of drug law reform literature away from our space and then remove us from the festival for breaking the rules, despite that their rules violate the Constitutionally protected right of expression and speech.

Our message is not to advocate the use of marijuana or breaking any laws
regarding use or possession. Rather, it is teaching the truth about the most beneficial plant on the planet, cannabis sativa, and exposing the lies the US Government has been perpetuating for almost 70 years in their attempt to eradicate this plant from the planet.

We teach the benefits of industrial hemp and how hemp can save the planet. We teach about the medical benefits of cannabis for many ailments. We teach about the damage prohibition has caused and is causing in our society. We show how gangs exist and children have easy access to illegal drugs because of prohibition. We advocate for a change in laws to stop arresting adults for the responsible use of marijuana.

If you feel the policy of the festival organizers is wrong you might want to contact Virginia Bedford and let her know how you feel. She can be reached at any of the following which are in the public domain:

Virginia Bedford
Three Rivers Music Festival
1511 Taylor St.
Columbia, SC 29201

803-736-4226
803-401-8990
Fax 803-401-8992
Email - vabedford@aol.com
Yahoo newsgroup, not-moderated:
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/3riversfestival/

Home address:
Virginia Bedford
2926 Clark St.
Columbia, SC 29201
803-765-0264
fax 803-254-9568

In order to ensure she gets your message you may wish to use every means
available to contact her. She arguably ignores mail that she doesn't like.

I would appreciate you forwarding this plea for help to everyone you know who supports free speech.

Live free or die!

Henry Koch
President
Midlands NORML
www.midlands-norml.org

US: KGB and STASI reinforce Homeland Security. For whom?

2005-03-17T02:00:00.000-07:00

Foreign Press Foundation | 16.12.2004 13:06 | Anti-militarism | Repression

Why have Soviet secret service 'KGB', General Yevgeni Primakov, as well as Markus Wolfe, the ex-boss of the ''STASI'', the equally feared former East German 'State Security Police' been hired by - and for - the US Gov't.?

PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTANDING NOR SEEING THIS ''MENE TEKEL'' ARE BRAINWASHED BLIND...

US: KGB and STASI reinforce Homeland Security. For whom?

"These appointments have already been made"

Dec. 16th - 2004 - If somebody would inform you, that the former Ex-head of the inhuman and despicable Soviet secret service 'KGB', General Yevgeni Primakov, as well as Markus Wolfe, the ex-boss of the ''STASI'', the equally feared former East German ''State Security Police'' - (Staats Sicherheitsdienst) - have been hired by the United States Gov't for the lawless and already feared secret service "HOMELAND Security", as experts to reinforce the control in the US of all it's citizens: would that make you sleep badly ? Im sorry to wreck your night's rest, but it seems that it just happened to you, or, better said: to all of us globally.

Nobody - outside the US mainstream media's reach - would be surprised if the US neocons would appoint a revived Dr. Josef Mengele from Auschwitz as the new Head of Medicare.

A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO [1997-06-09] WOLFE FROM THE STASI
WAS REFUSED A VISA TO THE US BECAUSE HE WAS A TERRORIST.*

Read the entire story here

Robert Blake acquitted

2005-03-17T01:49:00.000-07:00

After 4 years in prison, actor Robert Blake was acquitted of killing his wife of 6 months. Wow... 4 years. Anyway, now that he is 71, he should have no trouble finding some other California gold-digger to marry him.

Judge Upholds Death Sentence for Peterson

2005-03-17T01:37:00.000-07:00

All over the news today I heard that Peterson is a monster for killing his wife Laci and her unborn child. "Unborn child"...Isn't that an oxymoron?
Peterson was sentenced to death for 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder.
So if a woman or a doctor performs an abortion, it is not murder; If a mother puts herself at risk and loses the baby, it is not murder.
If Peterson is guilty of 2nd degree murder, why are abortions legal? It seems like a double standard to me.
It seems to me that one can't kill something that isn't born. But, if we can establish when life begins, then we can determine when ending that life becomes murder. If ending the life of a fetus is murder, we better start building more prisons (or gas chambers).

Ebbers Convicted of All Counts

2005-03-15T17:49:00.000-07:00

A New York jury has FINALLY convicted Bernard Ebbers on all counts in an accounting fraud that sank WorldCom.

After an eight day dilberation, Ebbers was convicted of conspiracy, securities fraud and making false filings with federal regulators. Ebbers himself took the stand and said he knew nothing about fraud on his watch. (Maybe they should have hit him with contempt of court, too.)

This means that this greedy billionaire could go to prison for up to 85 years. (But with billions to bribe with, what are the chances of that happening?)

His conviction follows an accounting investigation that found more than eleven billion dollars in cooked books.

I wonder how this conviction will impact the loyal employees whose 401K's dropped in value from $1,000,000 to only $500?

Fran

Terror Suspect Buying Firearm, US Report Finds - From New York Times

2005-03-15T10:12:00.000-07:00

(My comments at the end - Fran)

From Today's New York Times
Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, U.S. Report Finds
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, March 7 - Dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year, according to a Congressional investigation that points up major vulnerabilities in federal gun laws.

People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon and using it in an attack.

The G.A.O. study offers the first full-scale examination of the possible dangers posed by gaps in the law, Congressional officials said, and it concludes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation "could better manage" its gun-buying records in matching them against lists of suspected terrorists.

F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.

At least 44 times from February 2004 to June, people whom the F.B.I. regards as known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry a gun, the investigation found.

In all but nine cases, the F.B.I. or state authorities who handled the requests allowed the applications to proceed because a check of the would-be buyer found no automatic disqualification like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or someone deemed "mentally defective," the report found.

In the four months after the formal study ended, the authorities received an additional 14 gun applications from terror suspects, and all but 2 of those were cleared to proceed, the investigation found. In all, officials approved 47 of 58 gun applications from terror suspects over a nine-month period last year, it found.

The gun buyers came up as positive matches on a classified internal F.B.I. watch list that includes thousands of terrorist suspects, many of whom are being monitored, trailed or sought for questioning as part of terrorism investigations into Islamic-based, militia-style and other groups, official said. G.A.O. investigators were not given access to the identities of the gun buyers because of those investigations.

The report is to be released on Tuesday, and an advance copy was provided to The New York Times.

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who requested the study, plans to introduce legislation to address the problem in part by requiring federal officials to keep records of gun purchases by terror suspects for a minimum of 10 years. Such records must now be destroyed within 24 hours as a result of a change ordered by Congress last year. Mr. Lautenberg maintains that the new policy has hindered terrorism investigations by eliminating the paper trail on gun purchases.

"Destroying these records in 24 hours is senseless and will only help terrorists cover their tracks," Mr. Lautenberg said Monday. "It's an absurd policy."

He blamed what he called the Bush administration's "twisted allegiances" to the National Rifle Association for the situation.

The N.R.A. and gun rights supporters in Congress have fought - successfully, for the most part - to limit the use of the F.B.I.'s national gun-buying database as a tool for law enforcement investigators, saying the database would amount to an illegal registry of gun owners nationwide.

The legal debate over how gun records are used became particularly contentious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, when it was disclosed that the Justice Department and John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, had blocked the F.B.I. from using the gun-buying records to match against some 1,200 suspects who were detained as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. Mr. Ashcroft maintained that using the records in a criminal investigation would violate the federal law that created the system for instant background gun checks, but Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the issue said they saw no such prohibition.

In response to the report, Mr. Lautenberg also plans to ask Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to assess whether people listed on the F.B.I.'s terror watch list should be automatically barred from buying a gun. Such a policy would require a change in federal law.

F.B.I. officials acknowledge shortcomings in the current approach to using gun-buying records in terror cases, but they say they are somewhat constrained by gun laws as established by Congress and interpreted by the Justice Department.

"We're in a tough position," said an F.B.I. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been formally released. "Obviously, we want to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, but we also have to be mindful of privacy and civil rights concerns, and we can't do anything beyond what the law allows us to do."

After initial reluctance from Mr. Ashcroft over Second Amendment concerns, the Justice Department changed its policy in February 2004 to allow the F.B.I. to do more cross-checking between gun-buying records and terrorist intelligence.

Under the new policy, millions of gun applications are run against the F.B.I.'s internal terrorist watch list, and if there is a match, bureau field agents or other counterterrorism personnel are to be contacted to determine whether they have any information about the terror suspect.

In some cases, the extra review allowed the F.B.I. to block a gun purchase by a suspected terrorist that might otherwise have proceeded because of a lag time in putting information into the database, the accountability office's report said.

In one instance last year, follow-up information provided by F.B.I. field agents revealed that someone on a terror watch list was deemed "mentally defective," even though that information had not yet made its way into the gun database. In a second case, field agents disclosed that an applicant was in the country illegally. Both applications were denied.

Even so, the report concluded that the Justice Department should clarify what information could and could not be shared between gun-buying administrators and terrorism investigators. It also concluded that the F.B.I. should keep closer track of the performance of state officials who handle gun background checks in lieu of the F.B.I.

"Given that these background checks involve known or suspected terrorists who could pose homeland security risks," the report said, "more frequent F.B.I. oversight or centralized management would help ensure that suspected terrorists who have disqualifying factors do not obtain firearms in violation of the law."

# # #
My comments:
The FBI will always blame someone else for their incompetence. The current laws prohibit known CRIMINALS from buying guns. They want to use this report so that they can now prohibit known SUSPECTS. They use the term SUSPECTED TERRORIST because they know the kind of knee jerk response that the people will have to that phrase. However, a few years back, the FBI released a flyer defining Suspected Terrorists. It included political activists, Christians, tax-evaders/protestors, people who refer to the constitution, and generally speaking anyone who spoke out against government. This proposed bill needs to be watched closely and people need to understand that the FBI's idea of a terrorist is all encompassing. On the other hand, perhaps this will help educate people why they need to only buy guns through private gun sales. The bit about "destroying the list in 24 hours" is a total crock. When congress approved of background checks, it was conditional upon the "immediate destruction" of the list after application. This was NEVER done. What's worse, is that the FBI has released those records to new state task forces that were set up for the sole purpose of confiscating guns that had been legally purchased.

Fran

NEWS RELEASE: DON'T BE TERRORIZED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG, SAYS CITIZENS COMMITTEE

2005-03-15T10:03:00.000-07:00

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is putting his anti-gun spin on a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on firearms purchases by suspected terrorists during a five-month period last year to push his gun control agenda, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today.

Sen. Lautenberg announced that he will introduce legislation requiring the National Instant Check System (NICS) to retain records of gun purchases by suspected terrorists for at least ten years.

"In Sen. Lautenberg's warped view, anyone who buys a gun is a suspected terrorist," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. "Based on his past record, he is looking for any avenue to justify a back door gun registration scheme so that if he could get even one of his gun ban bills passed, he will know where to go to collect them all. The report demonstrates that the NICS system works. The GAO clearly notes that only 44 out of more than 3.1 million gun transactions showed valid matches to 36 different people whose names are on terrorist watch lists. Of those, 35 transactions were allowed to proceed, six were denied, and three were subject to pending resolution.

"Remember," Gottlieb noted, "none of the people who successfully purchased firearms has been charged with, or convicted of any crime, yet their names are on a watch list. How does somebody's name get on one of those lists? How is it removed? Lautenberg wants to keep records on these people for ten years. Where is the ACLU? If this involved anything but a gun purchase, the ACLU would be in hysterics over invasion of privacy issues."

"Actually," added CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, "the report indicates that procedures have been changed already to further reduce the potential that the wrong people will obtain guns. Unfortunately, no system will ever be one hundred percent fool-proof. Even if we adopted all of the gun controls Frank Lautenberg has ever advocated, we would only disarm honest citizens, not criminals or potential terrorists, and he knows it.

"However, there is more to this story that Sen. Lautenberg won't mention," Waldron added. "The report says an estimated 650 NICS transactions generated initial hits on terrorist watch lists during the GAO study period. Yet, the vast majority of those hits did not result in valid matches. The bottom line is that the NICS system works and Sen. Lautenberg is trying to say it doesn't so he can demand that we keep records on people who may have broken no laws. Should we deny them the exercise of a civil right? If we do, what's next? Do we take away their other rights? Will we hold them in confinement without trial? How far do we go? Where does it stop?"

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

-END-

Smoke and Mirrors From the FBI

2005-03-15T09:59:00.000-07:00

Gun Owners,

Unfortunately, CCRKBA – like so many others – has taken the bait.

Rather than expressing their outrage at the FBI, they have focused on Lautenberg and are now pleading that the Instant background checks for firearms purchases should be left alone, begging the congress to leave NICS as it is.

Why is there no one pointing out that congress only approved the NICS system on the condition that all records were destroyed immediately and that NO Database of US gun owners be kept. The FBI has blatantly IGNORED this contingency and has even provided those records to City taskforces (Chicago) for the express purpose of confiscating these guns that were legally purchased. In fact, FBI even participated in those confiscations.

How dare CCRKBA send out a news release stating, “The bottom line is that the NICS system works and Sen. Lautenberg is trying to say it doesn't so he can demand that we keep records on people who may have broken no laws.”

Wake up! The system doesn’t work! It does NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It does NOT prevent crime.

It DOES what it was originally proposed to DO. Prevent citizens from buying guns, allow local records to be kept on law-abiding gun owners, create a national database of gun owners, and provides a shopping list of guns and locations for confiscation task forces. It is just another incremental step towards gun confiscation in the US. And as far as the FBI wanting to use the NICS system to prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns… think again. The FBI put out a flyer a few years ago to help their field offices identify suspected terrorists. I URGE you to read the FBI flyer.

Essentially, Christians, defenders of the Constitution, and anyone who questions the authority of the police are on their terrorist watch list. Therefore, anyone who is opposed to their plan IS by THEIR definition a suspected terrorist.

This should be offensive to all gun owners, all citizens who believe that the constitution is the supreme law of the law, and especially to RKBA groups.

Rather than play defense, why not attack the FBI and Lautenberg for violating their oath to uphold the constitution? Why not demand that the NICS system be stopped immediately until we can prove that they have ignored congresses order to NOT maintain a database of gun owners? Why not demand that congress immediately investigate the FBI and order them to destroy the records that they were ordered not to have in the first place? Why? Because it is too late; The database already exists, it has be given to states and is being used exactly as it was intended to be used – to take guns away from law abiding citizens. If I were on the board of CCRKBA, I would send out an immediate retraction of this release. If I were a member of a group professing to be working to protect members gun rights, I would be outraged at that group for stating that “NICS is working”. Hopefully, my message has outraged you enough to read the FBI flyer yourself, and to contact your gun rights organizations and let them know that you are not interested in any more compromises. You want the NICS system to END, not to be given MORE power to trample our rights.

Fran Tully

Review: The Black Arrow by Vin Suprynowicz

2005-03-14T18:25:00.000-07:00

by Fran Tully

The Black Arrow is a futuristic tale of hope and resistance. Set in the year 2030, it opens in the streets of Gotham . The reader is introduced to a world where homeland security has blossomed and bestowed upon us its wonderful "protection" against terrorism--not only in our airports, but right off busy sidewalks at impromptu "portals." Passers by are treated to an inspection for weapons, illegal software, drugs, and proper ID. Of course, if they don't find any problems, inspectors often treat themselves to a good grope or other sexual rewards from the defenseless citizens in this new "police state." Ah, but on the rooftops and in the shadows lurks the Black Arrow--a hero along the lines of Batman or Superman. While the book may open with an almost comic book feel, we soon learn that it is a serious, believable novel that stirs our souls much like the film “Spartacus” does.

