PDF Dont Bring Ayn Rand to a Gunfight - Guns, Freedoms, Defense, and the State (A Libertarian Dream!)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Dont Bring Ayn Rand to a Gunfight - Guns, Freedoms, Defense, and the State (A Libertarian Dream!) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Dont Bring Ayn Rand to a Gunfight - Guns, Freedoms, Defense, and the State (A Libertarian Dream!) book. Happy reading Dont Bring Ayn Rand to a Gunfight - Guns, Freedoms, Defense, and the State (A Libertarian Dream!) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Dont Bring Ayn Rand to a Gunfight - Guns, Freedoms, Defense, and the State (A Libertarian Dream!) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Dont Bring Ayn Rand to a Gunfight - Guns, Freedoms, Defense, and the State (A Libertarian Dream!) Pocket Guide.
Are you sure?
  1. Recent Comments
  2. Past News Conferences
  3. An opinion on gun control | Monster Hunter Nation
  4. Greg Perry

Freedom is the ability to say, "I won't! I'm here to help you. Big Brother is here — and he's retarded! Buy a gun. You'll need it. Yesterday it was David Koresh. Tomorrow it could be you. Fear of government is the second step to wisdom. Support your local heretic. To permit is to control. Don't drink to excess. You might shoot at tax collectors and miss. Heinlein Government: get out of my bed and my pocketbook. I will not be pushed, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered.

My life is my own. Don't be a terrorist Terrorism is properly defined as organized, systematic violence carried out against non- government targets for the purpose of producing fear and submission. Despite all the blather in the media and on the floor of Congress, an act has to have all those elements to be true terrorism. Therefore, people who attack only government employees and property aren't terrorists. They're guerrilla fighters. Whether they are fighting in a good cause or not is up to history — and each of us individuals — to judge.

But terrorists they ain't. Chapter One and Only 19 When even one American — who has done nothing wrong — is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril. Oppose property seizure with all your might I said earlier I thought gun rights and privacy were the two things we needed to fight hardest to preserve.

But there's one other battle — one we're presently losing big time — that could be the make-or-break issue between tyranny and freedom in America. It's civil forfeiture. First, some background: In the early days of the War on the Bill of Rights. Congress passed a law allowing cops to confiscate the assets of suspected drug dealers without criminal charges or criminal trials. The rationale given to the public was that cops needed to seize their fancy boats, cars, planes and money to keep drug dealers from fleeing the country.

Thus began a nationwide program of taking money and other possessions from people without due process. Wealthy drug dealers were hardly the people targeted. Then and now, the typical seizure victim is a relatively poor black or Hispanic person who can't afford to go through the expensive civil process to "prove" him or herself "innocent" of a crime he or she wasn't even charged with. It gets worse. In federal seizure cases, at least, the forfeiture victim has to post a bond of several thousand dollars merely to gain the right to contest the case in court.

Until he or she does, no judge will even look at the case to determine whether the seizure is legal. That's kind of tough to do when they've taken everything you own. Once in court, the victim, now impoverished, isn't usually even entitled to a Things To Do 'Til The Revolution 20 court-appointed attorney because it's a civil, not criminal, case. Justice Department issued a memo to law enforcement agencies across the country urging them to use civil forfeiture as a means of raising money. At that point, the process escalated into a kind of government-sanctioned protection racket.

What the Mafia can't do, cops are encouraged to do and they are doing it with a literal vengeance. Occasionally in the early 90s, federal courts issued very limited, wishy washy edicts against forfeiture. In one case, they said cops couldn't take real estate without a hearing because bad guys couldn't use real estate as a means of escape from justice.

In another, they said cops couldn't confiscate property then bring criminal charges in the same case because that would be double jeopardy — the forbidden act of punishing the same person twice for the same crime. However, cops at federal, state and local levels never stopped. Civil forfeitures went dramatically up, not down. Civil forfeiture is based on a medieval concept that inanimate objects — like houses and cars — can be guilty of wrongdoing.

In other words, the cops claim they aren't punishing you if they take your car or your house; they're punishing the thing. Never mind that they know it's a lie. Today cases with crazy names like United States v. Real Property Located at Incline Village are common. Chapter One and Only 21 From bad to worse — punishing the innocent Then in early , the Supreme Court issued the Bennis decision and things got even worse: A lot worse. Tina Bennis was a poor housewife from Michigan. A few weeks later, local police found her husband having sex with a prostitute in the van.

They confiscated the van and sold it, keeping all the proceeds. But in doing so, they punished not only the "guilty" husband if you accept that the free-market transaction of trading money for sex is a crime , but his wife, who didn't even know what her husband was doing. Stefan Herpel, an Ann Arbor lawyer concerned about civil forfeiture, took Mrs. Bennis' case and fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, giving up most of his other legal practice to fight what he perceived as the most inexcusable and dangerous injustice threatening the country today.

It looked like the perfect case for defending the rights of an innocent person denied due process. But the Supreme Court said no. They said cops can take any piece of property that's ever been connected to any sort of crime, even if the owner had nothing to do with it, even if the owner didn't even know about it. One justice said he didn't particularly like the idea, but that they couldn't find anything in the Constitution to prevent it.

The members of the Supreme Court are obviously unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law Odd, isn't it, that the alleged arbiters of constitutionality couldn't find, in months of deliberation, what you or I could show them in five minutes?

Be that as it may, the situation is now this: If a friend borrows your car and is found with an open bottle of beer in it, your car may be history. If your cousin sells a stolen boom box from your back porch, your house is history. If your neighbor plants marijuana on an isolated corner of your farm, kiss your farm and your livelihood good- bye. That nation is desirable in which wealth and friends can really be enjoyed, not the one where wealth can easily be taken away, and where friends in time of necessity abandon you It means that if a petty thief employed by General Motors hides stolen goods on company property, the law can seize and sell the whole manufacturing plant.

Or as one editorial cartoonist graphically suggested if a janitor is caught smoking a joint in a bathroom of the Supreme Court building, the Supreme Court building could be confiscated and sold. It isn't going to happen quite that way, of course. The government class will be exempted by its privileged status and the government grafters will leave most of the wealthy Chapter One and Only 23 and powerful alone — because they have the resources to fight back.

No, it's you and I who are in danger here, and not only if our friends or relatives commit crimes without our know- ledge. Simply if some government goon decides to target us. Talk about things going from bad to worse! As if the Bennis decision weren't outrageous enough, on June 24, , the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, declared, "We hold that these You haven't been punished.

You've just, out of the goodness of your heart, made a "contribution" to your friendly U. The court passed judgment on two separate forfeiture cases June 24; both involved seizure of assets from drug users. One decision was unanimous; the other was 8 to 1. Freedom doesn't have any friends on the U. Supreme Court. So take care of your own backside, people, because the Injustice System isn't going to do it for you. If you have a nice car, boat or house whose sale could enrich the coffers of some cop agency, look out.

If you have a valuable collection of anything, beware. If you express unpopular political opinions — well, you're probably toast. All it takes is for one sly cop, offended by your vocal opposition to drug laws for instance to plant one joint on your property and your house and land are gone. All it takes is for one officious "social welfare" bureaucrat to allege child abuse, true or false, and you can lose every- thing. All it takes is for cops to learn you've downloaded a "dirty picture" from an Internet site, and you can wave bye bye tc your computer — and maybe to everything else you own.

It doesn't even have to be a real crime. In several states, they're already doing it for misdemeanors. In some southern jurisdictions, cops routinely stop drivers who fit a made-up "drug dealer" profile, search them and their cars, confiscate every dime the person is carrying, then turn them loose — no charges, no evidence of any crime. In California, they're talking about confiscating cars from those terrible threats to society — car owners who fail to renew their license tags! This is serious shit, people. Now that the government has proved forfeiture can be used to intimidate minorities without the media or the general public getting huffy, watch for forfeiture to be used as a tactic to silence all forms of opposition.

That's exactly why we've got to oppose this loud and clear. Because this is the dividing line between tyranny and the America of our ideals. Since this book was originally written, more people have protested and some forfeiture laws have been "softened" to put more burden of proof on the government. But do not believe this profitable outrage has gone away. It works with lawyers, publishes informa- Chapter One and Only 25 ion about the status of various seizure cases, and maintains an Internet Web site with detailed information on some particularly outrageous cases.

Though he's not our friend in a lot of other ways, Hyde is one of the few members of Congress actively defending our rights to due process. While the legislation he's introduced is incredibly wimpy, his background information on the issue is good. These books are available from FEAR. By the way, the absurd case names I mentioned above are real; information on these and others and can be found on FEAR's Web site.

