Wednesday, July 27, 2016

United We Fall, Divided We Stand

Secession is often dismissed as a back door way for The US Regime or the stealth, controlling powers-that-be to “divide and conquer.” Secession is seen an unwise action because it weakens a potential united front against an all controlling power.
 
However, the “divide” already exists, independent of the controlling powers. There are those inclined to liberty (or at least more liberty than they presently have) and those inclined to mastery or submission. There are those inclined to live as much of their lives as possible as free individuals, and there are those who prefer to rule over and control those same individuals; or be one of the subjects under such a ruler.

Secession allows a political separation of these differing camps so their contrasting beliefs no longer create constant conflict. If the division in ideology becomes intolerable for all sides, the only rational response for both groups is separation.

Being “conquered” only occurs when any side submits to the others (and suffers accordingly) or a tyrannical dictatorship forcibly unites all camps into one political collective- a forced integration of ideological opposites. Only the dictatorial class and its cronies benefits from such an arrangement. Meanwhile, the opposing sides constantly fight over who is favored by the dictatorial class. This is where the “conquering” occurs. A group is conquered when it deems it necessary to submit to a ruling power for survival while battling other groups for control of that ruling power. Only one group wins.

Separation avoids such an unending, non-productive waste of time and resources.

Secession creates a decentralization of power which weakens, not strengthens the central controlling power. After all, it now has fewer subjects under its command. It has fewer groups willing to submit. The seceding groups no longer have to battle each other for power. Their previous central controlling power is no longer viewed as legitimate or relevant.

United we fall, divided we stand. The opposite view offers nothing but continued enslavement and discord.

Secession, anyone? Or are you terrified of freedom?
 
Resistance is Mandatory
 
No rulers

 
No masters


NO CONSENT    

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

More Nonsense from the US Regime


According to the Texas Tribune, “The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed previous rulings that the 2011 voter ID law — which stipulates the types of photo identification election officials can and cannot accept at the polls — does not comply with the Voting Rights Act.”

Texas appears to be viewed throughout the US Collective as the state with the strictest voter ID law. Many appear to view such a reality as a bad thing, hence the lawsuit. Though I see voting for rulers as senseless and even dangerous, I’ll review this case from the present reality of an existing state collective that allows its subjects to vote for their rulers, with the majority vote winning.

“Under the law, most citizens (some, like people with disabilities, can be exempt) must show one of a handful of types of identification before their ballots can be counted: a state driver's license or ID card, a concealed handgun license, a U.S. passport, a military ID card, or a U.S citizenship certificate with a photo.”

The Texas Attorney General rightfully argues that, “It is imperative that the State government safeguards our elections and ensures the integrity of our democratic process. Preventing voter fraud is essential to accurately reflecting the will of Texas voters during elections.”

So called “experts” claim that more than 600,000 Texans lack such identification. Whether those 600,000 are too apathetic or too lazy to secure just one of those documents is apparently irrelevant. Why is it automatically assumed that some nefarious force is preventing individuals to be responsible for themselves, including showing eligibility to vote?

The ID on the above list easiest to obtain would appear to be a Texas ID card which can be obtained at any driver’s license office for $16 ($6 if you’re over 60) and the usual slave documents showing you are a subject of the US Regime. Quite easily done if you are truly documented as such a subject and a responsible individual who maintains such documents because you value the power to be politically active.

An equally easy alternative not mentioned on the above list is an Election Identity Certificate (EIC) that is free, requiring only proof of US citizenship and being registered to vote, as well as verification of identity.

To the plaintiffs, this list of identification methods is just not long enough. They claim the restrictions are “burdensome for certain voters- particularly minorities.” “Burdensome” only to those too lazy to obtain or maintain such documentation or are not US subjects to begin with. “Minorities?” Please remember the term “minority” is politi-speak for “non-white.” But to be honest and say “non-white” would reveal the user as a racist bigot. Knowing that, why do non-white individuals find it burdensome to do what white individuals seem to have very little trouble doing? Are they less intelligent, lazier or just maybe…not qualified?

