Monday, December 31, 2012

Deja Vu

The Emperor has made it clear he wants legislation aimed at containing gun violence passed next year (2013). May I suggest the following text used for this desired legislation:

“Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.”
German Minister of the Interior, November 11, 1938.

Replace “Jew” with “US tax slave” (sometimes referred to as "US citizen").

“Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool.”

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Sunday, December 16, 2012

Re: Connecticut Shootings

Gun control fails again.

Statism fails again.

Police fail again.

The Drug War fails again (the shooter was on psychotropic drugs, as usual, and hooked on first shooter video games).

Government schools fail again.

These shooters are predators, are they not? How do you protect yourself against a predator? You arm yourself with a weapon!

What is the state’s alternative? They teach you to run and hide in a closet and pray to your God or hope that Johnny Law finishes his donut in time to run and jiggle his obese ass to your rescue.

How does a country defend itself? By creating a law that states no other country shall attack it? By putting “Gun Free Zone” signs along its borders? No! It creates an armed military to actively counter any armed attack upon it. Doesn’t it make sense for individuals to follow that same, rational course of action to defend itself with the weaponry it deems necessary?

Have you noticed that all these school shootings occur at government schools? Do you think this is just a coincidence? These institutions actually brag about the fact that they are “gun free.” At least, until an armed predator saunters in, firing away. Then they scream and beg for armed government agents to rush and save them. If these shootings had taken place at private schools, the US Regime would be leading the charge to close these schools.

Americans have become nothing more than servile, obedient, gullible, domesticated, historically ignorant wimps. You could almost argue they deserve to be slaughtered.

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Sunday, November 25, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Misjudging the Courage of Individuals

"You cannot run away from weakness; you must some time fight it out or perish; and if that be so, why not now, and where you stand?"

Robert Louis Stevenson

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Hired Killers Give Thanks in Afghanistan

U.S. Troops Celebrate Thanksgiving In Afghanistan

Oh yes, they’re all SO thankful for the opportunity to kill brown children, blowing them to bits and joyfully viewing their bloody corpses.

They’re all SO thankful to be guarding the poppy fields and aiding the CIA’s heroin smuggling.

They’re all SO thankful to be serving their state masters and corporate oligarchs, working hard to destroy and destabilize civilization throughout the world.

They are SO thankful to be acting out their psychopathic yearnings, fueled by years of perverse video games, to shoot, bomb, and destroy anything that moves.

They’re all SO thankful to serve and protect a criminal, despotic regime hell bent on world domination.

They are SO thankful for the opportunity to offer their lives and limbs as cannon fodder in a patriotic gesture of human sacrifice.

They’re all SO thankful to be robbing their neighbors back in the Fatherland to pay their bloated paychecks, overly generous benefits and cushy pensions.

They are SO thankful for the ability to compartmentalize their crimes, strengthened by a lifetime of nationalist propaganda.

They are just SO thankful to realize their childhood fantasy of killing, robbing and pillaging.

Today, these lost souls are having a literal orgy of thankfulness.

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Feels So Right

I wrote the following piece the day of the 2004 presidential election. My sentiments and opinions remain the same.
Nov. 2, 2004
I first voted in a presidential election in 1976. I have voted in every one since- until today. My choice in the last three elections was the Constitution Party- a hardy, decent bunch, working fruitlessly to resuscitate a document, long since deceased. I decided this year to not only NOT vote, but to spend the day avoiding, the best I could, the stimuli and intense fervor that seems to abound on election day.

Productive work can keep you focused. Instead of the pointless noise and turmoil of election activity, my attention was served by the innocent beauty of smiling school children in front of my camera. As a bonus, God favored me with an assortment of autistic youngsters to challenge my skills and allowed me to appreciate whatever world their mind resides in; their mental processes wonderfully oblivious to the surrounding carnage of politics. What is the greater accomplishment- coaxing a smile from a hesitant moppet to be joyfully preserved forever on celluloid or wracking my brain over a ballot, deciding which political pervert is more qualified to kill similar innocents on the other side of the world?

A short break allows me time to witness the sight of children at play; running, shouting, enjoying the pure delight of the moment. While a short distance away their parents and neighbors are deciding what tyrant will dictate their future, wash their growing minds clean of individual thought, and determine which bloody battlefields they will be obligated to visit. The realization of this sickening irony turns my stomach.

Traveling the route home takes me by the local polling station. Innumerable campaign signs clutter the right-of-way like so much profane, gang graffiti. A turf war is underway just inside with ballots being the weapon of choice. I think, “Why vote with ballots backed by bullets when I can vote peacefully with my dollars and my feet?” At the end of the day’s battle the tickets will be rounded up and counted; the majority totals giving legitimacy to a new array of masters.

Once home I search for a cerebral escape. Beauty in the form of music is a great diversion. I enjoy listening to the anguished lyrics of Steve Earle, later to be countered by the lifting, soaring, looping guitar lines of Dickey Betts. Whether representing the emotions of joy OR pain, music is beautiful; either by soothing the soul or reinvigorating it. Meanwhile, the political games of power hungry men elicit merely pity and shame.

No election media coverage is watched, read or listened to. No final speeches by begging, desperate shysters is paid any attention. The market has provided me two of the greatest inventions of mankind (the mute button and the VCR fast forward) to cleanse my television of idiocy [I no longer watch television]. Long may they function! Shifty pitchmen, pleading for my confidence, fall delightfully silent or pass my view in a blur of hapless futility. Their message falls on deaf ears and shielded eyes.

The polls are closed and my vote is missing from the pile. Yet, my mind is at peace and regret is nonexistent. The electoral outcome is considered irrelevant. Satisfaction and contentment comes from knowing that time has been productively spent. Sleep comes easy.

Nov. 3, 2004
The sun has risen, as always. The pre-election warning of “Vote or Die” from the American ghetto is now even more laughable. Some tyrants remain in place to extend their term of destructiveness. Others are new to the scam, busy charting future paths of theft and death while their obedient serfs behold and regale their new saviors. I pay no attention to, nor attempt to remember, their names. Why bother?