For a guerrilla tactic Well, let's call this one a fantasy or a hypothetical situation, since actually doing it would be illegal Bury some drugs in the garden of a local judge or city council member who thinks forfeiture is a great old thing. Then call an anonymous tip line and say you saw them doing it one moonlit night as you were passing by.

Let them experience first hand just how "wonderful" forfeiture is. Or you could scatter some "drug paraphernalia" and marijuana seeds under the seat of the mayor's teenage son's car. Then call that hot line. Put the right chemicals into an unlocked shed on the back of a local drug enforcer's lot and — voila — you have a meth Things To Do 'Til The Revolution 26 lab to report.

Loompanics even has books to help you choose the appropriate chemicals. Of course, it might be hard to get a politically connected person arrested, and even if he or she does get busted, the cops aren't as likely to steal a politician's home or car as yours, but keep trying. It's even possible that, if the particular politician has political enemies, they'd love to engineer an arrest and property seizure.

Even if the tactic doesn't result in seizure of a bigshot politician's property, you might have some fun watching Mr. Holier-Than-Thou squirm and deny. If forfeiture results, of course, it's perfect justice. After all, under the Bennis decision, the Supreme Court says it doesn't matter who actually commits the crime. So what if it's really your crime committed on the mayor's property?

The highest court in the land, our August Masters in Washington, say the mayor's house is guilty — and deserves what it gets! Somethin 's happening here, and you don 't know what it is — do you, Mr. Include a pithy quote about freedom. Something from the founding fathers would be nice, or maybe one of the other quotes scattered around this book.

Celebrate April 19 On April 19, , the farmers and villagers of Lexington and Concord stood against the might of the British army and set us on the road to independence. Chapter One and Only 27 On April 19, , small bands of desperate Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, armed with a few dozen firearms and little experience in their use, decided to fight rather than submit to the Nazis' "final solution.

On April 19, , the United States government sent tanks against members of an unapproved religion. More than 80 people died from fire or poisonous gas, including two dozen children, for the alleged crime of failing to pay federal taxes on some firearms. On April 19, , someone bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Was it was an angry ex- soldier and his friends, as the government claims? Or was it the government itself in a successful attempt to pass "counterterrorism" legislation? Whichever view you adopt, the bombing was a sign of the growing distrust between free Americans and the government caste. Unfortunately, that state's government has long forgotten the issues and significance of the thing it pretends to celebrate.

But you need not. April 19 is a day worth noting for many reasons. And yet, who isn't? Everywhere you prod it, even with the shortest stick, the established system isn't simply corrupt, it's unequivocally putrescent. The law is created by demonstrable criminals, enforced by demonstrable criminals, interpreted by demonstrable criminals, all for demonstrably criminal purposes. Of course I'm above the law. And so are you. Neil Smith, Pallas Cultivate some Mormon friends There is a really bad joke that goes like this: "Do you know what's in the most basic disaster survival kit?

Don't go shooting them. They'll shoot back and you'll deserve it. You may want to learn from them before disaster strikes. Many Mormons, as required by church doctrine, live a life of preparedness, canning, drying and storing food, laying in emergency heat, light and cooking sources, and otherwise planning to prevail over catastrophes. Stockpiling a years' supply of food or more is part of their doctrine and their daily lives.

Mormons run a number of fine survival stores in Utah and other western states. Some are listed in Some places to find all of the above, No. Your local ward or stake may also have a buying club that would enable you to purchase bulk goods at a better rate than you could get elsewhere. They Chapter One and Only 29 may not let a "gentile" join.

If so, perhaps a Mormon friend could make purchases for you. Whether you agree with their teachings or not, the Saints have other valuable lessons to teach us all. They are one of the most cohesive social groups in the world. Their church- run welfare system — based on the dignity of work, voluntary contributions and mutual aid — is more effective and more truly humane than any government system ever devised. Your car insurer requests it. So does your health insurance company.

Some phone companies do. Go to school? They'll ask for your number. Open a checking account, give a number. Sign up for a paging service; they want the number. Drivers license? Not without a number. Apply for credit? Give a number, please. Less than a month ago, I even had to fight to keep a county library from demanding my number before giving me a flipping library cardl They said they needed it for their collection agency in case I stole a book! Although these people all act as if they're entitled to your number, in most cases, they aren't. You have the right to keep your number from them — and you should.

In case you're one of the millions who spouts your number without thinking every time somebody pushes your Social Security button, here's the reason: Privacy. The more that number is used to identify you, the more the feds, the state, or any talented computer hacker can find out about you. Where you live. What you own. What medicines you take. How much you pay in taxes or whether you pay. They can access your education records, employment records, mental health treatment records, criminal history — you name it. Your whereabouts can easily be tracked by finding out where you work, where your house is, where you make credit card purchases and so on.

Everyone who asks for your Social Security number will assure you that their particular databases are absolutely con- fidential and secure. The person telling you that may even believe it. But if you believe it, I have some nice swamp land in Florida to sell you. When the Roosevelt administration was trying to sell its Social Security Ponzi pyramid scheme to the public in the s, they assured everyone that absolutely, positively, the Social Security number would never be used for any purpose but record-keeping within the Social Security system itself.

They dropped that in embarrassment after the number had long been allowed to become, by default, a national and all- purpose ID number. It's so convenient for "them. It doesn't have to be that way. There are steps you can take. Every one of these steps carries some risk — from the risk of having people think you're a jerk to the risk of federal Chapter One and Only 31 persecution. But, again, if we want to regain our independence, risk is something we must accept. Which risks — and what level of risk — only you can determine for yourself.

Things to do about it 1. You can, if you truly detest being part of this system, rescind your Social Security number and do without one. You might prefer to change it to "Attn: Withdrawals. Taking this course, however, targets you as "one 'a them right-wing, hate-mongering, freemen, constitutionalist nut- cases" and will land you immediately in another database — that of suspected terrorists and revolutionaries.

And guess what? That database will contain your Social Security number, too. Attempts to withdraw from the system may be hazardous to your health. Sovereign citizen groups can sell you "substitute W8 and W9 forms" along with instructions on filling them out; these are forms filed by people claiming not to be U.

Recent Comments

See Consider sovereign citizenship, No. It's exhausting, but some people seem to thrive on the confrontation. You can tear up your card and refuse to be identified that way ever again, but trying to live in the modern world after doing so is darned near impossible. You can lie about your number. It's a crime to do so on a government form, though almost no one is ever punished for it.

But it's frightening how easily lenders, schools and government agencies will detect a false number and demand a real one. If you do make up a number, you must be careful to choose a "realistic" one. Social Security numbers have a pattern. For instance, the first three numbers are a code representing the state where your card was issued. The second two are a code denoting both date and place of issue.

If you pick a number that says you're 36 years old when you're actually 21, someone might notice. The book Understanding U. Identity Documents by John Q. Newman, Loompanics Unlimited, gives a chart showing the actual codes used. If you want to erase your past and start over, you can get "genuine" new ID documents, including a Social Security number, from the government using one of the methods detailed in books like Understanding U.

Identity Documents. But this is risky; the feds might have caught on to last year's surefire method of obtaining false documents, and clampdowns allegedly aimed at illegal immigrants are causing tighter controls on all of us every day. Also, if you freely give your new Social Security number to all those private and public bureaucrats, you simply begin creating a Chapter One and Only 33 new data trail for yourself. If your intent is to escape the past, false documents could help. If, on the other hand, your intent is to have privacy in the present, a new Social Security number alone won't do it.

Finally, you can keep that number but learn when to stand on your legal rights and refuse to reveal it. Believe it or not, Congress once actually passed a law to protect your rights, rather than violate them. On the next two pages is some information about it from a group called the Heritage Caucus. The following is not copyrighted, and the caucus encourages you to make copies and give them to anyone who unlawfully requests your number.

I have edited their text to remove redundancies and correct grammatical glitches; all claims, quotes and case citations are theirs. As with everything else in this book and the world , you should verify the accuracy of this information for yourself. However, I've found that merely pulling a copy out of my wallet and waving it in front of a bureaucrat's face usually does the trick, with no further discussion or proof necessary. It states quite simply that, "It shall be unlawful. Local , D. Wilson, D.

In the strongly worded Guideline and Regulations for Maintenance of Privacy and Protection of Records on Individuals it is stated: " a It shall be unlawful He or she will witness the incident and testify if necessary to the facts. These are: Chapter One and Only 35 1. For tax purposes 2. To receive public assistance 3. To obtain and use a driver's license 4. To register a motor vehicle In any situation not listed above, simply present this document to any person who seems to need one.

