♫ Sunshine Go Away Today…♫

♫…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

Our Tax Dollars At Work

World Net Daily reports on the findings of Judicial Watch with regard to the federal government promoting tax-payer-funded benefits to potential illegal aliens foreigners.

To wit:

Judicial Watch, the Washington watchdog which is known for tracking down and trying to stamp out government corruption, has issued a report revealing that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is working with the Mexican government to promote the U.S. food stamp program to illegal aliens.

The report said the program, called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, features a Spanish-language flyer supplied to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA “with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/feds-caught-promoting-welfare-to-foreigners/#ZgQm63wMS5677xss.99

As if we don’t already have enough trouble with illegal immigration and the ‘budget’ federal spending!

The report continues…

… that taxpayer money was used to run Spanish-language television ads “encouraging illegal immigrants to apply for government-financed food stamps. The Mexican Consul in Santa Ana, Calif., at the time even starred in some of the U.S. government-financed television commercials, which explained the program and provided a phone number to apply. In the widely viewed commercial the consul assured that receiving food stamps ‘won’t affect your immigration status.’”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/feds-caught-promoting-welfare-to-foreigners/#ZgQm63wMS5677xss.99

We’re already broke.  WTF?

h/t  Plan of the Day

I used to know a guy…

…who was a friend, a mentor, a good guy.  A gun guy, Gunsite graduate.  A libertarian.  Sadly, we are no longer in touch.

He used to say he’d not know how he’d react if things got so bad in this country, that if he was stopped and asked, “Papiere, bitte!” “PAPERS, PLEASE!”, what he might do?

I’m sorry to say, Bud, that day has come.

Here’s hoping none of us loses their cool if asked.

h/t/ wirecutter, John

Doing Wrong To Prevent Wrong – NSFW

(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:

• your so-called “suffrage”
• your so-called “emancipation”
• your so-called “integration”
• your so-called “religious freedom”
• your so-called “freedom of speech”
• your so-called “right to due process”

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.

Slow and Steady Wins the RACE…

with the help of factual reporting.

Bob Owens shared with us the sins-of-omission, as committed by CBS ‘News’.  (and also reportedly PBS, et al)  As well as sins of commission.

It seems they are going out of their way to blame the Tea Party movement for yesterday’s atrocities at the Boston Marathon.  With no facts as yet in to support their rant.

Of course, this is not news.  Much of the mainstream media has been anti-Tea Party since their inception.  Remember the claims of racist epithets and spitting toward liberal Congress folks?  Remember the proof of these acts?  Neither do I.

They’ve scoured Tea Party events, looking for something on which to hang their hats of hate and violence.  And found very few provable hat racks.  I don’t think we can say the same for the leftist/anarchist OWS movement.

Quelle surprise.

I believe much of this comes from two directions.  Those folks who truly believe in the vision of the President – and anyone who disagrees with him must be racist.  And the members of the media who laud leftist causes all day – excluding the principles on which this Nation was founded.  Like the Constitution.

Define irony – Members of the press who beat the drum of the First Amendment all day about their right to write whatever they please.  Including supporting an agenda which leads to restriction of that same free press.

The United States Senate…

…is up to her old tricks!

I remember the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban passing.  Twenty years ago?  The Senate was getting ready for a Thanksgiving weekend break.  The media were all saying it wouldn’t pass.  Then, after some midnight negotiation double-dealing, it passed!

Fast-forward to the current pending legislation.  A filibuster is threatened – looks like the bill could go away.  Suddenly, someone waves their wand, or wiggles their nose, or makes a cash deposit (/supposition), and the filibuster is history, and the bill goes to the floor for 30 hours of debate.  Unless they change the rules again!

Sixteen Republican Senators voted to block filibuster, and go for a hearing and vote!  So much for differences between the parties.  Shame on my Senators McCain and Flake.

Is this all window dressing for the next election in 2014?  Don’t want to look pro-gun and lose?

Of course, none of these measures would have prevented Tucson, Aurora or Connecticut massacres.

But the fat lady has yet to sing!

