tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25053067464467410242024-03-12T18:49:46.070-07:00ReasonAction: For A New Age of ReasonTime for a new Age of Reason: Individuals thinking independently, ruling themselves by genuine knowledge and solid reasoning, Overthrowing the Age of the Corrupt DemagoguesIndy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-19017649995894169062013-05-01T18:07:00.002-07:002013-12-08T14:46:53.170-08:00What if???Update 2 May 2013: (gasping) Well, so not so nuts after all... <a href="http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1367503620.php" target="_blank">The Great Gold Redemption</a> <br />
______________________________________________<br />
<br />
This is from an IM conversation I had with a friend some time back... relevant today, perhaps alarming, and perhaps should be...<br />
<br />
Obviously, this belongs in the "out there" category of just brainstorming for the heck of it, playing with the puzzle pieces to see how they might go together. The friend thought I should post it, so here goes! I hope you find it at least entertaining... not sure how ... errr... useful it might be!<br />
<br />
Calling the post... WHAT IF:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #858585; font-family: Segoe UI; font-size: xx-small;"></span><a name='more'></a><span style="color: #858585; font-family: Segoe UI; font-size: xx-small;">Participant 1</span><br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Chinese/Russions/BoE/Etc. want to foreclose, especially with all this talk of default. They will do it in the name of Agenda 21, but for reasons of land/resources/money grab. If they get called on it, they will say, "well yeah, we have a RIGHT to foreclose." This is why they want us disarmed. They also know that there is a huge portion of the U.S. that knows that it never went along with the BS of deficit spending and borrow 'til the cows come home. Our "distributed defense" capability is indeed formidable, and they don't want to deal with it. So they want us disarmed.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: 8pt;">Participant 2</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
but if one examines all the evidence to date..it appears the only outcome is a major civil war/madmax scenario....I can not see any pathway whereby the US disarms..</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
and also...one has to keep in mind that greater than 90% of everything in this country is made in china and if they cut us off...well try to imagine that!</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br /></div>
<span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: xx-small;">Participant 1</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When they manage to make the remaining population, after whatever they have to do to reduce the population and "docilify" us, they will ship the remainder of the subjects to China, and populate those cities, and bus them to and from the fields or the factories, where they've recently made a rule that potty breaks are max 2 minutes; fined some-odd yuan if you are late once; fired if late twice. (no wonder they have a suicide problem, with people jumping off the factory roofs). </blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br /></div>
<span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: 8pt;"><span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: 8pt;">Participant 2</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: 8pt;">
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Yuk!</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: xx-small;">Participant 1</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To subdue us, they will create food and water shortages (already presaged as "peak"everything), fuel shortages, materials shortages, and, if "necessary," killerKILLER flu and perhaps god knows what else. They may put an EMP in there somewhere</blockquote>
.<br />
<span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: 8pt;"><span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: 8pt;">Participant 2</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: 8pt;">
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So, in a FEMA coordinated fashion, once the civil war/madmax begins...they will offer up freedom and safety to the sheeple who do not want to fight and do not own firearms??</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
by offering them a big Chinese ship to get on to??</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: xx-small;">Participant 1</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
According to Joel Skousen, the US Federals are PLANNING that nuke war will come to America (hence all the underground shelters they're building and have built) </blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Yes, effectively, when the last holdouts are dead or subdued, they will evacuate the U.S. to god knows what all countries, but an obvious choice is all that unused residential capacity that the Chinese have been getting laughed at for building, a la FDRs job corps(e).</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And the new Chimericans will be a domestic market, and note this: GM and NewsCorp are already ensconced in China, as are many others. It's a f*cked up world, but I think we can thwart it if we get serious...</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br /></div>
<span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: 8pt;"><span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: 8pt;">Participant 2</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: 8pt;">
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
what a nightmarish thought....following along in line with what FDR did by building up the national parks by hiring youths and healthy young men and pay them, while the rest of the country was starving...</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
gross out</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
chmimericans..HA HA</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
yes..but this is for real and not a comedian hour show!</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
yuk..if they got Gm over there, maybe they also have Monsanto, GE, HP, etc..</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I am skeptical if they are going to nuke any part of America since they want it to be a giant national park for them some day...</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
can't have it both ways</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: #858585; font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: xx-small;">Participant 1</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Heheh, well, I do believe there's a reason for the bunkers. It may be pertaining to the pathogen(s) they plan to unleash. Or it could be a place to hide while the country goes nuts after an EMP</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I don't think Skousen is all wrong, in any event</blockquote>
</div>
Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-55112538220422387322013-05-01T17:52:00.000-07:002013-05-01T17:52:09.821-07:00Was I channeling this guy?<strong><a href="http://www.thedailybell.com/28945/Anthony-Wile-From-Grammar-School-to-Battlefield-with-Richard-Maybury">http://www.thedailybell.com/28945/Anthony-Wile-From-Grammar-School-to-Battlefield-with-Richard-Maybury</a></strong><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>Richard Maybury: </strong>... The federal government has gone renegade, and if it is not returned to the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, the country will be destroyed.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>Daily Bell:</strong> We seem to remember you writing elsewhere that the federal government's foreign policy boils down to poking sharp sticks at rattlesnakes. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>Richard Maybury:</strong> I've been saying that for years, and I see no reason to change it. It's part of a strategy that power junkies have been using with great success since the days of the Roman Emperors. These people shout, "Rattlesnakes from everywhere are trying to bite us! We can't be safe unless we conquer the world!" </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>Daily Bell:</strong> Are you saying these rattlesnakes would behave if Washington would stop poking them?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>Richard Maybury: </strong> No, no, no. There are lots of bad people. You can see bullies in any schoolyard. But don't provoke them. Leave them alone and arm yourself to the teeth. Be like a porcupine, gentle, quiet, calm, but always ready to put a big hurt on anyone who tries to get rough with you. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>Daily Bell:</strong> You've said, instead of an imperial military − meaning a giant expeditionary force − have a whole nation of minutemen who can protect themselves, their families or their country if there is trouble.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>Richard Maybury: </strong> Very good. Like the National Guard once was, or the Swiss still are to a large extent. A defensive military instead of an offensive military. What's wrong with America's foreign policy is not that we have a military, it's that we have...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>Daily Bell:</strong> ... the wrong type!</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>Richard Maybury:</strong> Again, I see you've caught on to this way of thinking about the government's behavior. Yes, the US Empire, which grew to maturity in World War II, is a giant machine that makes enemies for America — for you and me. And the economy, the financial markets, the whole country will continue lurching from one disaster to the next because of this. For one thing, it's monstrously expensive. Unless I'm missing something, and I don't think I am, the only people who will prosper consistently in this political climate are those whose investments are set up to do well during wartime and currency debasement. </blockquote>
Welp, not really a lot to add to that, but this is the kind of thing I've been on about here and everywhere for a long time.Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-47976575665648486772013-04-13T23:03:00.002-07:002013-12-08T12:27:57.229-08:00Ah yes.. The Updated Obama-Jefferson Interview... better!<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2jvs3F0rYt0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-37701863594006684942013-04-13T09:30:00.002-07:002013-12-08T14:34:07.890-08:00Rights, Legal and Natural. Not an option, but an obligation!(update 4/17/2013 Tibor Machan on rights: <a href="http://www.thedailybell.com/28960/Tibor-Machan-The-Corruption-of-Individual-Rights">http://www.thedailybell.com/28960/Tibor-Machan-The-Corruption-of-Individual-Rights</a> ... I love it when it seems like luminaries like Machan and I are "channeling" the same general stuff)<br />
<br />
I live in a rural area, lots of four-way stops. I have noticed that most people have no clue how to deal properly with them. At busy ones, most people have fallen into the bad habits so prevalent these days. This is a problem.<br />
<br />
I want to address the problem per se, but I also see it as an example that can be used for a wider point I will make in the rest of this post.<br />
<br />
I assume U.S. readers, so we're talking driving on the right side of the road, and U.S. rules. I will also refer to the vehicles and their drivers as <em>"the guy" this</em> and <em>"the guy" that.</em> Sorry, folks, no offense, but in the interest of clarity and... being a guy... that's what I'm gonna do.<br />
<a name='more'></a>---<br />
As you approach a four-way stop, look to your right. You'll be looking to see if anyone is waiting at or approaching the intersection from said right. If there is someone already waiting there, or if they should come to a stop before it's your turn... guess what... it'll be their turn before it's yours.<br />
<br />
If you arrive and stop before anyone else (we're not talking microseconds here; be reasonable), congratulations! You go first. The next person to go is not the guy in front of you, coming the other way; it's the guy on your left. Altogether too often, we see that the on-coming traffic decides it's their turn despite a vehicle on their right. "I mean, we're both going straight, so what's the diff?" Wrong! That will get them a ticket if law enforcement witnesses it. And if an accident ensues, it will be deemed the fault of that driver.<br />
<br />
So, let's go back to the simple... you come to a four-way stop, and there is only one car waiting: it's at the intersection, on your right. They go. Then you. It's the same if you both pull up and stop at the same time.<br />
<br />
If the two of you and a third vehicle pull up, the third being on-coming traffic across the intersection from you, that third guy goes first, because he's the farthest to the right, then the one on your immediate right, then you. NOT the on-coming and you concurrently.<br />
<br />
By the same token, if the third is on your left... so now it's you, one on your right and one on your left, all of you arriving concurrently, it's the one on your right, then you, then the one on your left. NOT the one on your right <em>and also</em> the one on your left. <strong><em>It is not, as some people seem to believe, that we are alternating cross-traffics; it is "the person on the right has the right."</em></strong><br />
<br />
If you were to watch it from the air, movement at the legs of the intersection revolves around the intersection itself in a clockwise direction. You could have an unlimited number of cross-streets and this circular pattern works; if you try to allow "the one on the right" <em>and</em> its on-comer, it would get simply unmanageable. Also, the circular pattern works if anyone is making a left turn; the "oncoming as well as the earned right-of-way" concept does not.<br />
<br />
Here's a part most people either don't know or of which they haven't made themselves consciously aware: if someone waves you to go out of sequence; let's say they have the right of way, but they wave you through as the next in sequence, <strong><em>it's your fault if an accident ensues</em></strong>. They have the right of <em>way,</em> not the authority to direct traffic, even in this small way.<br />
<br />
<strong>So, absorb that for a minute... that means that each person at an intersection has a meaningful and powerful motivation to enforce the pattern, the right of way, not only upon themselves but upon others as well. <em>That's why when you tried to wave me through when you had the right of way (or you couldn't figure out if you did), I refused and basically forced you to follow the rightful pattern.</em></strong><br />
---<br />
The foregoing is not only the actual, legal approach to rights-of-way, or "rights" at an intersection; it also serves as an allegory for other rights as well, even natural ones.<br />
<br />
It's pretty clear that the word "rights" and the expression "rights of way" are absolutely part of the same concept--the word "rights" is derived as an abbreviation of "rights of way."<br />
<br />
In our society, we talk about rights as if they were entitlements. And to a degree they are; but they are also an obligation, not only to follow the pattern that creates order, but to demand that of others as well. <br />