Invite him or her to make a copy. Point out the SI, penalty that is guaranteed upon judgment that your rights were violated under this act. In Doyle v. Wilson, the court states: "Assuming that the plaintiffs refusal to disclose his Social Security number was a clearly established right, where defendants could not as reasonable persons have been aware of the right and could not have recognized that any effort to compel disclosure of number or to deny plaintiff his refund violated federal law, damages against defendant were barred.

It is quite clear that the individuals must be able to show that they could not have been aware of the Privacy Act and could not have possibly realized that their actions were in violation of federal law in order to escape the SI, penalty. Courtesy of the Heritage Caucus Visualize Vermont carry If the government issued permits for free speech, would you get in line for one?

If your local sheriff was willing to grant you permission to practice your religion — after you passed certain tests, gave your fingerprints and let yourself be photographed, would you apply? If your state allowed you to hold a political meeting, but only if you obtained the proper license and consented to having your name entered in a government database, would you lay your money down? The proper answer is, "We don't need no stinking permits!

  1. Rally Fever?
  2. Don't Bring Ayn Rand to a Gunfight - Guns, Freedoms, Defense, and the State (A Libertarian Dream!)?
  3. Episode 184 - Sacrificial group morals versus free market mutual gains and fairness.
  4. What Would a Nationwide Gun Confiscation Look Like? - The Shooter's Log.

If you ask the government for a permit, you are admitting you don't have a right. If you ask the government for a permit, you are also committing a damn, dumb, dangerous deed. You are helping state governments build what the federal government wants and is forbidden to build for itself — a nationwide registry of gun owners.

Worse — it's a registry of those people most likely to use guns to defend themselves, their families and their communities against villains of all varieties. These are exactly the people the feds will most want to know about if they ever dare to take the final steps into complete dictatorship. Haven't you wondered why prominent, federal, anti-gun officials spend very little time fighting and bemoaning the movement for states to issue concealed carry permits?

Because it benefits them! Don't — ever — get a concealed carry permit. If you have the courage, bear your gun as you wish. It is your right. Think of it as an act of civil disobedience. In many western states, concealed carry without a permit is merely a misdemeanor, and one most law enforcement agencies won't even enforce. In other states, like New York, it's a felony and they'll treat you like a murderer for doing it. If you don't want to break the law, then work to change it. Only one state recognizes the rights of gun owners. Little Vermont has no restrictions on the right to carry firearms, openly or concealed.

Gun-rights activists know the system as "Vermont carry. A few others, like Florida, which have seen the benefits of "allowing" concealed carry, might also Chapter One and Only 37 eventually be candidates for the more just and radical position. No slave shall keep any arms whatever, nor pass, unless with written orders from his master or employer, or in his company, with arms from one place to another.

Arms in possession of a slave contrary to this prohibition shall be forfeited to him who will seize them. Don't talk to strangers The phone rings. The next thing you know, after a few innocuous-seeming questions about your name, age and occupation, you're blurting out your opinions on drug legal- ization, gun control, censorship, abortion, the United Nations, and the legitimate extent of federal police power.

Who are these people, anyway? Why are they doing this? Why are you doing this? What's going to happen to this information? You don't know and you have no way of finding out. This could be anybody calling you. For any purpose. Be paranoid; it's good for you.

Don't tell anybody anything, even if they give a convincing story about who they are and how they'll use the information. Even if you happen to be talking to a legitimate pollster a rare breed these days, when even old-line organizations like Harris and Gallup are more bent on molding opinion than Things to Do 'til The Revolution 38 reporting it , why should you let your ideas, your tooth brushing habits, your car buying patterns or anything else be known to every geek in the universe? What do you gain by it, beyond the momentary satisfaction of having some minimum- wage telephone slave pretend to care?

Don't talk to people you know, either Something like it goes double when you're trying to do business with your banker, your school registrar, the bureaucrat at the drivers license department, your insurance agent, etc. They give you these forms with the most amazing array of questions. Or they sit at a terminal and grill you through screen after screen.

They act as if God himself granted them permission to know everything about your life. Most of us sit there, wanting to open that bank account, attend that school, buy that stereo, get that document, win that contract, etc. They want more information than ever, now that it's so easy to enter it in a database.


When we attempt to halt the information hemorrhage, the human between us and the computer protests, "But the system won't let me to leave that field blank! Then the system's got a problem. Tell the human to enter a bunch of zeros or exes, or to list your occupation as "Declined to state. Give them only what you think they need to know. Less if you can manage it. Chapter One and Only 39 Mass democracy, mass morality and the mass media thrive independently of the individual, who joins them at a cost of at least a partial perversion of his instinct and insights.

He pays for his social ease with what used to be called his soul, his discriminations, his uniqueness, his psychic energy, his self. DO write to your congresscritter Okay, okay! I said at the top of this book you shouldn't do it, but here's one way to do it, have some fun, possibly get some media attention, and remind your alleged representative that you know what villainy it and its cohorts are per- petrating.

Ask the nice, basic, simple, incredibly polite, unanswerable questions. The monkey-wrench questions. Write them in a tone of bland sincerity, the voice of a trusting citizen who looks to wise leaders for all answers. Then send copies of your letters and their replies if any to the local newspaper. Here are some samples: "Dear Congressman Mussolini: I guess I am not very sophisticated about government. I've read and read, but I just can't find the place in the Constitution where it says police can take somebody's property and sell it without a court finding anybody guilty of a crime.

Would you please tell me what section that's in? I'm sure it must be there, or the police would never do that. Thank you sincerely for your help. I'm sure you have very good reasons. Would you please send me copies of all the Things to Do 'til The Revolution 40 scientific studies showing that marijuana is more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol? Thank you in advance. Isn't that strange? Do you have any idea why? Yours truly. I'm confused, but I'm sure you have an easy way of telling. After all, you congresspeople made the laws, and you wouldn't have made laws we citizens couldn't understand or obey.

Please also send me a list of exactly what makes some guns okay and some illegal, so I'll be able to tell for myself in the future. Your help is appreciated. Pass them around at parties. Start a whole collection. Publish it. Get your friends to write monkey-wrench letters of their own, and compile the hysterical non-answers you receive. Try the same technique on bureaucrats, heads of political parties, the president, the ambassador to the U. Visualize no government Government only exists because people think it does. If enough of us ignore government — don't obey its laws, don't patronize its services, don't vote for its members, don't fill out its forms.

Government is only a concept. Concepts change. It isn't hard to do Fly the Gadsden flag You've seen it — the bright yellow flag with its coiled rattlesnake and the words, "Don't Tread On Me. It says it all, really: Leave me alone and we can share the same world in peace. Mess with me and I'll strike back — a message every government on earth should get from the best of its citizens — and a message lots of ordinary busybodies should get, too.

Fly the Gadsden flag as a symbol of your attitude — and a reminder that you haven't forgotten the message of the revolution, even if today's King Georges have. Fifth Street Kansas City, Missouri voice: fax: e-mail: gwald allnationsflags. Among them are star Old Glories and other flags of the Revolutionary Era. All Nations also carries U. Experienced pyro-protesters recommend the cotton version; burning nylon stinks.

Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery. Dare to keep DARE out of your local schools They're everywhere — those dramatic black-with-red cop cars with the dashing "D. E" acronym on their sides. In the decade and more that police have been taking the DARE program to the schools, not one shred of evidence has turned up to show that DARE has discouraged one child from experimenting with drugs.

In fact, the psychologist who developed DARE's methods has since disavowed them as completely ineffective. We are lucky that, so far, the efforts have mostly been clumsy. That will change. Your response will be the same relentless pursuit of unilateral disarmament of the law abiding. They always have. Does it mean we should allow the import and forcible placement of one million mostly hostile people from the Islamic world every year rather than half that. Support network, or support and networks come in many shapes and sizes. No known support — no overt network involvement.

I would say most of the domestic stuff has been the same. However, there are definitely groups of likeminded people inspiring each other, however it is they do that. Keep people safe from terrorist attacks, whether foreign or domestic. Work to eliminate terrorists, whether foreign or domestic. Sam Harris has put forth controversial opinions on Islam — you may know them.

I agree with his sentiment. I think the same can be said for domestic groups, in smaller numbers. The point is, take the circle out far enough and there may be a level of complicity in flying a Confederate flag. This is funny and of course a bit sick. This is how you characterize the abbreviated list of people I posted? Beat it Scooter. No one has the time nor inclination to listen to your moronic pitter patter. Saul Alinsky did more in his lifetime to make this a better country than you could do in a thousand lifetimes. Bill Ayers and his sweet little honey Bernadine?

Mr Ayers and your guy? Was he assembling something for a 4th of July display? What would Mr Ayers, the D lady and their dear departed close companion think of celebrating that day? Me either. So, what were your guys friends Mr Ayers and Bernadine up to. All in the name of the Holy Grail…. I do believe Mr Ayers and charming Bernadine live the relatively affluent, soft and pampered lives of upscale academics.