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Friday, October 19, 2012

Snapshot of the State - An Alliance of Gatekeepers

"But particularly when the media profess to strive toward objectivity, gatekeepers play a crucial role in helping people navigate the news to make educated political decisions."

Eric Alterman

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Snapshot of the State - False Empathy

"He's really sort of the devil. He's completely emotionally detached. He has no empathy. You find that in psychopaths. It's about power with Voldemort. It's an aphrodisiac for him. Power makes him feel alive."

Ralph Fiennes

Monday, October 1, 2012

Friday, September 21, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Guardians Against Truth

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer

Monday, September 10, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Posing as Saviors

"Hope in a political savior is foolish, and revolutions have the risk of substituting one dictator for another."

Brent Railey

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Fighting Militarism

After reading my recent article, “Debating Militarists,” reader Carl Spurchise sent me some interesting comments, as well some great suggestions for action against the war machine.

“I hate war,” says Carl. “I hate everything about it. As a Vietnam veteran I witnessed 58,000 of my peers die for a lie. War is suppose to be the absolute last resort executed when one sovereign nation physically attacks another and statesmanship has failed. It's not suppose to be fought against an ideology (i.e., "war on terror") or used as a tool for political gain through the deployment of jingoism and false patriotism.”

I couldn’t agree more. War is the ultimate human failure. But when power loving governments can achieve even more power through war and their corporate brethren can profit handsomely from this heinous activity, wars will continue to be executed.

What to do? Carl offers an interesting method to counter the mainstream’s pro-war propaganda.

“I plan to have business size cards made with the following slogans:

1. "War brings out the worst in mankind. It always kills innocent people."

2. "Visit a VA hospital first. Learn what the military really has to offer."

3. "Your parents don’t want this for you. They want you to live."

4. "You don't need to join the military to protect America. We can protect ourselves."

5. "War is an adventure in death. Why not get a real job and live?"

6. " You want to wear a uniform with medals? How about a suit and a paycheck instead?"

“I want to put them near the brochures that are on display in front of military enlistment centers. I don’t know if they'll be read by the young men and women who contemplate joining the armed forces. But if it if makes one kid stop and think, I'll be happy.”

Excellent idea! I hope this inspires others to take similar action to educate others, and peacefully fight and discredit the murderous meme of US militarism.

Friday, September 7, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Killing is a Solution

"Where is the justice of political power if it executes the murderer and jails the plunderer, and then itself marches upon neighboring lands, killing thousands and pillaging the very hills?"

Khalil Gibran

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Consenting Slaves

"If a slave is unwilling to go with his new master, he is whipped, or locked up in jail, until he consents to go, and promises not to run away during the year."

Harriet Ann Jacobs

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Rating Texas

Michael Snyder, in his article, “What is the Best Place to Live in America?” courageously examines each state within the US political abstraction. He offers his pros and cons for each state, as relates to where would be the best place to live to survive the coming economic collapse.

I had to laugh at some of the Texas “cons:”

West Nile virus? It’s killed a handful of people out of 26 million. Most of them are elderly with weak immune systems. The common flu kills thousands more.

George W Bush? He’s imprisoned in his little North Dallas compound, unable to travel anywhere, fearing arrest. What further harm can he do?

Illegal immigrants? Forgetting the idiocy of declaring a sovereign human being “illegal,” more migrants just means more customers for us businessmen.

Tornados? I’ve lived here 28 years and never have seen one. Do you have any idea just how BIG Texas is? These twisters are spread pretty thin. It’s like worrying about being attacked by the last shark left alive in the Gulf of Mexico.

Dallas Cowboys? Right on! I keep hoping these fascist scumbags will move to Mexico.

One important “con” I would add is the presence of fifteen US military bases within the state. That is fifteen too many, even for a land mass the size of Texas. In a time of social unrest, that potentially means that many more uniformed thugs available to place a boot on your face.

How can the author not say anything about the friendly people? When first moving here, I was immediately struck by this fact, particularly since I didn’t expect such friendliness in the big cities. Native Texans, particularly, are some of the most generous people you’ll ever meet.  

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Friday, August 17, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Deceiving Despots

"You can't give the government the power to do good without also giving it the power to do bad - in fact, to do anything it wants."

Harry Browne

Monday, August 13, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Child Kidnapping

"When you put on a uniform, there are certain inhibitions that you accept."

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Depraved Displays of Dominance

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."

James Madison

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Inspiring Irreverence

"I have a total irreverence for anything connected with society except that which makes the roads safer, the beer stronger, the food cheaper and the old men and old women warmer in the winter and happier in the summer."

Brendan Behan

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Military Oaths are Meaningless

Members of the US military often point to the oaths they take upon enlistment as proof they will never violate the rights of Americans. They insist they are committed toward “defending” the Piece of Paper and thereby also protect the individual rights that this Piece of Paper claims as inalienable. But is it wise for the free individual to rely on such an oath being kept?

Since World War II, the US military has participated in numerous illegal, unconstitutional wars. The pace of participating in such actions seems to grow by the year. It has almost become difficult to keep up with them all. When considering such actions, I begin to question just when are these individuals going to begin keeping their oath? I have yet to see any mass resistance by members of the military against any of these illegal actions. I have read numerous accounts that such mass resistance will finally occur when soldiers are ordered to confiscate the weapons of, and/or fire upon, their own people. But why should I believe such an assertion? Members of the military, with very few exceptions, have followed all orders to fire upon, kidnap, and confiscate weapons from civilians in other countries all over the world. Is it that much more of a challenge for them to also execute such action against people in their own country?

How can the US Military “defend” the Piece of Paper while at the same time murdering foreigners in illegal wars of empire, thereby violating the restrictions contained in that very Piece of Paper? They have admittedly participated in criminal acts. Therefore, they are criminals. Why should I believe unrepentant criminals?

The US military claims to defend individual liberty. But how can one who willingly lives as a military slave have any appreciation of liberty? I assure you, people willing to kill on command lack any conscience about violating someone’s liberty. Why should I be willing to believe, when given the order to kidnap or kill me, they will ignore this order?

Please remember the following truths:
These people wear the uniform of the regime.
These people work for the regime.
These people are paid by the regime.
These people follow the orders of the regime.
These people actively protect the regime.