With The Black Arrow, Vin has given us a real treasure. For example, when was the last time that “Passionate”. . . "Sexy". . . "Stylish" . . . "Thought-provoking" . . . "Funny". . . "Exhilarating!". . . "Action-packed!" . . . and "Tear-jerker" were all used to describe the same book--let alone a book about FREEDOM???

The characters are so real, likable, and unique that you believe that you know them. The Black Arrow starts out with a righteous assassination by an archer. The ancient method of attack is chosen to effectively render the vast “SonicNet gunfire detection grid” about as useful as the ancient Maginot Line.

Later, we find that the resistance is equally proficient with blades, martial arts, or firearms. I found it extremely refreshing to read a novel with technically accurate gun battles. Without going overboard or getting too technical, the author provides the reader with a real sense of what it feels like, sounds like, and looks like to engage an armed enemy while equipped with bows and guns. After some of the shooting scenes, you'll actually find yourself with ringing ears yawning, trying to get your ears to pop, as though a low-flying jet had just broken Mach 1 overhead.

The masterful word pictures put you on the front line. You feel the cold rain, are aroused by the sex, and smell the dark, dank, vast Gotham underground. This is a thriller with soul. You will go from laughing out loud, to shaking with sheer hatred, and then down to a lump in your throat--from the tear-jerking romance.

If you're part of the "gun culture," you'll feel absolutely privileged to be surrounded by serious, well trained freedom fighters who not only practice good muzzle control, but also let you in on their thoughts before and AFTER they pull the trigger. You find yourself understanding their justification for their conflict and their willingness to “hold the line”--despite their terrible odds of survival.

Some of the scenes are so heinous that you question the need to be so graphic; after all, no government could be THAT cruel. And then you recall that you've seen these stories before . . . you remember that these are real events. Vin has craftily taken the most horrific injustices to our liberties and magically made them appear as current news items in 2030. The Black Arrow is a must-read for romantics, libertarians, resistance fighters, and anyone who is passionate about life. It also provides the ultimate solution for the elimination of "boot-on-your-neck" politics.

The dialogue is witty and sharp. The history lessons and quotes from the Founding Fathers are timeless and pertinent.

Vin has given us a stunning first novel that is sure to be a timeless classic among such greats as Atlas Shrugged, The Count of Monte Cristo, Animal Farm, 1984, and Unintended Consequences. Get the limited edition, leather-bound printing while it lasts and pass it on to your grandchildren. It is guaranteed to stir even the faintest glowing cinder of patriotism into a raging fire of resistance. I can't wait to see what Vin will come up with next--and I hope it is soon.

About the author: Vin Suprynowicz , a collector of surplus military firearms, spent his youth in New England and worked his way through school as a disc jockey, short-order cook, motel night clerk, and member of the relentlessly unsuccessful rock & roll band "The Four Shadowings of Doom." Vin has had an extensive, award-winning career in journalism and is currently a columnist and editorial writer at Nevada 's largest newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal. He is also the author of two non-fiction books, Send in the Waco Killers and The Ballad of Carl Drega. Both of his non-fiction works were awarded Freedom Book of the Year by Free-Market.net, and The Black Arrow is certain to win it this year.

The targets of Vin's books and columns include taxation, gun control, and the War to Spread Pain (more generally dubbed the "War On Some Drugs.")

But Homeland Security and our new national pastime, the airport grope-and-grab, also do not escape his literary scalpel.

You can buy "The Black Arrow" from the Liberty Book Shop online.

Is "THE INCREDIBLES" based on Ayn Rand philosophy?

2005-03-14T18:11:00.000-07:00

Superhero Me!by David Kelley

Countless articles and books have exposed the injustice of egalitarian policies, from affirmative action to "comparable worth" pay. Economists have documented their destructive effects. Newspapers bring daily reports of egalitarian lunacy: a school that won't post honor rolls, lest it be sued by parents of C students; SAT tests "re-normed" to boost the scores of minorities; a teacher hauled up before a college court for using the word "niggardly," taken as a slur by semantically challenged students. None of this seems to have done much to stem the egalitarian tide. Who would have thought that an animated film would finally touch a nerve, putting egalitarians on the defensive? That is the achievement of Pixar Studios' new hit, The Incredibles, the story of a family of superheroes who struggle against the reign of mediocrity and finally break free to excel. Along the way it skewers the dumbing down of schools, the mantra that everyone is special, and the laws that give losers special status as victims. Banishing Heroes The movie begins with a droll conceit: Superheroes with miraculous powers have been put out of action by the very people they saved from fires, felons, and other fiascoes. With the help, naturally, of trial lawyers, these "victims" brought a rash of lawsuits against their saviors for incidental injuries and "wrongful rescue." The former heroes are now living in suburban obscurity under the government's Superhero Protection Program, forbidden to exercise their powers in public. Bob Parr, formerly Mr. Incredible, works as a claims adjustor in an insurance company, commuting in a beat-up sedan barely large enough to hold his still-immense bulk. His wife, Helen (Elastigirl), stays home raising the kids, who also have superhuman powers. The family chafes at their enforced normality. Dash, the grade-school son who runs like a rabbit on speed, is angry that he can't join the track team lest he reveal his special power. "Dad says our powers make us special," he complains to his mother. "Everyone's special, Dash," she says - and he mutters, "Which is another way of saying that nobody is." Bob sneaks off at night to fight crime with an old superhero buddy. When Helen tells him he's missing a meaningless ceremony at Dash's school, he grumbles: "They keep finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity." It's only a matter of time before Bob accepts a secret superhero mission, one that eventually draws the entire family into a battle with a surprising villain, named Syndrome. Syndrome was a young wannabe in the days when superheroes flourished but, lacking any special powers of his own, wasn't admitted to the club. Now, filled with resentful envy, he has been eliminating the retired superheroes one by one. Like a James Bond villain, operating from a high-tech desert island lair, he has invented technology that neutralizes the superheroes' advantage. He has also invented an indestructible weapon he can use to get even with the world, demanding money, power, and respect. When Bob is lured to the island and trapped, Helen and the children come to the rescue, and the whole family saves the day in a wonderfully orchestrated blur of animated prowess. Pixar's computer-generated animation is stunning throughout. The Parr's struggle with family life gives the characters depth; the dialogue is witty, the action inventive. No wonder the movie is a runaway hit, with revenues of nearly $178 million by its third weekend out. But the most interesting thing about it is the controversy it has stirred. In this respect, the film's distinction is not that it features exceptional characters doing heroic things. Such films are a dime a dozen, from comic-book classics like Superman to the latest thriller. What's distinctive is that the film explicitly defends the value of talent and achievement against the leveling values of egalitarianism. In doing so it has unleashed a storm of commentary, pro and con, by reviewers, commentators, and bloggers. A Rand Connection? New York Times reviewer A.O. Scott said the film suggests an "immersion in both the history of American comic books and the philosophy of Ayn Rand." In the Nation, Stuart Klawans sneered: "The superheroes are in hiding because greedy trial lawyers sued them into retirement; and, while concealed, they chafe at their confinement, like Ayn Rand railing against enforced mediocrity." Scott and Klawans were among the many who cited Rand as a point of reference, and possible inspiration, for the movie's theme. To judge by the discussion of The Incredibles, Rand is known as much for her unapologetic love of excellence as for her ethic of self-interest and her libertarian politics. She was indeed a great admirer of human achievement, and, as a consequence, defended the rights and the honor of the highest achievers. Her goal as a novelist, she said, was "the projection of an ideal man." In the world she created in Atlas Shrugged, the economy comes to a halt when the most productive people go on strike against the altruist moral code and its demand that they serve as keepers of their less able brothers. Rand also understood the envy and power lust that fuel egalitarian doctrines. In an arresting scene in The Fountainhead that has particular relevance to The Incredibles, her power-hungry villain Ellsworth Toohey explains one of the techniques he used to break the spirit of individuals and make them willing to submit to the collective. Kill man's sense of values. Kill his capacity to recognize greatness or to achieve it. Great men can't be ruled. We don't want any great men. Don't deny the conception of greatness. Destroy it from within. The great is the rare, the difficult, the exceptional. Set up standards of achievement open to all, to the least, to the most inept - and you stop the impetus to effort in all men, great or small. You stop all incentive to improvement, to excellence, to perfection. . . . Don't set out to raze all shrines - you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity - and the shrines are razed. The Incredibles elicited predictable howls from the egalitarian Left. One blogger saw the movie as a page out of Nietzsche: "The strong, the movie suggests, should be allowed to thrive outside the false laws and values of the weak, acting according to their own superior, self-generated code." Another complained that the filmmakers were "apparently oblivious to the critiques of the Nietzsche/Rand/Nazi undertones beneath every superhero from Superman on down. There's a huge difference between respecting difference, and instructing the weak to honor the inherent superiority of the great." Peter Conrad, a writer for England's left-wing Guardian, wrote a particularly nasty commentary on the superhero genre. "The superman is a man of power, which means that from the first his mission was political. Superheroes are instinctive bullies and despots," he claims, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or George W. Bush, or America as a world power. In The Incredibles itself, however, there is no sign whatever that the heroes are interested in power. Nor of course did Ayn Rand believe that great ability entitled a person to control others, as she made abundantly clear in distinguishing herself from Nietzsche and defending the rights of all people to live as they choose. Egalitarians insist on reading elitist political motivation into every work that recognizes differences in ability because of their own collectivist blinders. If one assumes from the outset that the group is the primary unit of existence, which controls the lives of individuals and gives them their identity, then indeed there are only two basic choices: an egalitarian society with democratic governance or a hierarchical society with aristocratic governance. But the assumption and the dichotomy are false. A Few Complaints While The Incredibles has a theme to warm the hearts of Objectivists and has made the right people angry, it is not Atlas Shrugged. For one thing, the heroes are not productive geniuses who create value through exceptional ability in art, science, business, or invention. They are traditional heroes who ward off the destruction of value by criminals or natural disasters. The film's only scenes of work are of Bob in his miserable insurance-company cubicle and of his conflicts with his bossâ€”a Scrooge-like caricature of the greedy capitalist who wants to turn down every customer's claim and watches indifferently when a man is mugged on the street outside his window. In fighting crime and rescuing people, traditional heroes embody the classical virtues of the warrior, especially strength and courage, combined with the altruism of the Christian knight, dedicated to protecting the weak. In a review for Box Office Mojo, Objectivist Scott Holleran accused The Incredibles of altruism on this score, because the superheroes are engaged in "saving lives as a moral duty for 'the greater good.'" It's true that the Parrs risk their lives to help others, battling a villain portrayed as a selfish monster. Nevertheless, it seemed to me that their deeper motivation was the joy of exercising their powers - just as someone might choose to practice medicine, a profession whose goal is to heal the sick, because he loves the challenge of the work. Bob embarks on his heroic exploits not because others need him but because he needs to break out of a life he finds stifling. It was, after all, an ungrateful public that consigned him to that life in the first place. Indeed, many liberal commentators complained that the film's superheroes are too selfish in pursuing self-realization rather than service. A hostile article in the York Observer, for example, quoted liberal author Richard Goldstein: "And what is The Incredibles? It's really a movie about people sort of bursting out of this model of decency and concern for others, and all of those values that now get labeled politically correct, and bursting forth with their true strength and power, like an animated Hobbes." The one unambiguous flaw in the movie's conception of heroism lies in its portrayal of the villain. Syndrome has invented technological marvels, like boots that enable him to fly, a fortress run by computers, and a ray gun that traps its target in an anti-gravitational force field. Though he puts these tools to evil uses, they are obviously the product of exceptional mental ability that makes the superheroes' athletic gifts seem crude by comparison. By invoking the stock figure of the evil genius, the filmmakers have signed on to the conventional view that intelligence is at best amoral. Had they simply omitted any character of heroic mental powers, they would have conveyed a merely limited conception of heroism; by introducing such a character and making him the villain, they have offered a distorted conception. In an extraordinary moment near the end, Syndrome says his goal in inventing the technology was to destroy the superheroes by enabling everyone to do what they do. "Everybody will be super, which means no one will be." In that one line, writer Brad Bird managed to equate murder and invention as acts of envy-driven hatred, and to elevate native physical abilities over the exercise of man's distinctive ability to think, create, and magnify his powers through technology. The latter is an especially bizarre statement for the wizards at Pixar to make. But it's only one line. Write it off as temporary insanity and enjoy the rest of the film.

Idiots on the Airwaves

2005-03-11T17:57:00.000-07:00

I wish there were a nicer way to put it, but I think Idiot is the most exact.
I love to listen to talk radio. I listen for different reasons. First, for entertainment, and second, in hopes of hearing someone discussing something educational or of great interest to me. Naturally, I enjoy political discussions and am grateful that we still have some small trace of our first amendment rights, so we can hear opinions from all points of the political spectrum.
lately, it has gotten very difficult to find a station with anyone willing to speak out against the current administration or to even hint at how our basic rights are being trampled. Some of the biggest puppets (or members of the Bush kiss-ass club) out there that I have heard are Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Ingram. Some of the more amusing and more educated include Savage, Drudge, and Boortz, with Boortz being my favorite syndicated host. One of the most annoying hosts to me however, is Michael Medved. I have a difficult time even listening to him, but every now and then, I tune in when no other talk shows are available.

Of course, the hosts aren't the only idiots on the airways. Some of the callers are as bad or worse. I often wonder if some of the chronic callers have any idea how bad their calls sound to the average listener. In Utah where I live, we have some callers whose thinking is so mixed up that you almost feel sorry for them. For those of you who are regular callers or who are considering calling in or appearing as a guest on a talk show, I'd like to provide the following suggestions.

1. KNOW the subject that you are discussing. This may sound obvious, but I am always surprised at the number of people who call in and have no facts about what they are discussing.
2. Know what you are calling to say. Write down your key points before you call the station.
3. Speak clearly and directly. Don't ramble. Keep a smile on your face. Try to use humor, but do so subtly...don't force it.
4. Unless you have permission or authority to represent a group, or organization, clarify that you are only giving YOUR opinion and this is NOT the official position of the group your host may have linked you to in your introduction.
5. Allow the host to complete their questions without interrupting them. Then, pause before answering to consider if they have set a trap to make you look like a fool. If they have, simply state that you are not sure that the question is relevant or if you can answer such a question. If the host continues to try to make you look like an idiot, let him know that you are not interested in continuing the call and excuse yourself. A good host can make you look like an idiot if that is his goal, so be careful who you accept invitations from.

Below is a link from a fellow who was bragging about how well he did on his recent interview on The Michael Medved Show. I listened to the show in utter disbelief. I could not comprehend how he could actually believe that the interview had gone well. Following are several of our email exchanges.
_____
"The libertarian lawyer Rex Curry trounced Michael Medved on nationwide radio
Tuesday. Here is some audio http://rexcurry.net/RexCurry.mp3 "

_____
Rex,
I commend you and any Libertarian who can stomach Medved enough to speak to him for an hour.
However, after listening to the entire torturous hour, I fail to see where you "trounced" him. It appeared to me that he had you on the program for the sole purpose of furthering his argument that Libertarians are kooks. What's more is that Medved and his callers seemed to be mocking you and went away with the understanding that your "pledge of allegiance" cause is the cause of all Libertarians. They didn't sound to me as thought they thought that you were "trouncing" Medved either. You seemed to willingly step into every trap he set for you. Your appearance seemed to me to be nothing more that an opportunity for you to get as many free plugs for your website as possible in 60 minutes. It seemed to me that you did not do well at answering callers questions and in my opinion, it didn't sound to me like you changed a single listeners mind about the "pledge".