While protected by our laws they still call for our destruction. Neither one of them or their associates has or ever would put there soft bodies at risk for the Republic. They make the perfect examples of what I think you want in the world and I must say, regrettably, there has been much progress in that regard. Ayers was against the Vietnam War — a pretty noble idea — then and now.

He blew up buildings — parts of buildings really. Never targeted people. He said he was a communist. Others too. So what? As for calling for our destruction? I think not. In any case when you blow up buildings with large explosive charges the chance of killing somebody is considerable and somewhere along the way I believe they did, plus of course there own amateur demo guy who whacked himself with his own bomb. What a pity. Lots of folks eventually came to see Vietnam as a waste of American blood and treasurer but still saw Ayers and company for what they were.

Given your intense discomfort with my gun safe this reeks of irony…really. Outside some good bomb making skills in the countries in the ME where there is fighting, the bomb making outside that area has, fortunately to this point, not been that good. In the Beslan school incident the hostage takers were ok at making them but not very good and making them explode when they wanted.

Several relatively powerful bombs went off prematurely with one blowing several young children through the windows. The bewildered children went back inside. Three days, dead. Do you know what det cord is? Isis executes men by looping multiple coils of det cord around prisoners necks ten to fifteen at a time. Relatively inexpensive too. They make very high quality videos of this. The outer circle, a substantial minority, does nothing because they are afraid of the various inner circles, all of them. So yes, I would put the latter in the category of the jihadis.

The only difference is that the domestic guys are sick and the jihadis are sick and depraved. The circles of complicity which Sam Harris speaks are important. I think it can be applied to many different situations. For instance, in the case of the Vietnam War — there were people who took direct and violent action illegal and then there were people who materially supported those actions also illegal then there were people who sympathized but would never do such things and vocally and physically opposed the war legal and then there were people who sympathized but did nothing legal.

The numbers go from small to large. Quite problematic. The Beslan school incident was horrible to be sure. What is the difference with that and the OKC bombing? Were those people any less bewildered or dead? What kind of guy was Timothy McVeigh? A sick guy?

Sick and depraved? A sympathetic hero? A patriot? McVeigh is a good one to study, because he had all the right qualifiers of which I spoke earlier. And between him and his conspirators, there existed a pretty large circle of sympathizers of all types. The Mumbai attack killed wounded over Just these two incidents account for nearly 2, in killed and wounded. There are countless others of just slightly less magnitude.

The huge bomb in Indonesia that killed around for instance. They never attempted to protect him in any way and they never expressed anything other than revulsion. They were not coerced. No matter how hard you to try to equate Eric Rudolph with radical Islam no rational person will see it that way because the threat is not even remotely the same. In another touch of irony, by far the greatest threat of violent death to Muslims comes from other Muslims. Nothing and nobody is even close. Most of the men whose heads have been separated from their bodies by ISIS with det cord have been other Muslims of some sort with a few Coptic Christians tossed in for good measure.

I certainly hope so. Or SS. Or Medicare. Or National Parks and the list goes on. There are many more of both types of terrorists. Another one killed a cop yesterday. Occasionally I would be wrong and ultimately I would be wealthy. Will you bet this way with me? Repeatedly so I can have a really nice custom bolt gun suitable for shooting at 1, and beyond bought for me by Mr. I know nobody needs to shoot at those long distances but just humor me here.

Police officers are killed, overwhelmingly, by garden variety common criminals. If you really believe that it makes it even worse. A felon stopped for nothing more than a minor traffic citation just starts shooting. There may be some exceptions but every one in which I know the details involved a person that was prohibited from legally owning firearms. These criminals rarely have any discernible political ideology and they rarely seek to serve anyone other than themselves. Southern Poverty Law Center has sold you a bill of goods that you bought because it was what you wanted to hear.

Now what? Your contention that Beslan and Mumbai are no different and no worse than OKC speaks to your own very strong prejudices and preconceptions. The two lasted more than a week and involved around 2, casualties. In both cases large quantities of illegal weapons and munitions were provided by the support network and in both cases the jihadis were communicating with their handlers during the fighting. In OKC less than five murderous creatures were involved, they fled immediately for their own safety and their families, within hours of their apprehension, were cooperating in their prosecution.

It is interesting that McVeigh said he was reacting to Waco. The incineration of over 80 people, the vast majority innocent of anything other than being present and several dozen of them children that was the work of a government so heavy handed and inept that real people have difficulty believing how bad it actually was. More than half the ATF casualties on the first day were self inflicted. That is they were shooting each other. Again, if you read an accurate account of what happened you would accuse someone of making it up to make the ATF look bad. Some of the ATF casualties likely resulted from a Uh-1 H flying overhead and firing indiscriminately into the roof of the entire compound with an M Yes Mr.

C they did.

Penn Jillette: Reconciling Atheism with Libertarianism

Nothing at Waco justifies OKC. The point I was making was that in this case, these guns were legal actually had just been ordered to be turned in. And as is often the case, the person possessing them was of the anti-govt type with a history that probably should have precluded him from having the guns in the first place. There should be regulations in place which make situations like this less likely — universal background checks, licenses, periodic renewals, etc.

We all understand that SOME of the jihadis worldwide have much larger numbers, more weapons, and a sophisticated support network. But many of them have been lone wolf types, inspired by philosophy or deed. In the US, the situation is very different. At this point in time, I would say domestic terrorists have better numbers, weapons and organization than do any Muslim groups.

One is not scarier or worse than the other. And then there are the outer circles of sympathetics. In the case of Waco, OKC, and this latest cop killing, there are no doubt plenty of supporters and sympathizers of many kinds, at different levels. What I oppose is the attempt to squeeze more from people by the left until the social landscape looks like they want. Think infinity. The country will die long before that from loose fiscal policy.

SS is okay in theory, the practice is somewhat different. I do think I see some progress. National Parks are fine as long as there is a rational policy and citizens are actually allowed to move about and use them. Fair, of course, means different things to different people, hence why we have things like elections. No disrespect to the snowmobile crowd.

Generally the parks are big enough to allow the use in some specific part and prohibit it in others. As for future acts they too shall fall short of anyone willing to walk into a crowd and blowup himself and all around him. You see, you can always change immigration policies, deport people etc. All Terrorism is NOT created equal. How about basing it on what has and is happening? A bone to pick? One or two? You cannot be taken seriously with comments like that.

There is no doubt a worldwide problem with jihadist Islam. There is also a major problem, in this country, with home grown terrorists. But make no mistake — the affiliation is there. And one killing is no worse than another. When there are sufficient numbers allowed into the U. The one difference between the domestic terrorist and Muslim terrorist the former care about their on well being and concern over being captured……. Sacrificing oneself for Allah is the sole objective of the Muslim jihadist.. What do you mean by previous? Domestic terrorism is ongoing.

I doubt that muslim terrorism will overtake homegrown terrorism anytime soon. But no similar solution exists for the domestic type. Why the need to try to make one type of terrorist worse than the other? Suicides declined but most of the void was filled by other methods. The same can be said for Rx drugs. Better concentration on mental health policies could eliminate much of the abuse. So the bottom line is when everyone else on the planet turns in their arms and every manufacture of guns and munitions is out of business, I will turn mine in. Clubs and knives are used 10 fold in murders than assault rifles.

Gun control is not about guns and crime. Embassy bombers were Muslims The Libyan U. So your list is accurate. There is no doubt that immigration policies need work. But refugees are hardly the only problem when it comes to people with ill intentions. I also have problems with domestic terrorists and groups, of which there have been and are many —. These attacks are no different than the ones perpetrated by the Boston kooks and others. They are all driven by hate, in one form or another.

In a climate such as this — I say less access to weapons is better and I do think the data is out there to back this up. The deal with Iran is a sham that will come to haunt us. With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands.

Between Oct. To what end? According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns rifles and shotguns went up sharply, but only one out of gun homicides in the two years following the National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

What to conclude? The two major countries held up as models for the U. Another inconclusive study. Nor does it account for the net affect of armed citizens deterring criminal assaults. And further, as for what it would look like — well, it would have to be a law passed unlikely , obviously challenged in the courts. No one would be going house to house. Over time, if one were caught with a weapon that should have been turned in, they would face charges. So even if something like this were to occur, I doubt there would be the civil war some of the people posting here seem to crave, at least from their computers.

Tom- thanks, man. CS has repeatedly fabricated BS to keep his hijack going. And he has continued to try to dominate the blog with continual BS. He has continuously mocked everyone who disagreed with anything he stated. He is a waste of our air. He will undoubtedly post a response to this, furthering his own feelings of superiority. It will never change the FACT that he is a selfish, liberal, moron. I truly appreciate your many attempts to set him straight. Truly an excersize in futility which I applaud you for having the stamina to continue as long as you have.