Why should I trust them? Given these truths, why I should I be assured that they have my best interests in mind just because a collection of words called an “oath” have passed out of their mouths?

And just who do they give this oath to? They, of course, give it to the corporate entity known as the United States of America- a political organism. It is not directed toward me, a human organism. Nowhere in this oath does it mention obeying orders from me or “officers appointed” by me.

Oaths are merely words that disappear into the vapor. They are meaningless unless backed by action. One such action would be to truly defend this Piece of Paper against “all enemies foreign and domestic” by ignoring the non-existent “foreign” enemies and concentrating on the “domestic” variety. May I suggest padlocking DC, evacuating it, and returning it back to the swamp from whence it came. You military folks are well trained in destruction. I'll leave that job to you.
However, I would be ecstatic if they all chose a less drastic, but no less courageous, form of action. If they really want to keep their “oath,” they should immediately begin resigning in droves, deserting, or seeking conscientious objector status.

Protections of my life and liberties can never come from the same institution that directly threatens my life and liberty. You don’t protect yourself, your countrymen, and your families from the mafia by becoming part of the mafia. You first free yourself from the system entirely.

If members of the US military truly want to impress upon me their dedication and devotion toward protecting my life and liberty they need to forget about any sacred pledges and concentrate on action. Complete disengagement, by whatever means from the US Death Machine, will more successfully convey that dedication than a book full of oaths.
Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Control Freak Giddiness

"Control" - Definition:

That which serves to check, restrain, or hinder; restraint.
Power or authority to check or restrain; restraining or regulating influence; superintendence; government; as, children should be under parental control.
To exercise restraining or governing influence over; to check; to counteract; to restrain; to regulate; to govern; to overpower.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Debating Militarists

Debating militarists can be very frustrating, but I believe worth the effort.

I despise the military as an institution. Of course, I share no love with its controlling state apparatus, as well. Those civilians who comprise the state are the controlling thugs of the operation. They are usually hidden and unapproachable. Lying is a big part of their profession, to the point of being pathological. They are usually too self-deluded to realize the immorality of their institution because of the monetary compensation they receive to strengthen and operate it. These folks I usually debate merely for the mental exercise, as the possibility of successfully converting them is virtually nil.

The military, however, is merely the armed wing of the state‘s bird of prey. It’s responsible for enforcing the evil edicts emanating from the civilian thugs.

I feel my chances for successful conversions are much higher with this group for the simple fact that they are being shot at. Risking your life requires constant affirmation that your decision to do so is sound. It’s part of the inner survival mechanism of human beings.

In my debates with militarists over the years (meaning enlisted military personnel, retirees, and their chicken hawk supporters) I’ve been able to recognize three distinct types of debaters:

1) The intelligent, articulate individual who vehemently disagrees with my anti-state position, but does so respectfully while eloquently outlining his position. These folks should be instantly recognized as worthy opponents and be returned the respect and civility they have given you. Chances are good you believed (and presented your belief system) exactly the same way, at one time. This should make it easier to draw your argument as you illustrate, point by point, how you were convinced your comparable belief system was false and immoral. Your chances of immediate success with this type of individual is low. But continue to be consistent and rational in your argument. More than likely this individual will have the integrity to recognize your argument has merit and is worth pondering.

The idea, at the very least, is to plant a seed. As that individual continually questions himself and debates others that seed will be cultivated. The trick is to expose the corrupt institution he is a part of without insulting the individual. You have to remind yourself that this is a thinking, cognitive person. If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t be debating you in the first place.

2) Those who have had an epiphany and agree with you to so some extent, but will attempt to rationalize the evils of this institution as necessary.

Some of these folks articulate your message and argument so well that you wonder how they were convinced to enlist in the first place. However, they still must be convinced of this institution’s lack of integrity and legitimacy. Direct them to resources where they can obtain the knowledge that will lead them to this inevitable conclusion. They must also be convinced that they are powerless to change or “reform” this homicidal organization. They must be persuaded that disengagement is the only rational action to take.

3) Those who vehemently disagree and pepper their illogical arguments and non sequiturs with profanity and insult.

When they respond with phrases such as “I love war” and “I run to the sound of gunfire” it is probably not a good idea to immediately continue debate. Leave time for a cooling off period for them, as well as you.

Why would you need time for cooling off? If you are like me, the first reaction to such blatant hostility is to return my own version, feeling no obligation to restrain myself as I pick apart their depraved, illogical arguments and express insults of my own. This is a complete waste of time. Any hope of intelligent debate is lost as both parties resort to out doing each other at creating clever insults. If you do eventually respond to such hostility, do so in a very tempered, even tone, presenting your argument in the most concise, understandable manner that you are capable of. If the response is still more hostility, write this individual off as a hopeless cause- for now. Keep hope in the possibility that you may have planted a seed, despite the antagonism.

I have walked this earth for over half a century and have been exposed to every kind of statist indoctrination imaginable and have also been around long enough to realize the existence and characteristics of that indoctrination.

I can only hope that afflicted, enslaved soldiers take the time to analyze their situation, continually seeking the truth. Hopefully they will finally realize the deceit their masters have perpetrated against them.

Most all of us have been victims of this brain washing. We were born as slaves of the state and conditioned in their schools to accept that notion as not only reality but as a definition of “freedom.” That process is stepped up a notch when one enlists in the military. Yes, this means an even harder shell to crack to complete a moral rebirth. But this individual also has the most to lose.

Many excuse war as a reality that cannot be eliminated, only adapted to. I disagree. War will certainly not be ended or even reduced through political involvement. War is a natural extension of politics. The only power an individual really has is over how he lives his life. Live your live in a peaceful, non-aggressive manner and your chances of not creating any strife are pretty strong. Next, encourage others to live the same way and prove to them (by your behavior) why this lifestyle is preferable over waging violence and intervening in other’s affairs. Peaceful involvement and action is infinitely more productive than conflict. Conflict merely breeds still more conflict. The more people who believe and live this way, the fewer potential combatants nation states have to recruit. The Golden Rule is not just a nice sounding theory. It works!

Wars cannot occur without willing participants. Tyrants without armies are impotent. The goal should be to prevent as many young people as possible from joining this institution. Likewise, it is absolutely necessary that we convince those presently enslaved to break free from this abusive relationship as soon as possible.