Is this just another example of white leftists treating non-white leftists as their dumb, helpless pets?

Elections, whether within private groups or political collectives, must be decided only by members of those particular groups or collectives. If outsiders (unqualified voters) are allowed to interfere, the sovereignty of that group has been nullified and destroyed.

Stockholders of private companies vote for board of directors and on certain issues relevant to the company. Of course, you have to prove you are a stockholder in that company to qualify to vote. Is such a restriction “burdensome” for “minorities?”

Leftists think of political voting as some kind of bodily function necessary for life; that any restriction or necessary interference in this bodily function is an assault on one’s existence. They have the absurd notion that anyone who happens to walk into a polling place should be able to vote just as anyone who has a full bladder should be allowed use of a restroom to relieve themselves.

Some critics view the Texas law as “discriminatory.” I certainly hope it is! The law is designed to “discriminate” against those not qualified to vote!

A US controlled court has once again meddled in affairs exclusively the business of Texas. It has essentially nullified Texas state law created by Texans. It’s priority is not maintaining integrity in the state’s election process using reasonable restrictions. It’s priority, as in all The Regime’s doings, is domination and control. In this case, domination by allowing destruction of the integrity of the state’s election process.

Secession, anyone?


Resistance is Mandatory
 
No rulers


No masters


NO CONSENT   

Friday, July 22, 2016

Quotes of the Week

Enlightened insights taken from the past week’s reading:
 
“The officers risk life and limb not to keep citizens safe, or protect their lives, liberty or property. Officers risk their lives to enforce the law.
They do what they have to enforce the law. Because most police officers, it seems, are led to believe that blindly enforcing the law is the same as maintaining peace and order.
The law, then, is where we begin to strike at the root of the problem. Just behind your friendly neighborhood jackboot, there it is. The law. A code of conduct backed by the barrel of a gun. Mostly arbitrary guidelines of how a society should function made visible by barbaric iron-fisted tactics unfit for a truly civilized society.”
Chris Campbell

“Positive and progressive change will not come from passively consenting at the ballot box or raucously marching to the sound of demagogues' marching orders and laments. Change must come from within, person to person, day by day, helping to build the beautiful mosaic of community piece by piece."
So let’s remove the burden from the police and the impositions on the populace at the same time by repealing all laws that do not explicitly defend life and property. After that, there will still be many problems to solve, but at least we will then know most, if not all, societal failures are for us as individuals to solve and not the province of the state.”
Joey Clark

“The human elite is characterized by hubris, not omniscience; intelligence, not wisdom.”
Bionic Mosquito

“As long as the US supports corrupt despotic dictators and governments around the world that fail to gain the popular support of their people, leaders will continue to be bought by imperialistic interests and allow their citizens and nations to be raped and pillaged. Rival groups vying for power will invariably emerge from the leadership vacuum to challenge the status quo authority and often enough through coercion and intimidation, by default generate support. And if they succeed in toppling one oppressive government, it automatically becomes same as the old boss. As America moves from one election to the next within its own corrupt two-party Democrat-Republican system, it’s also ‘same as the old boss.’”
Joachim Hagopian

“In the absence of police some people might get away with violating life, liberty, and property of others. The existence of police guarantees it.”
Ken McManigal

“The history of the welfare state is the history
of the state’s savage war of aggrandizement and seizure of authority against civil
society. The dire effects of this calculated collectivism is malevolence not
benevolence, aggression not altruism, genocide not generosity.”
Charles Burris

“Vast numbers of people can be tied together by an ideal that resonates with them, which is the only purpose for nations to form (to protect that ideal), but that is as far as the voluntary association goes. Globalist collectivism is simply unnatural. People know it unconsciously, they know it is an act of force and oppression, and will invariably move to sabotage its false tribalism as they begin to see its true colors.”
Brandon Smith

“All modern governments are organized crime legitimized by the police power of the state. There is illegal crime and there is legal crime. We tend to accept government crime because it has made itself politically legal and politically palatable with such propaganda myths as ‘democracy.’”
Bob Livingston