He may have accomplished exactly that which he set out to do by turning anyone away who may have actually had useful input to the question originally posed. Hijacking a blog for a personal political soapbox is a fairly common liberal tactic, and I am fairly well convinced that we fell victim to his mayhem. In this era, most will not be afforded the few seconds necessary retrieve weapons with which to resist, as well trained in the type of entry which would most likely be employed, should such an order were to come down, as our LEOs and military are.

My true belief voiced in my first post here is that the confiscation had already begun, just not on the level most of us are thinking of. One chink at a time, peck,peck,peck. Hopefully, this post will put the blog back on topic. Ignore the Catholic liberal if possible. Now, in just your next TWO posts, you start ranting about how you could hit a pie tin with a zip gun, unemployed college degree holders, food stamps, Crapuccinni Megalula, PTSD, and who knows what else.

And you say I hijack threads? In any event, the conversation bogged down when trying to compare homicide rates — and of course things diverge from there in crazy directions. I am certainly guilty of following off topic threads. Thanks Bill….. Either way they are an unpatriotic lot, wiping there ass with the Constitution as they attempt to rub the law abiding citizens nose in it.

I loathe these people. Dude, I stay on topic as long as others do. Happy to hear about your dog. Amazing animal. Find some of your other stupid friends to spew your unintelligible drivel to. StvnKing- it thrilled my heart to hear of the extra time you have been given with Moose.

Your description of the event raised the sensor hairs on my neck. I know you will not fritter the extra time with him away. I wish I had a female mastiff companion for him to bring offspring into the world with. As to CS- your observations are soooo right on! But it is a liberal trait to hijack any conversation to fulfill their desire to sound intelligent, usually convincing no one but other morons.

And you have let h know how must of us feel about his BS very well. I, want to quit, as it seems his endless dialogue has driven away others who may have visited to actually answer the question originally posed. We spent quite a bit of time posting about the original question. Fortunately, there were a few who were willing to entertain and examine the question in a larger context. A dog with his pedigree, it would be criminal not to continue his lineage, i always intended too but somehow I just never did, I hope to rectify that.

You saddle up and ride it all the way in. Are you aware of how easy it is to hide money on one form and pay a lower tax rate on another? Business calls them one earnings and and one profits. Where ever you say you were educated, you should ask for your money back.

No, our taxes are simply the reality of doing business in our strong, safe and stable environment. Some are regressive and some are progressive. All income is the same. All income is taxed the same. Point is — I thought we agreed that simplifying taxes would be an improvement. My apologies if I was mistaken. Nothing else.

Oh — I may have made you sicker, but you were sick long before we ever corresponded. But at least Abe was trying to save the Republic. Mebbe I forgot to mention that part. That would be the incentive part of Capitalism and competition. After all the early days of Capitalism was absolutely the first time in the history of mankind that the poor had even a chance to survive, much less thrive.

So I certainly fail to see a point in your absurd line of questioning…. Other than the convoluted liberal logic of politics of the common good, a problem which the best liberal minds of Mill, Adam Smith, Gladstone, Locke, Galbraith, just to name a few, each recognized could never be resolved. I was simply asking who, more likely, had the more onerous burden. Every individual has different prospectives on happiness. The Declaration of Independence says you have the right to pursue happiness.

All I know is that people that have a difficult time making ends meet in this country are in real trouble. You know, in previous decades, it was particularly easy to tell who the poor people were. You make me sick.

Past News Conferences

But as someone such as yourself, who understands money, income, cost of living, typical bills in the modern world and so on, I find it fascinating you refuse to answer. Why all the verbal gymnastics? But once again — who do think has a more difficult time- a person paying 5k of 50k or a person paying 10 mill of mill? Is the better question. There are no guarantees in life. I remember vividly being broke and in debt. People come to this country every day to earn their small piece of the pie.

They come here unable to read or speak the language, yet many thrive and some even wind up millionaire….. They were Saudi Wahhabists while Saddam and his cronies were basically just secular Sunnis. He picked Saddam, because Saddam had already had the warning shot in the first Gulf War. Daddy Bush warned him. Junior took him out. The same thing happened after we helped the Afghans send the Russians on their merry way and then we just turned our backs, ignoring an opportunity to Democratize the country, instead allowed Al Quaida to form and fill the vacuum.

We should never turn wars over to the politicians, and we should never have Commander n Chief, with no will trade an eye for an eye…Millions of warped misled loons are plotting,as we speak, to destroy our country and our way of life anyway they can. Some of them are here among us now. Dad did the right thing. Sonny did what Cheney told him to do. Made no sense then, makes no sense now. The Russians were not going to pacify nor were we going to democratize Afghanistan. That is a pipe dream. They can borrow and print what ever they need.

They have proven it year over year with an 18 trillion dollar debt. We need to solve problems with both payroll and income tax on the federal level. In other words, combine the payroll taxes and the income tax. Republicans can not be trusted. A single flax tax- not so good.

Still too big of a difference between 25k per year and K. Funny — but you know in middle east politics that just as well could be chinese. That would be like me aligning with the Duggar family and waging Christian war. Not gonna happen. Working poor may not pay federal income tax, but most of them pay gas taxes, sales taxes, local and state taxes, and payroll taxes. Ha no — just because the events themselves were not linked. Payroll taxes are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid.

Only the poor loons on the left are entitled. You are a solid ignorant dope. They get their SS just like everyone else. Here is an idea for SS — no income caps. This is easily accomplished. There are other tweaks that can be built in and adjusted each 5 years — cost of living increases, fine tuning of benefits in general, eligibility issues, admin costs. Money in, money out — make it revenue neutral.

Your figures are pretty far off — not that it matters. Check it. From the tax foundation. If it were included as is often the case with other organizations , the tax share of the top income groups would be higher. The refundable portion is legally classified as a spending program by the Office of Management and Budget and therefore is not included by the IRS in these figures. When all is said and done, our tax rates are not as progressive as they should be. The Reagan Administration removed the income tax liability of millions of lowerand lower middle class americans, but without the power to repeal their right to vote.

There are almost government funded welfare programs. Tom, taxes are taxes, regardless of where they come from. The fact is, if someone makes 50k per year, their reality if far different from someone who make 5 million, or 5 billion per year. These are regressive taxes. You do know what that means, do you not?

All republicans do is talk about tax cuts, and more tax cuts. When an investment is made, whether to build a railroad or to open a new restaurant, the first money is spent hiring people to do the work. Without that, nothing happens. Money goes out first to pay expenses and then comes back as profits later — if at all. The high rate of failure of new businesses makes painfully clear that there is nothing inevitable about money coming back. In short, the sequence of payments is directly the opposite of what is assumed by ignorant people that would include you.

However the SS and Medicare programs continue to be uncontested as a political matter. In other words, if you want to fairly frame the issue as a political question, it would be: Do you believe it is correct policy to require the poorer demographics to contribute towards retirement benefits and medical care of the more affluent? How do you think most liberals would respond if the question were framed that way. When ALL taxes are considered — poorer people pay very similar rates to the rich, as a percentage of income.

The rich can. Unless by trouble you mean always under attack by Republicans. And re: SS — try this — remove the income cap and then do the math. Turn it around and ask the same about the wealthy? Should the more affluent — the extremely rich — pay contribute? Of course. They have the biggest stake in a large, robust, happy, peaceful, product buying consumer middle class.

Lessons of the Iraq war? Because the results will not be good for the country you invade, or for ours. Obviously aligning oneself with groups deemed less than ideal is a tricky business. It has always been that way. But in general, if a country is relatively stable, there are better ways to try to exert influence than by invasion — especially in the middle east. Sorry slick, but all the gibberish that I read came from your keyboard….. T- I bird hunt as well. Limited opening day of dove season in about 45 min.

None since. Hot here as well. We have a herd on the property numbering around 35 to 40 give or take. Been up and in the stand long enough to go back to sleep before daybreak every day since opening. Have yet to see any movement once the sun starts up. Always do. And I do love venison. Tom- you and I are extremely like-minded.

It is a pleasure conversing with you. I have not seen any recent posts from the 5 day liberal marathoner for a while now. That, too, is refreshing. Now season on deer is open here, and Sunday bow hunting is now allowed. I plan on being. In the stand early, so, much as I would like to continue this tonight, I need to go on to bed.