Sorry, but I fail see how you can consider that interview as a success. How could you actually believe that Medved's closing statement was indicative a successful interview? Thanks to you, a million conservative listeners heard one of their favorite talk show hosts end his nationally syndicated radio program with the words: "Rex Kerry I appreciate your coming on the show; You have performed a great public service in helping to illustrate to people just how marginal, pathetic, and truly disgraceful the Libertarian Party has become."

Rex, next time you want to promote the philosophy of the Libertarian Party, you might want to reconsider. As state chair of the LP Utah, I can honestly say that I would have preferred that you didn't mention your political affiliation.

Anyone Libertarian who is invited on Medved's program can rest assured that if Medved thinks that there is any possible chance that he can NOT make you look like a kook, a wacko, or a lunatic, that there is NO chance of you getting on his program.

Fran

______________
Thanks for your comments Fran, I would be happy to meet with you and Utah
libertarians in person in late March in Utah in Park City. More comments
are below.

>Here is audio of me trouncing Michael Medved for an hour on nationwide
radio (Tuesday)- http://rexcurry.net/RexCurry.mp3

Rex,
>I commend you and any Libertarian who can stomach Medved enough to
>speak to him for an hour.

You got that part right. thanks.

>However, after listening to the entire torturous hour, I fail to see
>where you "trounced" him.

Have you ever done talk radio? I trounced him. Oh, and I LOVED IT. It was
cathartic, too. He said what I expected him to say pretty much, and I said
what I had intended to say in response. In that sense, there weren't a lot
of surprises.

Of course, you could call his show 1-800-955-1776 and "correct all my
errors" and show us how libertarianism is properly explicated. Try to
actually mention that you want to end government schools, as I did
repeatedly, as that is the actual position of libertarianism and it is the
real issue when discussing the pledge. Heck, if you say what you said here,
he might have you on for a whole show. Try not to leave him and his
listeners with the impression that libertarians are the same as he and his
listeners and support government schools, want to perpetuate the social
security scam and expand it to nationalize the entire economy and they
support a government that is twice as socialistic as was Clinton's (in
social spending alone). Otherwise Libertarians might attract so many
republican-socialists and democrat-socialists that we could actually elect a
president who would outspend Clinton by double while we pretend that we hate
government.

>It appeared to me that he had you on the program for the
>sole purpose of furthering his argument that Libertarians are kooks.

No sh$t? (that's facetious) remember your comment if you ever do a similar
interview.

>What's more is that Medved and his callers seemed to be mocking you

Yes, that is why I mocked back.

> and went away
>with the understanding that your "pledge of allegiance" cause is the
>cause of all Libertarians.

It certainly should be, and of course the bigger point that he (and you?)
disagree with or miss: ending government schools (is that not a cause of all
libertarians, but the pledge is?). And remember that I made it perfectly
clear that the actual position and solution was ending government
involvement in education. You haven't mentioned that trouncing part.

> They didn't sound to me as thought they thought that
>you were "trouncing" Medved either.

No kidding? And is that because they like the pledge, like government
schools, want to perpetuate the social security scam and expand it to
nationalize the entire economy and they support a government that is twice
as socialistic as was Clinton (in social spending alone)?
Oh, they did think I was trouncing Medved and that is why they called in to
be cheerleaders for socialism.

>You seemed to willingly step into every trap he set for you. Your
>appearance seemed to me to be nothing more that an opportunity for you
>to get as many free plugs for your website as possible in 60 minutes.

BINGO. As a libertarian, when you talk to any twit like Medved, you are not
doing a good job if he doesn't tell you to stop mentioning your website.
Now you are starting to understand one of the things you do with
republican-socialists and democrat-socialists in the process of trouncing
them. You apparently do not understand that.

>It seemed to me that you did not do well at answering callers questions
>and in my opinion, it didn't sound to me like you changed a single
>listeners mind about the "pledge".

Again, you sort of give yourself away by showing that you miss the point
yourself: ending government schools. It is clear that you would NEVER have
even mentioned the ultimate proper, ethical (libertarian) position if you
had done the show.

>Sorry, but I fail see how you can consider that interview as a success.

I am very sorry that I can not consider your comments a success for liberty.
You haven't mentioned the actual libertarian position yet.

> How could you actually believe that Medved's closing statement was
> indicative a
>successful interview? Thanks to you, a million conservative listeners heard
>one of their favorite talk show hosts end his nationally syndicated radio
>program with the words: "Rex Kerry I appreciate your coming on the show;
>You
>have performed a great public service in helping to illustrate to people
>just how marginal, pathetic, and truly disgraceful the Libertarian Party
>has
>become."

You completely miss the point. Medved doesn't like libertarians. See the
Libertarian Medved Response Team http://www.exordia.net/medvedrt/

Because of his past his callers are not libertarians and they share his
hatred of libertarianism. I do not control what he says at the end. He has
"off" buttons. What in the world do you think he should have said for you
at the end of the interview and how much more would you have SOLD OUT
liberty in order for you to have acheived what you would consider pleasant
comments from Medved at the close? You have already shown that you would
never have even mentioned the REAL ethical proper (libertarian) point of the
whole issue. How much worse would you have been? would you have left his
listeners believing that libertarians are actually socialists just like he
and his listeners are who like government schools, want to perpetuate the
social security scam and expand it to nationalize the entire economy and
they support a government that is twice as socialistic as was Clinton (in
social spending alone)?

>Rex, next time you want to promote the philosophy of the Libertarian
>Party, you might want to reconsider. As state chair of the LP Utah, I
>can honestly say that I would have preferred that you didn't mention
>your political affiliation.

Fran, next time you want to promote the philosophy of the Libertarian Party, you might want to reconsider. As state chair of the LP Utah, you never even
mentioned the proper ethical (libertarian) position on the topic. I can
honestly say that I would prefer that you didn't mention your political
affiliation.

>Anyone Libertarian who is invited on Medved's program can rest assured
>that if Medved thinks that there is any possible chance that he can NOT
>make you look like a kook, a wacko, or a lunatic, that there is NO
>chance of you getting on his program.

And you demonstrate that you will apparently never be on his show and that
if you ever are on it will be because you will never mention the actual
libertarian position on anything, and that you will compromise and bend over
so much that he will love you and his listeners will believe that
libertarians
are actually socialists just like he and his listeners are, and that
libertarians support government schools, love pledging allegiance in
government schools, and want to perpetuate the social security scam and
expand it to nationalize the entire economy and they support a government
that is twice as socialistic as was Clinton (in social spending alone)? And
eventually the party would attract so many republican-socialists and
democrat-socialists that we could actually elect a president who would
outspend Clinton by double while we pretend that we were libertarians who
hate government.

And every "conservative" who listened did not think the way you do. I was
talking to THEM. I hear from people like that all the time. That is why I
have a website. And the "interview" as it were, is not over yet either. It
was a vehicle for further action.

Including my offer to meet with you and Utah libertarians in person in late
March. I can talk about the pledge or whatever you wish.

_______________

>Rex droned:
>Have you ever done talk radio? I trounced him.

Yes, I have done talk radio. I was a producer and a I was a co-host for 8 months. You didn't trounce him. If you still believe you did after my comments, you are either dillusional or completely incapable of an honest self-evaluation. But the next time you get air time, please don't present yourself as representative of the Libertarian Party.

> Oh, and I LOVED IT. It was cathartic, too. He said what I expected
> him to
say pretty much, and I said what I had intended to say in response. In
that sense, there weren't a lot of surprises.

Then you are even worse off than I imagined.

>Of course, you could call his show 1-800-955-1776 and "correct all my
errors" and show us how libertarianism is properly explicated.

I have no intention of debating you. If you want to find out if I can
effectively present Libertarian ideas, do a google search for "fran tully".

>remember your comment if you ever do a similar interview.

I am on the radio several times a week. Believe me, there are very few
similarities to your interview. The calls that follow my interviews all
embrace my ideas.

>>with the understanding that your "pledge of allegiance" cause is the cause
>>of all Libertarians.

>It certainly should be,

I suggest that you take that up with the LNP Before you go on national radio
and create more problems for the LP. The appropriate thing for you to have
done would to state, "this is MY cause and NOT the OFFICIAL position of the
LP. I am NOT AUTHORIZED to speak on their behalf."

>... and of course the bigger point that he (and you?)
disagree with or miss: ending government schools (is that not a cause of all

libertarians, but the pledge is?). And remember that I made it perfectly
clear that the actual position and solution was ending government
involvement in education.

Yes, I share that goal, but you were very ineffective in presenting the
idea.

>> They didn't sound to me as thought they thought that
>>you were "trouncing" Medved either.

>No kidding? And is that because they like the pledge, like government
schools, want to perpetuate the social security scam and expand it to
nationalize the entire economy and they support a government that is twice
as socialistic as was Clinton (in social spending alone)?

No... it was because you were not convincing.

>Oh, they did think I was trouncing Medved and that is why they called in to

be cheerleaders for socialism.

I think you need to be more objective. Why not set up a poll for all those
who you sent the link to. Many of us share many of your beliefs. In the
poll, ask on a scale of 1 - 10 how many folks believed you "trounced him". I
would ask for a recount if you got a higher average than 3.

>> How could you actually believe that Medved's closing statement was
>> indicative a successful interview? Thanks to you, a million conservative
listeners heard >one of their favorite talk show hosts end his nationally
syndicated radio >program with the words: "Rex Kerry I appreciate your
coming on the show; >You have performed a great public service in helping
to illustrate to people just how marginal, pathetic, and truly disgraceful
the Libertarian Party has become."

>You completely miss the point. Medved doesn't like libertarians. See the
Libertarian Medved Response Team
http://www.exordia.net/medvedrt/

No Rex, YOU missed the point. He has you on to make you and the LP look
foolish. With your help, he was very effective.

>And you demonstrate that you will apparently never be on his show and that
if you ever are on it will be because you will never mention the actual
libertarian position on anything...

I would not put myself in a position of doing more harm than good to the LP.
As I suggested earlier, "google me" and determine for yourself if I am an
effective presenter of the LP philosophy.

>Including my offer to meet with you and Utah libertarians in person in late

March. I can talk about the pledge and the pics at
http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html or whatever you wish.

Thanks, but no thanks. Most of us in Utah are well aware of the roots behind
the pledge and many of us do not participate. Besides, I'm pretty sure I
will be "washing my hair" or something when you are in Utah.
I rarely "filter out" fellow libertarians, Rex, but if I don't respond to
your future posts, it is only because I see no point in trying to convince
you too use logic and reason. Therefore, there is very little point in our
continuing to discuss this with each other.

F
_______________

Then here was an exchange with another who commented on our thread:

kira sent:
>I am here in Killinois wondering why you two kiddies cannot play nice!
Fran--for many of us, the LP does not represent libertarianism, so I
think it is rather arrogant of you to tell Rex (and no, I did not hear
the show) that HE is not speaking for the LP....who decides?

The LP decides. Medved announced him as a "capital L, libertarian". As such, Rex knows that he is not permitted to speak on behalf of the party. However, we are all entitled to our opinions. All I pointed out was that in the future, Rex should remember to point out that it is HIS opinion and not the OFFICIAL position of the party.

>If he is a card-carrying LP-er, then why should he not speak for the LP
>as much as the next guy?

No. If he wants to state the LP's official position, he can. If he wants to present his position or opinion as that of the LP, he can't.

> And if you strenuously disagree, call in when he is on air
and say your piece.

I didn't hear the show live, Rex sent us a link to a pre-recorded file.

>This bickering is childish and unproductive versus talk about morals and ethics and the general futility of POLITICKING versus exactly what Rex did--getting air time--bad press is better than no press.

In some cases, you may be right. However, in the case of representing the largest 3rd party in the US, who is plagued with the reputation of having a bunch of nit wits, odd balls, and wackos, bad publicity is FAR worse than no publicity. The LP has been trying very hard to UNDUE all the bad publicity that has damaged and marginalized the party for so long. When clowns like Rex fly off on their own tangent, it is detrimental to the party as a whole.

>Once upon a time when I believed in
politics for a few days, I supported Russ Means for LP Presidential
candidate--why--because he would have the 3-ring media circus in full
tilt as a native american...who cared if he misrepresented some fine
point of the platform? with all that press and all those folks clamoring
to know more, someone could have gotten a chance to clear things up and
a zillion new people would have had the word libertarian on their
tongues!

As the LP Presidential candidate, all libertarians should care if he "misrepresented" the party platform. But the difference is that if he was an LP Presidential candidate, he is permitted to discuss our platform with the media. Rex isn't permitted to invent platforms and present them as LP positions.

>Fran--chill out!

I am chilled out. But just as Rex is entitled to his opinion -"I trounced him" - I am entitled to mine - "he sucked and was damaging to the LP."

>And yes, I am thoroughly cured of politics--registered to vote only
once, worked an LP election only once--both experiences taught me that
politics and libertarianism are contradictions.

I too have had my fill of politics. However, I will make the distinction that while " politics and libertarianism are contradictions" politics and the Libertarian Party are married. I would have avoided the reference to the LP if Rex had not made an issue of it on his interview. Perhaps if you had followed the original link Rex had provided to the recorded interview, you would have more appreciation of the discussion.

>(forgive this it-and-run note--I am heading out of town for the next few
days--if reply is needed, be back in a week or so)

No need to reply. I am sick of this thread and am quite sure everyone else is too.

FT

Can you leave in 30 minutes?

2004-09-22T18:01:00.000-06:00

The other day, my friend and I were discussing our preparedness level. Eventually, we began discussing the importance of being ready to leave our homes on very short notice. One thing led to another and we decided that we would each take one hour to prepare, then leave our homes and hike to the top of a nearby mountain and hike back down in the morning. In the spirit of adventure and to test ourselves even further, we intentionally left behind some essentials and some items that would make us comfortable. For instance, we did not bring a shovel, a stove, a ground pad, a tent, sweets, a water filter, or a coat. On the other hand, we took some heavy items that we didn't really need, but it would be unrealistic to practice a "bug out" without them. We each carried a rifle, 100 rounds of ammo, 3 days worth of food, and 3 liters of water. Including the rifles, our total kit was around 50 pounds. The idea was to see how well we fared under extreme, unplanned conditions. Another thing we lacked was physical preparation. Neither he nor I have a regular exercise regime and we are both about 50 lbs overweight. We chose to test ourselves on a steep 3.5 mile mountain trail that ended at a lake. To make it even more interesting, we decided to leave at night. Oh, I almost forgot, my friend suffers from siatica in his left leg and I was nursing a right knee that I reinjured the day before.

Most folks who hike this trail take around 2 hours to get to the lake and about 2 hours to get back down. We figured that it would take us about 3 hours - 3.5 hrs at the most. We were a little off.

Without boring you too much, let's just say that we found many areas where we need improvement. The hike took us around 4 hours, when we reached the top the temperature was just under 40 degrees, we slept (yeah right) on rocks and hard patches of grass which made our rest spotty - to put it mildly. I slept nearly 3 hours, while my friend is lucky if he got 45 minutes.

Here are some of the items I missed the most. A good ground pad or a hammock, a better sling for my rifle, my big knife (which eliminates the need for a small knife and a shovel), a watch cap to wear while I sleep, a water filter, a poncho (which can double as a tarp in case of bad weather), extra socks, moleskin, snack food, more food, a stove, and a coat. Obviously I won't bring all these items every time, but the lack of certain comforts made the trip more stressful than it could have been. The one item I missed the most was my big knife. With it I could have at least softened the ground and gotten a better rest.