These folks (militarists) are already victims of the allure of nationalism. Let’s work to prevent them being eaten by the beast of war.

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Friday, July 27, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Red Carpets for Mass Murderers

"All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."


Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Too Late for Resistance

Nidal Hasan is causing a ruckus. The man accused of murdering 13 of his fellow slaves at the Ft Hood, Texas Military Plantation refuses to shave his beard in violation of a judge’s order.

The resistance toward his military master comes a bit too late for Mr. Hasan. Apparently he doesn’t understand the reality of his relationship; Once a slave, always a slave- even when condemned and cast off the plantation by his demonic master. Even choice of facial hair is restricted for life for those voluntarily and permanently enslaved by military “service.”

To stay true to his faith, Mr. Hasan chose his master’s method of action (killing) instead of merely refusing to longer serve that master and suffer the consequences. He could have sought Conscientious Objector status and given the opportunity to eloquently explain the reasons for his withdrawal and outline his master’s murderous activities that inspired such action.

Though he chose the wrong course of action, it can be argued that his choice to kill did expose some inconvenient truths.

Please remember, if he had just murdered the “right” people, Mr. Hasan would be lauded as a hero, not a pariah. He’d right now be receiving a pretty lil’ piece of tacky, scrap metal to hang on his chest instead of awaiting life imprisonment or execution. Killing is only evil in the eyes of the state if you victimize the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Mr. Hasan’s murderous action helped expose just how impotent and incompetent the US military is as a defense agency. They are charged with “defending” others, yet cannot even protect themselves
from one of their own while in one of their own “secure” facilities. Hired assassins not even carrying a weapon? Pathetic!

On 9/11 this “defense” agency never lifted a finger to “defend” anyone. Yet, they never hesitate a moment to kill and destroy to satisfy the greed of international bankers and the blood lust of the Bush/Obama Regime and its adoring minions.

To avoid Mr. Hasan’s predicament, make sure you only kill for the state- the “right” people for the “right” reasons.

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Monday, July 23, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Perverse Persistence

"And what'll you do now, my blue-eyed son?
And what'll you do now my darling young one?
I'm a-goin' back out 'fore the rain starts a-fallin'
I'll walk to the depths of the deepest dark forest
Where the people are a many and their hands are all empty
Where the pellets of poison are flooding their waters
Where the home in the valley meets the damp dirty prison
Where the executioner's face is always well hidden
Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten
Where black is the color, where none is the number
And I'll tell it and speak it and think it and breathe it
And reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it
Then I'll stand on the ocean until I start sinkin'
But I'll know my songs well before I start singin'
And it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, and it's a hard
It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall."

Bob Dylan

Saturday, July 21, 2012

'Secede' - Jumping Through Hoops

My video inspired several individuals to suggest methods to secede that are “legally enforceable,” as relates to that fictional abstract known as the US Government. Here is one such approach. These are all viable courses of action, if that is the direction you choose. But I still am bothered by the elemental question that continually goes through my head: By what authority does an individual or group of individuals claim rule and dominion over my life without my consent? There is none, of course, and such an illegitimate authority can only be enforced through fraud and violence.

When I am born into this world, am I born a free man or someone else’s property? The state has created a maze of legalese to distract you and cloud and hide this inconvenient question that the state can’t answer. I don’t understand why intelligent and awake people allow the state’s matrix of propaganda to obscure that basic question in people’s minds. The state creates these legal games to confuse its subjects and keep them oblivious to the simple, rational truths contained in the answers to such questions.

How can any individual or entity (that I had no part in creating) rightly claim me as their property and then require me to navigate through all sorts of hoops and obstacles and legal nonsense to regain a condition (freedom) that I was born into?

It’s no different or no less reprehensible than a chattel slave being required by his master to complete whatever perverse directives this despot can imagine, in order for the slave to win or “earn” his freedom- a freedom that was taken from him at birth! How is this slavish relationship any different than the relationship the state forces upon me? Why is the burden upon me to abolish or rectify this relationship-particularly since this entity claims to rule “by consent of the governed?”

Asking these questions exposes the reality of the state’s existence- it is a tyrannical, criminal band of thugs with a great public relations agent.

Any legitimate “contractual” arrangement with this beast is rather one sided. I’m expected to keep my end of any “agreement,” but the state rejects any demand that they keep theirs. They can change the terms of any “agreement” at any time and without any input or consent by me. That’s why I never opened a Roth IRA. I fully expect them to eventually change the rules so you’ll be paying taxes on that money twice! That’s of course, if they don’t nationalize (confiscate) everyone’s retirement money first.

The burden is placed upon the wrong party. As it is now, the individual is expected to prove why he is not a property of the state. It should be up to the state to prove such an abominating supposition.

Why should I spend my time fighting one legal fiction by replacing it with, or defensively using, another legal fiction? Even if that is successful, what is to stop the state from creating still another legal fiction that I must then counter? Where does it end? I am sovereign. I am born that way. I need no document or state decision to make that a reality. The fact of my sovereignty is confirmed by the fact of my birth as a conscious human being, a property of no one, nor any self-described ruling entity. If you believe otherwise, than you have to believe that all men are born as other’s property. You also then have to admit to the tyrannical nature of the entity that you legitimize and obey. And what does that say about you as a person?
Related posts:

‘Secede” - A Declaration is Only the First Step

‘Secede’ - Submission is Not Consent

‘Secede’ - The Constitution of No Authority

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Friday, July 20, 2012

Thursday, July 19, 2012

‘Secede’ - The Constitution of No Authority

A constitutionalist is one who believes that a Piece of Paper will protect one’s life and liberty from a predator disguised as a benevolent government master.

Some viewers of my video brought up the US Constitution. They either encouraged me to work for its restoration or claimed it to be a contractual authority preventing my secession.

I highly recommend everyone read the works of Lysander Spooner and his critique of the US Constitution. Not only does he prove such claims as spurious but he essentially destroys this document’s legitimacy in two sentences:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

And he wrote this in 1867! Seeing what has happened in the years since, the above statement seems to be even more relevant today.