Tomorrow is not guaranteed for me, but I am certain it will be another day. As I said before, it had been a pleasure. But it also puts more and more Americans in potential legal jeopardy if the government chooses, selectively, to enforce the law. He cites Volokh , Madison's "Report of " and references Three Felonies a Day before pitching That is why it is important, as much as possible, to resist the usurpation of our legislative rights and our personal liberties through the regular legal process, as our ancestors did in the age of the American Revolution.

They acted similarly in the years leading up to the Civil War. Irish Democracy , anyone? I am not down with Reynolds's "Irish Democracy" pitch. I see that it might be the ultimate solution to a loss of liberty but I want very badly to go in the opposite direction. Bastiat warned of too many laws and capricious enforcement. If everything is illegal but nobody is prosecuted, then the policeman or prosecutor has ultimate authority.

My vision is the exact opposite. Almost everything is legal, but Singaporean enforcement on what is not. Irish Democracy is a relief valve, but jk is being the millenarian today? I'm not sure that's a good idea. Elites and most middle class folks will ignore laws like they drive over the speed limit. Or the guy that blows the whistle on Lois Lerner gets audited. If Davis is reelected as a queer-free license provider, then Supreme Court decisions are null and void?

If a pro-slavery Sherriff is elected in Loudon County, the people have spoken? Sorry Leroy, you belong to Bill now. The 14th Amendment is a friend and a foe to liberty. Lord Acton saw it as the dissolution of American Federalism and was right to a point. But the best part is that a local group cannot elect a Kim Davis to take rights away. She may decide whether other work suits her. Well said, jk. For my part I will add this - Ms. Davis I'm sure she would shudder at being called Ms. Not about retaining some bygone power to rule over others. But he hits it out of the park today in an editorial "Farewell to the Era of No Fences.

As I've moved more of my positions toward libertarianism, the most difficult has been embracing an inward looking foreign policy. Yet projecting American power has frequently been a force for good, a force for freedom and, as Professor Lal would point out, a force for prosperity. Stephens's thesis is that without an American guarantee of stability in Europe, the current refugee crisis will produce more fences, less trade, and less freedom of movement of people and capital. The world will be poorer. Is there a way out? Suddenly, there's talk in Europe about using military power to establish safe zones in Syria to contain the exodus of refugees.

Europeans will not easily embrace that option. The alternative is to hasten the return to the era of fences. Openness is a virtue purchased through strength. And the irresistable force of philosophy runs face-first into the immovable object of practical reality. This is where open-borders immigration puts on display the side of itself that is a utopian fallacy: unhindered immigration is a wonderful thing, if everyone in the world is good. But everyone is not, and an arguable percentage of those seeking to cross borders are bad actors and since you've brought up the Parker and Stone reference, let me justify that I don't mean to use "bad actors" in the Ben Affleck sense.

Some segment of those immigrants intend mischief, and in the face of a human wave of hundreds of thousands of souls, there's no sure or convenient way to sort the sheep from the goats. It occurs to me that there is no overarching principle by which we govern ourselves regarding borders and immigration. In a truly free practical society, to what extent does a free country have a right to secure its borders and choose who comes in?

Can we simply state our guiding principle as a nation regarding our place in the world? What I'm saying is, once upon a time, we had a policies that could be condensed into an elevator speech. For instance, Manifest Destiny: a guiding principle that the clear future of the American nation was to govern from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific. Or the Monroe Doctrine: the European powers were to not meddle with the Americas. Whether they were right or wrong, they were clear, and universally understood.

We don't seem to have any such universal guiding principles at present. Different segments might: the Chamber of Commerce Republicans the GOP elite seem to have a simple immigration policy of importing cheap labor, no matter what. The far left seems to have a simple immigration policy of importing reliable voters, no matter what.

As for foreign policy, this Administration's role in Arab Spring, ensuring that the world hugest state sponsor of Islamic terrorism becomes a nuclear power, the immigration crisis both here and in Europe, Russia's power play in Crimea and their growing intrigues in the Baltic States and in Poland, it would appear that our foreign policy is simply wanting to watch the world burn. Some would say that our general foreign policy of the middle of the Twentieth Century was to be the world's policeman.

That's not a policy of which I'm a fan; if for no other reason than the fact that policemen are respected by civilized people on their beat, and the policemen gets paid by the community he polices. Another part of that policy was the belief that we have some great moral obligation to, at our expense, provide for the whole rest of the planet. America wasn't built to be the great check-grabber of the planet; our treasury is not a charity for the rest of the world, and our being altruistic to our own detriment is a bad policy.

We are under no obligation to feed and clothe the rest of the world just because they have less than us. We were poor once too; we worked our way to prosperity. Before I launch into a diatribe on my thoughts of what our guiding principles should be - which is to say, the policies that will be put into effect when you all elect me to the Presidency - let me throw it out there: if I had to call upon you to give me your idea of what should be America's or any free, civilized nation's policies on foreign relations and immigrations, what would you want to see put in place?

I can't answer your direct question at present, but I will say that I believe Barack Obama relishes the mass migration that his withdrawal from the Middle East has provoked. And, I am heartened to see the suggestion that Europe might take up arms to police its own neighborhood for a change. Not that the latter is what our current President intended, but it is the predictable and natural response by a world without the American "umbrella of civilization" protecting it from chaos and mayhem. I've publicly evolved, if you want to call it that, but feel I have alighted on a consistent and defendable position.

Like the Ron Paul Crowd, I think the military exists solely to protect US interests, and that that is its sole constitutional use. Turmoil in the Mideast and border insecurity in Ukraine and the Balkans threaten US supply chains and the global commerce which the US requires to be prosperous. Have I given the Commander-in-Chief broad license?

Damn straight, Skippy. I rarely have much nice to say about President Theodore Roosevelt, but "speak softly and carry a big stick" was and is a good foreign policy. Reagan's "peace through strength" if you prefer a better messenger. I feel that an America which projects a determination to defend her interests will be infrequently called on to do so. I like where jk is going, I'll just add that I want my president to get our troops out of allied countries and tell them to defend their own borders. This also includes policing the lawless areas in their own backyard. Read: Libya, Syria, Northern Iraq.

My overarching foreign policy is perhaps best explained as "Be the sheepdog. Support and encourage "sheepdogism" around the world. My immigration policy would be, if you have a family with children, you may come in.

An opinion on gun control | Monster Hunter Nation

If not, you may come to our protectorate in Mexico. If you behave there you may come to the US. And all of this is predicated on the dismantling of the welfare state. Welfare should be subsistence level, not a career path. The "welfare cliff" must be eliminated - not by raising benefits on the upside of the cliff, but by lowering them on the downside. And public pensions, if defined benefit plans are permitted at all, must never be allowed to promise more than half of one's salary at retirement. If you don't have your house paid for by the time you retire, you aren't ready to retire.

And no more year pensions. Jim Geraghty shares a couple of pictures in his "Morning Jolt" Newsletter, and suggests that they disprove assumptions about an assumed inexorable march toward freedom. At the very least, one can be "on the wrong side of history" for a long time. Afghanistan, :. I think I can, and must, clarify my assertion without resorting to a dictionary definition of "religion.

This initiation of force was, and is again today for the Islamists, the primary goal of the movement. Advancement of the teachings of the religious tradition, i. The teachings are only a means to another end, and provide a supposed moral sanction. Islam, in its pure form, is not religion qua religion but rather, religion qua piracy. Or at least, this is my understanding of the unvarnished history of Muhammad. Whether Islam is or is not a religion is not my point.

My point is that attributing Islam's code of human conduct to "a superhuman agency or agencies" is intended to confer a moral sanction upon that code and thus, to defend it from critics. This is one of the clearest examples I know of the danger in allowing ancient recollections of a superhuman agency's moral code to guide human moral conduct. Now, we can draw a distinction between the moral code of Islam and every other known religion thusly: The personal observance of any religious tradition other than Islam allows for the peaceful observation of the same or any other religious tradition, or even no religion whatsoever.

Islam however, as practiced by the Islamists, requires the killing of infidels. While all other religions rely upon persuasion to attract adherents, Islamism relies upon murder. And yet the "free" west is loathe to criticize Islam because it is a "religion. A sort of a "moral Trojan horse" if you will. But, but, but, you're comparing other religions to "Islamism. The article I referenced makes the case that, as far as Islam goes, its roots are suspect. Mohammed took what benefitted himself, what aggrandized himself, and what conformed to his wants and desires, laid them down as law, and then wrapped them all up in God-words and said "this isn't just me talkin' - this is the will of Allah!

Today's Islamists are following in this same tradition, and I think we could come up with a hundred or so examples in short order. And I hope you're not soft-pedaling anything you're saying on my behalf, because if you're concerned I might take offense, trust me -- I don't and I won't.