<br />
Take a look at the rights of way at a four-way stop: the rules are simple and make no provision for the fanciest car, the highest level dignitary, the best paid, the biggest or the meanest or whose race or religion (or whatever) is "correct." No law of the jungle here; it's just fair, even-handed, efficient, and workable--everyone treated equal before the law.<br />
<br />
The basic concept of rights--also simple, even-handed and not respecting the law of the jungle--and based in the nature of humanity and the world, is the one John Locke coined <strong><em>four hundred years ago:</em></strong> life, liberty and property--and that was partially enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and fully enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.<br />
<br />
A society that accepts that a person's life and therefore his or her time, energy and freedom of movement (Life, Liberty and Property--because property is time and energy, and also provides sustenance for living) are sacrosanct--such a society has a shot at true prosperity and avoidance of the society-destroying, social compact destroying, human-predation side of human nature. <br />
<br />
Make no mistake: humans are predators, and we are a part of nature. Our teeth, our forward-looking eyes and our creative, calculating minds are all indicative of our fundamental predatory nature. But we also have an ability that is totally unique in the natural, animal world: we can choose how we satisfy our drives, and whether we depredate others and undermine peace among humanity, or whether we build a society, a protective group, that prospers together. <em>We choose.</em><br />
<br />
This is the point of Locke's natural rights of man. And in a society that accepts this concept of rights--that all people have a natural, individual right to their life and the liberty and property that sustain that life (which, BTW, precludes using predation--theft, robbery, murder--to get property, since the other guy also has the right to life, liberty and property)--and thus the equality of all individuals before the law, and thus moreover that order and peace and prosperity derive from simple concepts and practices, and then that the expectation that all will reinforce the order <em>because</em> it is <em>in fact</em> fair and reasonable... in such a society, one can expect wondrous results.<br />
<br />
To my knowledge, this has never wholly existed in human experience. It had a shot in the early days of the United States of America. And as much as the U.S. only measured up to, say 50% (maybe even less) of the requirements of such a system, the promise and the payoff were tremendous. (What would it be like if we and our systems really understood and drove this set of principles? Heaven on Earth!)<br />
<br />
Even the War to End State Sovereignty (aka, the "Civil War"--as if!) didn't screw it up too awful bad. At least, not right off the bat. The people, in general, of the United States prospered greatly--whether it was in industry or subsistence farming or whatever--until, over the fifty years or so post-war, the message of that war sank in: consolidation of power; centralization of power; now an <em>us vs them</em> and a pseudo-justification of <em>overseers vs the overseen</em> set in. It was all engineered--and fitfully but generally procured--by the same several families that have sought to rule the world for many centuries.<br />
<br />
My point here is not to find the culprit people; it isn't even to find the culprit ideas. My point is that yes, very bad stuff has been made to happen, and the way it has been made to happen is by undermining people's understanding and commitment to the fundamental, natural and real bases of a wholesome, healthy and prosperous society (a society that, BTW, would also foster a healthy planet). Those principles, of course, are the understanding of not only the rights, but the application of those rights, that Locke laid out.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>The worst we have allowed is for people, ourselves included, not to understand and not to insist on the natural rights of way that give a harmonious order to people in groups, including large, closely-co-located ones. We have allowed ourselves and our friends and neighbors and children to be guided down a path that removes us from those principles.</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>---</em></strong><br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>That which you fight against weakens you; that which you fight for empowers you</em>.</blockquote>
That is a message I've been on about for a long time now (I was <em>stunned</em> to find this particular phrasing in a fortune cookie!). That is why I am not seeking to identify and destroy the culprits. That is why I fight <em>for</em> the concept of rights that is beneficial. ...which <em>would destroy</em> the culprits, but that destruction is not the point; the point is to establish the good, not to destroy the bad.</div>
<br />
If you wonder what's wrong with America or whatever country you live in; if you wonder what's wrong with the world at large and what allows the ... psychosis that seems to run everything; if you see the corruption that is everywhere and pervades everything that almost any government and many other power structure members do, think of this post, please. <br />
<br />
Think about life, liberty and property and how assuring that those rights of each of us are protected equally can benefit humanity and its habitat... and your and my and our peace of mind ... and you will awaken, and you can awaken others. And we can fight together <em><strong>for</strong></em> our mutual benefit.Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-16141533573290741072013-03-31T08:28:00.001-07:002013-03-31T08:28:11.362-07:00Servant to Master; Revolutionary to TyrantWhen I started reading this, I was chafing that he was missing what I thought was clearly the point. Yes, I was just being impatient; he was holding back, saving the truest for last.<br />
<br />
This is a great article: <a href="http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/how-kill-the-pigs-became-only-the-police-should-have-guns/" target="_blank">Rappoport on the big turnaround.</a> This excerpt is where I realized that, as usual, Rappoport is very nicely on target: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The political Left promoted rebellion against the State as long as they saw themselves outside in the cold. But when they began to realize that they were, in fact, becoming the State, with all the power of the federal government, they dropped the idea of genuine rebellion like a hot potato. They praised big government, they assured everybody it was the solution, not the problem.</blockquote>
This is hopeful statement, explanation, and cautionary tale; as the freedom movement expands and begins to return freedom and constitutional lawfulness to America, let's all make sure that it really is freedom. As I've implied before, I am quite concerned at the narrow-mindedness that some of the liberty movement comes with. There are some "blind spots" that need taming.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Liberty means that we all are free to do ANYTHING we want, as long as it harms no one (no one but ourselves, that is, if even that). Harm has to be defined in real terms; real psychological damage (PTSD as a result of a rape or other terrible assault--child molestation, false imprisonment, etc) to be counted, but being offended, having feelings hurt, experiencing disgust: these don't count.<br />
<br />
The risk for which we need a cautionary tale is that some in the freedom movement have beliefs that certain behaviors can properly be legislated, even though they do not harm anyone except, perhaps, the person doing them. Those ideas have to go. They cannot coexist with freedom, and they will demolish the sustainability of the society, if they enter the picture when government is wrested from globalists and the financially greedy.<br />
<br />
Harking back to a recent article of mine, this is what SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) should harp on if they mean what they say. But I don't think they do; they prefer to attack the freedom movement, basing their anti-self-reliance and anti-freedom arguments on these blind spots, but only cynically; if those blind spots were gone (let's get RID of them, folks!), we'd see SPLC still militating against the empowerment of the people over their own lives.Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-60304946820107691002013-03-30T09:36:00.000-07:002013-03-30T09:36:08.840-07:00Anatomy of One Kind of Psy Op<a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/while-you-weren-t-looking-obama-moves-forward-on-guns" target="_blank">Anthony Martin Describes Propagandistic Diversion Tactics</a><br />
<br />
I don't want to belabor this with much else to say, except that what he describes is a tried and true depredation on the public, a method for sidestepping public opinion and moving forward with disgusting, illegal action.<br />
<br />
As far as I am concerned, every action by a politician that attempts to sidestep the Constitution, is to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the Constitution (if not to be a direct enemy of the Constitution) and is impeachable on grounds of treason. It may not be the hangin' offense of High Treason, but it's certainly impeachable and jail-able.Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-32174486198233209922013-03-28T21:28:00.001-07:002013-12-08T13:34:58.098-08:00Ah, the Mockingbirds...<a href="http://www.splcenter.org/home/splc-report-antigovernment-patriot-movement-continues-explosive-growth-poses-rising-threat-of-v" target="_blank">The SPLC Release that started the mockingbirds screaming</a>
<br />
<br />
------<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FE4wxkU7kwk" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>MSNBC's Hardball: Right-Wing Extremist Groups On The Extreme Rise</em><em> with Mark Potok of SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) and Brian Levin of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at the California State University at San Bernardino. </em>Notice how, even though Levin is mostly of one mind with Potok and Matthews, they treat him as if he were a right wing shill--probably because he's not as "married" to his hate for Middle America as they think he should be: he's <em>actually</em> interested in <em>thought</em>! <em>Heaven forfend! Get with the PROGRAM, Brian!! </em>Brian just didn't understand that he was <em>supposed</em> to <em>support the meme!</em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-patriot-groups-splc-report-20130308,0,2444361.story" target="_blank"><em>A disgusting echo from the Los Angeles Times</em></a> Mockingbird Media indeed...</blockquote>
...or are those magpies?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
When the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) speaks, the MSM listen... or... rather, they mindlessly parrot and parrot and parrot. Oh, and sometimes they embellish.</div>
<br />
I went looking around SPLC's web site. There are a lot of themes that I resonate with. There are themes about freedom, themes about bad treatment of workers, and many others that really get ya right <em>there.</em> Even I, after knowing for years--no, it's decades--about SPLC and its manipulation of public opinion about guns and freedom, wondered if there wasn't something redeeming about the organization, based on the good stuff they put out there as, "See what good we do!"<br />
<br />
One might even be inclined to think that SPLC could be a great ally of those of us who demand our rights and freedoms, and who really want to bring the country in line with its promises of freedom and of equality of all people before just and reasonable laws.<br />
<br />
Not so quick, though... consider these:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a name='more'></a><a href="http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/active-patriot-groups-in-the-united-states" target="_blank">SPLC Page: Active Patriot Groups In The United States</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>The Southern Poverty Law Center identified 1274 anti-government “Patriot” groups that were active in 2011. Of these groups, 334 were militias, marked with an asterisk, and the remainder includes “common-law” courts, publishers, ministries and citizens’ groups.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>The list was compiled from field reports, Patriot publications, the Internet, law enforcement sources and news reports. Groups are identified by the city, county or region where they are located.</em> </blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/nativist-extremist-groups-2011" target="_blank">SPLC Page: Nativist Extremist Groups</a></blockquote>
<em></em><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>What follows is a state-by-state tally of the 185 groups that the SPLC lists as nativist extremist groups active in 2011. In the case of the two largest formations — the Minuteman Project (MMP) and the Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Coalition (FIRE) — acronyms have been added to help identify their affiliated chapters.</em></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
The great majority of the groups listed are neither anti-government, nor racist, nor any kind of hate-oriented. Are their members angry? Some are, but it doesn't mean anyone's about to go out and play rough ridin' vigilante over it, as SPLC would have us believe. This even applies to the militia groups they're on about. <strong>And what? Folks aren't allowed to have <em>feelings</em> about the subversion of a wonderful country?</strong><br />
<br />
Note this from the LA Times article:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>The typical patriot acts within his free-speech and 2nd Amendment rights, and in fact most patriot activity consists of venting steam by meeting with like-minded Neanderthals and firing off blog posts threatening civil war.</em></blockquote>
<em>Neanderthals</em>. How charming, LA Times. When will you ever elevate yourself out of such juvenile tactics? The fallacy of ad hominem--attacking the person and not the argument--when someone trots it out, one should take a close look at how weak, indeed, is the<em> ad hominemizer's</em> argument, such as it may be.<br />
<br />
Note that the LA Times editorialist even admits that patriots are fundamentally law-abiding and a non-threat--this after suggesting earlier in the article that patriots are a <em>bigger threat than foreign terrorists</em>. Well, actually, that wouldn't be hard, since foreign terrorists that have attacked the U.S. have been almost exclusively patsies used by the "intelligence" community to create false fear to get people to go along with further intrusions in the name of "anti-terror." More terror to fight terror; that's a good one. (Groundless conspiracy theory, or just valid news?)<br />
<br />