The US Constitution was written by a group of self-appointed elites in 1787. Among other illicit powers, it claimed that the US Government had the power to rob individuals. And not just individuals then alive and residing within the geographical boundaries “ruled” by the government, but any future, unborn individuals finding themselves living within those same arbitrary boundaries. In essence, the authors made the audacious proclamation that those not yet born are to be ruled by this new government and are bound by its constitution.

What gives the Founders (intelligent, educated individuals they may be) the gall, the temerity, the arrogance to rule me from the grave?

Please remember, that a constitution is not a contract. A constitution merely charges an institution with the power and responsibility to regulate itself- which any honest constitutionalist will have to admit requires a healthy dose of faith in the moral rectitude of his rulers. However, a contract is an agreement among two or more consenting parties who agree that definite consequences will be suffered by any party that violates this contract. All parties are aware of this responsibility and agree to be held accountable. If a dispute arises, a pre-determined, agreed to, third party decides the outcome of any disagreement- not a court operated by one of the parties involved in the dispute.

The fact that an institution is so feared by its creators that a regulating document is required indicates the admitted creation of a master/slave relationship. The expectation is that the master will be refrained from abusing its monopoly of power by obeying this regulating document. The hope is the master will regulate himself and hold himself accountable. In other words, the Constitution is written by my master to regulate my master, is interpreted by my master, and enforced by my master. In more cases than not, it is ignored by my master.

But if this particular master/slave relationship is so feared, why voluntarily get into such a relationship in the first place? This curious action seems eerily similar to a woman, on the eve of consenting to a relationship with a man, obtaining a restraining order as future protection. Are you sure, madam, this is a guy you want to spend time with?

It can be concluded then that a relationship with a state institution, no matter its regulating structure or guiding ideology, is not conducive to protecting an individual’s cherished, inalienable liberties. And it can also be reasoned that any such relationship with this institution cannot be considered valid without the explicit, non-coerced, contractual consent of the individual.

Related Posts:

‘Secede” - A Declaration is Only the First Step

‘Secede’ - Submission is Not Consent

‘Secede’ - Jumping Through Hoops
Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Wednesday, July 18, 2012

'Secede' - Submission is Not Consent

The state’s legitimacy only exists in the mind of those who accept it. To those that don’t, it is a fiction, a meaningless abstraction.

However, surviving in a state dominated world requires, in some cases, submission to this abstraction that also possesses overwhelming firepower to enforce that domination. But don’t confuse submission with consent.

When a robber sticks a gun to your head and demands your money, more than likely you will submit to such a demand, as you value your life more than whatever money you have on you. Of course, you have not consented to such a forced transaction and transfer of property, as the decision was made under duress and an undeniable threat to your life.

People try to tell me that having a social security number is some kind of contract with the US Government. Of course, this is bull since a gun was put to my head at the age of 15 to get one. No number meant no employment. I responded to the robber by submitting, but I most certainly did not consent to any kind of contract. You can’t be coerced into a contract. And I most certainly wasn’t knowledgeable enough at that age to consent to such an arrangement. Of course, today you are branded with this number at birth and are given absolutely no opportunity to opt out.

Many readers label me a “citizen” and insist I am therefore bound with certain obligations toward the ruling state that labels me as such.

“Citizen” is merely another word for “subject” or “slave” used by the state to designate and categorize you as their property, not the property of a competing state. The reality is that the state/citizen relationship is just a variation of the classic master/slave arrangement. But I am not the property of any state as I have not given consent to anyone to categorize me as such. Therefore, the issue of “citizenship” is irrelevant to me.

I approach the questions of self-proclaimed rulers from a philosophical view. Such a view can be articulated by asking two questions:

1) When I am born, am I born a free man or am
I born a subject/slave to another individual or a collective entity?
The answer to this question is either yes or no- there is no in between. You can’t be mostly free or a little enslaved.

If your answer is the latter, I then have to ask the next question:

2) Why? By what authority does such
a ruler have to make such a claim without my explicit consent?
By the divine proclamation of a god or some other supernatural entity? By the “authority” of a mob, manifested as a state sponsored and controlled election?

When the state puts a gun to my head, demanding obedience, I will most likely submit. However, I WILL NOT voluntarily petition and beg, by political or legal action, for the return of a personal possession (my individual sovereignty and liberty) that is already mine! The Magna Carta, eloquent document that it is, was an appeal to a self-proclaimed ruler to respect certain liberties already owned at birth by his self-proclaimed subjects. It was an appeal to a self-proclaimed king/ruler to give up a small part of his authority. But that authority was illegitimate from the day it was proclaimed!

Some readers mention the error of referring to the USG as a government, when it is technically a corporation; as if such a designation changes the fact that this body (by whatever name you call it) is a criminal organization that unjustly claims ownership over my life and body. As one reader reminded me: You are Sovereign. You are a Creator. A corporation is a creation. A creation cannot rule a Creator. Why is that so hard for so many to understand?

Government, state, corporation- give it whatever title you wish. They are all abstractions. I was NOT born a subject or slave to any such fictions created by others. Without my consent, they have no legitimate authority over me. The fact they can offer only violence in response to my resistance further strengthens this claim. Walmart is a corporation. If they claim me as their property, is that claim legitimate? Corporations don’t own people, people control corporations.

Related posts:

‘Secede” - A Declaration is Only the First Step

‘Secede’ - The Constitution of No Authority

‘Secede’ - Jumping Through Hoops

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Snapshot of the State - Arrogance

"The world is made up for the most part of morons and natural tyrants, sure of themselves, strong in their own opinions, never doubting anything."

Clarence Darrow

Monday, July 16, 2012

‘Secede’ - A Declaration is Only the First Step

I received a lot of feedback after posting my latest video. I also received a number of recommendations on how to make such a declaration into a physical reality. From this I realized I should make clear the nature of such a personal declaration.

Please understand that this declaration/affirmation is just a first step. It must be followed with concrete action. Many folks contacted me offering a number of viable options to choose from. I think whatever plan of action you devise and execute is only limited by your creativity. If that runs out, you have the creativity of the entire human race to draw upon, which I believe is unlimited.