“The central feature of the state that distinguishes it from all non-political institutions is its enjoyment of a legally enforceable monopoly on the exercise of violence within a given geographic territory. The difference between marketplace systems and political agencies is that, in the former cases, relationships between and among individuals are peaceful, voluntary, and grounded in respect for the inviolability of property interests, while political systems are just the opposite.”
Butler Shaffer

“Jesus once asked, ‘Who among you will cast the first stone?’ With one question, he dismantled the crowd’s possession of anonymous violence. He personalized the responsibility and thereby destroyed the power of group violence. And he asks it of every one of us now, Who among you will carry out the next act of violence against your nonviolent neighbor? We cannot hide behind the veil of the voting or jury booth. Face to face, we must make our choice.”
David Gornoski

“Fascism can triumph today [1927] because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses.  For Fascism does nothing to combat it except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them.  If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas.  There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism.”
Ludwig von Mises

“Liberty is a state of mind that does not require the indulgence of others."
Louis E. Carabini
Resistance is Mandatory
 
No rulers
No masters
NO CONSENT  
 

Friday, July 15, 2016

Quotes of the Week

Enlightened insights taken from the past week’s reading

“Again, when you justify the killing of other people based on the ‘They Are Not Us’ philosophy, that is exactly the belief system people will take home and manifest into your society later. See, the only justifiable reason for killing another human being is immediate self-defense. Not ‘pre-emptive’ hogwash or ‘regime change’ or ‘liberating’ people. Because when you say that killing people is getting people to do things you tell them to do by other means, then you should not be at all surprised when this blows up in your face. Literally.
Having this government is like having a Water Moccasin in the yard, under the porch. Sooner or later, it bites the people in whose yard it lives. Tired of the violence? Then stop teaching it and celebrating it.”
Jack Perry


“I won’t demand you not vote; I’m saying if you vote, please don’t stop there. Learn, think, and reason — no matter where it leads. I hope you do this because I believe the more you know, the more you’ll practice rightful liberty and the more you’ll ignore politicians and their arbitrary opinions called laws.”
Kent McManigal

“If you consider other people’s wish to secede as a ‘threat,’ aren’t you then saying that you have a greater ‘right’ to them than they do?”
Per Bylund

“No wonder voting fraud is the tool-du-jour of the Corporatocracy's political toadies in the U.S. It's far too dangerous to actually let the Great Unwashed taxpayers make political decisions. They might oust the central bankers, and if they did that, the Corporatocracy and their political toadies would suffer an inevitable decline as their free-money spigots were turned off.”
Michael Covel

“Right now government doesn't prevent any problem that statist scaremongers imagine will happen in a free society. Under government, pollution happens, infrastructures collapse, education fails, employers pay low wages and violate safety laws, the elderly and sick fall through the cracks, Wall Street, public voting and other institutions become corrupt. Yet everyone is supposed to ignore these government failings and give up their freedoms because statists say so.”
Garry Reed

“Governments are only machines, created by the individuals of a nation for their own convenience; they are only delegated bodies, delegated by the individuals, and therefore they cannot possibly have larger moral rights of using force, or, indeed, larger moral rights of any kind, than the individuals who delegated them.”
Auberon Herbert

“The two greatest threats to the world are American and Israeli exceptionalism. It is the success of the indoctrination of this Nazi doctrine of exceptionalism that is the source of the violence in the world today.
The problem of American police violence is that the police are now defined as exceptional and unaccountable. They can kill the rest of us without accountability, just as Washington slaughters untold numbers of peoples in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. Unexceptional peoples are dispensable.”
Paul Craig Roberts

“The upcoming Cleveland production isn’t about Bernie or the BLM or pro-immigration or Trump or the Republicans. It’s about orchestration.
It’s about planned theater. It’s about rigging conflict and rigging a formula which will appear to demand greater clamp-down on everyone living in America.”
John Rappoport

“Whether democratic or socialist, political organizations cannot live up to the standards set by the competitive market. An “I voted” sticker is no substitute for a simple receipt.”
Matthew McCaffrey

“Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.”
Ayn Rand

“If government couldn’t hit or steal, how could they rule? If cops couldn’t hit or steal, cui bono? Their job is to fine or kidnap & respond with deadly force to resistance to their demands.
The cops are not your friends nor are they heroes, they are the bloody spear-point of all political will. Nothing else no matter what you adorn the pig with.”
Bill Buppert
Resistance is Mandatory
 
No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT  
 

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Cop Cradlers

Three armed men decided to stand outside their local police department in a show of support. I’m assuming they felt their “protectors” needed protection, seeing they showed their “support” by being heavily armed, rather than merely waving colored rags and displaying crude, jingoistic signs.

If I asked these three gentlemen why they think their revered cops are necessary, I’m sure “protection” would be at or near the top of their list. But what kind of protection can cops offer these three men when these three men themselves believe their “protectors” need protection? How useful are “protectors” who can’t even protect themselves?

Seeing the weaponry these men are displaying, I would suggest that they alone are far better equipped and certainly, far better motivated to successfully defend themselves than any member of The Regime-controlled enforcement class.

And let’s not forget the ultimate irony- The payment of coerced tax revenue used to compensate these “protectors” is ultimately enforced by these same “police officers” (revenue collectors) these same three men (victims of coercion) value! Not to mention their possible future caging after violating just one of the thousands of illegitimate laws that exist. Guess whose guns will be pointed at their heads while being marched to their incarceration?

“Pay up, serf!” demands the cop to his three supporters,” I got a boat payment to make!”

Stockholm Syndrome, Texas style.
    
 Resistance is Mandatory
 
No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT  

Monday, July 11, 2016

Opponents of Guns on Texas Campuses Are Poorly Armed

The Dallas Morning News and TexasTribune (along with other publications) have provided fifteen minutes of fame to three University of Texas at Austin professors. They have brought suit against the university to halt Texas’ new campus carry gun law that returns the student’s right to defend themselves- albeit with state restrictions. The suit asks a federal judge to grant an injunction to block the law before becoming effective Aug. 1.

 I won’t name the three professors here (to save them embarrassment) but will list the faculty departments for The Three Hoplophobes: Two of them work in the Department of English and the third serves in the Department of Sociology. It’s a surprise to few that such a specious effort would emanate from disciplines offering discussions frequently driven by prescribed agendas rather than reason and facts.

The attorney’s lawsuit brief laughably refers to the law taking effect on the 50th anniversary of the day CharlesWhitman stood atop the school's tower and shot 16 people dead:

"In a cruel irony, the Texas Legislature has mandated that fifty years to the day after one of the worst gun-related massacres ever on a college campus ... UT-Austin must begin allowing the concealed carrying of handguns on campus and in classrooms."

Apparently, the plaintiffs don’t seem to realize what ended this murderous 1966 rampage was another individual with a gun. As it turns out, there were multiple individuals with rifles engaging the shooter before the police arrived and neutralized him (sound familiar?). I was unable to determine what Texas laws existed in 1966 disallowing guns on campus, but whatever restrictions existed obviously failed.

It must also be mentioned that the new law only allows handguns carried by licensed individuals, not rifles.

The suit lists a number of Constitutional Amendments The Three Hoplophobes claim are being violated. Let’s examine them in numerical order:

First Amendment

This is being violated because “the possibility of guns on campus could stifle class discussion.”

According to the lawsuit, "Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom"

The “possibility” of guns on campus already exists! Anyone can now carry a gun onto campus, despite what any “law” may declare. Apparently, the "possibility" of guns carried by licensed gun owners is believed more a danger than the present reality of illegal guns!

The “possibility” of knives or any other potentially deadly (but legal) tools on campus does not seem to threaten their “academic freedom.”

“Without limitation or restriction?” As mentioned earlier, for anyone to legally carry a handgun into a classroom, they must be concealed permit holders. How is that requirement not a “limitation” or “restriction?”