Now, if you're a good little follower, you're supposed to say, "You're a conspiracy theorist." ...which is supposed to be the ultimate put-down to make me slink off like some rat that prefers the dark. This is how they defend and further their illegal and amoral actions: first, make out that the actions are to accomplish something "good." Then, make those who, despite this, identify those actions as illegal and amoral, and even counterproductive, as "kooks." Then make folks that won't stop identifying... make them <em>dangerous.</em> It's quite clear that they will not stop there, if someone is consistently effective. Example of last: Breitbart. Conspiracy? Perhaps. And what about that dead coroner's deputy who did Breitbart's autopsy? Hmmmm. <br />
<br />
Is their hiding in the shadows and working out talking points, involving multiple parties and multiple levels, making plans... is this not conspiratorial? And yes, if the conspiracy is to "quietly" overthrow the lawful government of the United States, by incrementally eliminating our rights and subverting our voting, and turning the country--and the world--into a fascist dictatorship... is this not a criminal conspiracy? Of COURSE it is! For those of you who can't see that, WAKE UP!!<br />
<br />
See my post that refers you to <em><a href="http://reasonaction.blogspot.com/2013/03/ehehehehehehhhh.html" target="_blank">They Live</a>.</em> Even though it's comically fictional, it's still right on!<br />
<br />
The LA Times editor goes on to suggest that patriots should consider that their rhetoric inspires the Tim McVeighs of the world. Haha right. What did LA Times say about the Black Panthers putting a bounty on Zimmerman's head after he shot the perp that beat him to a pulp for following? And what about all those black racist comments on social media about "pink people"? What about when Piers Morgan and guests spoke, relishingly, of shooting Alex Jones? I'll bet LA Times said not one word. So, what is it, in fact, LA Times? Are you really worried about domestic terrorism and crime, or are you just worried about those people who could, conceivably, put up a defense against the final onslaught of tyranny? <em>Which are your thirty pieces of silver?</em><br />
<br />
And beyond that, for anyone with a healthy curiosity, there is a whole bunch of evidence, free for the asking, that the Murrah Building had nothing to do with these patriots that are under fire from SPLC and ilk, and everything to do with a psy-op to create a cause to attempt to discredit constitutionalists who are opposed to the globalist/fascist dictatorship that has been forming for decades. <br />
<br />
I also, after hearing about a passport that survived fire and explosion hot enough to bring down a superbuilding <em>a la</em> controlled demolition--in fact, three of them--looking only like it'd been in someone's pants' seatpocket for a few days--I can't believe the official story on 9/11, either. These are FALSE FLAGS, folks! Events, as horrible as it is to have to say it, that are designed by criminals--MONSTERS--who want to steal freedom and eat out our wealth--and want us to go along with "anti-terror" that has nothing to do with fighting (non-existent) terrorism and everything to do with establishing their vaunted, predatory control grid.<br />
<br />
Whenever I hear a politician or journalist talking about "gun control" in a favorable light, I wish I could ask him (or her), "Why? What have you done, are you doing, or are you about to do, that will make fundamentally law-abiding people want to shoot you? What attack, what predation, are you out to launch that would justify such actions in the minds of good people?"<br />
<br />
[sigh]<br />
<br />
Getting back to SPLC's lists, mostly the listed groups merely contend against the subversion of America into a cesspool of mercantile/fascist corporate moguls and government apparatchiks at the top, with the rest of us alllll the waaaaaaayyyyy dooooowwwwwwnnnnn heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere. I guess such opposition makes said groups "dangerous" and "terrorists." Well, it's kinda true, but only to the purposes of the subversives, not to the purposes of lawful government and the free people who are its constituency.<br />
<br />
Ah yes, "But they're anti-government! They're anti-government!" Nope. SPLC and its masters, the fascist elite, want you to believe that. If you're tempted to believe it, don't! Don't be so gullible! THEY--SPLC and their Masters and affiliates--are the subverters, who want to convert a wholesome government, and who have to far too great a degree succeeded, into totalitarian control.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying that everything these anti-tyranny groups are on about is correct or even great. I disagree with many of, especially the religious crowd's, ideas. I don't think religion should be the basis for tyranny any more than I think secularism should be. I just oppose tyranny. <em>Just let people be, dammit! Enforce THAT!</em> What's wrong with such an idea? That's what America was built on, and that's what it <em>should</em> be built on. That's what is <em>sustainable,</em> the real kind.<br />
<br />
On the "Nativist Extremist Groups" page, really, there are a few organizations, but they've listed out each local chapter of such organizations as if it were a separate group. Makes it more "fearsome," I suppose, makes SPLC "all the more important as the sentry," I suppose. They did the same thing with their Active Patriot Groups page, as well. No wonder there's this big uptick in "hate groups" according to SPLC's ignoramus propagandistic pseudo-reasoning: more lines of data, describing the very same thing as stood before--because now, it's broken out by chapter!<br />
<br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
The Reasonable Conclusion</h3>
SPLC is a master propagandist for government power: a mouthpiece, message advisor, <em>meme</em> developer and a talking points distributor to the MSM on behalf of big government/fascistic global enterprise. The MSM have been co-opted for many decades (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism" target="_blank">Yellow Journalism</a> and its use in the Spanish-American War and the drug war insanity), and are completely subservient to the same masters as SPLC. This is why the MSM are losing share and widely regarded as useless or worse.<br />
<br />
SPLC and those who control them and the MSM (we'll call these controllers "the Masters") want to impose a domineering government of mercantilist/fascist <em>elites</em> to run everything as a coalition between big government and big business moguls, with the rest of us little better than livestock to be herded, fleeced and slaughtered. Anyone that gets in their way is to be stopped, countered and, failing that, destroyed--usually maliciously labeled in an attempt to marginalize and/or discredit them.<br />
<br />
This would be anyone who speaks for freedom and lawful conduct of government according to the Constitution (the supreme, overriding law for the U.S.); such demands militate against the kind of control grid the Masters seek. And that's why SPLC and ilk attack constitutionalists, patriots and libertarians, who are all about peace, freedom, individualism, equality of all individuals before law (in other words, one's <em>class, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, religion</em> or <em>powerful position</em> shall make no difference when it comes to the law), and independence from busy-body <em>overseers </em>who deign to play parent--or god--to us.<br />
<br />
We freedom-minded are dangerous to the Masters' self-aggrandizing, self-enriching and narcissistic goals; thus they use SPLC and their other puppets (MSM and DHS, etc) to attack us with epithets such as "conspiracy theorist," "extremist," "racist," "terrorist," "hate-monger," and "dangerous," which appears to be what the Masters and their tools <em>actually</em> are. ...and some of you actually fall for their crap! What are we coming to, folks? Will we, you and I because we won't hang together for freedom, let them win? Screw that!! Let's hang together for freedom, even if we find each other's personal choices in life distasteful--as long as those choices don't allow demonstrably human-on-human predation!<br />
<br />
<strong>Summation:</strong> <em>we are in a vicious propaganda war, with SPLC, its Masters and affiliates as highly motivated aggressors. The rest of us are victims and perhaps defenders who must back them off. Not just stop them, but back them off decisively.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em></em><br />
<a href="http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1400-the-reasons-why-the-liberty-movement-is-preparing-to-fight" target="_blank">Here's what someone else said, got it out there, while I was still struggling with this article:</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>Though posing as an anti-racist monitoring institution, the SPLC’s primary concern has never been the KKK or “White Identity.” Rather, the SPLC’s job has been and always will be to marginalize and defame those who stand against centralized federal power, regardless of how corrupt that power has become. They are not anti-racists, or liberals, or concerned citizens; they are STATISTS, who only care about maintaining the superiority of a government that has been bought and paid for many times over by a gaggle of international financiers with delusions of godhood.</em></blockquote>
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
Epilogue... actually, random thoughts, sorta, that came as I wrote this thing... not easy to incorporate into a purposeful article, but perhaps useful anyway...</h2>
SPLC wants you to believe that Barak Obama's unpopularity, especially with the so-called Right, is because of race or some kind of racial displacement syndrome or some such. Hey, I'm sure there is at least 0.01% of the Right (by today's bogus definitions of right v left) that feels that way. But notice, that leaves 99.99% who don't like him for his policies. And most are equally horrified by both Bushes and the Clinton Administration, along with almost every presidency since Jefferson. Obama is not an ethnically interesting guy who is getting crap for his features; he's ideologically corrupt, and probably is just being pushed around. The skeletons in his closet are tremendous, I discern. And "they" know about his skeletons and use them mercilessly as needed.<br />
<br />
I couldn't care less, and neither could most patriots, if Obama's heritage were Martian and he had fire red hair and bright green skin. I think it'd be kinda cool, actually. But his political point of view... it stinks! And! he's even losing many of those who voted for him <em>because</em> of his racial factors. What? Did they suddenly become white racist? Hehe, get real!<br />
<br />
I have a close friend, a woman, a <em>white</em> woman, who most strongly argued that it was great to have a black man go into the Oval Office; she insisted that he'd be more attuned to the needs of average everyday Americans; now she despises him as bad as she despises Bush. That's ... pretty bad. Reportedly, this is happening with a lot of people.<br />
<br />
And now we see many reports of people who tried, repeatedly, to get their voting machine to allow them to vote for Romney; it kept switching to Obama. It would appear that the support for Obama is in the machines, not as much in the populace. So now the apparatus and its apparatchiks control not only propaganda, but voting itself? Well, this has been being predicted and reported for a long time. It's not like this is news... it's just ... the kind of stuff the conspiracy deems un-publishable.<br />
<br />
Anyway, most people <i>I</i> know are more concerned about Obama's apparent deceitfulness, lawlessness (<em>Constitution, anyone? ... Fricasied?</em>), secretiveness, apparent willingness to foment disruption absolutely anywhere and everywhere, illegal wars and allegedly non-war <em>"kinetic actions,"</em> and now, yes, as a final straw, his attack on the Constitution via the Second Amendment--which no freedom minded person believed wasn't coming. <br />
<br />
<i>...just need the right crisis...</i><br />
<br />
As to SPLC's ability to find extremism in odd places: when non-violent people argue for peace and freedom, as noted above, this is what SPLC calls extremism. Now, I think I might underestimate SPLC if I were to suggest that they are too stupid to be able to differentiate between real freedom-minded people--- and those who shout for the "freedom" to be vicious to other races or people with other lifestyles than their own. <br />
<br />
Yes, I don't think SPLC's a bit stupid. So that could only mean that there is an agenda that they serve that is also well served by deceit. ...which leads to the conclusion above: that they are naught but a propaganda tool, serving tyrants who masquerade as <em>good capitalists.</em><br />
<br />
Next time you hear about extremists, ask yourself, "What's so extreme about them and is it bad? Or is it just a word that has been served up to further the Masters' takeover agenda? <br />
<br />
...W<em>ell, wouldn't want to support those extremists...</em><br />
<br />
What? Like, for instance, a government that doesn't want any backtalk? Like an organization that will libel a whole demographic ("white religious males") ignoring the many <em>other</em> demographics who are in agreement with the accused group) because they ... own guns and are tired of always having some not particularly credible someone say, "You don't need that"? ...because they think the law of the land should apply? ...because they don't like being insulted with controlling behavior by inferior people who deign, illegally, to rule?<br />
<br />
Matthews and his Hardball crowd also try to pretend that intrusion into people's choices and lives isn't tyranny, that robbing some people on behalf of others isn't corrupt, illegal, amoral and socialistic--but it is. <em>That's the very definition of tyranny!</em><br />
<br />
<em>How can they look straight at you and LIE like that??? What's wrong with them?</em><br />
<br />
<strong><em>Let's understand something: aggressors will always blame their victim. They will call all those who oppose them either "intolerant," "xenophobic," "militant," "extremist," "terrorist"... or something else like "kook" or "conspiracy theorist." It doesn't matter that these accusations are ridiculous and hypocritical; it's just the way all criminals play the game. </em></strong><br />
<br />
The very fact that SPLC is so ... apparently paranoid, seeing hate everywhere among freedom proponents... well, I don't believe that SPLC is just "intolerant" of another "lifestyle." I think it's much more purposeful than that. And I think the purpose is to annoy and provoke, marginalize, and silence any opposition from the freedom lobby.<br />
<br />
I wonder how SPLC, as both anti-gun and pro-LGBT, deals with the Pink Pistols, a relatively militant pro-gun group founded and mostly populated by LGBTs... It must just blaze cognitive dissonance for them! Must be pretty rough--awww, poor babies. Good! I think it's AWESOME that at least some gays and lesbians recognize that the Democrat/Republican party lines are terrible, twisted wrecks of half-baked, contradictory pseudo-ideological pap that should be rejected in favor of fundamental principles--a <em>real</em> ideology that makes sense. <br />
----<br />