I remember years ago listening to personal improvement gurus. The one belief they had in common was the power of personal affirmation as the first step toward achieving a goal. Such an affirmation settles into your subconscious and directs conscious action toward achieving this goal. By sincerely creating a personal declaration of secession/independence, you have, in a sense, wired and programmed your subconscious toward directing conscious thought toward achieving your ambition.
This conscious thought manifests itself as ideas that materialize into action.

Though your plan of action is up to you, I would only caution against substituting your personal plan of action with joining a “movement” of some kind. Such movements are useful in locating and exchanging ideas with like minded individuals, but it would be unwise on counting on “mass produced” action to bring positive change to your particular, individual situation. Make sure you remain the director and not the directed. Don’t expect change (as it relates to you personally) to result from merely following and supporting the leadership of such a movement, even if they seem to share your interests and expectations.

The only real power an individual has is how he lives his life. Multiply this by millions and the result is change.

Related posts:

‘Secede’ Submission is Not Consent

‘Secede’ - The Constitution of No Authority

‘Secede’ - Jumping Through Hoops

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Friday, July 13, 2012

Slaves Get New War Rags From Master

Some local folks who had their property rights violated by anarchist imposters have received brand, spanking new war rags courtesy of their loving master.

One of Uncle Sam’s local overseers/hired killers has blessed the victims with replacements to fly in proud exclamation of their political slavery.

Of course, the hired killer is also a slave, though of higher ranking. So what we have is this: One slave is replacing a symbol of slavery (owned by other slaves), paid for with money stolen from those very same slaves. And the Master (who stole that money with the help of higher ranking slaves) is credited with being loving, compassionate, and righteous for taking such action. Which, of course, further endears the slaves toward their master, who offer their continual supplication and obedience and strengthened reverence toward his goofy symbols.

And the beat goes on……
Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Sunday, July 8, 2012

Another Reason to Dislike Rand Paul

I quit voting twelve years ago. Not long after, I removed my name from the voting registration roles. One nice benefit of doing that is that it clears your name from the party mailing lists of local and national, aspiring politi-gangsters. When election season arrives, you don’t have to waste precious time sifting and sorting through piles of obnoxious pamphlets, letters, brochures, and inserts sent by sociopaths proudly boasting how they are far better qualified to rule your life and property than their esteemed (but equally sociopathic) opponents.

Since then, the only political mailing list I was on was Ron Paul’s. He’s had my name since back in the late 1980’s when I subscribed to his gold newsletter. He had to give that up when he returned to Congress but I have since received his regular congressional newsletter. Recently, I opened my mailbox to find a letter from some gun rights organization I had never heard of. On the envelope and the form letter inside was Rand Paul’s name, boldly and prominently displayed. Obviously, Rand Paul had obtained my name from a list owned by his father’s campaign. If this alliance with the gun organization was Ron’s idea it would have been his name on the letterhead, not his conniving son’s.

About a week later, I find in my mailbox a letter from the Mitt Romney campaign. Though I didn’t bother to read it, I’m sure it glowingly bragged that the corporatist/facist, unprincipled Mittens was the obvious choice to rule me from the DC death pit. The only way his campaign could have received my address is from the smarmy opportunist named Rand Paul, who has already publicly abandoned his father to serve the interests of Mittens. Ron Paul has refrained (as of now) from making such an endorsement.

I’m sure the Mittens campaign will disperse my name down the chain of criminals that will serve underneath him and they will contact me begging for scraps to bolster their campaigns. So now, guess what I have to look forward to for at least the next four months? Why, cleaning political pornography out of my mailbox on a near daily basis, of course. All thanks to some arrogant, inconsiderate, state worshipping thug from Kentucky who would probably back stab his own father if it could possibly further his political career.

Oh, wait. He already done did that.
Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Saturday, July 7, 2012

War Rags Vandalized

Some US flags were recently burned in a local suburb- an activity you would certainly wish to see more of. But in this case, the flags were not the property of those doing the burning.

While reading the report and sifting through the usual extremist, collectivist, claptrap phrases such as, “it’s everybody’s flag in America,” and “it’s a slap in the face for all Americans,” this quote caught my eye:

“The monetary value is nothing, but the patriotic value is all to me.”

That kind of says it all. These fools are more upset that their worshipped, demonic symbol was destroyed than they are about the infinitely more meaningful fact that their property rights were violated.

Their reverence toward the civic religion’s cloth banner is a stronger provocation of anger than the reality of trespass and destruction of their personal property. Their religious fanaticism regarding the mythical character of the God-State is the prime motivator for their indignation, rather than the unacceptable encroachment on their sovereign, personal space.

That fact tells me that they can thus be easily convinced by skilled, state propagandists to give up those property rights if it serves the interest of the state or even the protection of its goofy symbols. By making such a statement about value, they’ve exposed a spiritual weakness and lack of reason that state criminals will be more than willing to exploit.

Now that possibility should upset readers more than the incineration of a few war rags.


Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Independence? Ha!

In North Texas, the holiday previously known as “Independence Day” has apparently received a name change. It is now officially known as “No Refusal Weekend.”

“As a part of the enforcement push, anyone suspected of driving or boating while intoxicated, and who refuses to submit to a breathalyzer test, will have a search warrant issued against them for police to take a blood specimen.”

Please be aware that Johnny Law has now been trained at a “blood draw school,” used to train officers on how to take blood from suspects. So now, not only does Officer Un-Friendly have the skills of a baton, wielding, taser zapping, pepper spraying jack boot on his resume, he also is to be feared as a goddamned vampire! And you were worried about encountering face eating zombies!

Remember this while you wave your little war rag and watch fireworks on No Refusal Weekend- "The ‘terrorists’ hate us because we’re free.” I suppose that IS true, yet the “terrorists” are misidentified- they’re the ones with the badges and uniforms who claim to be the good guys! You know, the guys who hate you and your "freedom" so much they forcibly take your blood!

Why is it that on every state holiday, Big Brother gives us an explicit, overt, orgasmic display of tyranny? Is it because he is mad that he has to work on a holiday and takes his revenge out on the rest of us? Or is it the “spirit” of the holiday, itself, that emboldens him to seek ever more extreme and totalitarian actions?