When The Three Hoplophobes are off campus in a public area, there are obviously (though not to them) individuals nearby packing concealed weapons. Do they feel threatened in that scenario? Is their academic freedom “chilled?”

Second Amendment

I don’t think I can remember this amendment being cited to defend an anti-gun legal complaint.

According to the plaintiffs:

"The Second Amendment is not a one-way street. It starts with the proposition that a 'well-regulated militia,' (emphasis added), is necessary to the security of a free state. The Supreme Court has explained that 'well-regulated' means 'imposition of proper discipline and training.'"

"If the state is to force them to admit guns into their classrooms, then the officials responsible for the compulsory policy must establish that there is a substantial reason for the policy and that their regulation of the concealed carrying of handguns on college campuses is 'well-regulated.' Current facts indicate that they cannot do so."

Using the above definition of “well regulated,” how can state certification not be proper “discipline and training?” Please examine the linked eligibility and training requirements for a Texas CHL. They are not exactly lenient or effortless.

A “substantial reason for the policy” has not been established?  How about the slaughter of college students over recent years whom had no way to defend themselves? Is that not a “legitimate” reason. Every single one of those shooters violated laws against gun possession on campus. Wouldn’t it just be common sense to allow properly “disciplined and trained,” CHL holding students to counteract any attack?

How do “current facts indicate that they cannot do so,” as it pertains to achieving the plaintiff’s standard of “well regulated?” The current facts indicate just the opposite!

According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, between 1996 and 2011, the number of murder and manslaughter convictions for CHL holders totaled 30 over sixteen years. The percentage of CHL holders committing such crimes over that same time is .7 per 100,000. The rate of murder and manslaughter for the general population (many armed with “illegal” guns) is 6.0 per 100,000. Obviously, CHL holders have a much better safety record than the general public. It therefore seems these plaintiffs should have a far greater fear of the general public than the CHL holders attending their classrooms.

Presently, there are eight states that allow concealed carry on campus, totaling about 150 campuses. According to ConcealedCarry.org, “Not one of these campuses has seen a single resulting act of violence (including threats) or a single resulting suicide attempt.” The Three Hoplophobes appear unaware of these “current facts.”

Fourteenth Amendment

The plaintiffs seem to be referring to the Equal Protection Clause of that amendment:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

I was unable to locate the plaintiff’s reasoning to offer this amendment as a defense, so I’ll just examine the clause and attempt a guess. I see no reason how this campus carry law “abridges” any “privileges or immunities” of the aggrieved, nor see evidence of a lack of due process depriving them of their “life, liberty, or property.” This may refer to their claim that Texas' new campus carry law is forcing the school to impose what the plaintiffs describe as "overly-solicitous, dangerously-experimental gun policies."

Objecting to a law with which you disagree hardly deprives one of any state granted privileges, let alone their life. Only criminals committing active aggression against other individuals offer such a threat- not speculative concern one may have about the potential of such aggression.  And any anxiety over perceived “dangerously-experimental gun policies" has been proven unnecessary. The "experiment" has been proven a success, while previous, outdated policies (such as onerous restrictions and Gun Free Zones) have been proven deadly failures!

The only party that would seem to be denied “equal protection of the laws” are those Texas CHL holders who obeyed such laws in order to legally carry their concealed handgun.

"We are armed with reason. We are armed with data. We are armed with passion. We are armed with longevity," claims one of The Three Hoplophobes. They appear to lack the necessary ammunition (facts) to support any "reason" and their magazine is empty as regards any "data." I have no doubt that (typical of most leftists) "passion" exists in abundance, as leftism is an emotionally driven ideology.

Any “longevity” can be credited to their  future work performance and tenure from their employer. And, of course, the protection freely offered by well trained, armed students in their classrooms.


Resistance is Mandatory
 
No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT 

 

Sunday, July 10, 2016

How Government Works

Open a lemonade stand for personal profit and you risk arrest and being caged:
 

Open a lemonade stand and turn over 100% of your revenue to the enforcement class and you are recognized and applauded:
 
 
Resistance is Mandatory
 
No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT