♫…I don’t feel much like dancin’…♫
Kent McManigal shares with us an essay regarding the essence of personal liberty, freedom and individual rights in this Constitutional Republic.
I find it sad that whenever someone wants to do something, the first question most people ask is whether government allows it, requires a license, or forbids it.
There is so much that isn’t (or shouldn’t be) the business of government. Most personal conflicts are attached to an understood contract between individuals in the free marketplace – If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one; if that head of lettuce is bad too soon, don’t buy them there, anymore; don’t like illegal drugs, don’t use them.
There are remedies before getting the government involved. That shouldn’t be our go-to choice. It should be the last resort.
This isn’t a pointless philosophical debate. On May 5, President Obama warned Ohio State University graduates to reject the warnings people like me are passing along, and to simply trust government.
My motivation is that I trust you to run your own life, and I want you to understand liberty and experience it in all its glory.
What might his motivation be?
If you can be fooled into asking the wrong questions, the answers don’t matter.
This should be our (libertarian’s) anthem. – Guffaw
h/t Kent’s “Hooligan Libertarian” Blog
(What follows has some language that is Not-Safe-For-Work. I thought it best not to edit or censor it, to give it it’s full impact - Guffaw)
This is the crux of the libertarian, Constitutional argument. Why are we so against all these ubiquitous encroachments on our civil liberties? And why we should continue to be.
Every time I see something like this, be it use of a no-knock warrant (or no warrant at all), surveillance cameras everywhere, GPS on modern cell phones that we cannot disconnect, institutionalized warrantless searches at airports (and elsewhere) or beating a confession out of a suspect, I recognize we have lost something beyond price. And, I know we probably won’t get these liberties back without a fight.
Kent’s “Hooligan Libertarian” Blog touches on the most recent of these issues. The lock-down and methodical search of an entire city to locate a terrorism suspect. He says, in part:
The same goes for imposing a police state and illegally/unethically/immorally locking down a city and invading homes to catch a suspect. Every cop who entered any property without the explicit permission of the owner/renter deserved to be shot dead. Immediately. Good thing for those stormtroopers that the “people” there gave up their responsibility and guns long ago, and are cheering fans of Big Brother. Makes me furious to even think about.
Follow this up with Lurking Rhythmically’s screed regarding some folks disdain for an individual’s natural rights. She says, in part:
From a comment on my previous post:
You know, I like most of what you post, and followed you even though I disagreed with you on your position on so-called “gun rights”.
Oooh. Isn’t that just delicious contempt ? It’s so thick and creamy you could drizzle it on a pancake. I especially like the one-two punch of so-called and the scare quotes. They aren’t rights, they’re “rights”. That’s quality passive-aggression right there.
Here’s the lovely thing about rights: They aren’t up for a vote. That’s why they’re rights.
Let’s put it another way:
Are you offended yet? You should be. You should be screamingly furious that anyone would diminish these rights with the phrase “so-called”.
And yet my inalienable right to defend myself with the most effective means possible is threatened because one, ONE asshole out of 10 million law-abiding gun owners decided to commit a raft of crimes that another law would not have stopped.
You say, “Compromise.” I say, ”Fuck you, you mewling cowards. I will not embrace victimhood. I will not willingly disarm. If you demand I give up my life just to make you feel better, you are selfish on a level that is beyond comprehension.”
I believe this is how most of us feel, even if we can’t quite put our feelings into words. Individual rights are individual rights. Whether ‘natural’ or ‘derived from our Creator’, it doesn’t matter. They are not up for debate or vote. Period.
And to allow them to be voted on is yet another encroachment.
Go and read the entire Declaration of Independence, and then the two links above. Then look at the news, and read what we accept as a normal course of government business every day.
Then, perhaps become angry about the state of our Nation. And cry a little.
S. Weasel brings us the following:
This is Li Meng. He hasn’t left this computer terminal for six years. He gets up to pee and shower and they hold his place for him. The rest of the time, he’s sitting in this internet cafe in this very chair playing video games. If you Google “Li Meng” and “internet cafe” you’ll get a ton of different takes on the story, mostly a bunch of handwringing about “internet addiction”.
But here’s the thing: renting a spot full time in the internet cafe costs him about eighty bucks a month. Playing video games, he says he’s making about $325 a month. You know what I say? THIS MAN IS THE KING OF AWESOME.