This little adventure was critical to better preparation. We both learned a lot, and will be better prepared for our next adventure and ultimately, for an emergency situation. I recommend that anyone who is serious about preparedness take a similar trip.

We have now planned a second trip. The next trip will be to the west desert, will involve five people instead of two, will be for a longer period of time, and will only allow us 1/2 hour to prepare.

What I'd like to see for future outings is each of us bug out to a predestined location on 15 minutes notice. The only information we will receive is where to meet, how long we expect to be gone, and how long we have to get to the meeting place. Some folks may wish to stick with just a fanny pack, others may want to take a full backpack, others may wish to carry both.

In addition to having our kit sorted out, I think it is just as important to be physically and mental prepared to "go" at a moment's notice. I am committed to losing at least 30 pounds and keeping my joints healthy. There is no doubt that my extra weight and lack of exercise was the most significant factor in my discomfort.

Below, I have listed some of the items that I suggest you have on a belt as your bare essentials to strap on and go with a moments notice.

Knife, water, fire starter (matches, lighter, magnesium and flint), MREs, poncho, blanket or sleeping bag, ground pad or hammock, spoon, metal cup, stove or sterno, rope or string, moleskin, first aid, extra socks, hat, sunglasses, 120 rounds of ammo, water filter, gloves, shorts, jacket, multi-purpose tool, trail mix, wet wipes, toilet paper, soap, toothbrush, razor, emergency blanket, mirror or CD - for signaling, whistle, rifle. Happy hiking.

Can you help me understand how gun ownership helps?

2004-08-24T13:07:00.000-06:00

I recently spoke with a woman who lives in New Jersey. She had some great questions about gun ownership. Her questions were so good that I decided that the answers should be shared with others who might be in a similar situation. Please let me know if this helps you and if you have comments on anything else that I should have mentioned.

Before I answer her specific questions, I want to make a general argument about how gun ownership can help people.

Gun ownership is like wrestling in water - it levels the playing field. A 110 lb woman who pulls a gun out of her purse can instantly stop two 250 lb drug crazed rapists. Gun ownership allows citizens the ability to protect their life and property from criminals. Police will rarely be in a position to stop a rape, a mugging, or a car-jacking. In these situations, only an armed female stands a good chance of surviving unharmed.
Even a grown man is no match for a group of hardened hoodlums intent on hurting him or taking his property. However, a single gun in the hands of someone who is not afraid to use it can quickly quiet the most obnoxious hoodlums.

Today's criminal is a parasite. They prey on the weak. They will attack in garages, on quiet streets, in school parking lots, in empty homes, while you are carrying groceries, and while you are pushing a stroller. They are looking for the quickest "score" where they will meet with the least amount of resistance. Simply having a gun on you may raise your awareness and confidence to a degree that a criminal will sense that you may offer too much resistance. Whose walk do you think would be faster and appear more nervous; The girl walking down a deserted street alone, or the girl with her hand in her backpack holding her gun and looking around for danger?

On a national level, gun ownership helps by presenting an unspoken warning to government. The second amendment was written so that citizens would have the means to confront a tyrannical government and so that the non-military people (the militia)could quickly assemble as a standing army in the event of a foreign attack. It has been shown that states that grant their citizens a permit to carry concealed weapons see a sudden drop in violent crime. This is because the criminals are unsure who is armed and who will offer resistance. I contend that governments harbor that same fear. If every person in America was armed, we would have a more polite society and we would have a government that was not so quick to take away our rights.

I believe in personal responsibility. Making a decision to carry a gun is the first and most important step in taking personal responsibility for your self-defense. If you are not willing to make an effort to protect yourself, why should anyone else be willing to protect you?

Now here are the questions -

Q - When my friend and I started inquiring about gun ownership, it seems as if there are so many restrictions that I can't see the practical value. Maybe that's only because of the laws in NJ.

A - It is not just NJ. There are many states that absolutely do not want their citizens armed and put up as many restrictions as possible. Reasonable people understand that this will not prevent criminals from getting and using guns. In fact, over regulation of gun laws almost guarantees safety for criminals. Remember this; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law that contradicts the constitution is invalid. It was not written to prohibit the freedom of the people but to keep the government from abusing the power granted them by the people. The bill of rights is not a list of privileges; it is a list of natural rights that the government is forbidden from infringing upon. No government has the right to prevent you from the means of self-defense.

Q - For example, if I got a permit to buy a gun, what would I have to do to be able to carry it?

A - First of all, I urge you NOT to get a permit - EVER. Not because I suggest operating outside of the law, but because the law has no authority to grant that permission. It is your right to keep and bear arms. The permit is a way of allowing local NJ law enforcement officers to play God and decide who should and shouldn't be able to have a gun. It is also the main way of creating a local database of gun owners. Simply applying for a permit will add your name to that list. If you do not believe me, I can send you proof. They are now using these databases to confiscate legally purchased guns in Chicago, and CA. But, to answer your question, once you have obtained a NJ permit to buy a gun, you must buy a gun within 72 hours (maybe it is a week?) or you have to go through the whole process again. This is not about safety, it is about control. When you go to buy the gun - only from a licensed dealer (FFL)in NJ, they will then make you fill out another set of forms for a background check. This now puts your name into a national database. Then, after you "own" the gun, you must keep it in your home or in a locked box. If you then want to carry it (good luck in NJ) you will need to get permission to take a concealed carry class. Upon passing that class, your name will be put into another database, and the state will make you get a new drivers license which indicates that you are a concealed weapons carrier. In addition, you will have to get a CCW permit that is required to be on your person any time you have the gun with you. Of course, this is all moot, because unless you are personal friends with a politician in NJ, there is almost NO CHANCE that you will get a NJ CCW. I will make my recommendation at the end of this message.

Q - If I couldn't carry it, what use is it to me?

A - Absolutely none when you are most likely to need it. However, you could still have it on your property and when traveling. More on this later.

Q - Even in my house, if I can't keep it easily accessible and loaded, how will it help me protect myself?

A - It won't. As anyone can see, these laws aren't made for your protection, they were made to control you, increase revenue, and protect government employees. It also becomes a shopping list to break into your home and steal your weapons. Knowing NJ, if your stolen gun were then used in a crime, it would be your fault and you would be charged with failure to carefully secure a dangerous weapon, or some such nonsense. I don't know if this would happen, but I wouldn't put it past them.

Q - I guess an unloaded but real gun pointed at certain potential criminals would scare them off, but can I carry it even unloaded?

A - No. In NJ, it doesn't matter if it is loaded or not - you can not carry it or brandish it without permission. Besides, are you willing to gamble and point an unloaded gun at a criminal? What if he calls your bluff?

Now, here is another option. If you are like most people, with the exception of a courthouse and an airport, your bag has never been searched and you have never been "frisked". With that in mind, how great a risk are you really taking if you start carrying a weapon? The only reason you would ever use it would be for self-defense in a life-threatening situation. Chances are that in that situation, there would be no one there to see you use it anyway. Even if there were, a ticket for carrying a gun without a permit is much better than being dead. Besides, most juries will find you not guilty if the gun were used for self-defense.

There are a few things that I recommend if you intend to carry a gun.
Get shooting lessons. Try shooting several different guns and pick the one that you like the best, are most comfortable with, is easy to conceal and use, and offers the greatest protection. The cost is the least important factor. A gun carried properly, is a good form of life-insurance and will outlast anyone you know. This insurance can be passed down for generations or sold later at a profit.

The following suggestions are answers to hypothetical questions that I offer as suggestions.

1. How to get a gun if not from a local dealer? - From another state. Many states still allow for the private sale of firearms to residents of that same state. The legal definition of a resident is someone who lives in that state or intends to live there and is in the process of moving to that state. You also may be given a gun from a friend or family member. Do not register it, do not tell anyone about it. Through a private sale is the only way I would ever suggest getting a gun. It is the only way that you can be sure you and your gun will not be on any government databases. - By the way, when congress approved background checks, they did it with one condition. The condition was that there would be NO NATIONAL DATABASE of gun owners. The FBI, SBI, and BATF have violated that condition from day one. They have refused to destroy these records that congress insisted be destroyed "immediately".

2. What about Gun Safety?- Again, I suggest taking lessons outside of the nanny state or from a competent person in the privacy of your own home. As a certified NRA instructor, I am certified to give firearms instruction and would gladly do so in someone's home. If that person did not want a certificate or any record of that training, I would have NO problem at all with that and would even reduce my training fee. For close friends or family, I might even waive my fee.

3. How do I Carry the Gun?- You can carry either on your body, in your bag, or in your vehicle. If on your body, find at least one comfortable holster that can be worn everyday. If this is your plan, it is important to get a gun that is easy to conceal. If in your bag, weight and size are also an issue. You might consider sewing an extra pocket in your bag to allow easier access in the event of an emergency. In your car - This is important. If you carry on your body or in your car, I suggest a combo-locking briefcase. If you are in the car alone, lay the gun in the briefcase on the seat next to you - but leave it unlocked. It will be within reach if needed. If for any reason you get stopped by police, close the briefcase and lock it before the police come up to your car. Next, get out of the car and lock the car behind you. Current law allows Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) to search your reachable area. If your car is locked behind you, it no longer poses a threat to the LEO. Even if you can not get out of your car and the police DO search your vehicle, they can not search the briefcase without a warrant. REFUSE to open the case regardless of any threats that the LEO makes. Tell him you don't have the combination. In order to "legally" get into your briefcase, the LEO will need probable cause. See that your car in neat order and that there is nothing in view that will give them probable cause to get a warrant. The book "You and the Police" by Boston T. Party offers great suggestions and more information on this.

4. What about Practice? - I suggest lots of practice. Practice indoors with NO AMMO. Practice handling, loading, putting the safety on and off, pointing, getting it in and out of the bag or holster. Practice dry-firing to improve your skill, practice sighting and "point shooting", and develop confidence with your guns. Practice as often as you can. When you are ready to practice shooting at targets, find a quiet private range away from your local area. The idea is so that you want no one you know to see you there. Remember, you don't want anyone to know that you have a gun. There are lots of places in PA or upstate NY where you can practice and not be bothered. I may even be able to help you find some places.

5. What if I Need to Use My Gun?- Chances are very small that you will ever need to use it, but the idea is to always be prepared for that chance. If you feel that your life is threatened or that you may be in for severe bodily harm, you can legally use the gun to stop that threat. If raising the gun and shouting "STOP NOW!" ends that threat - and it usually does, then you can be on your way. If it does not, then shoot to kill. This is important. The law says that you can use it to stop an imminent threat to life or limb. Therefore, if you only shoot to wound, it can be argued (and is argued) that the threat was not that great. However, if you shoot to kill (even if you only wound them) you are within the law and will be acquitted. Because of the legal ramifications, I would strongly suggest that you never use your gun to protect those that you do not know. In the event that you do use it in self-defense, what you do next will be a big decision. What happened? Did someone rescue you? Did you shoot? Do you stay or go? Do you call the police? These are tough questions that only you can answer. I believe the answer depends on the situation. Either way, it will be stressful. Although statistics are tough to find on this, I believe that the ratio of shooting the perp to ending the conflict by just pointing a gun is around 20:1 - In other words, in only 5 out of 100 cases do people actually have to shoot to stop the treat. These are great odds. Plus, if the odds of survival are 0% without shooting, the decision to pull the trigger should be an easy one. I would rather be alive to argue about it than dead.
Consider the following:

Chance of being searched by LEO and them finding a gun - almost none.
Chance of you ever having to kill with your gun - almost none
Chance of survival with gun if attacked - significantly greater.(especially for women)
Penalty for having un-permitted gun in your possession - insignificant, maybe confiscation of gun and upto $150 fine.
Cost of following the letter of the law - Permit $250, additional cost of buying a new gun from dealer $200, Background check $75, CCW permit $75 (if even possible), cost of being on databases - almost certain confiscation of gun, probable insurance increases, future license renewals and fees, and potential increase of break-ins.

In my mind, there is ample reason to purchase and carry a gun without jumping through legal hoops and making a target of yourself. If this is your decision, I will help you in any way that I can.

Feedback on "Unthinkable"

2004-08-12T10:24:00.000-06:00

I received dozens of comments on my last post. Most of the comments indicated that people have been thinking and writing about this subject for a long time. Here are a couple of the comments, with links I urge you to check out.

Kristopher Barrett wrote:

And I've been at this rant maybe a month longer:

Read "Bill of Rights Nullification by the US Supreme court"

It's getting really Orwellian out there. The only good thing about it
is that the stupid f_ers forgot to grab all the firearms before they
started turning the screws.

Then a second reply from Bill:

Forgot? Or maybe they don't think that most of what's in the hands of
"the duck hunters" out there is gonna make one whole hell of a lot of difference? Or that most folks won't have the balls/inclination to use those firearms when things get to whatever line in the sand they choose?

It makes me wonder.

Indeed. The best commentary I've read to date on Americans' unwillingness to use their liberty teeth is Jeff Snyder's "Walter Mitty's Second Amendment".

Unthinkable Thoughts

2004-08-11T02:14:00.000-06:00

Lately, many folks I know have been thinking about things that until recently we would never have considered.
A friend sent me a half dozen documentary video tapes from Alex Jones and Terry Reed. Most of the information was very well documented and contains a great deal of evidence of Government orchestrated conspiracies.
Another friend just informed me that all (political) rallies now require a permit from the Office of Homeland Security.

So the unthinkable question arises - If this is true, then haven't we arrived at the police state with not even a pretense of republicanism left?

Soviet generals are being contracted to help design the new all-encompassing Department of National Intelligence, protest zones are in place for the First Amendment, the ADL indoctrinating F.B.I. (et. al.) nationwide, John Ashcroft wants anyone speaking out against Israel or the Jews considered terrorists -- what more do we need?

Rick Stanley was found guilty of threatening a judge and may be sentenced to 30 years in prison. A witness submitted this:

The judge asked the jury to leave the room. Talk went back and forth with Penner on the stand. Then the judge began reasoning through what had just happened. He recounted for about 15 minutes what all had transpired and it was beginning to feel as if he was working up a head of steam to justify declaring a mistrial.

Then, all of a sudden, he said it doesn't matter and called for the jury to return. For the next several minutes I read his body language. He knew he had just committed a due process atrocity. He was ashamed, but not enough to put an end to the travesty taking place in his court.

A friend who just returned home from Iraq sent me this:

i am feeling stronger every
day that "we" need to develop our own community with the laws we want -
nothing illegal. but a town of "educated" people. you are making me more and
more paranoid, i mean, educated.

As you know, many such communities are already in the works. I say the sooner the better. But, will isolation protect us? Did it protect the children at Waco? Did it protect Randy Weaver's family?

There are so many unthinkable thoughts...

For some unthinkable thoughts on life, death and taxes, go to Unthinkable Thoughts.

Letters to the Gov

2004-08-05T10:35:00.000-06:00

My friend Rick Stanley is in trouble. He told a judge that he didn't have jurisdiction over his case - BIG MISTAKE!
Anyway, now he may be put away for 20+ years. The problem is that Rick's fate will determine ours. Here is a short press release that I think you will all enjoy.

MEDIA RELEASE: Do you realize Rick Stanley's fate will determine yours?

Do you realize Rick Stanley's fate will determine yours?...Do you
know how crucial, devastating and nightmarish the police state will
be?...Those that work for the corrupt perpetrators, responsible for
our dilemmas, should have the guns?...and we should not?...Be at the
mercy of this crazy dictatorship trying to manifest complete control
over "US"?