The government propaganda organs (the MSM and SPLC) are creating a foundational narrative for DHS to use to go further into overdrive, pursuing "homegrown terrorists," which are now identified in multiple government documents (per SPLC's "research") as anyone who talks "too much" about the constitution, has bumper stickers promoting Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin, likes guns, uses cash instead of plastic for purchases (even small ones), has significant "prepper" supplies, ...and the list goes on--basically, when you get right down to it, it says, "If you don't praise DHS and Congress daily, uplifting your voice in praise of intrusions, you just might be a terrorist."<br />
---<br />
Chris Rock recently called Obama, (quoting loosely) "the bid daddy" ("The boss" and "like the ... dad of this country"). He is neither and is not supposed to be either. He is only legally boss of the executive branch of the Federal Government, and if that were all kept to legal limits, it would be maybe 0.1% of the size it is now. <br />
<br />
Besides, I don't know about you, but I grew up. My <em>Dad</em> is my dad, and I completely reject the idea that ANYONE in DC (or any other capitol) is a parental unit to me in any way, shape or form. ...and I have a boss at work, but that's my ONLY boss. Customers are somewhat like bosses, so that could fly too. But not Obama (or Clinton, or Bush I or Bush II or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, or ... I haven't liked ANY of the puppet presidents). And I'm not a child in need of parenting.<br />
<br />
But there are still those who think that the people need to be daddied, mommied and nannied. Above them are those who stand to benefit most from all of that control: the ones I call Masters. We have some idea who they are; they're the banksters, who by the way, don't only own and control banks, but a great many assets around the world, particularly when it comes to transnational and other large corporations, but including presidents, congresscritters, regulators, and so on. Their ownership may be hidden, but it's real.<br />
---<br />
SPLC's specialty is in moving big government forward--bigger and bigger--by marginalizing opponents to growth of government power and opponents of governmental lawlessness. They do it by making them out to be angry loons filled with irrational hate; people who don't understand what's good for them, and who, "in fact," are downright harmful to themselves and others.<br />
<br />
SPLC has done this for a long time, and their operatives are very good at it when operating on an unsuspecting, gullible public. One almost has to respect SPLC; it really knows its business. <br />
---<br />
All a patriot is, is someone who believes in our constitutional form of government, and wants to hold the current office holders to it. That's it; that's about all that is the common thread of "patriots." Otherwise, Patriot Movement folks are just like the rest of America, coming in all shapes and sizes, genders, races, ethnicities, religions, and intentions on how to hold the current office holders to the Constitution.<br />
---<br />
<a href="http://www.infowars.com/10-giant-media-government-hoaxes/">http://www.infowars.com/10-giant-media-government-hoaxes/</a><br />
<a href="http://www.infowars.com/the-disaster-of-manufactured-consent-in-the-matrix/">http://www.infowars.com/the-disaster-of-manufactured-consent-in-the-matrix/</a>Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-17064426515321710952013-03-28T05:29:00.000-07:002013-12-08T12:54:42.797-08:00When a Protection Racket Turns TailI have said before that even <em>good</em> government is little else than a tamed protection racket. "Tamed" because it were principled: uses and enforces the non-aggression principle; forbids and punishes human-on-human predation; regards all persons as equal before the law <em>...and thus is not allowed to have an interest of its own, a mind of its own, or to favor some members over others.</em><br />
<br />
This, of course, is quite different from an admittedly criminal protection racket, which is exactly "us vs them," and cronies vs commons, or "elites" (kings, lords, etc) vs The People. The problem is that everyone in a system of a tamed protection racket has to watch it closely and tirelessly, because there is always a risk of its going feral and thus criminal.<br />
<br />
The idea of a<em> tamed</em> protection racket is <em>exactly</em> defense of the rights of the people: the natural rights which, when violated, are the basis of the breakdown of society, of the end of cohesiveness, of the end of the ability to live in proximity to one another in relative harmony and a respectable peace. By establishing <em>tamed protection,</em> we create a means for the people to deter, detect and respond to those disruptions. <br />
<br />
And then we have this:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Z3zwhp5-jXA" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>...our allegedly tamed protection racket turns tail and runs from its responsibility. <br />
<br />
The only conclusion I can reach is that the once-tamed racket has gone feral. I don't believe Holder's <em>helplessness</em> talk for a minute. Yes, oh, undoubtedly, if the evil, criminal truth of the banking system and its disgusting, illegal power over our government were known, we could expect huge ramifications in terms of economics and probably social upheaval.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, social upheaval is what happens when bad guys get away with mass crimes that are known to anyone with their eyes open. It's time for our protection racket to do its job and pursue these people who have ruined millions of lives and the credibility of our government.<br />
<br />
Lest someone wants to make this out to be anti-government, knock it off. I'm pro-good-government and anti-bad-government. I am for a government that acts lawfully, constitutionally, and protects natural rights, not "special" people or cronies, as is being done by Holder's abdication.Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-66118918086737552452013-03-10T14:48:00.000-07:002013-12-08T12:48:07.084-08:00They Live ... ... ??Ehehehehehehhhh... sometimes, one just has to wonder...<br />
<br />
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QVgl1HOxpj8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br>
If you wanna buy the whole thing,
<iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=000000&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=livelsurvi-20&o=1&p=8&l=as4&m=amazon&f=ifr&ref=ss_til&asins=B000ID379U" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-57820935166725232832013-03-10T12:02:00.001-07:002013-12-08T12:50:23.414-08:00Mitt Romney Claims to Differ...Yes, this is quite old now, with the election behind us. But I still chuckle when I watch it. So... enjoy...<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/O_SDyy6LTqY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-43728451192347522342013-03-10T11:57:00.002-07:002013-12-08T12:53:51.638-08:00Obama Deigns to Brag to Jefferson?Well, this has been out there on youtube for some time, but just now getting around to posting it here.<br />
<br />
A re-mix is in the works, slightly expanded and higher definition.
<br />
<br />
I hope you enjoy the real Jefferson!
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HAoZEwN6nfs" width="560"></iframe><br />Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-88903555602624399952013-03-10T11:20:00.001-07:002013-03-10T11:20:23.652-07:00Hang Together for Freedom? Or Hang Separately?One message I've wanted to get out there for some time is that all of us who want particular freedoms must understand that we must scratch each others' freedom-craving backs if we want to succeed in protecting that, or those, freedoms.<br />
<br />
Yes, I'll put it another way: I support protection and restoration of freedoms that I don't personally care about. It's because I understand that if I don't help you maintain your freedoms, why should you help me with mine?; if I want freedom but want to lay some authoritarian horse manure on you, how could I expect you to do any different with me?<br />
<br />
Most people just want to be left alone by "society." That doesn't mean they're hermits; no, they just don't want someone in their business unless invited. This was the Jeffersonian message to the world, that a society that systematically refuses to intrude into private matters is a sustainable society, a working community, and a force to be reckoned with should anyone attack: specifically because they are not at odds with one another and will therefore stick together! That may seem counterintuitive, but that's the way it works. <br />
<br />
Put another way: empathy breeds in a non-coercive environment. If empathy has been eroded in a community by capricious, controlling and insulting rules and laws, the community won't hang together unless something horrific occurs. They won't help one another unless it's life and death, and maybe not even then.<br />
<br />
Let that digest for a minute. A key to societal success... to a community's or even country's ability to hang together... is to leave each other alone, not meddle in private affairs, NOT to try to standardize or legislate or regulate beyond a few key matters, to let people handle their own affairs as they see fit and still be held accountable for harm. This is societal sustainability.<br />
---<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."</blockquote>
Thus spake Zara.... errrr.... Jefferson. I'd ... call that... pretty... anti-authoritarian.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The real spectrum in politics is Authoritarianism vs Liberalism. Governmental authoritarianism was once called conservatism and that's why Jefferson was a liberal, a leftist. Jefferson (and many other real liberals) gave liberalism a good name; today's name-only liberals have turned liberalism into the very same animal as the authoritarianism Jefferson hated.<br />
<br />
A useful way to think of non-authoritarianism (and such) is the non-aggression principle: <em>do what you want; just don't force or harm another--not by direct force or by proxies (thuggy entities such as intrusive forms of government or other criminal syndicates). The only place for force is in defense against an aggressor. </em>A <em>real</em> aggressor. Not just someone whose lifestyle or aesthetics go against your sensibilities.<br />
---<br />
There are those who use this rule in reverse: they are the people who crave power to control others. Divide and conquer is as old as any principle of societies. They use this tool, and expand from there. They create a hero narrative: we're here to save you from yourselves and your neighbors. <br />
<br />
But in reality, they pit neighbor against neighbor; the more chaos the better, because that means more power and control, which means even more material and ego gain for them. <br />
It's hard for many of us to imagine that some people would have such a need, but it's for real. There are such twisted people. And they use our tastes and preferences to pit us against one another. There is no justification is one person trying to dictate personal lifestyle or other choices to another; that is sickness. But most of us have that twitch. <br />
<br />
I'd like to outlaw (if I weren't morally opposed to such laws), the wearing of pants belted center-of-buttcheek. Yuck. But I'd never support such a law, because it's ... ridiculous. I can take my sensibilities to some other scene. I'm also opposed to recreational drug use. But I oppose those laws too. I can't fathom the gay lifestyle. Not mine to fathom or regulate. <br />
<br />
I could go on, but the point is that when we are talked into dispensing with principles of freedom because of our preferences, we become tyrants who support worse tyrants who use these issues to keep us at each others' throats, so to speak, divided, conquered, unable to hang together to beat away their advance into total tyranny.<br />
<br />
Here's an example of just such a maneuver: <a href="http://www.infowars.com/splc-letter-to-holder-and-napolitano-patriot-hate-groups-pose-domestic-terror-threat/" target="_blank">Look what SPLC is doing: they're tying freedom orientation to terrorism and racism!</a> It doesn't follow, but SPLC has the president's ear, and the ear of MSNBC and others. Why, I'll never understand; SPLC is a disgustingly anti-freedom outfit.<br />
---<br />
So, back on message: I may not like your tastes or preferences or the freedom you request; but I will support your freedom, as long as you are not aggressing against someone. Let me expect the same of you. And let's work together to restore America and to sing to the world the praises of this philosophy.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blog.independent.org/2013/03/07/rand-pauls-filibuster-divides-the-left-and-right/" target="_blank">Here's someone else's thoughts, perhaps better phrased...</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For liberty to prevail, the left-right spectrum and the two-party grip the establishment has on the American people, dividing them against one another in furtherance of its own power at home and abroad, must be rejected. The McCain-Obama consensus on everything from presidential assassination programs to massive corporate welfare for Wall Street and the centralization of nearly everything in Washington, DC, has to be challenged, and it can only be effectively combated if people ditch party loyalty and embrace core principles. I don’t ever expect anything good to happen in the Senate, but about a dozen times or so in U.S. history, something truly good has happened there. Yesterday marked one such occasion, and not so much for what it means for the Brennan nomination, but rather what it exposes about American political discourse. The Obama war machine and its establishment liberal media, the old guard Republican warmongers and the neocon editorial writers all deserve each other. The truly freedom-oriented folks on the left and on the right should spend more time talking with one another rather than being divided against one another by fascist leaders on both sides. Perhaps with the drone issue, we are one step closer to a more sane political discourse, one that puts power and liberty in their rightful places, at opposite ends.</blockquote>
<br />Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-14820459232494886752013-03-07T10:27:00.000-08:002013-12-08T14:19:33.151-08:00Monetary High JinksJS Kim wrote <a href="http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1362664469.php" target="_blank">a useful article</a> for today's <a href="http://goldseek.com/" target="_blank">Goldseek.com</a> page. Therein, he explains what happened (and happens) when fiat currency (money that's money because "the government said so," i.e., counterfeit money backed by nothing) takes over in a country. That is how it is in the U.S. today and since 1933, having gotten its first vestiges in 1913 with the illegal Federal Reserve Act.<br />
<br />
If you are unaware of how real money got swapped for fiat currency in the U.S., or if you aren't sure you are aware of the terrible economic results of such changes, please read the article. It's really quite good, comprehensive enough that one who is as yet uninformed on the matter will come away with a respectable overview.<br />
<br />
The link takes you to part 1 of the article; there is a part 2 due presumably soon. Watch goldseek for the second part, or I may post it here.<br />
<br />
Excerpts:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>"After Roosevelt passed the treasonous Executive Order 6102 that confiscated gold, and he caved in to the bankers’ plan to turn the world’s REAL money into 100% COUNTERFEIT money, the price index nearly doubled in the next 20 years, and then increased 400% over the subsequent 40 years. This is what counterfeiting money achieves. Cheap imitation copies of the original product (1973 dollars) devalues all existing original product (1933 dollars). Thus, the situation that caused people to fear the banker’s criminality in the 1930s and led to an overwhelming desire to hold physical gold versus paper has actually worsened at an exponential pace ever since Executive Order 6102. But thanks to the re-education camps of modern academics today, the situation accepted by no Americans in the 1920s is now not only willingly accepted by nearly 100% of Americans today but also accepted by nearly 100% of the 7 billion people populating this earth (with the exception of the Japanese, Indians, Chinese, and Middle Eastern peoples)."<br />
...<br />
<br />
"... And this is why instead of confiscation today, banker-controlled and run Western governments (a<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/">s detailed in “The Quiet Coup”, by Simon Johnson</a>) only need to concentrate on pre-emptive strikes that convince people NOT to buy gold and silver today."<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
..."during the 1997 SE Asian Tigers banking crisis, the banker-controlled S. Korean government tricked people into giving up their gold by using the political angle of patriotism. The Korean government launched a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/analysis/47496.stm">“Collect Gold for the Love of Korea”</a> campaign and recruited the help of three major Korean corporations, Samsung, Daewoo and Hyundai, to trick all Korean citizens into believing that if they didn’t turn over their gold to the government, they were 'unpatriotic'."<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
"... the criminal banking class has to assert itself differently in India to accomplish the mission of EO 6102. To stop gold buying, bankers that control India have jacked up the import tax on gold from 1% in December of 2011 to 6% and are discussing a further increase to 8% right now, a move that would represent a 700% increase of the tax on gold in little over a one-year period. Welcome to the pre-emptive strike I discussed above and the Indian equivalent of the tyrannical US Executive Order 6102."<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"></span><br />
... (US, Europe):<br />
<br />
"In order to keep people “fearful” of gold, bankers have deliberately introduced massive artificial volatility into the price of spot gold and spot silver through their manipulation of paper derivative products along with these three additional techniques I explain in this article."<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
"Or even worse yet, bankers have shuttled people into phony ETFs like the <a href="http://www.theundergroundinvestor.com/2009/07/the-gld-and-slv-legitimate-investment-vehicles-or-not/">GLD and SLV that likely own COUNTERFEIT gold and silver</a>."<br />
<br />Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-33169014190760813902013-03-06T12:37:00.005-08:002013-03-06T12:37:59.468-08:00How the Market Isn't Free<a href="http://lewrockwell.com/orig14/d-amato1.1.1.html" target="_blank">D'Amato on Economic Fascism and the Power Elite</a>:<br />
<br />
"In the present day, following the maturation of the connections identified by Mills, Rothbard, Higgs and others, the economy has been “centralized . . . into a highly structured bureaucracy under the effective direction and control of leading business interests.”[11] We can in no way be said to have a free market, as the ties between powerful interests and the federal government are as strong as ever. Politics is an expensive, high-stakes game of favors and bribery, a fact that libertarians like Comte and Dunoyer saw clearly hundreds of years ago."<br />
<br />
<br />
This is the summation of what he wrote in the rest of the linked article. Informative, useful reading for those who need to demonstrate that we do not have a free market economy.<br />
<br />
What we have may be called "capitalism," but this is a word that has too many meanings. I prefer "free market" to describe a free market, because using the C word doesn't really clarify. <br />
<br />
I hope you enjoy the article, and find the references useful!Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-56086134971307533202013-03-06T10:18:00.003-08:002013-03-06T17:03:21.877-08:00Obama's Track RecordThis needs to go viral, folks:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/obamas-track-record.html" target="_blank">Washington's Blog, Obama's Track Record</a><br />
<br />
As far as I'm concerned, most of this belongs in an indictment. It's time for Congress to grow a backbone and impeach this monster, this guy that's poking at tigers everywhere, hoping for worldwide and national upheaval (?) for... hmm... I can only suppose it's the end game for world depopulation and world government.<br />
<br />
Why else would he repeatedly and viciously poke tigers domestically (attacking every protected and unprotected right of the American people) and worldwide (sabre rattling at China and Russia, drone attacks absolutely anywhere and everywhere, illegal wars overthrowing governments that are not doing us harm, etc., etc., etc.)? He could only want a ferocious response. And there could only be one explanation for wanting that response: he's doing the bidding of the would-be worldwide absolute masters. I wonder what his 30 pieces of silver is supposed to be, and whether he'll get it should he succeed. Is this .. effort ... what all that "Yes we can!" crap was all about? Is it really, "Yes, we can indeed throw the world into total chaos so that the masters can finally realize their world government ambitions"? Is that it? <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>What must the masters be saying to those governments, and even to U.S. patriots, whispering in their ears? "Do it! Do it! Go AT 'em, get 'em, yes, yes, yes!" Kinda like they did in North and South for the "US Civil War," that I call The US Federal War Against State Sovereignty. Or perhaps, The Masters' War on The Liberty Trend. They managed to co-opt American government, didn't they? ...solidified by the Great Depression (brought on by the masters' illegal Federal Reserve and its dislogical processes of thought and its illegal "money") and its resulting illegal social security and other socialist programs, and metastasized by the inside-job attacks on the World Trade Center which, because it was disguised as a muslim terrorist attack, resulted in the illegal and disgusting USA PATRIOT Act and a militarized DHS. <br />
<br />
Miltarized DHS: 2 billion+ rounds of battle ammo--not target practice ammo--enough to put a bullet in the head of every man, woman and child in the so-called Western World (North & South America, Europe, Australia) and the Middle East--or more than 2 bullets each for everyone in the Americas; 7,000 machine guns--aka REAL assault weapons to the tune of 130 per state; 2,717 tanks--50 per state on average; ... and counting. This can't be for a legitimate war; that would be fought by the military. No, this has to be for "civil unrest." Wow, they know that they are driving it that way, and they are preparing to fight instead of quit violating their oaths and violating Americans (and everybody else).<br />
<br />
Back to impeachment: naturally, Congress, full of corruption, is hesitant to be the pot that called the kettle black, but honestly, that's beside the point. Congresscritters of all ilks can restore some dignity to themselves and to the institutions (both Congress and U.S. government in general) by taking up impeachment hearings and throwing this bugger out. His Veep isn't much of a replacement, but a message will have been sent. And he can be impeached too... as can Supreme Court justices who are not on good behavior.<br />
<br />
Or are the Congresscritters (and the Prez and the courts) under threat from those who want Obama's chaos-production plan successful? I'll bet many patriots would gladly guard patriotic, oath-honoring congresscritters and judges... if they can find them.Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-66004139107202010822013-03-03T10:39:00.002-08:002013-03-03T12:53:29.673-08:00That Awful SequestrationEnough of this apocalyptic talk of sequestration!<br />
<br />
For starters, <a href="http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/lets-shed-tear-under-appreciated-bureaucrats" target="_blank">Cato provides a look at what's real...</a><br />
<br />
Now the <a href="http://www.quinnsquantumtechnologies.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/obama-frank-marshall-davis.jpg" target="_blank">The Gaslighter in Chief</a> wants to pretend that sequestration wasn't his idea in the first place, as he tried (and continues to try) to set budget hawks in Congress at a disadvantage. <br />
<br />
Well, the budget hawks in Congress are better described as chickenhawks. In fact they're more like pigeons, "rats with wings," as they talk <em>big cuts</em> and push none of it. This reduction of increase isn't a cut at all, so what's all the hullaballoo?<br />
<br />
Worse, the budget hawk <em>poseurs</em> are usually also war hawk neoconnish folk, which means they have no intention of getting the country out of feckless imperial warmongering--where we're wasting $kazillions for... for what, actually? I wouldn't condone it if we were <em>plundering</em> countries conquered, but I'd understand it better.<br />
<br />
The country has lots of cause to keep our aerospace and other weapons manufacturers in business, even if we don't have wars. Of course, executive bonuses might fall a bit short, but that's not a reason to keep the spending up at this dumping rate by blowing things and people up all over the world. No, national defense is <em>the key</em> function of a proper government...<br />
<br />
...not this acquisition and spending and use of...<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>racketeering tactics...<br />
<br />
to scare us into giving up more of our decreasing income and wealth--and other freedoms. <br />
<br />
Seriously, think about this: we put pressure on to lower the tax burden, and what do they do? They threaten our police protections, road repairs, schools... all the things that people tend to care about (and perhaps for little reason, given the quality and character of each that is provided by the "authorities"--but nonetheless, they're at least <em>services</em>). And they threaten our soldiers in the field. They never cut wasteful spending, exorbitant pay scales and retirement and benefit plans for government employees, complete wastes of departments such as education, energy and so on; they never trim the fe'ral government's intrusion into private lives and private enterprise by use of illegal executive agencies that punish industries or companies for non-support (or inadequate support!--see coal-fired power plants) or for being the "wrong" competitor of a favored company or of the now incumbent when he was a candidate running for office...<br />
<br />
...they always only cut the stuff that we thought we were paying for specifically; never the people-control grids and the payoffs grid. <br />
<br />
If justice were done, just about everyone topping the branches and agencies in the Fe'ral government would be arrested under RICO (racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations) statutes, deprived a defense, as they deign to do to people who aren't racketeering or corrupt (but they hit 'em with it anyway), deprived of a defense via property forfeiture. High Treason should be among the charges, but there are lots of charges that would apply, varying by the perp on trial.<br />
<br />
Yah, I see something; I said something. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84NbzMr3HKc&feature=share&list=PL67A41783EF839AF7" target="_blank">So has Lew Rockwell.</a> The big terrorist in this country is the Fe'ral Government itself. <a href="http://www.impactony.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Janet-Napolitano.jpg" target="_blank">Jannie Baybee</a>, arrest your president, most of the Congress, all of the cabinet, the disconstitutional justices (that's about 8 of them on the Supreme Court) and other federal courts, yourself, your staff, and a large contingent of your crew! Throw the book and lose the key! The rest of us would breathe easier, knowing that you're not out there making "terrorists" out of <em>patriots,<strong> just to get rid of all resistance to your (collective you; all those mentioned above and your true masters in the City of London and so on) tyrannymongering</strong></em>. <br />
<br />
Fe'ral... a contraction of <em>federal</em>. Or, perhaps a reference to feral, the untamed, the de-tamed, animal, jungle character of the thing. Ah, yes, of course! It's both!<br />
<br />
Kinda changing gears here... think of what government is supposed to do... in the United States, its one valid function is the protection of the rights of the people. This is military defense (not international militaristic adventuring), courts, establishing trade treaties with other countries... uh... yeah.. that. That's it.<br />
<br />
Even at that, it's little better than a protection racket (remember I said racketeering, right?); proper government's saving grace is that the concept of the protection racket has been <em>tamed</em> (made unferal) by limiting its reach, eliminating the big payoffs to those who run it, and forcing it into just courts and reasonable procedures instead of the wanton behavior of true criminals. <br />
<br />
But when government goes feral (as our fe'ral government, and to be inclusive, our state and local governments mostly have), having restored the big payoffs and the delusions of grandeur and the unjust enrichment, the "compelling government interests" that have nothing to do with the well-being or security of the people themselves, and the wanton power it now deigns to wield... it is little if anything but a protection rackect, as in Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO), a criminal syndicate, a crime organization. It and the banksters that are its true masters, and the corrupting, mercantilist/fascist transnational corporations MUST be stopped, in the name of justice, integrity and the human spirit.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, we allow a <em>monster</em>--and I don't mean just <em>big</em>, I mean <em>monstrous</em>--to roam free. And how does that reflect on us? <br />
<br />
Lest anyone think I'm talking anything but calling it what it is for all to hear and pointing out the proverbial emperor's bare and ugly ass, don't. I'm not talking anything but exposure, and activism that is limited to words, education, communication and political activity. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Fm03LhWvU&feature=share&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA" target="_blank">See this for a reality check.</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNj39lu5kA&feature=share&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA" target="_blank">And this.</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQdwZk2gpWo&feature=share&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA" target="_blank">And this.</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63zZ6I0QiO8&feature=share&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA" target="_blank">Eh, one more.</a>Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-13368428589035700122013-02-17T10:59:00.000-08:002013-03-03T10:51:55.637-08:00Comments Too Rich and FirestormsNo, my comments won't be too rich, but apparently Ron Paul's tweet about Chris Kyle was. Paul got all the info into that tweet that made it valid to a knowledgeable reader, but he didn't succeed in making it understandable to more than a few who are willing to take the time to grind out a proper apprehension of it.<br />
<br />
It is the responsibility of all communicators to make themselves understandable and to understand. Choosing the right forum, understanding the probable way that a reader will grasp a comment, and collecting and assembling the right words are all part of good communication by someone trying to get a point across. Ron Paul's words were well chosen and assembled, but I will argue that such conciseness is not well suited to even the very thoughtful in a forum like Twitter.<br />
<br />
Sadly, Paul's attempt to clarify really hasn't helped much. Laying out an illegal war as a crime, he appears to lay the illegality of the war firmly at the feet of the soldiers--one of the awful, wrongminded things that was done by many Americans to our returning Viet Nam vets. <br />
<br />
But he doesn't do only that, although that's what I see the firestorm focusing on; what he also does is incriminate the whole of the body politic of those countries who are initiating and perpetuating wars on no legitimate provocation. This is a valid point, but doesn't really clarify what he said in the tweet. He's right, but still not communicating all that well or all that responsively.<br />
<br />
Let's dissect the context of the original tweet a little. Here's Chris Kyle, admirably working with a guy with a blazing PTSD. His subject is in a very fragile state. It would seem logical to avoid situations where the subject could switch back into war mode, fading into delusion, wouldn't it?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Many of us have found firearms range time to be therapeutic. It allows you to focus on something that gives you immediate feedback; it's physical to the extent you want it to be; it requires deep concentration and even functions as a support for a meditative state of mind. Plus, it's just plain fun! Gosh, even Mr. Blindly Anti-Gun Piers Morgan, while firing away at the range, couldn't contain a grin! The bigger the gun, the bigger his grin. He got a rush out of it.<br />
<br />
But, and with due respect to those grieving Kyle's loss, wasn't it kinda brain dead to have SUCH faith in the therapeutic effects of range time... ...for someone who has perhaps just barely gotten past the worst of the throes of PTSD, to take them to a place where the sights and sounds might mentally bring them back into the war zone?<br />
<br />
That's how I understand the remark: to live by the gun--in this case to be so blindly committed to its therapeutic value--was kinda asking for trouble. No, it's not absolute, but the rational mind, one that isn't completely blindly committed to "gun therapy," would reasonably consider whether it's wise to chance it.<br />
<br />
There are things to be said about Kyle's character, about his alleged civilian kills and about his alleged libel of Jesse Ventura. I don't know anything at all about Kyle's point of view on politics and government, but clearly, he as much as anyone, despite whatever good he's done, can be criticized. I honor that he followed what he thought was his call of duty, and especially I want to honor his efforts on behalf of wounded warfighters. I may not respect the war or the warhawks that have put us where we are; I may not think kindly on the illegal orders given and followed or the banksters (and their minions) that are benefiting from war and murder, but I can honor the decency that was evident in Kyle's last efforts.<br />
<br />
The freedom movement can--and must--get over this, and keep building the juggernaut that will eventually put a stop to--and reverse--the growth of the globalistic police statism that has plagued the last century of Western (and most of the world) thinking. The police staters, however and whoever you know them to be, want the freedom movement in tatters. We are unworthy if we allow them to goad us into that--especially over a tweet, one kazillionth of the things Paul has said, the great majority of which are profoundly on target!<br />
<br />
Let this be a lesson to those who blindly follow, or who encourage it, even if it's a good leader: to blindly follow is to believe, foolishly, in the perfection of the person followed--to deify them. Thus, when he or she stumbles in one way or another, it is tempting and somewhat natural to turn on them, to throw away all the benefit their ideas bring, to think of them as a fallen deity. <br />
<br />
But they never were a deity; just a good person working for good things. Maybe even great. But not perfect. Get good ideas wherever they are, but use your head and believe what makes sense, not what someone said because they ususally nail it. There may be times for the latter, but not to use as a rule.<br />
<br />
Freedom is a great idea. Sometimes we'll disagree on exactly how and also on whether someone said it just right. Whatever those blips may be, use everything (EVERYTHING!) to keep the pressure up for freedom. Everything that happens, everything that's said, everything at all. Don't be dishonest; that is the police staters' mark; be honest, but see the opportunity in everything, the opportunity to build coalition, to push for removal of demagogic laws, to get us out of illegal foreign entanglements, to outlaw illegal statutes and regulations and executive orders, to return to the constitutional republic designed and put into play in 1788-1792 and then, if needed, to push further to undermine federal statist power.<br />
<br />
Let's keep our gains to date, and expand, expand, expand!Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-77881357118525742092013-02-10T09:06:00.001-08:002013-12-08T14:02:15.674-08:00I Stand Corrected... and YES!! YES!!!! YES!!!!!! <a href="http://www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/28672/Anthony-Wile-Edwin-Vieira-on-His-New-Book-The-Sword-and-Sovereignty-and-Where-the-US-Went-Wrong/" target="_blank">Edwin Vieira Rips the Heads Off of Weak Pro-Gun and All Anti-Gun Arguments in the U.S.A!</a><br />
<br />
...including my own, now recognized as not fully empowerd pro-gun argument, although I take some pride in having had my little brain hint the direction of his argument. WOWOWOWOWOW, I LOVE to be wrong like that!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://reasonaction.blogspot.com/2013/01/treason.html" target="_blank">A Shameless Self-Promotion: my previous words on the Second Amendment</a><br />
<br />
PLEASE read the entirety of the article at <a href="http://www.thedailybell.com/" target="_blank">The Daily Bell</a>. It covers a LOT of ground in a fairly short space. If you want to understand the Constitution and the workings of <a href="http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=610" rel="shadowbox;type=iframe;width=800;height=500;" target="_blank">those who really control the world</a>, read the whole article; it's one of the best primers I've ever seen on all of that. And of course, the book is available on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0967175941/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0967175941&linkCode=as2&tag=livelsurvi-20" target="_blank">Amazon</a>.<br />
<br />
From <a href="http://www.thedailybell.com/" target="_blank">The Daily Bell</a>'s interview, Vieira: <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">America's national <em>para</em>-military police state is not simply "grow<em>ing</em>"; it has <em>grown</em> to fantastic proportions. Why else do you imagine that I am devoting the last years of my life to promoting the revitalization of the Militia? Nostalgia for the by-gone Colonial era? When the Executive Department of the General Government declares, as it has today, that nameless, faceless bureaucrats can order the assassinations of Americans, anywhere in the world, on the basis of the mere suspicion that the targets are somehow allied with "terrorists" or other "enemies," <em>and no other department of the General Government or the States at any level of the federal system challenges that declaration</em>, then America has degenerated into a politically putrescent state beyond mere "authoritarianism." This condition constitutes a species of legal nihilism with which, heretofore, only monsters such as Caligula and </span><a href="http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=2583" rel="shadowbox;type=iframe;width=800;height=500;" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hitler</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> were associated. For if one's life can be stripped from him under such circumstances, what other rights does he retain? None, as all rights inevitably depend upon the right to life itself. And if such an individual − indeed, <em>every</em> American − retains no rights, because the theory of "official assassinations" embraces essentially anyone and everyone who might be denounced from within the bowels of the bureaucracy as an "enemy combatant," then what limits exist to rogue public officials' powers? None. This is </span><a href="http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=1924" rel="shadowbox;type=iframe;width=800;height=500;" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">totalitarianism</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> with a vengeance. (all emphasis Vieira's own)</span></blockquote>
It's coming around, America. The sedition and revolution that have been brought by a wannabe <a href="http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=610" rel="shadowbox;type=iframe;width=800;height=500;" target="_blank">elite</a> (a nobility-pretending clan of people who like to suggest that society and "the people" <em>need</em> kings, lords and the like, by whatever names they may be called) the insurrection they have wrought in the realm of ideas, mind manipulation and "law" are recognized, are known as evil; and the counterrevolution, which must ALSO take place in the minds of all Americans and on the legal battlefield of courts and legislatures--not on some field of physical confrontation unless THEY force it--is coming to a head. Vieira is as right as rain. <br />
<br />
Getting back to gun rights per se, what I see as the weaknesses of my past argument: <br />
<br />
My argument went to the idea that the Second Amendment guaranteed (not granted) self- and family defense, as well as community and the larger ideas. I now understand why I had a niggling consternation with that aspect of my argument: just as I said that banning guns for hunting or sport would have been unthinkable to the founding generation (the TRULY greatest generation so far in America), so would have been any ban on self-defense weapons. Thus, the Second Amendment is SOLELY about protection of groups larger than the family, and perhaps even larger than the community. <br />
<br />
Thus, any weapon suitable for family defense will fall under the Fourth and Ninth Amendments and not so much the Second (Vieira may or may not agree with this--it's my own thinking). The Ninth said, essentially, "Just because we laid out specific rights doesn't mean there aren't plenty more." ...some of which would include being free to do any dang thing you want as long as you don't hurt someone else. I will also offer now that the Fourth Amendment, in its protection against seizure, allows for an individual right to defend against it--whether said seizure is by an individual or by a government. Let's remember that the "Bill of Rights" did not pass as one amendment, but rather, stripped of its preamble and as ten (of an original twelve--missing the contents of two propsed) amendments. Thus its text, while seeming to imply "by government" never says so, except inasmuch as how a search or seizure can be justified and empowered.<br />
<br />
The mechanics of Vieira's observations:<br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong>Edwin Vieira:</strong> <em>The Sword and Sovereignty</em> is available at </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0967175941/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0967175941&linkCode=as2&tag=livelsurvi-20" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Amazon.com</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. It is a study of the <em>actual</em> constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" in the Second Amendment <em>in its inextricable relation to "the Militia of the several States,"</em> as opposed to the historically inaccurate and legally indefensible so-called "<em>individual</em> right to keep and bear arms" on which almost all contemporary advocates of the Second Amendment fixate. I describe "the individual right to keep and bear arms" as legally indefensible because fundamentally it is a right in name only, inasmuch as it lacks an effective remedy if an highly organized and armed tyranny sets out to suppress it, whereas the true "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" exercised in the context of "well regulated Militia" is the Constitution's own preferred remedy against usurpation and tyranny in their every aspect. Even though the Second Amendment is very much the subject of contemporary political debate, I seem to be one of the <em>very few </em>commentators saying as much − which, in these days of rampant legal and political confusion, misinformation and disinformation, is probably very convincing evidence that I am correct.</span></blockquote>
I'm going to dispute one point: effectively, all of the rights enumerated are as vulnerable to malicious interpretation and being overrun by rogue government as Vieira says of the Second. Nonetheless, his points that the militia function is built upon an armed citizenry and that this is no doubt what the Framers had in mind is very powerful medicine for a sick legal world.<br />
<br />
Again, please read the whole interview. Good stuff indeed!</div>
Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-83982223822636680392013-01-27T12:38:00.001-08:002013-01-27T12:38:11.312-08:00Important Rundown<a href="http://youtu.be/tM5ZdO-IgEE" target="_blank">YouTube vid discussing the Sandy Hook business</a><br />
<br />
What amounts to a consolidated report on what's going on with the Sandy Hook busienss.<br />
<br />
I don't have much more to add. Bad, bad business going on.Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-73813035848704880172013-01-20T12:34:00.002-08:002013-03-03T10:54:15.957-08:00What About It Isn't Tyranny?<strong>Every time a tyrant feels insecure, s/he wants to take away your weapons, whatever may constitute them. <em>"Never mind me and my tyranny and the fact that I'm bringing your rebellion and hostility on myself; it's your guns, your knives, bludgeons and... lord forbid... your argumentative points... that are causing problems. What I'm forcing on you is right."</em></strong><br />