Big Brother does NOT like the idea of “independence.” He has to remind us all just who is in charge. He will gladly and publicly humiliate you if he must. Get this idea of independence out of your head- YOU are the slave and HE is the master.
Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Sandusky to the TSA

Congratulations to Anthony Freda for the brilliant illustration seen below. I was so impressed with it that I emailed it to the TSA. I gave the message the subject heading: “Congratulations to your new TSA employee!”

I heartily suggest you do the same. The email address from their website is
Be polite. Be peaceful. Go heavy on the sarcasm. But leave no doubt in their minds what you think about these pot-bellied, perverted, pedophile motherfuckers.

As Mr. Freda explains, “The amount of tyranny you get is equal to the amount you put up with.”

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Yes, Social Security IS Theft

Paul Craig Robert’s recent piece defending Social Security illustrates just how far committed statists will stretch the limits of language and human reason to justify state initiated theft.

Dr. Roberts takes Walter William’s to task about his accurate claim that Social Security is “legalized theft.” Dr. Roberts responds with:

“This is an ideological argument that overlooks that Social Security is a pact between generations. The working generations provide retirement incomes for the elderly and in turn are provided retirement incomes by succeeding generations. Terminating Social Security for the elderly also terminates it for those who follow.”

A “pact,” you say? Just when did I consent to and sign such a “pact?” And just how could I have consented to and signed such a “pact” if this so-called agreement was created before I was even born? Was I therefore born into such an agreement and obligation? How is this not indentured servitude?

Funding Social Security involves taxing one generation to fund the benefits of another. “Tax” is just a deceiving, statist term for “theft”. These contributions certainly aren’t voluntary. Their collection and resulting distribution is ultimately executed at the point of a gun. It is the state that is the instigator and executor of this theft. And since the booty of this theft is transferred from one generation to another, how can it not be accurately described as inter-generational theft?

In his post, Dr. Roberts then lists all the tweaks and adjustments made to this theft program to make it both solvent and politically palatable. Of course, all these changes have failed miserably. Each succeeding generation becomes more upset about being forced into such an ill conceived program. And the system becomes ever more bankrupt and at risk of collapsing.

The first recipient of Social Security benefits was Ida May Fuller in 1940. She had participated in the program for three years and “contributed” a grand total of $24.75. After dying at the age of 100, Ms. Fuller had received (according to $22,888.92 in benefits. Shazam! That’s some return! If any private retirement program gave such a return on principal it would immediately be eyed with suspicion and investigated for fraud. But not when a government program gets such results. Only the benevolent, messianic state can create such financial miracles.

Social Security was set up as a Ponzi scheme at Day One, which is criminal enough. But it was also funded by force (through taxes). The program has also declared a “trust fund” exists when in fact there are only government issued IOU’s within this “trust fund” and absolutely no cash. These IOU’s must be funded by still more future theft victims. Therefore, you may also list the crime of fraud being committed by this deceiving program.

Instead of taking the individual responsibility of providing for their own methods of support in old age, the ruling generation in 1937 decided instead to loot the preceding generation and saddle all future generations with the same slavish obligations, theft, and fraud. In order to fund their poorly designed schemes, the state seems to prefer preying on those least able to resist. The dead are taxed by way of estate taxes and have no opportunity to fight back. The unborn are also victimized by being saddled with debts and obligations they have no chance of consenting to.

Yes, the money (“trust fund”) has been stolen, but even if that hadn’t occurred, the future demographics (workers/beneficiaries) cannot possibly support such a scam. In 1950, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16.5-to-1. Presently, the worker to beneficiary ratio is at 3.1-to-1. See why your SS taxes are so high? And within 20 years it's expected to drop to 2.1-to-1. This setup cannot be supported without confiscatory, intolerable levels of taxation. Bernie Madoff’s scam eventually caught up with him and so will Uncle Sam’s.

Yes, “terminating Social Security for the elderly also terminates it for those who follow.” But it has to end sometime. Its failure is mathematically inevitable. It was doomed from the start. It’s unethical redistribution of wealth from one generation to another is unacceptable. How much longer should people be forced at the point of a gun to fund and tolerate such thievery and fraud? You can either end it creatively (and gradually) or you can sit back, whine about the political impossibility and temporary inconvenience and watch it fall into a colossal heap of misery. That is not an “ideological argument,” as Dr. Roberts might describe such a claim. That is reasoned fact.

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Monday, June 18, 2012

Outlaw ‘Illegals?’ Outlaw the State!

There is much hubbub in the blogosphere recently about The Choomin’ Kenyan’s decision involving “illegal” immigration. Apparently, many believe that a country already looted and destroyed by our wonderful ruling class, will be damaged even further because a few hundred thousand, non-white individuals will be “legally” residing here.

Read any story about a crime or fatal auto accident story on your local news site. Check the comments section. If persons involved in the crime or accident have a Latin surname, there are always commenters blaming “illegals” for causing the problem. They then stumble through some incoherent rant about how “illegals” are destroying “their” country. These ignorant, bootlicking, US loyalists will jump on any person with any kind of non-European surname, though they have NO idea of the “citizenship status” of this particular individual. That’s of course, if you believe such a “fact” is even relevant. They create a convenient scapegoat to excuse their personal failures and create an easy target to attack, instead of having the guts to attack the real enemy- THE STATE!

In reality, these stiffs are all just pale faced welfare bums who dislike competition for free stuff from their diseased, demented Uncle Sam. They can be likened to slaves on one plantation, suspicious and hostile to slaves being sold or transferred from neighboring plantations. They want no competition for their master’s benevolence. They see their comfy, collectivist cocoon being threatened by outsiders.

Instead of “outlawing” migrants, OUTLAW THE STATE! All property will be privately owned, therefore no one can pass without being invited by the property owner. Anyone uninvited will be considered a trespasser and dealt with accordingly. There will also be no “free goodies” being distributed by this institution for such migrants to pursue. Such help will only come from charity, whose operation will be controlled privately and subject to the discipline of the market.

Problem solved. No violence necessary.

But something tells me this will be unacceptable to those angry “patriots” who psychologically require some kind of enemy to revile. They will no longer have anyone to blame their failures on. They will no longer have their master/caretaker to bless them with the miraculous appearance of loaves and fishes to make them feel wanted. Too bad for them. Those folks may just have to migrate themselves to someplace state slavery still exists.