My "God"...I'm terrified for all of "US"...not just "US"
either...Everyone stuck on this Globe

Please watch for urgent post titled..."SOS"..."SAVE OUR SELVES"...

In the meantime if you aren't familiar with what is behind and
happening to Rick...Please read the following letter...If you haven't
written one yet...Please do so now...

Do you want to leave this world without doing something to
help?...Now's your chance to "Help "US", Help "US" All"...

Send your letter to help him to rick@stanley2002.org

This particular letter will help fill you in so you can write one...

Those of you who know all about Rick...What are you doing to help?

It's your children's futures at stake here, too

Sincerely,
Marsha

MEDIA RELEASE: letter to Gov. Owens from the Hughes family.

Gov. Owens

I have been trying to teach my boys about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They get bored sometimes. But I have an obligation to teach them.

I decided to take my son to a gathering of people
that love the U.S. Constitution. We went to support
Rick Stanley. He was a libertarian candidate for
Congress in 2002 www.stanley2002.org

His life story to defend the Constitution ended in a
night mare.....He went out to a town that did not allow
people to carry an open gun (in plain site.) This
goes against the Colorado and the US Constitution.

He wanted to get arrested and to show the
government that they had to obey the Constitution.
He lost his case, Then he went to another town and
did the same thing. He was arrested again. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail. While he was in jail he wrote a letter to both judges that they did not have jurisdiction over him and that they had both broken their oath to obey and uphold both Constitutions, and that they cannot be above the law. He said that they were violating the law and subject to arrest for treason if they did not drop the charges on him.

Meanwhile the Colorado legislature with the help of
Gov. Owens told the towns that they could not violate
a persons right to carry a gun. They changed the law
and made it retroactive. BUT, BUTthey did not drop
the charges against Rick because he had sent a
letter to them and the judges said that
he was trying to tamper with the court. So they
charged
him with that and he is now looking at years and years
in prison.

While he was out on bond. His probation said that he
could not carry a gun until his appeals and court
proceedings where done. The swat team, FBI, IRS, Jefferson county police, Adams county police, city police, state patrol, there were over 50 cops that raided his home/business. They took everything that he needed to run his business like bills, invoices, money, computers, disks, files, phones etc. etc.

They 1- wanted to start a confrontation by going in with
over 50 officers. 2- wanted to find a gun so that they
could charge him with violating his probation. 3-destroy
his ability to earn a living by taking his papers that he needed for his business. 4-destroy his reputation by taking his bills, so that he couldn't pay his bills. 5-take his money so he couldn't pay his legal bills. 6-they intimidated his employees and all but 1 quit. 7-cause undo stress for him and his family. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THEY WANTED TOTAL CONTROL. THEY WANTED HIM TO KNOW WHO IS THE BOSS.

When we were at the rally in front of the court house,
on his first day of court. We were holding signs and
showing support for the Colorado Constitution and
the 2nd Amendment.

We were a crowd of old, young, men,
women, grandparents, sisters, handicapped, poor,
and rich.

This is why I/we went. To show the courts that there
are people that are willing to stand up for freedom.
And to show these judges that we support the
Constitution. And we will not loose or give up our
rights.

I don't think Rick Stanley should be put in a hole
(prison) for defending the U.S. Constitution.

Cliff, Adam and Aaron Hughes

Commitment (Revised)

2004-08-04T13:21:00.000-06:00

My post on Courage got lots of feedback. Thank you. It is nice to get an idea of what the reader likes and doesn't like. The biggest question (or objection)that I am hearing from folks who want to move west is that they are concerned about an income or housing.
It is my opinion that as long as you allow your fear of the unknown to control you, you will never be in a position to move.
Instead of worrying about the details, I suggest that you begin planning. Make a goal. A goal must be realistic and it must have a date. A goal must also be something that you can control. (You can have a goal to move to Wyoming in August of 2006, but you can't have a goal to fall in love and get married.)
Once you have written down your goals, study them. Make sure that they are realistic. Make your goals positive statements. Don't make negative words or phrases part of your goal statement. Read your goals every morning and evening. Visualize yourself accomplishing your goals. Associate with the people who can help you accomplish your goals. Do any study required to accomplish those goals. For instance, if your goal is to become a realtor within 12 months, you should get into a class right away and schedule the exam. You should also begin associating with people in that industry. Read books that will make you more effective.
Finally, once you have made your goals, make a commitment to yourself and share it with anyone else that your decision impacts. Commit to yourself that you WILL move to Wyoming by X date. Once you have committed in your mind and believe it to be so - it WILL be so.

Let me share something with you that my sister found for me after my bicycle trip. She painted this on a manuscript for me 22 years ago. I read it every day and it has never failed me.

UNTIL ONE IS COMMITTED THERE IS HESITANCY, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness.
Concerning all acts of initiative and creation there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans:
that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves, too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favour all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. WHATEVER YOU CAN DO OR DREAM YOU CAN DO, BEGIN IT. Boldness and genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.

And here is another quote that a friend just sent me:
"We are continually faced with great opportunities brilliantly disguised as insoluble problems." ( One of my very favorites..I love the two sided image of it!)

Some replies to "Thoughts on Courage" (revised)

2004-07-30T00:50:00.000-06:00

After posting the "Courage" piece, I got dozens of responses. While most were positive, a couple asked some really good questions. For the benefit of everyone, I will post a few of the replies. One asks excellent questions, and the others answer the questions far better than I might have. - FT

Reply 1: I hope it works for you, but I think that the people of Wyoming and Montana still have SS numbers and pay income tax. They still get marriage and driver's licenses and all the rest of the crap. I don't remember seeing anywhere that the enviro wackos have left those two states out of their bio-whatever plans or that the endangered species or any of the other insane laws like that don't apply to Wyoming, etc.

I'm not trying to put you down or denigrate what you are trying to do, but I'd like a little more detail. Just exactly what is different and what is more free there than other places? If you really want people, especially those with families, to risk everything they have to move there, it seems they need a little more detail to base it on. They will also be quite free to freeze or starve to death because they can't make a living there. I'd like to see that addressed. It takes more than just "courage" to do something like that. It takes facts, careful planning and preparation - some other vital parts of living free.

I have not seen anything yet to convince me moving anywhere is a good idea. I'd really like to have some articles honestly exploring some of these questions, with some real meat details along with the emotional "courage" stuff. Boston has made a pretty good start. Anybody else want to take a stab at it? xxxxxx (name withheld until I get permission)

Reply 2: Montana and Wyoming are not yet shining beacons on a hill, but some of us think it is worth making an effort to have some places where we can concentrate effectively and not only shore up what freedom may still exist in these states, but through force of numbers, reverse the tide. These states are being promoted because they have small indigenous populations which have a relatively high degree of predisposition toward freedom. They share characteristics in common with rural areas throughout the West, the Ozarks, the South, and to some extent, the Midwest. But because Montana and Wyoming lack the really big cities found in other states, the rural influences still predominate.

I would not claim that a move to these states is going to be easy. Indeed, it may be difficult, depending on your circumstances. The economy is not great here, nor the wage levels. Some areas have really low housing prices (and poor job prospects), and others have housing prices which approach the national norm, coupled with lower than average wages. As xxxxx xxxxx said in an essay regarding Montana, Bring Guns and Money. If you have any options regarding working out of your home, or using the internet in the course of your work, there are many opportunities in Montana (and I'm sure Wyoming as well) to acquire property cheaply and make a go of it. Some professions are in demand, such as teachers and nurses and doctors, in rural areas, but don't expect to get rich.

____, many of your questions regarding specifics have been researched in some detail, and are postedat http://freewest.org .

xxxxx (name withheld until I get permission)

Reply 3: *Hi, Beautiful,
I love your attitude, but I'm afraid I've got to confess that I live in
Montana and I do not use the SSN, do not pay the Federal Income tax, do not
register my guns with any government anywhere, do not use the "marriage
license", do not use a driver's license, do not use a bank account, do not
use a credit card, do not own any property, and do not do a number of lesser
annoying practices common to current American society.

Perhaps I'm just a very lucky dude, but I moved to Montana three years ago and
have found the general levels of freedom here to be far superior to any
states excepting Alaska and Wyoming. Plus, I've found good neighbors here
like xxxxxxx, xxxxxx, and xxxxxxx and xxxxxxx, and etc
and etc. I've also found that a dude like me, who flunked out of college long
ago, can survive nicely in Montana if he is willing to use his hands and his
head. Maybe everything comes down to that "courage" which Fran's essay
illustrates. I moved here on courage. I did not know if I could survive in
Montana when I arrived here three years ago. I just knew that I could no
longer put up with life-as-usual back east and down south, so I hit the road
with my stuff and have found that life is wonderful here for me. Courage
sometimes works! :)

Xxxxxxx has spoken eloquently of Montanan and Wyomingian (is that a
word?) cultural mores and morays, and I assure you that xxxxx has spoken the
truth on that matter. Boston is operating on very sound intelligence, and I
have faith in his vision, his ability to be a libertarian-styled leader, and
his instincts regarding liberty. The people I personally know who are moving
there are strong liberty people, and they're smart to boot. (My hope is that
Boston will continue to resist all the "needs" to "organize" the movement,
lol.)

Anyway, xxxxx, I'm one person in Montana, whom you know personally and have
met more than once, who does not do any of those things you've listed above.
If my good neighbors up here do use the licenses and SSNs and pay the taxes,
it's only because me'n xxxxxx and xxxxx ain't got around to convertin' all
of 'em yet, hehehe. But we're workin' on it. :)

Hugs,
Elias (name used without permission...it's a jumble)

Thoughts on Courage

2004-07-29T21:29:00.000-06:00

America has become all but emasculated. Thanks in part to government schools, Dr. Spock, and daytime TV.

I was watching a neighborhood t-ball game last year. This is a game where kids swing a bat at a ball perched on top of a post. First of all, I have a problem with the whole concept. For 200 years, our kids swung sticks or bats at balls UNTIL they could hit them. But in today's mamby-pamby society, this has become politically incorrect because some children aren't ABLE to hit the ball. But, this isn't what really set me off. What REALLY set me off was that no team wins. They just want all the kids to have a good time and learn to be good sports. Our socialist soccer moms are teaching kids that winning isn't nearly as important as just playing ball to learn to get along. This is just one of dozens of examples of changes designed to emasculate our society.

"Now why on earth would anyone want to emasculate our society?", you might ask.
Simple; they want us to be docile when they take away our rights. They don't want us to be used to fighting, let alone winning. They don't want us to develop our natural survival instincts.

Our society is growing up without courage. Most people have no "heart", no "fight", no "guts".
I was lucky to have grown up with parents who survived the depression. They taught me the meaning of courage. In my lifetime, my father went bankrupt twice, and still managed to put seven kids through college while being self-employed.
As I grew up, I was never afraid of failure, only of failing to try. I did what I wanted and started many of my own businesses. During the summer break of my second year of college, I took a bicycle trip from Cape Hatteras, NC to San Francisco, CA. The trip took 5 weeks. Most days, I rode between 150 and 200 miles a day. When I started the trip, I had $175 in cash. I had no "set" route, and I had never done an "overnight" bike trip in my life. Everyone said I was crazy, that I would be killed, that I should plan to do the trip with an experienced touring company. Frankly, I didn't understand all the fuss. I knew that I could do anything I put my mind to, so I just went for it. On the trip, I discovered a lot about myself and a lot about the country. It was on this trip that I made up my mind that someday, I would live in Wyoming. For years, and even today, when people learned of my trip, the first question they ask is, "weren't you scared?". I never understood that question. For me, it was as natural as anything else I had done in my life, what on earth was there to be scared of? Now, 25 years after my trip, I realize why people asked me that question. They lack courage. Courage to follow their dreams, courage to take risks, courage to go into "unknown territory". I submit that most Americans have lost their courage; it has been bred out of them. They have been punished for thinking and questioning the status quo.

But, it is time that folks summon every bit of courage they can muster and begin to exercise these weak muscles. The time is coming when we will either stand up for what we believe, or it will be lost forever. For decades, we have stood by and watched as our rights were violated. We allowed the government to give us social security numbers, marriage licenses, building permits, income tax, and ban firearms in cities. We have allowed it to happen without so much as a peep. Now, we have our young men and women forced to wear light blue caps and follow orders from non-American leaders and fight (err... I mean keep peace) for the UN. We willingly let the government control every facet of our lives. We are nearing the time when it will be impossible to travel in this country without federal government issued identification and permission.

Those of us who still believe in freedom understand that there is a price to pay. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We also understand that those who remain surrounded by those who lack courage, will most likely not fare as well as those who are surrounded by others who are willing to defend their rights. Until now, there has been no "safe haven" for those seeking freedom. But now, there is a movement to concentrate those who are serious about freedom into a smaller geographic area. The hope is that once we have a nucleus of courageous individuals, that the momentum will spread and we can help others to find their courage. The hope is that by nurturing courageous instincts, rather than stifling them, courage will grow and become a welcome feeling rather than a foreign one. And for those who can muster up the courage to move to Wyoming, you will be rewarded with freedom. You see, freedom isn't completely gone from this country, it is still hiding in a few remote spots. Wyoming, has weathered the storm. The folks in Wyoming have not given up their rights as easily as some of the other states. However, the government continues its relentless fight for centralized control. The folks in Wyoming have done a great job of keeping the jackals at bay, but the fight is getting more difficult and maybe it is time to bring in some backups. So, if you desire freedom and have the courage to fight for it, perhaps you should consider Wyoming. Bring your guns, leave your attitude at home.

None of Your Business!

2004-07-14T19:06:00.000-06:00

From Lew Rockwell

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

You may not have heard of the American Community Survey, but you will. The national census, which historically is taken every ten years, has expanded to quench the federal bureaucracy’s ever-growing thirst to govern every aspect of American life. The new survey, unlike the traditional census, is taken each and every year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And it’s not brief. It contains 24 pages of intrusive questions concerning matters that simply are none of the government’s business, including your job, your income, your physical and emotional heath, your family status, your dwelling, and your intimate personal habits.

The questions are both ludicrous and insulting. The survey asks, for instance, how many bathrooms you have in your house, how many miles you drive to work, how many days you were sick last year, and whether you have trouble getting up stairs. It goes on and on, mixing inane questions with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. One can only imagine the countless malevolent ways our federal bureaucrats could use this information. At the very least the survey will be used to dole out pork, which is reason enough to oppose it.

Keep in mind the survey is not voluntary, nor is the Census Bureau asking politely. Americans are legally obligated to answer, and can be fined up to $1,000 per question if they refuse!

Planning Your Move

2004-07-14T13:23:00.000-06:00

I have been neglecting this blog for a while because it was beginning to get too political. The idea of this blog is not to discuss politics, but rather stimulate folks to consider making a freer life for themselves.

My own plan involves finding a good piece of land, building a home, planting a garden, and raising livestock.

Naturally, when one has great debt over their head, they are not free. So my plan - or I should say 'goal' - is to one day be free from debt.

It is funny to me how many people work 50 and 60 hour weeks, live in a city, and commute 2 hours a day so that they can "give their family a better life". Then, after 50 years at the job, they get some cheesy watch and get to retire on a fraction of what they have learned to live on. Their spouse hasn't spent more than 48 hours with them in the past 20 years and their kids are grown and don't really care if they visit with them or not. Bottom line, the only thing they have given their family is an income and they are a stranger to them.

I contend that by simplifying one's life, they can live far better on far less.
I realize that everyone is different and the following example might not work for a lot of folks, but my idea is to get you to think out of the box...figure out something that DOES work for you and DO IT.

This is one example of what one person can do. Here is a hypothetical plan for one poor slob who has been living in the same house for 20 years:

After getting his home appraised, he learned that he had $35,000 equity. He earns $50,000 a year and his mortgage payment is $850 a month. He also has $10,000 in savings and stocks.

He finds 20 acres for $60,000 and talks the owner into financing it for 10 years. He puts 6000 down and agrees to pay $600 per month.

Next, he buys a used trailer for $2000. He pulls it to the new property and plans to live in it while he builds a new home.

He plants a garden and erects a greenhouse for $100.
He goes to a livestock auction and buys 20 hens for $100, 6 pigs for $60, a calf for $90, a milk goat for $100, and 6 rabbits for $60.

He convinces his company to let him telecommuting and work only 4 days a week from home. This saves his company $30,000 on office, phone, and computer expenses, and they quickly jump at the opportunity.

Next, he buys some used equipment and hires a foreman to help him build a home which he has designed to be energy efficient and maintenance free. He doesn't want a mortgage, so he does most of the labor himself and plans the house to be completed in phases.

By the end of two years, he is producing 75% of his own food - which is tasty and organic, has finished his home - with no mortgage, has reduced his utility bills to $30 per month, and has started his own business - which is a small "service business". He has become part of the underground economy. Now, in addition to his $30,000 salary, he is making an additional $15,000 a year, tax free. His monthly expenses have dropped from $1900 per month down to $750 per month. The result is that he can pay off his land in 3 years instead of 10 and has more time with his family. He works 4 days a week instead of 5 - and has no commute, he spends more time hunting, shooting, skiing and fishing. He is much happier, healthier and is living better. He has never had more money in the bank and has never required less money for living. His wife has started home schooling his children, so they eat breakfast, lunch and dinner as a family. He reloads his own ammunition and trades a pig to his neighbor for his homemade beer and cider. Life is good.

Now I realize that the story is over-simplified, but I am meeting more and more folks who are actually making moves very similar to the example I just gave, and are finding it far easier than they ever imagined.

The truth is that the hardest part of breaking away from your current life and starting the life of your dreams is making the decision to do it and setting a goal to do it.

It can be done, but you must make a commitment to yourself. Set a goal. Find the land. Speak with your boss (or plan to relocate your business). Learn how to be self-reliant.

Of course, the plan would go much smoother if you had a small group of friends who would do it at the same time. However, let me caution you NOT to wait until others buy into your dream. Do it NOW.

Molôn Labé!

2004-04-29T12:36:00.000-06:00

Two little words. With these two words, two concepts were verbalized that have lived for nearly two and a half Millennia. They signify and characterize both the heart of the Warrior, and the indomitable spirit of mankind. From the ancient Greek, they are the reply of the Spartan General-King Leonidas to Xerxes, the Persian Emperor who came with 600,000 of the fiercest fighting troops in the world to conquer and invade little Greece, then the center and birthplace of civilization as we know it. When Xerxes offered to spare the lives of Leonidas, his 300 personal bodyguards and a handful of Thebans and others who volunteered to defend their country, if they would lay down their arms, Leonidas shouted these two words back.

Molôn Labé! (mo-lone lah-veh)

They mean, “Come and get them!” They live on today as the most notable quote in military history. And so began the classic example of courage and valor in its dismissal of overwhelming superiority of numbers, wherein the heart and spirit of brave men overcame insuperable odds. Today, there lies a plaque dedicated to these heroes all at the site. It reads: “Go tell the Spartans, travelers passing by, that here, obedient to their laws we lie.”

We have adopted this defiant utterance as a battle cry in our war against oppression because it says so clearly and simply towards those who would take our arms.

It signifies our determination to not strike the first blow, but also to not stand mute and allow our loved ones, and all that we believe in and stand for, to be trampled by men who would deprive us of our God-given – or natural, if you will – rights to suit their own ends. (copied from Molon Labe)

Keneth Royce, aka Boston T. Party, has written a new novel entitled Molôn Labé! Some see it more as a blueprint or a how-to book than a novel. In the book, Boston tells a story about a small group of patriots who feel frustrated by the political climate and decide that they will create a free zone, county by county until they have a free state. His research is thorough and this conclusion is sound.

In a recent article in Colorado Freedom Report Boston states the following:
Wyoming is already more free than just about anyplace else in America, so moving there is automatically a net gain for most of us. With a few thousand of us there, we can take the Equality State to a higher level of liberty in just a few years. (Regardless of our political victories, the feds will rarely be able to get a conviction for any mala prohibita because at least one of us will usually be on their juries! It won't take that many of us to infiltrate the jury pools, and we'll be hip to the voir dire minefield. Very soon, we could begin to foil the FBI, ATF, DEA, IRS, FDA, and the rest!)

I'm with Boston. If we can attract those who desire freedom who are the rugged sort that can accept Wyoming the way it is and not change it, we can keep Wyoming the freest state and can have liberty in our lifetime. See you in Wyoming!

I highly reccommend Boston's books to those who desire freedom. For more information on Boston's books, go to Javelin Press

NJ - Bully Government

2004-04-29T11:07:00.000-06:00

Just as Australia was where the English banished their criminals, NJ was where NY banished hers. Today’s events have made it obvious that some of those criminals wormed their way into the Department of Motor Vehicles.

I just got off the phone with an employee of the State of New Jersey Automobile Insurance Surcharge and Collection. I called to dispute a bill. You see, six months ago, I paid them $250 in extortion money to "release" the hold on my driving status. But, like all extortionists, once you pay them, they think they own you and that you will KEEP PAYING. I just received another "Initial Notice of Insurance Surcharge Assessment"saying that I owe them $250 due immediately. I explained that I paid it six months ago. Through this employee's barely intelligible English, he muttered that I have to pay it for three years. I asked "unless I get another license in my new state?" to which he replied, "it doesn't matter. If you don't pay us, we will suspend your license."
Let me explain. This "surcharge" was charged for a DUI in Chicago that I beat. There is no DUI on my record. NJ assessed the surcharge and doesn't care if I have the DUI or not. I have not lived in NJ for 6 years. I live in UT, but UT will not issue me a license because IL has a hold on my license. IL will not release the hold until I pay them a restoration fee of $250 for my IL license, which they created for me. I have never had an IL license, do not want an IL license, and under the "rules", am not "allowed" to possess more than one state issued driving permit. Utah's DMV computer does not show the reason for the hold, but will not issue until the hold is released.
The "go along to get along" crowd believes that I should just pay IL and pay NJ, give UT my SSN and ANY other information that they request so that I can carry a UT issued driving permit in my pocket. However, being a man of principal, I find this type of extortion repulsive and refuse to pay penalties for a crime I didn't commit, and refuse to pay "restoration fees" for licenses I do not own.
I went to court last month for a speeding ticket and was given a ticket for driving with an expired license. I explained that I wanted to plead not guilty, and a court date of June 10 was set. I have no expectation that the issue will be resolved on that date, but I will plead not guilty anyway.
Is there still any question about whether or not we are living in a police state? Why can a state randomly declare that I MUST pay them a $1000 surcharge over 4 years or they will revoke my "privilege" to drive - regardless of where I live? Why can a state refuse to issue a driver's license if one refuses to disclose their social security number? (By the way, the office of social security sent me a letter saying that I do NOT have to disclose my number to anyone or any agency UNLESS it involves social services) Today, I visited their site and found this - "The 1996 immigration reform provision on improved identification-related documents requires the SSN to be included on State drivers licenses by the year 2000. Thus, the drivers license and Social Security card can both be used to verify the SSN."
I also spoke with an agent at Social Security Administration (SSA) today. She told me that all employees of SSA are required to use their SSN for an employee ID. She said that SSA has stated that using any other numbering system would "inconvenience and disadvantage" the employer. So there you have it.
It is my wish to be free of both the SS system and the police state. Provided I am "permitted" to leave the court room with a small fine on June 10, I will make it my goal to never be stopped by another law enforcement officer. I have no doubt that IL and NY will continue their mafia-like efforts to squeeze money from me, but I will not pay one more cent to these thieves and racketeers. I believe I have a right to travel freely and will continue to do so. I have been driving with an expired license for two years now, to change this and begin dealing with the criminal element in the IL and NJ DMV's would "inconvenience and disadvantage" me.

Freedom...Not Free S#*T!

2004-04-26T20:31:00.000-06:00

I have to give credit for the title to my friend Aaron. We just returned from the Grand Western Conference II. At the conference, some discussed coming up with a slogan for the western free state and Aaron came out with that. I think it fits perfectly. People either want freedom or they want free stuff from the government - they can't have it both ways.

Last year I attended GWC I in Missoula, MT and it was great. This was prior to the FSP voting on a state and all the western states made a showing to vie for the FSP to select their state. I met some notable friends of freedom and made some new friends. This year, I was invited to GWC II and was very excited. I urged two of my friends to make the trip with me.
Overall, I had a great time. However, before I get into the good parts, let me make a few criticisms of the conference. First, the conference has been promoted for about 5 months - primarily by Ben Irvin. Oddly enough, Ben did not attend. I was hesitant to come this year because the cost was $75. Ben urged me to come explaining what a good value it was saying that it included breakfast and lunch all three days, and that Boston T. Party and JJ Johnson would be the key speakers. Oddly enough, I was told that Ben didn't come due to financial difficulties, there were only two lunches served, and JJ Johnson never showed up. If I am not mistaken, this is not the first time that JJ pulled a no-show/no-call. Bait and switch really disturbs me. If I had known in advance that there would be 2 lunches and one key speaker in a three-day event, I might not have gone for that kind of money. I may have, but my decision to pony-up the money was based on bad information. Another thing that bugged me was that it was that the 'panels' were not representative of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. They were heavily Montana.
OK, now that I have gotten that off my chest, I can tell you that I am glad I went. There were some friendly faces and I made some new friends. The best part was the breaks when the guests got to visit with each other.
We camped about 14 miles from the Sacajawea Hotel and did a little fishing on the Madison River. Had it not been so windy, I think our campsite would have been an ideal setting for the conference.
The Hotel was beautiful, all the help at the hotel was extremely nice, and the food was good.
The visitors from Alberta marveled at the setting. We walked in and out of the hotel with bottles of beer and side arms. It really was an amazing site. Motorcycles riding by with no helmets, people wearing guns everywhere and getting NO dirty looks, bringing our own drinks into restaurants, teenage girls riding in the back of pickup trucks on the wheel wells, dogs with no leashes, and folks sharing home brewed beer with friends. My friend Dale was stopped by the police because one of my headlights was out. Dale informed the officer that he had a concealed firearm and the officer seemed appreciative to learn that, but not alarmed. Then, Dale said he had no idea where the registration and insurance card for my truck was and the cop said, "OK, well to your friend to get this light fixed." Dale was so stunned and this polite treatment that he felt compelled to shake the cop's hand.
The overall message was that a western free zone is imminent. Boston believes that focusing on 5 Wyoming counties offers the best chance for success. After reading his novel "Molon Labe!” I think you will agree that he might be right. The fact is that if we can attract freedom lovers to five counties - one county at a time - we will be far better off than anywhere else in the country.
Towards the end of the conference, we broke out into state groups. When we did this last year, 80% of the group went to the Montana table and only 7 people went to the Wyoming table. This year, it was just the opposite - about 80% of the group came to the Wyoming table and the rest went to the Montana table. We talked about jobs, and housing, and time frames. What we learned was that just from the folks at the table, there was almost a perfect balance for a community effort. We had folks from every walk of life and many self-proclaimed "jacks of all trades". We also had entrepreneurs who could provide jobs to others. It was a very positive realization. Seven folks at the table plan to move in the next 2 - 12 months. Most of the others plan for 18 - 24 months.
I think the next "conference" should be more of a "Rendezvous" in Wyoming. Everyone pitch a tent and bring something to share. How about some time in August???

Turn The Flag

2004-04-13T12:58:00.000-06:00

Reprinted with permission from Turn the Flag (note: the author was nice enough to mention that he has been doing this since he read it on one of my web sites back in 2002. And I thought nobody cared.)

Monday, April 05, 2004

I'm a vet and a registered Republican, and I am sick and tired of what the Bush Administration is doing to our nation.

They have led us to an unjustified war based on lies. American servicemen and women are dying every day in Iraq for a lie and for the Bush Administration's plan to divvy up the Middle East oil assets among their friends in the oil business.

Our Treasury has been plundered. Our economy is a shambles. And the President knowingly and willfully LIED about the Weapons of Mass Destruction - and has the audacity to JOKE about it.

In the movie "The Last Castle" starring Robert Redford, the main character is a famous general wrongly imprisoned. He leads his men to revolt against the corrupt and evil prison warden and in the climax of the movie, hangs the Stars and Stripes upside down in the prison yard - the universal sign of distress.

Now is the time for us to let our voices be heard. I love our flag and honor the thousands of men and women who have died to establish and preserve the values our nation was founded upon - Life, Liberty, Equality and Freedom of Expression.

This is not an unpatriotic act (The Flag Code Title 36, U.S.C., Chapter 10). This act symbolizes the highest of American virtues - the courage to stand up against tyranny and inhumanity. To defend our Constiution against all enemies - foreign and domestic.

Friday, April 30 is Turn The Flag Day. Our nation is in distress, and we will hoist the inverted Stars and Stripes to the top of the mast in cities and towns across the nation.

Spread the word and join us.

Posted by frantic summer at 6:38 PM

Air Marshal's Make Me FEEL So Safe...

2004-04-12T09:32:00.000-06:00

This week, a female federal air marshal accidentally left her gun in a restroom at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. Her name was not be released and a spokesman for the federal Air Marshal Service, said the marshal probably would be suspended."

Well, don't you feel safer now, knowing how conscientious these air marshals are. Federal air marshal's make $80,000 a year and are supposed to be on high alert all the time. My quesion is why would ANY concealed carry holder - let alone an undercover federal agent - lay their firearm on a shelf while they washed their hands in a public restroom?

Tell me again why our pilots still aren't armed?

(4/9/04)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/708072380.html

Ron Copier Passed Away April 10th, 2004

2004-04-12T09:11:00.000-06:00

Ron was a friend to many, a good Libertarian, and an activist of the freedom movement. He will be missed.
Salt Lake Tribune Obituary

Scroll down to Friday April 2, to read my tribute.

Imagine a 1000-Acre Township of Self-Ruling Individuals.

2004-04-09T19:30:00.000-06:00

Imagine a mountain community with 250 – 300 families who each respect each other’s rights. A community where greenhouses and square foot gardening is encouraged. A place that is 70% – 80% self-sufficient. A place where each homestead is on 3 – 5 acres.
Imagine a place with water rights that predate the state’s charter.
A place that can not only generate their own power, but can subsidize their community with the revenue they earn selling power to the power company.
Imagine owning 3 – 5 acres outright and not having to pay property tax on it.
A place where having a car is not a necessity, but an option.
A place where neighbors willingly share their expertise with their community - for the good of the community.
A place where the quality of people attracted, and the expertise that they can bring to the community, greatly outweighs the profit motive of the founders.
A place that is not “governed” by a committee, but allows each landowner to have an equal voice in the planning and development. A community that will not exclude people for the religious beliefs or their individual differences.
A community with million dollar views.
Imagine buying a three acre plot in a place like that for $1000 an acre. Someone already did. I visited there yesterday. While some of these ideas on only in the wishing stage, most of them are already possible. Either way, I like the way they think.

George W. Bush isn’t so much a president as a superhero.

2004-04-09T10:59:00.000-06:00

George W. Bush to the rescue!

George W. Bush isn’t so much a president as a superhero.