What kind of smoke-filled, backroom, double-dealing is awaiting inclusion into the final bill?  Will we be lulled into complacency, yet again, only to have the rug pulled out from under us?

Oh, I forgot, no smoking allowed in the backrooms, now.  Who knows what else will be restricted secretly?

Keep those card and letters coming in, folks!  And call and email your Senators, again before it’s too late!

Drang @ The Clue Meter has the actual text of the current bill, S649.  You should go read it, and make certain there are no late-night anti-rights amendments before the vote.  Proposed ‘pro’ amendment excerpts:

Section 122, FIREARMS TRANSFERS
It affirms your right to “transfer” a gun to a relative (t) (2) (C):

…the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law

Otherwise, private transfers are legal if

“(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
“(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
“(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;

In other words, the status quo.

IF THIS PASSES WITH THIS AMENDMENT, this bill has been much ado about nothing…

S649, as currently written.

There are “No Good Cops”! Or any other public official…(?)

“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?  

Police Officers?

Senators and Representatives?

The President?

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.

Polling our RIGHTS!

I don’t know about you, but with the now-ubiquitous attempts to deprive us of our natural rights to assemble, access the Internet (or tax it – a vote TODAY! Call D.C.!), speak freely, worship (or choose not to), keep the constabulary from our homes without benefit of warrant, eat unhealthy food and of course, deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms, there seems to be more and more of a movement on the part of the Fourth Estate to POLL US with these concerns:

• Should we ban (insert offensive machine here)?
• Should we prohibit (insert offensive content) from the Internet?
• Should the government monitor all our Internet accesses and emails?
• Should free enterprise and marketplace be disallowed with regard to commerce in firearms?

I’m sick of seeing such polls.  I don’t care if the entire population of New York votes en masse to prohibit me from having a soft drink larger than 16 oz., or a firearm magazine greater then 7 round capacity, or a poll in USA Today (the primary coloring book of newspapers) supports such a vote.

My rights are my individual rights.  Period.  Guaranteed.  And no attempt at ‘democracy’ (tyranny of the majority) will convince me otherwise.

Take your polls elsewhere, about other things.  Like a preference for apple or cherry pie.

Not exactly a glimmer…

…but all is not, yet, lost…

Judge rules secret FBI letters unconstitutional

 SAN FRANCISCO — They’re called national security letters and the FBI issues thousands of them a year to banks, phone companies and other businesses demanding customer information. They’re sent without judicial review and recipients are barred from disclosing them.

On Friday, a federal judge in San Francisco declared the letters unconstitutional, saying the secretive demands for customer data violate the First Amendment.

The government has failed to show that the letters and the blanket non-disclosure policy “serve the compelling need of national security,” and the gag order creates “too large a danger that speech is being unnecessarily restricted,” U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote.

She ordered the FBI to stop issuing the letters, but put that order on hold for 90 days so the U.S. Department of Justice can pursue an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The DOJ said it is reviewing the decision.

FBI counter-terrorism agents began issuing the letters after Congress passed the USA Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

More at the above link.  Apparently, not everyone in government supports the push toward totalitarianism.

Funny how the congress keeps passing more legislation ‘to protect us’, and instead constrains us.

My Lott in life is to Drone on…

…about our continuing loss erosion outright THEFT of our civil liberties!

Hanging on the coat tails of such luminaries as John Lott, who reports to us through c|net the following:

DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones

Homeland Security’s specifications say drones must be able to detect whether a civilian is armed. Also specified: “signals interception” and “direction finding” for electronic surveillance.

And just for fun, I also noticed a disturbance in the Force on the Internet, today.  It seems a significant number of high-ranking military officers are taking their retirement, because they’ve been asked by the current administration if they’d follow orders to disarm American citizens!  And they’d rather break ranks than to violate their Constitutionally-supportive oath.

No wonder the gun stores are lacking stock in ammunition and popular firearms.  They’re flying off the shelves.

Scary stuff.  1984 was 29 years ago, and things were bad THEN.  I fear for the future, and I don’t make that statement easily.

h/t Declan McCullagh