My own faith tradition bases its code of conduct on the pronouncements of "a superhuman agency" and I've never gotten the impression you've belittled me or my ideas on that basis. Of course, I've never threatened to saw someone's head off over it. Sure, someone might bring up the Crusades or how Galileo was treated, but we in the Reformed side of the aisle just roll our eyes and will tell you that even the Catholics have outgrown that. Heck, I think I've held a lower opinion of Mike Huckabee than anyone here -- and that's saying something. You'll laugh, but I deal with the reverse, when I talk with people who don't understand how a real Christian can be so comfortable with Ayn Rand, and then I have to explain that - and just to let you know, it's a fun conversation a hobby I've had since the movie "Dirty Dancing" came out, and the villain of the piece was a caricature devoted to The Fountainhead -- you can look that up.

Back to your point, I'd echo your final paragraph by saying that Islam is, as far as honest religion goes, a system of domination and despotism wrapped up in God-words to give a magic sanction to the personality issues of its founder, and it attracts exactly the same kind of people. That drive is unchanged from its founding all the way to the present. It's a projection of its founder wrapped up in the garments of religion. I took so long writing my pithy answer to JG, that JK was able to slip in undetected at get his own comment in. Sorry about that.

Completely off topic: JK will already know about this, but by way of explanation for JG, I've been doddering along with a novel I'm writing, of which JK has seen the prologue and two chapters, I think I just finished the final edit of chapter 28 today! Each chapter is introduced with a snippet of sorts, an excerpt from some fictional textbook or article. I was wondering if either of you would object to the use of this at the beginning of Chapter Thank you for the able backup brother Keith.

You did detect a reluctance take on ALL religion. But as I've said, as long as they only proseletyze with the pen and the tongue, and not the sword. JK refers to the "peace-loving" average Muslims that Ayaan Hirsi Ali implored to resist the violence, intolerance and subjugation of the Islamists in their midst. But as she herself pointed out and I can't find the blog post that cites it in an ideological battle between a moderate Muslim and a devout one, the moderate is disarmed.

So who are these moderate Muslims more afraid of - me or their fundamentalist brothers? No, I suspect most of the folks you suggest I'm "ignoring" would welcome my criticisms. They just want a deity to believe in, not an excuse to rape, pillage and murder. Since the wee hours of the TEA Party movement I've been pleading for elected representatives to call shenanigans on the Washington "establishment" that fleeces the citizenry while telling us "we're looking out for you. While he angered my fellow liberty and conservative activists by not walking the plank in a futile effort to oust Speaker Boehner Washington D.

Join me by visiting Ken's donate page. Cato's Nine Myths is a good place to start. When the President negotiates a free trade agreement, it says Congress will give him an up-down vote with no amendments. Like the base closure, this helps agreements avoid derailment by hyper-interested parties.

Some basic quotes for the analysis much more basic and example driven than CATO's : the main focus [these days] now is on non-tariff barriers. If we are talking about quotas, fine; free traders will say, get rid of them. Environmental regulation, or the lack thereof, can also be considered a non-tariff barrier.

There is a real risk that a liberal administration may use trade negotiations to commit the United States to domestic policies that Congress would never pass. No one seems to know, or be willing to say. The one that is of utmost concern to me is the provision that threatens to subjugate the US Constitutional Republic to an international governing body:.

Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican in Washington who most looks out for American workers, is adamantly opposed to granting President Obama fast track authority:. The Democrats want us to be like the European Union, where millions of people are ruled by unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, and national interests are subordinated to the welfare of the trans-national class of the rich, fashionable and politically connected. What is so critical about this trade pact that we must risk anything remotely like this?

Yes I support trade. But I am also an American exceptionalist. At least until a new generation of winter soldiers wins back our liberty from an even more sinister crown. Re: The call for a Sanders filibuster, it is neither mean nor unfair. Dems traditionally oppose trade agreements because of union influences. Most of them also oppose TPA because of the boost it promises to multinational corporate cronyism - one of the same objections named by the Republican Congressman Buck. We have a kumbaya moment here, and my blog brother doesn't see it.

Article II. Section 2. TPA undoes this. And with the prohibition of the procedural filibuster, even undoes the 60 vote margin that TPA barely squeaked by with. James Madison, call your office. I lived in Texas once - for a year. The year was , which happened to be the Sesquicentennial of the Republic of Texas.

I didn't really know what that was all about, except that Texas became a state fifty years before Colorado. As a product of Colorado, educationally and culturally, my opinion of the Lone Star State was mediocre at best, being the source of a great influx of temporary and permanent visitation to my home state and preceding "Californicans" as the great scourge upon the Colorado countryside. Yet with age came wisdom and a new appreciation for the fiercely independent western nature of the people of Texas. During my short residence there I did journey to the Alamo, and toured the old fort inside and out.

But that's as far as my curiosity took me at the time. And so I was captivated by the early promos for History's 'Texas Rising' which said, "the Alamo wasn't the end, it was the beginning. It didn't take long for me to recognize that the portrayal of events would be unpopular in some circles. After all, the Mexicans and the Commanches "were there first.

But the charge of white-colonial bias fell flat during last night's segment. You swam across the Sequin River, illegally. You are in my country now. One can almost imagine the NRA and Tea Party patches on Portillas sleeves as he parrots this modern nativist sentiment, in reverse. Still, I am captivated. The story is compelling and the history captivating, whatever liberties may or may not be taken. It is a good background for future learning of the true history which, being from a time and place prior to internet and cloud storage, remains quite murky to this day.

And besides, not all the reviews are bad. The good folks at the Wall Street Journal put this gem on their video page. I linked below as an asymmetric comparison to our current President, who is seriously called "The World's Greatest Orator. And I'm sure your FB friends have many more bad words than do you, but here's what impresses me most about Fox News and you should try to get your lefty friends to at least acknowledge: They don't have a company line on the issue.

The more religious voices on FNC are anti-cartoon, while the libertarians like Gutfeld and Kelly are tenaciously pro-free speech. They report - you decide. Are they curious enough about all sides of every issue to actually listen to more than one side? I can get to about 2. Kirsten Powers, Juan Williams, Sen. Evan Bayh, Ron Fournier are all articulate and thoughtful proponents of the center-left.

Even Rep. Dennis Kucinich gets a shot. What, David Brooks and Joe Scarborough are other viewers' idea of a conservative? I thank all that is righteous for their existence -- nobody would know what a Benghazi was without them. O'Reilly, Hannity, the fixation on celebrity trials and missing white women Wm F Buckley cleaned out the stables a little bit. Sometimes I'd like to see Ailes try it.

I take O'Reilly with a large handful of Irish Catholic salt. His ratings are HUGE. The biggest in cable news. He speaks to the sensibilities of what I think old timers used to call "The Moral Majority. Okay, I can live with that. But mostly because there's now this Megyn Kelly woman who occasionally takes him on, toe to toe. Hannity is much the same but I've seen him evolve toward a more libertarian outlook before my very eyes. If he can do it, so can his viewers. When was the last celebrity trial or missing "moonju wali" story? I can't remember one in quite a while.

Perhaps because the primary competition for viewers has declined? Although still finding a demand:. You enjoy -- frequent -- corrections to my engineering arguments, I'm goingto be mathpedant and point out that there are as many real rational numbers between 2. I must admit to playing on my Facebook friends' field. I lack the self-confidence. Kelly and John Stossel pound on their franchise property; that's good for at least.

And it is was refreshing to see a well-qualified candidate defeat a well-connected but unqualified candidate. Just when you thought the advance of world socialism and the self-serving crony government Leviathan is invincible, something like this comes along and ruins your whole dystopian future worldview.

What's a tinfoil hat wearer to do? Yes, THAT was a satisfying crunch Tribe, has made himself a pariah. Or, looking at it from a different perspective, he's decided to stop being a rube. But a number of legal scholars and current and former members of the Obama administration say that Mr.

Tribe has eroded his credibility by using his platform as a scholar to promote a corporate agenda -- specifically, the mining and burning of coal. If so, it is indisputably as a countermeasure to the president's climate plan for mass economic destruction. Is it possible then that Tribe was retained by Peabody in a strategy to intimidate the high court in favor of "a corporate agenda -- specifically, the mining and burning of coal?

And it's also possible that one branch of government strangling an entire economic sector against the will and without the complicity of other branches really is like "burning the Constitution. UPDATE: Furthermore, strangling an entire economic sector, or a specific corporation, or even an individual, is the very thing that a "Republican form of government" guaranteed by the Constitution [Article IV, Section 4] was intended to prevent - by a single branch or even, indeed, by all three in concert!

It was to be, a minimal state. I guess by the same logic and I'm using that word charitably every climate scientist who takes government money to continue pushing the AGW lie is eroding his credibility by promoting the agenda of his paymasters? I can be a pretty calm, equanimous guy. But the double standard AndyN points out drives me insane. With all due respect, petroleum engineers and scientists would find good paying work irrespective of the effect CO2 has on climate.

They'll eat. Should accurate risk assessment spread, these folks would all be crafting new grant applications to observe snails or leeches. Don't be silly Andy. Everyone knows that nobody "profits" by the spending of tax money by government. It is strictly for the "public good. I don't believe that everyone knows that, JG. I doubt that you could find a better real world example of a disused hole filled to the top with rubbish than most departments at a modern university.

There must be at least a few people who believe there's profit to be made by burying bank notes in those holes. But even though corrupt individuals do personally gain through the misapplication of government revenue, it is called power not profit. They don't seek personal gain so much as the ability to harm others - a power they wield with glee against anyone who they perceive as more powerful or successful than themselves. The term "profit" is dirty to them. They call their gains something else - "Social Justice.

So-called Social Justice is the wage of the bureaucrat. He spends it paying off debts in the ledger of his own self-esteem. I also want to call attention to a timely example of a bureaucrat seeking personal gain through the harming of others - doing so through the tactic of "social justice" - for the advancement of her own dilapidated self-esteem.

Her name is Starlight Glimmer, a. Ivy Starnes. Via Reason, Hat-tip: Insty who says "Video at the link. Kind of pathetic. And by 'kind of pathetic,' I mean really, really pathetic. Sky seems to have chosen wisely, at least to the extent that one agrees with Comrade Pope. Nobody now has cause to throw a punch their way! John Kerry that editor position. I thought that JuSuisCharlie was odd but did not trust myself to correct whomever I stole it from. I swept through this morning and fixed it in a few posts. Given that this statesman is determined to halt the progression of the Islamification for France, allow me to offer up this alternative hashtag:.

I loved the quote. Elsewhere in the piece, Monsieur veers into "we have to be careful not to overreact. Hmmm, "Leninist. The foundations of her punditry may have become suspect to me, but the sweep of her prose has never abated. With her characteristic panache: First, our freedoms are not merely our "traditions," our "ways," "reflective of Enlightenment assumptions" or "very pleasant. Here freedom of expression is called free speech, and it is protected in the first of the Constitution's amendments because it is the most important of our rights. In the way that courage is the first of the virtues because without it none of the others are possible, the First Amendment protects the freedom upon which all others depend.

Without free speech no difference of opinion can be resolved, no progress made in the law or in politics, no truth found and held high, no scandal unearthed and stopped. Now, this hasn't actually happened, but for statements like this to go unchallenged in the public square, along with similar sentiments by Paul Ehrlich, Ted Turner and David Foreman, creates a palpable sense that having a large family is somehow "evil. What's the biggest reason that the doomsayers about the end of the world's resources have always been wrong? The answer is that some members of those growing populations decided not to give up and came up with new ideas, technologies and resources to replace and improve living conditions.

I'm talking about the people who have come up with the technologies to desalinate water, terrace mountainsides, drain swamps and fight disease with vaccinations and sewage treatment.

  • Dunblane Massacre Resource Page.
  • CorreiaTech Book Club.
  • Meet Hotter Gay Guys. The 21 Day Plan To Overcome Your Fear of Rejection, Master the Art of Icebreakers and Snag Guys You Never Thought You Could Get..
  • I'm talking about the people who came up with kerosene to replace whale blubber, petroleum to replace kerosene, natural gas to replace petroleum, and so on and so on. All of the above came courtesy of humans. Reduce their number, and you also reduce your chances for the great innovations that make life better for the humans already on the planet and make life more comfortable and possible for billions more to join us. In short, people are our greatest resource. Economic growth cannot occur without human growth.

    And this is not a problem that can simply be solved by increasing immigration. That's because there's a societal price we're paying in this country for having fewer children later in life. Just about every parent I know will tell you that the moment their first child was born was the moment they truly accepted the responsibility of their own adulthood to the fullest.

    That's a moment I'm willing to delay for teenagers - we generally don't want them becoming parents that young. But when we start seeing more to year-olds who clearly haven't yet grown up yet, I get concerned. This is the most pernicious lie of all radical environmentalism and a common thread through all of it -- if climate science goes away, misanthropy will be tied to whatever comes after it.

    Bill Nye "The Science Guy" has gone as far as issuing a statement that those questioning the accuracy global warming claims shouldn't be referred to as "climate skeptics" but rather "climate deniers. But Bill, I self-identify as a skeptic. If anyone calls me a denier it will do irreparable damage to my self-image. I try to ignore folks' worst features. And Mr. Nye does come on The Independents to get yelled at now and then.

    Blog friend tgreer is a foreign policy dweeb, Chinese speaker, and has many personal connections to young people in the region. Patten turned Hong Kong over to the People's Republic that statement would have been self-evidently true. Now it isn't. Hell, given the growth we have seen in Guangzhou and Shenzhen over the last two decades, it isn't clear that Hong Kong is the Pearl River Delta's most successful city. The cold, hard facts of the matter is that China's economy grows by two Hong Kongs a year.

    The region's economy is not important enough to Beijing for the protestors to use it as a bargaining chip. You will definitely want to read the whole thing. That's the Denver Post Editorial Board speaking. And if that doesn't sound enough like the words of Republicans Cory Gardner and Rand Paul [starting at ], among many others, the Post continues :. What do you expect from a party that would nominate an "anti-civil rights, anti-choice, anti-marriage equality" troglodyte to the Federal Bench?

    The topic was Bitcoin and he gets a sympathetic audience on the show. He can point to great libertarian bona fides. Yet he gets a pass on his reliable votes for dirigisme because he pens the occasional liberty-friendly OpEd. Much has been made of the Russian naval base in the Crimea region of Ukraine, which Russia has a long-term lease upon. Why send troops to protect other troops? So the cover story is "to protect ethnic Russians" an excuse at least as old as the start of World War II.

    Sudetenland, anyone? Consequently, Ukraine has been working toward construction of compressed natural gas CNG terminals in Odessa, Ukraine, for the purpose of free trade consumption on world markets. Perhaps this taste of freedom is something Putin can not stomach. Vescovo outlines a fairly simple strategy to protect Odessa but also explains, with the help of a map, that Odessa, like Crimea and eastern Ukraine, is majority native Russian speaking.

    Start fracking in Europe 2. Expand fracking in the US 3. Promote LNG exports 4. Allow U. OK Keystone XL 6. Expand, not contract, nuclear power in Ukraine 7. Unify Cypress and build a new pipeline. I appreciated the props from jk for recognizing early on that the Duck Dynasty kerfuffle was a seminal moment in American politics. American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord has a very good article that explains why.

    Here is but one insightful passage:. What's happened here with this Phil Robertson episode is more than about Mr. Robertson himself. Much more. First the Canadian Supreme Court legalizes prostitution. Technically the act was already legal, but other acts to facilitate it were prohibited. Now Utah may no longer criminalize unlicensed consensual polygamy. At this rate Americans may soon win the freedom to keep the proceeds of their labors, safe from seizure by the state!

    Yes, Camile Paglia. As stipulated in the Daily Caller article from which this was taken, she is gay and was open about it before it was so fashionable. And "while she is an atheist she respects religion and has been frustrated by the intolerance of gay activists. I see in this the apogee of the growing partisan and cultural divisions in our country that have only accelerated under the feckless leadership of President Obama.

    A new tolerance and cooperation is near its dawn. I am proud of my country. While dagny shares the sentiment tweeted by jk to pourmecoffee, I see this as more than just the latest contretemps in the culture wars. This is a watershed moment, IMO. Paglia's brave disapprobation is exhibit A.

    People like her and the ineffable Tammy Bruce confound inhabitants of both sides - perhaps one of the reasons they are worthy of a certain respect. Okay, I read KA's entire linked piece - not. I read the first couple of screens and the closing paragraph. So I'll conclude that Paglia's disapprobation isn't as brave as first thought because she's made a career of it. So perhaps the dawn is still metaphorical hours away, but I do feel it coming.

    Greg Perry

    Backlash often comes not in moments, but in extended time. The Boston Tea Party was in ; it took three years for our predecessors to accumulate enough stored backlash to declare independence. The Nullification Crisis was in , nearly three full decades before Fort Sumter. Legend has it that the Etruscans cheered for Horatius as he pulled himself out of the Tiber and onto the shore.

    He had earned their respect. I won't claim to agree with everything Camille Paglia says, but I will gladly salute her sustained consistency and integrity. This is still a watershed in the culture wars. It may take a long time yet, but to quote another small-government spokeman: "I'm thinking we'll rise again.