Plays video games all night, sleeps in the chair all day, slips out for a wash and some Chinese takeaway and puts money in the bank every month. I am NOT seeing a problem here.
It’s like when heroin got cheap in the Nineties and there were all these articles about how horrible it was that junkies could take a McDonald’s job and have enough money to rent a small apartment and support a smack habit. And I’m thinking, “wait…they’re fully supporting themselves and their wicked habits with an honest job? So what part of this is your business?” (emphasis Guffaw)
“No Good Cops”
That’s what Kent’s Hooligan Libertarian Blog says…
He suggests that any cop doing his job (i.e. enforcing current non-libertarian laws) is simply a tool of the State, not unlike the folks who ‘did as they were told’. The Nuremberg Defense. To wit:
But then consider: Has this person ever enforced a single counterfeit “law”? Any anti-drug ”law”, anti-gun ”law”, “tax law”, speed limit, seat belt enforcement, property “code”, asset forfeiture, etc.? If so, the person isn’t a “good cop”- certainly not a good person while acting as a cop.
Some cops may be less evil than others; I certainly hope so. But “less evil” falls very short of “good”.
I come from a family of cops, with a cop (and Marine) history. I know they enforced the laws as written, including those laws with which they may have personally disagreed. They took an oath.
Of course, much of the legislation with which Kent disagrees hadn’t been passed, yet, when they were ‘on the job’. And I know some ‘street justice’ also occurred. Contempt of cop and all that.
But, I do believe they were good and honorable men. Here Kevin and I disagree.
This got me to thinking. Do we hold those persons who took an oath to the letter of said oath?
Senators and Representatives?
United States Constitution under Article IV it states:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…“
(U. S. Constitution 1787)
The American Dictionary of the English Language, define an oath as:
“A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false,or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.“
(Webster Dictionary 1828)
The presidential oath of office is required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which deals with the executive branch and outlines how the president is elected. In part, it reads:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
HAVE ANY OF THESE CLOWNS IN WASHINGTON EVER TAKEN THEIR OATH SERIOUSLY? WILL THE STREET COP, WHEN ORDERED TO DISARM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, DO SO WITH IMPUNITY? WHAT ABOUT THEIR OATH? HOW MANY PRESIDENTS WERE/ARE IMPEACHABLE FOR DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING THE ESSENCE OF THEIR OATH?
What ARE we doing?
We have a court system for bad cops, and a Constitutional system to remove bad politicians. Including Presidents. When do we hold their feet to the fire?
Why are we dragging our feet?
Two years ago, today, I began writing this blog.
I’d been on disability, and passed the time on the Internet reading blogs. I was frankly looking for some female friends who liked guns, and found some female gun bloggers. Unfortunately, these were in Ohio, Indiana and Idaho. They became my blogmothers. (Note-to-self: find female gun bloggers in AZ!)
I had no clue what I was doing. Some would say I still don’t.
In the past two years I’ve learned to write in paragraphs, write about those things I know, and to be disciplined. (sometimes)
I’ve written at least one blog post daily (sometimes two, occasionally three, once or twice four) every day.
And I’ve included a cartoon, a tasteful photo of a beautiful woman and a You Tube clip of my choosing, every day, as well.
And a quote of the day.
I told a couple friends locally I was writing a blog, and, before I knew it, I had followers (!)
Follower number 10 was North , the first person not actually known to me at the time. Since then he and many others have become friends!
As of this post, I have 89 followers, including a female blogger in Pakistan.
Over 164,821 pageviews! (if we include the 84K from the first year’s BLOGGER version) 5,397 comments, (some of which weren’t even from me!)
I’ve written 1,146 posts, about 2/3 of which were of my own authorship (not stolen borrowed or expounded upon from another blog).
And I’ve made many friends in the United States, and around the World.
I’m proud to say I’ve actually met some of these folks, and spoken with others on the telephone. Some have regularly communicated via email. A few have become close. One even gifted me ammunition! I’m both proud and humbled.
And still amazed.
One of my early followers was my good friend Mark Bell, who passed away February 1, 2012. He told me one of his first stops every morning was Guffaw in AZ. I like to think he still stops by.
I will continue to strive to report the facts and truth as I know them, for as long as I am able, and I care to.