When he’s not saving Planet Earth from Evil Terrorists, he’s providing the Greatest Generation with free drugs. When he’s not colonizing Iraq and Afghanistan, he is planning to colonize the moon. When he’s not keeping every child from being Left Behind, he’s saving the holy institution of marriage from those who would destroy it.

The marriage-saving thing is what has really caught my attention. I’m no expert on the subject, although next week I will celebrate my 20th wedding anniversary. What astounds me, is that my wife and I have lasted so long without the help of any government program.

Maybe we’re just in denial.

-----
Source: STEVEN GREENHUT LewRockwell.com

12 year old shoots 8 year old with Grandfather's Gun

2004-04-08T00:05:00.000-06:00

A good friend send me this very serious message today. I post it so that others may benefit.

A bad thing happened in NJ that I know about from working with the teacher of one of the two kids involved. It raises questions for me I'm not sure how to answer.
Situation: 12 year old boy was visiting his grandfather. His 8 year old cousin also was. (There may or may not have been other people but it doesn't matter.) The 12 year old came upon a 38 calibre handgun. He shot his cousin in the back, above the kidneys. Kid went to the hospital and eventually died.
That's all we know about the situation. First reaction of most adults, including me: why did the grandfather have a loaded 38 calibre handgun lying around where a kid could get it?
Then, for me, after some thought, I came upon this dilemma: Assuming the grandfather keeps a handgun around in case of self defense, how much use would it be to him if it was locked in a cabinet separate from another cabinet in which was locked the ammunition? Wouldn't he need to have it in a place where he could get it quickly and use it quickly? And, if that is the case, how can he insure that a person visiting would not get it?
Would you entertain this dialog with me please? I am trying to have a more sophisticated understanding of guns and the right to have them. I also know accidents happen. Please let me know what you think about this above situation. I'd appreciate your comments.

Here is my Reply
Great question. Thank you for asking.
It is true that people, especially elderly, weak, and infirmed, should be allowed to have a gun for self defense. It is also correct that in a self-defense situation, a gun in a safe with ammo in another location is useless.
The fact is that gun owners need to be responsible. It is the responsibility of gun owners to practice gun safety at all times. Many folks I know always have a loaded gun accessible within a few steps or a few seconds. BUT, I if they leave a gun in their car, they LOCK the car so someone will not find the gun and possibly hurt themselves or someone else.
In their home, all adults in the home know where all loaded guns are. All loaded guns are where they are inaccessible to children. Also, most of my loaded guns could not be fired by my 4 and 5 year old kids or any of their friends because of the strength needed to chamber a round. As an additional safety, guns are stored in "safe" position.
When I am in a car with others who might not be as knowledgeable about guns and gun safety, I either lock the gun in glove box or keep it on my person - in my control. In Utah, CCW holders are required to do this when non-CCW holders are in the car with them. Many people keep lots of guns in an officer or work area. These areas should be secured with a deadbolt and lock when away. This also keeps the guns away from babysitters.
The bottom line is that the grandfather was probably raised at a time when everyone was familiar with guns and they were a part of life. Children were taught proper gun safety and knew that they were to never touch a gun and CERTAINLY never point it at anything they did not wish to kill (destroy).
The media may milk this for everything it is worth and suggest that guns must be in safes, kids shouldn't be permitted to watch movies that have gun violence, all gun owners need to pass safety exams yearly, or some other knee-jerk nonsense.
The truth is that if gun safety training were still taught in schools, this would never have happened. The truth is that it is always easy to point the finger after a tragedy. The truth is that grandpa will probably commit suicide over the guilt he feels (but he won't use a gun because the police probably stole every gun the guy had).
I am very sorry for the parents, the kid and the old man. Unfortunately, tragic accidents happen. If this were a case where a kid pushed his friend in a pool and the friend drown, it would barely make the news. However, the anti-gun crowd prays for events like this to point out how evil guns are and that they must be stopped for the sake of the children - you have heard the rhetoric. The fact is that hundreds of children drown every year, but very few are shot accidentally - even though there are FAR more guns than there are pools.

Your initial response is a good one - "why did the grandfather have a loaded 38 caliber handgun lying around where a kid could get it?"
He shouldn't have. If his son or daughter knew that he had a gun, they should have reminded him to put the gun away - or remove the bullets while grandpa watches the kids - or carry the gun concealed - or, take the kids out and give them a demonstration of the power of a .38, the damage it can do to a coffee can, the safe handling of a gun, and explain why an old man feels the need to have it and why children must NEVER touch a gun except under the permission and supervision of a parent or gun instructor. I'm sure that the kids parent is also beating themselves up and wondering what they could have done differently too.

Because I have guns in my home, I have given my wife and kids safety lessons on gun handling. I have NEVER ONCE, had my kids touch any of my guns even when they had the opportunity. I have two BB rifles in the kitchen cabinet so that they are familiar with seeing guns. I take them out in the back yard to shoot them every couple of weeks and give the entire gun safety lesson each time. I make the girls tell me the answers. They never forget, have never once shown bad muzzle control, and love to shoot. They are both very good shots. Guns are a part of my life. They will be a part of my kids life.

I have heard so many people say, "...if it would save just one life...".
Here is a suggestion that I believe could save a lot of lives. Teach children basic gun safety.
1. All guns are loaded. There is no such thing as an empty gun. Always check the chamber and magazine of a gun when you pick it up.
2. Never point a gun at anything you do not want to kill. (I never let any kids point toy guns at other kids. I tell their parents that if I see it, I will take the gun away and teach the kid gun safety. The parents think I am nuts, but the kids learn muzzle control. My girls come to me immediately and inform on anyone who is not handling a toy gun safely.)

Here is a web page with a list of safety training aids. http://www.nrahq.org/youth/resources.asp
If a 15 minute video could prevent 30 kids from having a similar accident, why not show it. OR, Get some material for the school library and send a note to parents saying, "Due to the recent tragedy involving a gun accident, we have purchased some gun safety videos for the library. If you own guns, or believe that your children may enter a home where they own guns, we urge you to show these videos to your family. Thank you."

We can't undo the tragic event, but through proper education, other accidents could be avoided.
Keeping kids in the dark is not the answer. Blaming guns is not the answer.

Thank you for asking my my opinion. I am happy to discuss this further. Was this helpful? Do you agree with me?

Here is another link.
http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp
1. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.
2. Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
When holding a gun, rest your finger on the trigger guard or along the side of the gun. Until you are actually ready to fire, do not touch the trigger.

3. Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does.

Plural marriages - Who are they hurting?

2004-04-04T23:39:00.000-06:00

I just read Confessions of a Libertarian Polygamist and found it fascinating. I have talked with several people in the past year that either come from plural marriages or are polyamorous themselves. In fact, I am very surprised at the number of folks I have met and the vast numbers that seem to exist.
The thing is, it doesn't bother me in the least. In fact, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, what business is it of anyone else? I find it difficult to maintain a relationship with one wife, so I am not sure I would have much luck in a relationship with multiple loves. In any event, I think adults should be allowed to be with whoever they love - and if that means more than one person - more power to them. The world needs more loving families.

GUN CONTROL - A brief history

2004-04-04T22:10:00.000-06:00

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to about 1953, 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns."
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

When Will We Be Free?

2004-04-04T20:17:00.000-06:00

Have you heard the armed forces propaganda spots on the radio? "Imagine a place, where you are totally free...to criticize the government... imagine living in a place like that. Oh, that's right...you already do."
What a pile of crap. The truth is that most of the "rights" that our founding fathers took pains to protect, have been eroded and ignored by the government.

The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto
Translated

Posted below is a comparison of the original ten planks of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart of each of the planks, The American people have truly been "buried in Communism" by their own politicians of both the Republican and Democratic parties. One other thing to remember, Karl Marx was stating in the Communist Manifesto that these planks will test whether a country has become commmunist or not. If they are all in effect and in force the country IS communist. Communism, but by any other name...??

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance

We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). This private bank has an exclusive monopoly in money creation which in reality has ended the need for revenue from taxes. So why do they tax? To FOOL YOU into thinking they need them.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State

We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) madated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.
There is also the postal monopoly, AMTRACK and CONRAIL

7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot...The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" .

So I ask you...does changing the words, change the end result?

None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free....

It is my hope that one day, a great number of individuals will become self-reliant and demand to live as free men. That they will refuse to allow others to violate their right to be free. No matter how hard the work is, they will have an inner smile and inner peace because they will be free. Such a peace can only come to those willing to defend that freedom with their lives. I hope to see you there.

Tribute to Ron - Defender of Liberty

2004-04-02T21:50:00.000-07:00

Just one year ago today, my friend Ron was interviewed by purepolitics.com. Read the interview. I just had a visit with my friend Ron. Although I have only known him for a couple of years, he has always been a solid guy. He was always smiling, great attitude, never shirking responsibility, never whining about what OTHERS should do, never passing the buck, never ashamed or afraid to speak up with his opinions or to defend his beliefs. He is just one of those guys who bears down on whatever needs doing and gets it done. I saw him a couple of months ago at a meeting and he was looking good, but he had so much going on that he wasn't sure if he would be able to run for office this year. In 2002, Ron ran for Congress.
In addition to running for Congress, Ron was working full time and raising race horses. He had a full schedule, but still had time for softball and to watch the Utah Jazz games.
Ron had a birthday yesterday. His home was filled with flowers, balloons and friends and family. Although Ron is a dedicated freedom activist, he will not be running for office this year. He will not be going to any more Jazz games, he won't be playing any more softball, and he is getting rid of the horses he loves. Ron is sick - and short of a miracle, may not live to see another month, let alone another birthday. To my friend Ron, I send my deepest prayers and thank him for his work in the fight for freedom. May his passage be painless and easy.

WARNING! US Government Disarming Those Who Rebel Against Despots!

2004-04-02T21:39:00.000-07:00

(Copied from There4IAm list)
"...Gee, so the whole "your paranoid, the govt. isn't out to get your guns" is a bunch of crap. The gov. obviously is out to disarm people, in and out of the US.
A man or woman without arms is not only foolish, they are contemptable. If you don't own arms at this point you are nothing more than a bag of noxious gas spewing propaganda you don't have the fortitude to back up. "

Attached article opened:

Peaceable Texans For Firearm Rights
1122 Colorado Ste. 2320 Austin, TX 78701
512-476-2299 Fax 476-9504

Sunday, March 28, 2004 Copyright 2004 Las Vegas Review-Journal

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: You can't hide your lying eyes

I see where the people of Haiti finally got sick of defrocked collectivist
priest and all-around "necklace" killer Jean-Bertrand Aristide, took up arms, and kicked him out.

So what are U.S. forces doing there now? About 1,800 of our guys have been sent in to -- in the words of Associated Press reporter Paisley Dodds -- "rid the nation of guns."

Hey, good plan. In the great tradition of George Washington, Francis Marion, and young Jim Monroe, the Haitian people just used firearms to throw out a vicious tyrant, and the immediate goal of Big White Brother is to "rebuild a shattered police force and disarm militants who began the insurgency."

At least back in 1994, when the freedom-loving Bill Clinton sent in 20,000 troops to install Aristide the murderous dictator, U.S. troops offered to buy these weapons of freedom in order to better enslave the natives. This time (Mr. Dodds reports) "Haitians ... are being asked to give up their guns with little or no incentive and in a very insecure environment."

The only good news? U.S. forces, Mr. Dodds reports, have so far "recovered two shotguns. Their Chilean counterparts have confiscated three weapons."

Washington City has no constitutional authorization whatever to spend our tax dollars sending troops into Haiti to disarm "uppity Negroes" who dared fight to win their own freedom. And also for the record, there were no organized police departments in this country until the 1850s.

That's right: From 1776 until at least 1850 America was a nation of "armed insurgent militants" with no government police. And we got along just fine.

How do you think the people of the proud, young, free United States of America would have reacted if some foreign army had arrived here in 1783 with the declared the goal of "ridding the nation of the guns" that had just been used to win America's freedom?

Why does our Second Amendment say a well-armed citizen militia is necessary?
That's right, it's "necessary to the security of a free state."

After all, as early as 1785, our own Southern states were passing laws that "No slaves shall keep any arms whatever, nor pass, unless with written orders from his master or employer, or in his company, with arms from one place to another."

Whereas, in his proposed constitution for the state of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Notice the definitive difference there between "free men" and "slaves"?

In 1788, debating the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, a great patriot and friend of Washington named George Mason stood in Richmond and recalled: "When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was Governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should do it not openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. ... I ask, who are the Militia? They consist now
of the whole people, except a few public officers." And it was no less a freedom-fighter than Mohandas Gandhi who said, in 1927: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of its arms as the blackest."

And this conspiracy to attack and remove the very tools of freedom is not isolated. There isn't even any Second Amendment in the new Iraqi constitution, according to World Net Daily.

In a March 10 piece bearing the sub-headline "Colin Powell hails prohibition on arms while emphasizing 'liberty,' " WND correspondent Ron Strom writes:
"Iraq's new interim constitution sounds many of the same themes as the U.S. Constitution in guaranteeing freedom of the people -- with one stark difference: There is no right to keep and bear arms in the new charter."

The document does indeed promise a whole bunch of freedoms. (So did the Soviet Constitution.) But when it comes to civilian ownership of military-style arms -- which our founding fathers warned us was the last and only real safeguard of the rest of our liberties?

The only reference to individual ownership of arms is in Article 17: "It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law."

And Article 27 further addresses the formation of militias: "Armed forces and militias not under the command structure of the Iraqi Transitional Government are prohibited, except as provided by federal law."

America's leading gun-rights organization quickly registered strong opposition to this nonsense.

"It's a very big mistake," said Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America. "What an interesting contrast to what our Founding Fathers thought."

Not that any of this should come as a surprise. Aaron Zelman's Milwaukee-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership recently noticed our own federal naturalization folks now require incoming citizens to study a booklet which claims our Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms "subject
to certain reasonable restrictions." When JPFO contacted our duplicitous federal masters to ask where in our founding documents they found this "subject to certain reasonable restrictions" language ... they received no answer.

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the books "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega."
His Web site is www.privacyalert.us.

Poverty Level Park Rangers

2004-03-31T00:40:00.000-07:00

Members of the Utah Park Service sent around a questionaaire to candidates seeking public office this week. In a nut shell, it said that starting pay for park rangers was only $25,000 a year and if elected, would you be willing to see that they get pay raises - at least as much as the law enforcement officers in West Valley City?

Here is my initial, though not politically correct, response:

I know 4 people who work for the park service. All but one are single.
One of them gets FREE lodging from the park service in exchange for 4
hours a week of cleaning outhouses.
I also know someone who has a family of four who recently was fired
from his job of 14 years. He was making over $70K a year and now
qualifies for food stamps.
I know people who own restaurants that make $60,000 a year, but entry
level jobs in the restaurant business pay $4 an hour.
The fact is that "entry level" jobs with the park service are
typically snapped up by tree huggers fresh out of college. If you have
a family of 4 and still have an entry level job with park service,
move on.
The entry pay for teachers is pathetic, yet most folks in the state
see these jobs as vital to our future. With such a fragile economy,
gas prices hovering at $2 per gallon, a war sucking Billions of taxes
a year and rising taxes on the horizon, how on earth does the park
service have the nerve to ask Utahns to raise taxes again so that
people who get to hike and ride 4-wheelers all day get pay equal to
someone who drives a patrol car in West Valley City?
According to Bush, the economy is wonderful and getting better every
day. If watching trees grow isn't paying the bills, considering
changing jobs.
By the way, what is the "perceived value" of the benefits package of a
full time park ranger? I'll bet it is a darn site better than the
benefits package of a full time dishwasher at Denny's.