No, Pedro and Juan are not a threat. They are not threatening your liberties and future. They are merely looking to better their lives. The real danger comes from those who claim to rule, control, manage, and direct your life and property for their benefit and at your expense. This rule is backed with the overt threat of violence. This threat is armed with superior firepower that you, dear “patriot,” paid for and, most likely, proudly recognize (Support the Troops!).

Want to “take back” the country? Ally with Pedro and Juan, hang the master and his overseers, and close the plantation.

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters


Sunday, June 17, 2012

Quotes of the Week

From the Light:
“The rationalization for the existence of political systems has, at least since the Enlightenment, depended upon the illusion of a ‘social contract‘; that governments come into existence only through the 'consent of the governed' as expressed in a written constitution. I know of no state system that ever originated by a contract among individuals.”
Butler Shaffer

“I have often wondered how cops would be incentivized if their everyday job behavior could cost them their jobs and all future livelihood for the rest of their lives if their perennial abuses were not socialized over the taxpayers in their towns and cities for their bad judgment and violence against civilians. By extension, would it not be intriguing if all the collectivist fetishists in the American academy had to actually live in the societies they advocate for and had to live in isolated colonies for a long period of time under the rules they advocate?”
Bill Buppert

“Maybe government didn't ‘free’ humans to develop culture and civilization, as has been claimed- maybe those things developed and evolved as a sort of immune response to the deadly threat posed by government's growth; an evolutionary arms race.”
Kent McManigal

“'We' is one of the most dangerous words in the English language, particularly when bandied about in Western representative democracy.
It's a term often used when a politician wants to thrust a burden or obligation onto everyone else's shoulders, but without being too direct about it.
'We' masks responsibility by pushing the burden to some nebulous collective like 'society' or 'the country' rather than directly to individuals. This makes things much more palatable.”
Simon Black

“What's lost in the whole ‘gun violence’ mania is that guns aren't violent; people are violent.
The true definition of 'gun violence,' say libertarians, is disarming everyone using the threat of laws enforced by government guns.”
Garry Reed

“The only framework within which genuine democracy can exist is voluntary association of equals, in which we are all recognized as ends rather than means, and our right to informed consent on matters that affect us is respected. You’ll never find that within the state.”
Kevin Carson

“Globalization (as the centralization of power) presents social harmony as imposed control, human rights as defined by one agency, and efficiency as a one-size-fits-all process. Globalization is the ultimate in social engineering.
Implicit here is the notion that competition is wrong or wasteful. Absent here is the idea of freedom or personal choice.”
Wendy McElroy

“Congress is addicted to the allure of doing 'something.' Trusting free people to make rational choices is not considered ‘something.’ They are addicted to the belief that if there is a problem, there must be a legislative solution.”
Peter Schiff

“The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias – a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty, not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in God's image, and governments are temporary and based on force.”
Andrew P. Napolitano

“Our rights to life and liberty are evident from the time of our very existence. These rights encompass all others, for without the right to life, and the freedom to sustain and protect that life; no other rights could possibly exist. Pieces of paper secretly drafted by politicians in the dark of night cannot give or protect rights, as those same politicians, or those who follow in their footsteps, could arbitrarily change the rules at any time of their choosing. For any set of rules to be valid, they first have to be accepted voluntarily by the individuals involved, and actively defended at every turn. But today, those individuals affected rely on a small group of corrupt politicians called 'representatives,' to act in their behalf, instead of taking responsibility for their own lot in life. That, in my opinion, is a recipe for tyranny.”
Gary D. Barnett

“The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.”
John Hay
From the Darkness:
"We have made it very clear that we are going to continue to defend ourselves. This is about our sovereignty as well."
Leon Panetta, defending his drone killing in Pakistan [“Defend yourselves?” The only reason you’re being “attacked” because you have invaded and occupied someone else’s home and property.]

“There’s evil people in the world. Drones aren’t evil, people are evil. We are a force of good and we are using those drones to carry out the policy of righteousness and goodness.”
Rep. King, depraved defender of drones and American exceptionalism

“If the civilian government in Islamabad would bite the bullet and make the political decision to open the ground lines of communication, that would deflect some of the negativity right now.”
An unnamed senior US government official, encouraging Pakistan to re-open supply routes to NATO forces in Afghanistan in order to ease tensions with the US [They can’t bite the bullet if you’re forcing it down their throats.]

"The question is how many more have to die at the hands of this bloody dictator [in Syria] before we intervene. I think you have to arm the opposition. They are desperate for arms."
John McCain, as bloodthirsty as ever

"To impose arbitrary and automatic cuts to our warfighters, who are putting their lives on the line for our country, would be morally unconscionable and would break faith with them and their families."
From a letter from the Republican heads of the House Defense, Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees, objecting to any budget cuts affecting their uniformed terrorists

“People say that ‘you’re selling your soul.’ No, I’m supporting the party that I belong to, in order to try to work within the party to get things I believe in.”
Rand Paul, explaining why he chose party over principle

"We can't yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation. We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict."
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, attempting to predict that scheduled Pentagon budget cuts could lead to war. [So the only way to “defend” yourself is to occupy and rule the entire world?]

“If the impact of climate change is going to make regions of violence poorer, then they really provide a level of fertility for inciting disaffection, resentment against the prosperous world. That’s an indirect effect that can create the conditions for terrorism."
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change, blaming a change in the weather for terrorism

"Decades of right-wing and libertarian propaganda against Social Security have hardened the hearts of political elites, media, and even it sometimes seems of AARP against the elderly, who are portrayed as an expensive burden."
Paul Craig Roberts [No, it’s not the elderly who are the “burden“, it is unrepentant statists like Mr. Roberts who just can’t drop their defense of inter-generational thievery.]

Attention readers! My blog analytics seem to indicate that this weekly feature is not particularly well read. I enjoy putting it together but it is time consuming. I may be better off spending my time producing content that is more attractive to readers. If you think this feature is worthy of continuing (or not), please send feedback via the comment section or email me. Thanks!