<br />
This is Psycho 101, folks. Read about narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder: <em>"We'll <strong>beat</strong> you into submission! It's for your own good."</em> But it's not; it's for <em>their</em> own good, whether it be to feel good about themselves or for monetary or other gain.<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br />
PrezDent O'blamblam, <em>Chief Gaslighter and Drone Attack Bringer, Destroyer of Whole Villages and Many Hundreds of Children, <strong>Terrorist to the World,</strong> </em>said in his remarks announcing his "recommendations" for new<em>ish</em> 2nd-Amendment-infringing law-like-things <em>to save children...</em> he said that some of us out here would be shouting about how he's after our guns and establishing tyranny, as if to imply that this is a wacky notion.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Oh, wait. 'scuze me. 'Tis indeed a wacky notion. Tyranny already <em>is</em> established in the U.S. and much of the world: he doesn't want to establish it; that box is already fastened down. No, he wants to tighten the screws so nothing shakes loose. He'll worry about getting the rest of everything else in the box after he takes your guns. Ah.. oh yes, he said <em>"total tyranny."</em> Welp, that's exactly what "making sure nothing shakes loose" amounts to. No matter what the Chief Gaslighter says.<br />
<br />
And that's what "gun control" is for. It starts with registration, goes to outlaw of certain guns and/or for certain groups, and naturally after that, winds up with "voluntary" confiscation and, failing that, confiscatory raids. And it expands to other weapons and other groups. <br />
<br />
The final straw for the colonists in North America was when King George III came for the guns. That was it: they weren't turning them in, not even for Georgie Porgie. You see, the colonists were well aware of long traditions of crummy kings who substituted violence for decency <em>(i.e., live and let live)</em>, reason and diplomacy. It's a pattern seen throughout history. Recently we've seen Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot--probably the deadliest ever. Some 260 to 290 million dead by their various actions--all in the 20th Century.<strong><em> Gun banners: the deadliest force on Earth. Ban gun banners!</em></strong><br />
<br />
Why should we think that Obama is any different? Even if we believe he is different, which I don't, what about the next president?<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
1/31, adding this thought: The Chief Gaslighter referred to fearmongering, saying it's those who call him a tyrant that are doing it. Wait just a minute there, fella: that's exactly what he and the anti-gun fringe are on about: "Oh, no, fear the guns, fear the guns!" Fearmongering is exactly what he and they are doing. Hypocrites!<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Don't think we live under tyranny in the U.S?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://youtu.be/nBiJB8YuDBQ" target="_blank">John Stossel: Illegal Everything</a><br />
<br />
<br />
There is a concept called <em>the police power.</em> This is the power of the state to restrict, coerce and punish. Essentially, it applies to the making, enforcement and administration of laws. Where the police power starts entering every aspect of life, and especially where we start seeing particularly violent enforcement of particularly ludicrous laws, that jurisdiction becomes known as a <em>police state. </em>The term is synonymous with <em>total tyranny.</em><br />
<br />
Still don't think we have tyranny in the U.S?<br />
<ol>
<li>How do you feel about the prospect of airport security? You don't think the threat of having to submit to irradiation or (maybe <em>and</em>) being felt up in a very personal way is an outrage, and abusive?</li>
<li>What requirements, limits and restrictions apply to your job/business and how you conduct it, whom you can serve, whom you can hire, from whom you buy raw materials, how to dispose of waste products, etc? How many of those actually make a dent in what they're allegedly designed for? How many of them seem in reality to serve some competitor, supplier, or buyer?</li>
<li>What licenses or permits are required for you to do your job? To drive a car? To build a house? To distill spirits? To sell those spirits? To sell things as a business in general? To own a firearm? To carry any weapon (in some places, carrying even a pocket knife over 3.5 inches requires a permit)? To <em>conceal</em> any weapon? To participate in a hobby (amateur radio comes to mind)? To hunt? To fish? To hike and/or camp (think about wilderness areas and national forests/parks)? To own a dog or cat (oh, and don't forget "chipping" requirements if you live in one of those jurisdictions)? This could go on for some time... </li>
<li>What requirements, prior to any licensing, do you have to meet even before applying for a license? How much does that cost? (Think Real Estate, Law, Medicine, etc. and the educational requirements.... errrrr degree requirements as may apply.)</li>
<li>How many times a day do you deal with being taxed for something? Sales tax, use tax, income tax, property tax, estate tax, fees of any kind, taxes incorporated into the price of any product or service, ... ?</li>
<li>Have you figured in to your taxes the concept that the Federal Reserve, in concert with the U.S. government, is taxing you every time they increase "the money supply"?</li>
<li>Can you legally do whatever you want, eat or drink whatever you want, smoke whatever you want, etc? <strong>How safe do you feel if you speak out about whatever abuses you feel, or criminal actions you observe government or its officials committing? </strong>Really? Outspoken critics of TSA, for example, have been the victims of obvious (and sometimes admitted) retribution. Same for those who talk audibly (in a big way) about the international kleptocracy that's going on. If one is not safe to say true things about bad guys without fear of reprisal from government officials, he's not very free.</li>
<li>How much do you feel lied to by the government? I don't care which part of it, could be local, state, federal; could be any branch. This is fraud, not really thought of as friendly and freedom-generating. In fact, fraud is thought of as a form of coercion, not by physical force, but by the lie.</li>
<li>How's your power bill looking lately, since the EPA has closed down clean-burning coal plants?</li>
<li>How about education? Can you home school your kids without the nod of government? Can the taxes you've paid ostensibly for the education of your kids be redirected to the private school of your choice? Does or did the college of your choice require accreditation?</li>
<li>Did you know that you can't grow food and sell it wihout a license? Federal law!</li>
<li>Are you aware of other efforts to ristrict your freedom, as from the U.N., with Codex Alimentarius, Agenda 21, and its "Illegal Trafficking in Arms" treaty that it's pushing? Are you aware of the taxes they are proposing? Did you know that the U.N, this American unfriendly organization, is largely funded by the U.S.--your tax dollars at work? The U.S. pays approximately 1/4 of the U.N. budget, including regular and "peacekeeping." Hmmm, the world has roughly 7 billion people, and 300 million--approximately 5% of the people fund the organization to 25%? Hmmm.</li>
</ol>
Again, I could go on ad infinitim, but if you don't get the point by now, you're not going to. Yes, we've become used to these takings, but that doesn't make them right. And more and more these days, as our marvelous politicians have shuffled our jobs to India and China, such bites are big ones, more able to be felt. <br />
<br />
Moreover: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>That government is best which governs least!</em> --Thomas Jefferson</blockquote>
Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-32485709427471869692013-01-13T06:05:00.003-08:002013-03-04T17:23:28.883-08:00Second Amendment Deniers Guilty of Treason?<a href="http://www.infowars.com/foreign-media-lectures-americans-on-gun-rights/" target="_blank">Infowars Documents International Attack on America</a><br />
<br />
The Japanese chose not to launch a ground invasion of the US during WWII, on Yamamoto's concern that "Behind every blade of grass there is a rifle and someone who knows how to use it." This is the best documented of these stories, but I've also heard it about the Soviet Union, and it makes sense that indeed it has been a major strength in deterring potential attacks from just about anywhere. It also deters a huge amount of crime, either passively or actively (that is, by the mere possibility of a gun's presence or by the presentation or use of a firearm).<br />
<br />
...with the Chinese, English, Russians (and so on) now, supposedly as a result of the Newtown business, saying that the U.S. government should disarm citizens...<br />
<br />
<em>"What," one wonders, ... "does someone have a plan?"</em> Perhaps one that would bring back that concern about US civilians and our guns? It doesn't take a lot of security training to think this suspiciously.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Then there's Obama, Feinstein and others who want to do same, want to make new law to do it ... thus lending aid and comfort to these foreign interests who ... what is it they want us disarmed for again?<br />
<br />
The Second Amendment was written about armed defense, not hunting. The lightest review of the writings of the Framers makes this clear; further, in that day, to ban firearms-based hunting would have been unthinkable and so visibly impractical that no one even gave a thought to it.<br />
<br />
So it was about defense. Yes, and not only personal self-defense, but defense of community and country--and <em>constitutional</em> government--<em><strong>and freedom.</strong></em><br />
<br />
A well regulated militia<br />
Being necessary to the security of a free state<br />
The right of the people to keep and bear arms<br />
Shall not be infringed<br />
<br />
Some people wonder, "why all the commas?" I think it was intended to be read as if laid out in a stanza, the way I did above. If you have ever done poetry analysis, you will recognize the utility of this. It effectively means, "A well regulated militia ... shall not be infringed" as well as "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged." The amendment, as written, also means that the right pre-exists the Constitution, that a militia (as opposed to an army or other professional military entity) is necessary to security, and that a major goal is freedom. <br />
<br />
There's a lot wrapped up in that amendment, especially when put in the stanzas the commas seem to me to imply. "...shall not be infringed" is <em>very powerful </em>language. It's very absolute, and expresses the sentiment that was expressed then, in personal writings: "no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."<br />
<br />
Getting back to DiFi and crew: people can certainly have their opinions about things, and express them. So what's my beef with DiFi and Obama? It isn't that they have an opinion. It isn't that they express it. It's not even so much that they abuse their bully pulpit to express such opinions.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>It's that they have shown a propensity to simply ignore the Constitution when "that piece of paper" becomes inconvenient--the way</em> all criminals<em> ignore law.</em></strong> We already have a kazillion (according to NRA, literally 20,000) laws that are constitutionally illegal that regulate guns and gun ownership. And then they lie and say they respect our rights, but when you see what they're trying to legislate, it's pretty much an all-out gun ban. <strong><em>... in defiance of the law of the land.</em></strong><br />
<br />
And here are China, Russia and others shouting that we should be disarmed. And prominent public officials of the US supporting that unconstitutional, <strong><em>dis</em>constitutional,</strong> anti-America effort.<br />
<br />
At what point does that actually become treason, this <em>legislative</em> lending of aid and comfort to international voices calling for us to be militarily weaker by those who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? ...this ... act of war against the US' defensive strength?<br />
<br />
My opinion is that it is already treason. The illegal games that were played with the election (and how many more of our elections have been geri-rigged like this last one?) are treason. The scandalous <em>Fast and Furious</em> operation should have high level officials in jail; same for MF Global, whereas our legal system has obviously become compromised to cater to criminals. <br />
<br />
When will appropriate authorities get serious about investigating, impeaching and pursuing charges against these criminals? It's time, folks. Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-2217597240753658612013-01-13T04:42:00.001-08:002013-03-03T10:50:42.235-08:00Gun Grabber LiesThere's no way to actually list all the ways the gun grabbers lie to us continually. They lie about their intentions (yes, they want ALL guns; they won't admit it, because they have found out that to say so defeats their purpose... but if they say they only want "this" gun or "that" one because of its kill power, then at least some of us are rube enough to go along). They lie about their "reasoning"; it isn't reason; it's just a vain attempt at justification to cloak their intentions). <br />
<br />
Anyway, some useful stuff: <a href="http://thetruthwins.com/archives/18-facts-that-prove-that-piers-morgan-is-flat-out-lying-about-gun-control" target="_blank">18 Ways the Gun Grabbers Lie</a><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><em>...</em><br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>"Piers Morgan is getting on television every night and flat out lying to the American people about gun control. Nearly every statistic that he quotes is inaccurate and he fails to acknowledge a whole host of statistics that would instantly invalidate the arguments that he is trying to make."</em></blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>...</em></blockquote>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>"...what Piers Morgan fails to tell you is that the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is <strong>about 4 times higher</strong> than it is in the United States." </em>Yet we're told how much of a better place the UK is than the US in terms of crime...</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em><strong>"#5</strong> The violent crime rate in the United States actually fell from </em><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FWNOiw_XIV8" target="_blank" title="757.7"><strong><span style="color: #4f809e;"><em>757.7</em></span></strong></a><em> per 100,000 in 1992 to </em><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FWNOiw_XIV8" target="_blank" title="386.3"><strong><span style="color: #4f809e;"><em>386.3</em></span></strong></a><em> per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from </em><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FWNOiw_XIV8" target="_blank" title="9.3"><strong><span style="color: #4f809e;"><em>9.3</em></span></strong></a><em> per 100,000 to </em><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FWNOiw_XIV8" target="_blank" title="4.7"><strong><span style="color: #4f809e;"><em>4.7</em></span></strong></a><em> per 100,000. This was during an era when gun laws in the United States generally became much less restrictive." </em>... and at a time when gun ownership in the U.S. was expanding exponentially<br />