Open Borders - Revised 4/2/04

2004-03-30T09:51:00.000-07:00

I hate it when "nitwits" try to oversimplify political ideals in an effort to "dismiss" entire political parties. As an example, here are a few excerpts from a racist email editorial by Joe McCarthy that is making the rounds. My comments are in Bold.
I have also included a great response from Ragnar following the original message.

Why Libertarians Are a Joke, by Joe McCarthy

"...the issue that convinces me of the patent lunacy of Libertarians is found in the
Libertarian Party plank on immigration. Here is the pertinent excerpt:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html

"Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to
labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be
restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual
preference.

We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration,
the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border
Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered
the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement
payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to
all other persons."

I hope I don't have to point how nutty it is to call for getting rid of the
Border Patrol and abolishing the border! It should be taken for granted how
nutty it is. If we abolished the border, America would end.
(Joe has employed "selective" memory in his presentation of LP philosophy. Here is another link to an editorial on the LP website which I feel BETTER summarizes the LP position on immigration - http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.html. For the record, the platform can only be changed at the National convention. The next convention will be held in Atlanta later this year. The platform committee has been working on plaform changes to present at the convention.)

Those "huddled masses" that we read about on the plaque of the Statue of Liberty would pour
in by the millions. Anyone who could scrape together the funds would be here
on the first boat. Let's be serious -- this is lunacy!
(It is not lunacy. It happened for 100 years and we were the freest, most productive nation on earth.)
With zero border controls, coupled with our infinitely higher living standards, I don't think that it would be alarmist to say that we could expect HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of third world immigrants on our doorstep within a few months! Can you imagine the strain on our social services, infrastructure, and schools? (We have similar problems today! But isn't the REAL problem the social services? If we did away with free medical, free housing, food stamps, welfare checks, and minimum wage laws, how many millions would be flooding over the borders to live here? Then, wouldn't those coming to the US be contributing to the development? Isn't it possible that those coming in would actually benfit us all?)
...to mention the anarchy that would ensue as a result of so many people coming in so fast? WOW! Obviously the idea of abolishing the border is a silly idea. Anyone suggesting it should probably be under the care of a psychiatrist. (Isn't the notion that our borders are currently protecting us from a flood of imigrants equally silly?)

As if the above problems with open borders aren't bad enough, we have the
issue of terrorists entering our nation, which has been in focus since 9/11.
Unshaken, the Libertarians continue to push for their open borders nonsense!

Another pertinent point was raised by Pat Buchanan in his syndicated column
sometime back. Libertarianism, despite its anti-statist ideology, leads to
statism. Their advocacy of loose immigration will lead to a swarm of third
world immigrants who inevitably vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers.
Of course, it is only natural that immigrants (and non-Whites generally)
would vote for the party that promises them the most lucre out of Whitey's
pocket.(See what I mean about racist? Joe is losing any credibility he may have started with.) Immigrants, on average are on welfare at a much higher rate than
natives, and Democrats excel at giving them other people's money. The idea
that Mexican immigrants, for example, would support privatizing Social
Security, or support Lockean ideas on property, or other Libertarianesque
ideas developed by 'dead white male racists' is absurd. Individual liberty
is a concept virtually unknown to the third world. It is not organic to
their culture or history. Therefore, Libertarianism, despite its avowed
anti-statism, would lead to statism on a massive scale. (It already has to a
degree. Most of us probably remember the Clinton scheme to short circuit the
naturalization process of making citizens out of immigrants in time for them
to vote Democrat in 1996. Sure enough, Libertarian 'think tanks' like the
Cato Institute have been on the front lines pushing hard for loose border
controls.)

One thing that I find amusing about the Libertarian Party, is its utter
cluelessness on matters relating to race and culture. The fact that liberty
oriented, anti-statist ideas originated with White people, and is
consequently more likely to be implemented by Whites, seems to allude them.
Nor does it seem to dawn on them that the vast majority of their party
faithful are White. Do you see Mexican immigrants rushing to join the LP? Of
course not! Is there any reason to believe that Mexicans, who come from a
country rooted in socialism, statism, and collectivism will EVER support the
LP? Of course not!

So you see, at bottom, what clinches my argument that Libertarians are a
joke, is that they support a policy -- mass immigration -- which will
destroy any chance of their good ideas ever being implemented. Every time
another immigrant enters this country, the ideas of property rights,
constitutional government, and individual liberty go just that much farther
down the drain.

In conclusion, I'll leave any halfway sane Libertarians who may be reading
this with a parting message:

WAKE UP YOU NITWITS!

JOE McCARTHY

----- Begin Ragnar's comments ------

If I was held at gunpoint (the modus operandi of government) and forced to be
the "platform creator" for this plank of the LP, mine would go something like
this:

=== addition / modification ===
Undocumented non-citizens, whether from outside the boundaries claimed by the
governments of the United States, the several states, or any county or
municipality therein as containing a monopoly on the use of force, or those
human beings from within the same boundaries who of their own free will choose
to be undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to

> labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be
> restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual
> preference.
>
> We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration,
> the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border
> Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered
> the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement
> payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to
> all other persons."

We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration,
the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border
Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered
the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement
payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to
all other persons.
=== addition / modification ===
Therefore, to alleviate the potential problems that would result from open
borders with loose government purse strings, we call for a concurrent
elimination of welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, aid to dependent
children, Women Infants and Children (WIC), government schools, any other
wealth redistribution / transfer payment system of which we are not
specifically aware for any person be they "citizen," immigrant under current
"legal" status or immigrant currently considered illegal.

============================
Then this Joe McCarthy, who must be a direct inbred descendant of Senator
Joseph McCarthy, drools all over his shirt front as he spews forth a babbling,
ad-hominem rant with not one iota of proof toward his emotionally charged
assertions:
> ... I hope I don't have to point how nutty it is to call for getting rid of the
> Border Patrol and abolishing the border! It should be taken for granted how
>nutty it is.

Why should we take it for granted? Because this babbling neanderthal with a
thin veneer of intellectual prowess says it is so? If I start with an axiom
(that's right, I said axiom, it is axiomatic not derivative) that each human
being has a right to his own life, I cannot logically progress to a conclusion
that it is nutty to allow someone to travel unfettered where he desires without
first obtaining the approval of anyone other than the person who would own the
property where this person wants to travel.

>... WOW! Obviously the idea of abolishing the border is a silly
> idea. Anyone suggesting it should probably be under the care of a psychiatrist...

Maybe Joe can recommend his?

...Here we get an unsubstantiated conclusion posited by that virtuouso logician
Pat Buchanan:
> Another pertinent point was raised by Pat Buchanan in his syndicated column
> sometime back. Libertarianism, despite its anti-statist ideology, leads to statism.

Prove it!!!!!

> Their advocacy of loose immigration will lead to a swarm of third
> world immigrants who inevitably vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers.
> Of course, it is only natural that immigrants (and non-Whites generally)
> would vote for the party that promises them the most lucre out of Whitey's pocket.

You racist bastard - I see where you are coming from now.

> that Mexican immigrants, for example, would support privatizing Social
> Security, or support Lockean ideas on property, or other Libertarianesque
> ideas developed by 'dead white male racists' is absurd.

It would probably take at least 4 of Senor Joe to produce the labor of any one
of the Mexicans around where I live

> Therefore, Libertarianism, despite its avowed
> anti-statism, would lead to statism on a massive scale. (It already has to a degree.

Where was this where Libetarianism existed and it is now massively statist? I
don't recollect any previously existing Libertarian society. Was it the one
this inbred's ancestor tried to save by his Senate communist witch hunt?

...

> In conclusion, I'll leave any halfway sane Libertarians who may be reading
> this with a parting message:
>
> WAKE UP YOU NITWITS!
>
> JOE McCARTHY

Was that message for the half that was sane or the half that was insane? He
concludes with the same ad-hominems that permeated his slobbering screed.

(No time to proof read, ya gets what ya gets)

=====
Ragnar

"You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to
become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for
liberty ought to be the direct end of your government." Patrick Henry

"I need to go feed my hogs." Irwin Mann in Unintended Consequences

Howard Stern's the Immoral One???

2004-03-24T16:55:00.000-07:00

by
Marc Stevens

Infinity Boadcasting was given a "proposed forfeiture"by the so-called “FCC.” This was because Howard Stern did a show alleged to be "lewd and vulgar, and that it appeared to have been used to pander, titillate and shock."

Excuse me, but who’s really in the wrong here?

Let’s examine how both Howard Stern and the so-called “FCC” do business using two objective standards:

1) Is the service provided voluntarily or violently; and

2) does the provider deliver the customers what was promised.

Howard Stern and his associates provide services to their customers on a mutual voluntary basis. As far as I am aware, Howard Stern has never used physical violence or threats of physical violence to get any of his customers. The people who pay Howard do so voluntarily, as do the people who listen to him. Just as important, people are free to not listen to Howard.

Howard Stern does not, to my knowledge, employ armed men to force people to listen to his show. If Howard did, I’m sure no reasonable person would argue that is a “moral” way of doing business. I think rational people agree doing business at the barrel of a gun is, at best, “immoral.” At the very least, most would agree it’s not the way civilized people do business and certainly not the way they would want to become a customer.

Does Howard Stern provide the service or product he promises to give? Given the fact he is voluntarily renewed, I would say he does.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the manner in which Howard Stern does business; it’s “moral,” civilized and honest. Howard does business on a voluntary basis and delivers what he promises.

Now let’s look at the so-called “FCC” and see if they are consistent with these two objective standards.

Like the United State government, the “FCC” is just a group of men and women. The protection of “Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness” is a service they claim to provide. Do the men and women doing business as the United States government, including the so-called “FCC,” provide their services on a voluntary, take it or leave it basis? Do you have a free choice whether you are a customer or not? Of course we aren’t. Even if you don’t want the service, payment is compulsory. Unlike Howard Stern, you cannot just “turn off” the men and women doing business as the United States . I guess you can try, but not without risking getting killed.

Contrary to the way Howard Stern does business, the men and women doing business as the United States do employ armed men to make sure you pay. The so-called “FCC,” the United States government, provide their services at the barrel of a gun; there is nothing voluntary about it.

Howard Stern allegedly did something that “appeared . . . to pander, titillate and shock." Okay, and what’s the intent of those so-called “laws” providing for the “forfeiture” of homes and prison sentences for people who do not pay for the wonderful services the men and women doing business as the United States provide? Isn’t that to induce fear and terror?

Which is “immoral,” something meant to “pander, titillate and shock” offered on a voluntary basis you can turn off, or something imposed violently meant to induce fear and terror you cannot turn off without the risk of being killed?

Do the men and women doing business as the United States deliver what they promise i.e., protection of “Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness”? Remember 9/11? The truth is the men and women doing business as the United States government have no duty to protect anyone, and there is plenty of evidence of this.

“The constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the states to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616.

If your car gets stolen, can you sue the police department or the “state” for failing to protect you? The men and women doing business as the United States government acknowledge no duty to protect anyone. If they do acknowledge an alleged duty, then how was it created? Duties and obligations are not created by violence but by voluntary agreement. Unless their “protection” is offered freely on a voluntary, take it or leave it basis, there is no duty to protect. Remember, compulsory “protection” is supposed to be a crime, not a legitimate way of doing business. I think it’s called racketeering.

The men and women doing business as the United States government violently impose themselves on their pretended customers and don’t keep their promise to protect. Big surprise: violent people not keeping their word.

The so-called “FCC” fails both objective standards. Howard Stern does business on a voluntary basis and keeps his word, while the FCC does business violently and doesn’t keep their word. Who is the “immoral” one here? And this does not take into account the value Howard Stern creates as opposed to the so-called “FCC,” which creates nothing of value it can voluntarily trade. You may hate Howard Stern and his show, but no rational person can dispute the fact he creates value people are willing to voluntarily pay for.

Stripped of guns and violence, the so-called “FCC” is nothing more than a group of men and women with nothing to voluntarily trade and no way to force themselves on others. Compare that with the value Howard voluntarily creates and has created over the course of his career.

Just imagine the men and women doing business as the United States government on equal footing with Howard Stern. No guns, no violence or threats of violence to their pretended customers. Imagine if the men and women doing business as the United States government had to provide their services on a voluntary basis like Howard Stern.

But let’s not leave out the “morality” of those who support the so-called “FCC” and/or file “complaints” to it about Howard Stern. This issue is settled with the following question:

Do you have a right to pick up a machine gun to stop Howard Stern from voluntarily doing business with his customers?

Who’s wrong here? Is it those who rely on violence to do business, those who, directly or indirectly, violently force their opinions on others, or those who create value and trade voluntarily?

March
24, 2004

discuss
this column in the forum

Marc
Stevens is the author of Adventures In Legal Land, the controversial
and humorous new book that exposes the government hoax.
He can be reached at www.adventuresinlegalland.com.

"...To the MOON, Alice!"

2004-03-23T21:40:00.000-07:00
Below is a good message that I received today:

"By my (unaudited) calculations, a stack of $100 bills would stretch from
Washington, DC to Denver, or at least to western Kansas. (1452 miles). I'm
using 250 bills per inch.

If laid end-to-end, six-inch $100 bills .... darn. I just looked at my
calculations again, and I'm off by a factor of 10. I thought we were just
about to get to the perogee of the moon's orbit. Instead, we've blown beyond
by 10x.

Maybe somebody with a more fertile mind than mine can make something of
this.

Oh! Duh. Let's use $1000 bills. I calculated 217,803 miles. From my days as
an astronomy merit badge counselor, the moon's perogee is 220,000 miles.

Can somebody run these numbers and confirm them? And at this rate (see
recent budget history below), on what day will annual federal spending reach
the moon in $1000 bills?

To me, this just smells like a press release, if not much more -- the day
$1000 bills reach the moon.. Reagan used some statistics like this in 1980,
81 or 1984. It would be interesting to hear how we've regressed.

For completeness,

Clinton's last budget was $1.84 T (source KMOX radio, St. Louis)
Bush's first budget, before 9-11 and Jumpin Jim Jeffords when the R's had
the presidency and both houses, was $1.96 T, or $150 per MONTH more spending
for every family of size four in America (source, USA Today)

Then the budgets went to $2.12 (post 9-11), then $2.23, now $2.3. So Bush's
spending, from the party of limited government, is over $500 / month more
spending for a family of size four than Clinton's ever was.

The quants among us ought to be able to figure out the day this happens, and
we should make a splash with it."

Bob Sullentrup

(Good job, Bob. That should unmuddy the waters for any die-hard Republicans who still believe that the Republicans are the party of smaller government. In November, vote Libertarian - FT)
Complete story on http://www.freewest.blogspot.com

My Links are to COOL Sites!

2004-03-23T21:20:00.000-07:00
On the left side of my blog, I have a list of links. These are some of my favorite site. I don't get paid anything for sending you to them, I just think you would enjoy them. Some of them, like Militant Libertarian, Civil Disobedience, Liberty Round Table, and Diatomaceous Earth belong to good friends of mine. That doesn't mean that they are not top quality sites - on the contrary, they are excellent. The reason that I mention it is to let you know the company I keep. Some of these folks live and breath political activism, while others are extremely passionate about the environment or becoming self sufficient. Take the time to visit them all, I bet that you will bookmark most of them.
The newest link, is actually a button. I just visited the Libertarian Rant Blog and it is awesome. Let me know which sites you like the best.
Complete story on http://www.freewest.blogspot.com