And perhaps a few more PI stories.
tampered with amended The Usual Suspects to add those who have been friends and contributors and delete those who have stopped blogging. Sadly, some have passed away.
My thanks to all of you for your support.
Your obedient servant,
Real News Reporter shares with us an essay by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market
The Constitution of the United States is an undeniably powerful document. So powerful in fact, that it took establishment elitists with aspirations of globalized governance over a century to diminish the American people’s connection to it. It’s been a long time coming, but in the new millennium, there is now indeed a subsection of the masses that not only have no relationship to our founding roots, they actually despise those of us who do!
Including the following video, wherein a New Hampshire politician voices his opposition to libertarians moving into his State:
The essay IS a worthy read!
SO, of the competitors Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Tweedledum won.
SO WHAT? BUCK UP!
That third party guy GOOD IDEA received the most votes that party has ever received in a presidential election!
What do we know, now?
The once and future President of the United States promotes policies with which many of us disagree: More gun control, more Internet control, less free speech, more of our troops to unwinnable wars, more redistribution of wealth, support for other countries use of child soldiers, continued Federal attacks on State-legal marijuana dispensaries, quadrupling the warrantless wiretaps since the Bush era, continuing and expanding the so-called PATRIOT ACT, granting the FBI access to private communications without warrant, renewed FISA warrantless spying on banking and wireless communication, continuing the horrendous Federal Reserve QE debacles, and,
LEAVING OUR AMBASSADOR AND FORMER NAVY SEALS TO DIE IN LIBYA, WHEN HELP WAS AVAILABLE. AND HE WAS WATCHING VIA LIVE FEED.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t? Let’s make a two-pronged effort: 1) Pay attention to any government attempts to violate our rights, and be vocal in our response, and 2) Reform the opposition party so the leadership no longer consists of big government RINOs, to give us a real choice in the next election. Like Mr. GOOD IDEA was supposed to.
Because you just know Hillary is waiting in the wings for 2016…
Future Senator Bluto Blutarsky said it best: Let’s GO!
So, hear I am, poised over my mail-in ballot, making my choices. (written over one week ago) Do I hold my nose with one hand (figuratively) or make a third-party choice. You will never know, as I believe in the Australian Secret Ballot!
For those who didn’t care for the previous administration (and those who don’t care for the current one) here’s a partial list of current administration foibles, many carry-overs from the previous administration.
SO, Tweedledum or Tweedledee?
I didn’t watch the first debate. Nor the second. Nor the third. I’ve three reasons for not doing so, to wit:
1. They are NOT debates, but rather stump speeches with responses. They don’t answer questions, just push their own agendas! (The President – Assault Weapons Ban, again!) (And Governor Romney – The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting!)
2. Not all viable candidates were asked to participate, and
3. The participants are not under oath when answering.
4. Why do I care what Tweedledee and Tweedledum have to say! Both are avowed statists with big government agendas. Not exactly my political stance.
“Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” – Ronald Reagan
My understanding, via the wisdom of the Internet, is the Republican took the first one, handily. The Democrat
interrupted and laughed a lot during the second. And CNN voted for the Republican both times. CNN! CNN said the President won last night.
Re: Gun Control (a rant) -
Mr. President, the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban did nothing to stop crime. Crime went down significantly when it finally sunset 10 years later. And virtually all the current statistics (except those from the totalitatian-loving, anti-rightist folks) show as there is more gun ownership today, and crime is down! I know you know this. Because gun control isn’t about stopping crime, it’s about controlling law-abiding citizens!
News Flash: Criminals don’t obey the law! (end rant)
Ultimately, the only ‘debate’ that matters in the one in the voter’s head on Election Day. All else is window dressing.
While technically not a blog, it does present an interesting compilation of links. Blogs, reference materials, news. politics, all designed to attract thoughtful readers. Many wearing tin-foil chapeaus.
Preppers, gun folks, libertarians, anarchists, conservatives, political junkies, bullion hoarders. During my initial cursory review, I even spotted something for Lyndon LaRouche fans! Different strokes, what?
The columns differentiate types of links as follows: Economics Bullets, Beans
Bullion Alternative Media Miscellaneous/New Blogs
I’ve not had a chance to check it all out (because there is MUCH content), but it appears interesting and if you add a comment you may very well have your blog or website added into the mix!
Don we now our metallic apparel and go take a look see.