...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>"A few high profile gun advocates have even ended up dead in recent days."</em></blockquote>
Hmmm. This last thing is pretty disturbing. And what's to say that those advocates haven't been murdered because of their perceived gun community leadership or some specific thing they said? They probably were. Either there is a huge and unlikely coincidence in play, or...<br />
<br />
The linked article not only lays out the facts, but also points to source material. It's pretty useful if you find yourself needing to understand how to debate the issue.<br />
<br />Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-41646855813575668392013-01-02T04:32:00.000-08:002013-03-03T11:07:16.393-08:00Spin to Sell Books: "Abandon the Constitution"<a href="http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/why?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why" target="_blank">This article</a> sent me to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121231&" target="_blank">this BS in the New York Times</a> by <a href="http://www.nndb.com/people/994/000343962/" target="_blank">Louis Michael Seidman</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Michael_Seidman" target="_blank">more on Seidman</a>), which I take to be mainly a ploy to market a book. Yet, here's another <em>constitutional law professor</em> who doesn't seem to be able to properly assess the realities even of history, much less social dynamics.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Among the comments I found when I went to research Seidman and the article, I found <a href="http://thedailybanter.com/2012/12/concerning-louis-michael-seidman/" target="_blank">this,</a> which in some ways sums up Seidman's commentary, albeit one has to sift through sarcasm and some wandering in order to sort out "Banter's" own angle.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2012/12/louis-michael-seidmans-constitutional-disobedience-theory-is-the-least-principled-argument-of-2012-1.html" target="_blank">I really liked this comment,</a> and <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/336668/no-constitution-we-re-progressives-john-j-vecchione#" target="_blank">WOW</a>, and <a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/160661/" target="_blank">this cracked me up</a> with the following: <em>I dunno. Does this mean we should ignore Roe? Or Miranda? And Baker v. Carr? And if the Constitution is this obsolete and “evil,” then maybe secession isn’t off the table after all? . . . .</em><br />
<br />
Again, to a large degree, I find Seidman's writing to be mostly provocation to read his book. I've never read any of his stuff other than this article, and I'm not feeling very inclined to go track down any of his books. But he's generated some buzz, and some people, in the name of respectability probably, will track it down and read it. If it reads like his article does, it'll step out with a wild statement or ten, and then spend a lot of time pseudo-backtracking and qualifying and by the time one is done, he won't really have said much, but will have managed to ruffle feathers everywhere nonetheless.<br />
<br />
This seems to sum up the gist of his message: <em>No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
So, since there is a long standing precedent of violating the oath of office and disregarding the Constitution, even by the best defenders thereof, we should just dispense with it, basically... Such is his argument. <br />
<br />
Yes, our government has acted outside its authority practically since the ink was dry. But that's what's WRONG with our country, not what's right about it! Seidman appears to say, "full speed ahead, let's just have the powerful do whatever they think is right, no matter how twisted their morality may be. Skip the rudder, skip the keel, just hoist the sails and see where it takes us."<br />
<br />
Uh, been there; done that. Especially over the last 12 years. <br />
<br />
Nope. It's time to dismantle the fiat state and get back to constitutional principles and procedures. It's time to simply eliminate any executive order that purports to or equates to establishing law, since writing and approving law is Congress' job. Congresscritters who don't stand up and blast away at the Executive's abuse of power he doesn't rightly have... such flabby congresscritters need to be blown out of office on the sails of the next election, or if possible, on recalls and the like.<br />
<br />
No, we don't need to abandon the Constitution; we need to bolster it. And for those areas in which it needs updating, i.e., referring to blacks or natives as less than a whole person, etc. Yes, the amendment process has a use. Instead of ignoring the Constitution, which is the law over government, let's fix the pieces that need fixing. "But that's hard, so hard." Yup. That's what it's intended to be, for good reasons: the ideas of freedom from kings and other lords, etc., come from a serious understanding of history and social dynamics--something that appears to be lacking in Seidman's intellectual repertoire.Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-90214173337663563042012-12-28T00:15:00.001-08:002013-03-03T11:44:40.830-08:00See How Gun Registration Is Used...<a href="http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/irony-if-you-are-on-this-list-you-may-be-in-grave-danger_12262012" target="_blank">Mac Slavo</a> had this to say about the recent listing of gun owners by a local newspaper.<br />
<br />
He points up that the list is effectively a list of unarmed households, suitable for a hot burglary (one where the burglar enters while the people are there).<br />
<br />
What he doesn't point up is that such a list also provides a list of targets where a burglar might find a gun, and also indicates tactics a burglar might want to use.<br />
<br />
This makes everyone a little less safe. Security of any kind is largely based in keeping would-be attackers in the dark about capabilities of intended victims, or it could be listed as opportunities and threats in the target environment. <br />
<br />
There is a saying that society is safer when the criminals don't know who has guns. It's true. It's usually used to support concealed carry, but it applies just the same to households containing guns. The long and short of it is that in his risk calculation, informal as it may be, the criminal will, if uninformed about who does and does not have guns, have to guess, which increases risk.<br />
<br />
HOWEVER, even more than that: look at what happens when guns are registered! This is just the tip of the iceberg. History bears out that such lists also constitute hit lists for the bigger criminals: those who have co-opted government to instill tyranny.<br />
<br />
For anyone who might think NRA or any other gun-ownership-supporting organization is "nuts" for opposing registration and licensing, behold: they were on target, weren't they!<br />
<br />
It's time to pressure state legislatures, Congress and whomever else you can think of to dispense with even the first vestiges of licensing for guns and gun owners, and to make concealed carry legal without any licensing whatsoever.Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2505306746446741024.post-23859253494271989732012-12-25T08:43:00.001-08:002013-03-03T11:45:11.582-08:00Mercantilism Is Fascism Is Feudalism Is Illegal in U.S.I'm adding this several days after writing the rest: <a href="http://www.thedailybell.com/28535/Tibor-Machan-A-Note-on-Socialism-as-Elitism" target="_blank">Tibor Machan explains how socialism (and I would argue any centralist approach) ends up with an elite, and why it is counterproductive</a>. It's just that good.<br />
<br />
Once upon a time, only certain people, feudal lords, could own property, and it was a grant of some king or other. Everyone else rented. If a renter grew wheat on his little plot, that was fine, and he could use the milled wheat to pay his rent to the land lord who owned the property.<br />
<br />
But the land lord, with the power of law (his law, his enforcers) forbade one's milling of his own wheat, and owned the only mill that the farmer was allowed to use to mill his wheat. And of course, the lord charged for the use of the mill, and this also allowed the lord to know how much grain the farmer had grown and thus how much "tax" to apply to the farmer in addition to rent and milling charges.<br />
<br />
If you had a good lord, who understood how to keep a balance... understood how to use this system <em>sustainably</em> and hadn't overdrawn his own accounts with his overlord(s), then perhaps you had a good life and could prosper.<br />
<br />
But, as history has born out, few lords with this kind of power are thus good; as the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."<br />
<br />
And this was why several colonies of upstarts insisted that the government could not justifiably and, as they arranged, legally establish people to be lords of this ilk; they said that all men are created equal, that the law was above any individual and had to be the same for all in the society. In the government installed by these upstarts, no government official could become a lord and controller of others, a law unto himself. And the people outlawed titles like "king," "lord," "baron," and so forth.<br />
<br />
I am, of course, talking about the colonies that became the united states of America. <br />
<br />
Enter the food police: <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig13/salatin1.1.1.html">http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig13/salatin1.1.1.html</a><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>No, certainly this is not the first area of endeavor in the U.S. to be re-feudalized and the feudalization of it excused away as a necessary economic or public safety mechanism.<br />
<br />
How is it feudalized? Well, when it requires a license to sell (or give away) your garden ripe tomatoes, you're having to pay a fealty to the licensing organization and its constituents, which constituents almost always include one or more "influential" corporations who utilize the regulatory agency as a means of vetting and eliminating dangerous competitors large and small. Thus, they direct consumer traffic to themselves. Sometimes, they direct licensee traffic to themselves, whereas licensing establishes a compliance with a process for which the influential organization is the only accepted producer. <br />
<br />
There are many angles that can be used... and are indeed being used. Effectively, such influential organizations, who usually got their influence by buying off some high level (or not so high level) government employee, become lords not much different, albeit more subtle and more hidden, than the feudal lord mentioned above.<br />
<br />
If one defines a system by what it does, that is, uses "operational" definitions, then licensing is pretty much feudalism, just refined.<br />
<br />
And so, look at pretty well all licensing and much of regulatory law as a de facto feudalist endeavor. Or there's another word for it: fascism. And another: mercantilism. Still more: corporatism, crony capitalism. They are just alternate words for a system that consistently favors a certain group as an elite, a corps of "leaders" who "guide" development... thus certain producers are given favorable conditions--the playing field is tilted in their favor.<br />
<br />
"Government/industry partnership" (or collaboration), which we often hear touted, is nothing else. Which ends up working out to: you own it, you tell us how to control it, which means you have a competitive advantage by our laws that make life difficult for your competitors or would-be competitors; we make it hard for them to enter the industry or market and we make it hard for them to survive, based on your advice. <br />
<br />
This system, as noted above, is often called mercantilism. And yet, in practice, it works the very same way as feudalism and fascism. In fact, it would appear that all these names for the same thing are just conjured up to obfuscate that the people are getting bent over in a serious way.<br />
<br />
Take a look at the article linked above: the U.S. courts have failed to put a stop to Monsanto's trespass and have, in fact, found in favor of Monsanto, describing its trespass as a basis for collecting royalties from the victims of the trespass! Monsanto big, farmer small, consumer even smaller. The class of lords is reinstated. In America, this is an outrage.<br />
<br />
Moreover, licensing for raw foods? Are you kidding me? No, I know you're not. Laws now exist in the U.S. that say that you can't share your garden produce with your neighbor, and god (or perhaps that would be lord) forbid you should sell it! How DARE you? So licensing law means you've shown fealty to the lords and now you can grow and sell. But it cost you both in terms of resources (money, time, effort, and effort to comply) and in terms of the freedom to grow what you want to grow, how you want to grow it.<br />
<br />
The only law about agriculture should be that you are honest about what you're growing, how you cultivated it, and any caveats that apply. I.e., is it GMO? Did you use endless amounts of Roundup on it? But once again, our government serves the interests of Big-ass, bad-ass Monsanto, who hasn't done any valid testing on GMOs and has fought tooth and nail for real research to be silenced. <br />
<br />
The shining hope is that all the research that's coming out despite Monsanto's power will ultimately break that power, demolish their imperial reign, and lead to changes that restore some semblance of a free market to the U.S. and also break them down for the rest of the world as well.<br />
<br />
Monsanto is not an example of the free market in action; it is an example of "crony capitalism" which is just another brand of fascism, feudalism, mercantilism and the government-industry partnership.<br />
<br />
Coming back around: Monsanto is one of those influential cronies of the sick pseudo-capitalism model that has taken over the U.S. This goes on with other companies in other industries and some have asserted, having done research, that when you scratch the surface and find out who owns these companies, you find a lot of the same faces behind them--certain families, who have been owners for centuries, are at the helm, manipulating the whole world, and people too, as their little crop, to be raised, used, cut down and discarded at will. Hence, GMOs and other deadly products.<br />
<br />
It pays to discover that one is in the Matrix, but a particularly nasty one.Indy Reasonerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630620497975453742noreply@blogger.com0