The Case For Nationalized Health Care

I knew he looked familiar...

Climate (of Hypocrisy) Change

Queen Nancy: Profile in Buffoonery

That was then...

January 17, 2006: "So I think all of you who have spoken out for your courage, your point of view. All of it. Your advocacy is very American and very important."

...this is now:

August 10, 2009: "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

From "Very" to "Un-" in three short years. Fascinating.

ObamaCare: A Well-Dressed, Un-American, Dissident View of Citizen Outrage

According to the Leftoids, when 53% of the public elect a Democrat president, it's a mandate for HopeChange™ and a full-scale Socialist remodelling of our governing principles. However, when 53% (or more) oppose their universal health care scheme... well, they're just ignorant, dupes and/or un-American, Nazi-like tools of the insurance companies. When Leftoids use their resources to muster their drones and bus them cross-country to demonstrate one imagined greivance after another, it's praised as "community organizing;" when their political opponents do the same thing, it's derided as "astroturfing."

This is rich. The Leftoids -- who for 8 long years reminded us that dissent is patriotic while shouting their bumper-sticker platitudes about "Blood For Oil" and burning Bush in effigy with impunity while decrying the non-existent chilling effect of the Bushitler Junta on their First Amendment rights -- these same Leftoids now think that the angry so-called "mobs" showing up at town hall meetings to give their elected representatives what-for should be silent, because to protest our government is "un-American" and tantamount to Nazism. Americans are encouraged to report fellow citizens to the White House... yet we're the ones who are called Nazis?!?!? It's just fucking Orwellian, isn't it?

And then there's the Gutless Old Party: the RINOs think we should be quiet and civil and engage in reasoned debate with an opposition party that will merely take such as yet another sign of weakness before steamrolling over anyone who stands in their way. Through our distinguished representatives in the House and Senate we had plenty of "civil debate"; we've had it over the TARP bailouts, over the so-called "stimulus" pork slush fund, over the takeovers of the banking and automotive industries. "Civil debate" is working out pretty piss poorly, I'd say.

There may very well be a time and place for civil debate. But not now. As far as I'm concerned, calm, reasoned, civil debate is fine when it's over a fundamental role or function of government -- how best to appropriate defense funds, for example, or regulate interstate commerce. These are specific, enumerated duties that the government is charged with under the Constitution. People can have differing opinions on the ways and means, but these actual roles themselves are not in question; we know this because it's right there in the Constitution, in black and white. But having a civil debate with politicians over how best to implement a government health care takeover is like having a civil debate with a carjacker about how to best maintain your car after he steals it.

Let us be clear: Providing health care to citizens is not a legitimate function of the government -- at least not this government, not under this Constitution. So when half or more of the citizens are in effect told by the ruling class to shut the fuck up, get out of the way and accept yet another encroachment on their liberties by an omnipotent Socialist juggernaut, then shouting is the bare minimum of what must be done, and the shouting mustn't be limited merely to the Democrats, either -- both parties need to be scared of the citizens they (ostensibly) represent. That's the way the system was designed, not the other way around. If they're not scared for their lives, they should at least be scared for their cushy Ivory Tower lifestyle in DC.

Falling.

Like space debris.The chin thrusts couldn't save Mussolini in the end, either.

Destroy

Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter
By Michael Doyle and David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling.

On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci.

This is opposition research: a constant shadow on Capitol Hill.

"The whole business of getting Supreme Court nominees through the process has become bloodsport," said Gary Rose, a government and politics professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.

On Friday, citing in an e-mail "Frank Ricci's troubled and litigious work history," the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way drew reporters' attention to Ricci's past. Other advocates for Sotomayor have discreetly urged journalists to pursue similar story lines.

My, how times have changed -- dissent is no longer patriotic, but the politics of personal destruction are once again acceptable to the Leftoids. Methinks this would make for some fine cinema...

Gangster Government

(h/t: Witkowski)

Wake up, people.

Computer Malfunction

More anti-Islamic hate speech from far right-wing extremist Faux News:

Two passengers with names linked to Islamic terrorism were on board the Air France flight that crashed in the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 228 on board, it has emerged.

French secret servicemen established the connection while working through the list of those who boarded the doomed Airbus in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on May 31.

Agents are now trying to establish dates of birth for the two dead passengers, and family connections.

There is a possibility that the name similarities are simply a "macabre coincidence," the source added, but the revelation is still being "taken very seriously."

Flight AF447 crashed in mid-Atlantic en route to Paris during a violent storm.

While it is certain that there were computer malfunctions, terrorism has not been ruled out.

I suppose if all all the flight control systems were destroyed by a bomb, along with the rest of the plane, that could be construed by some to be a "malfunction".

And besides, the only "terrorists" are us right-wing extremists in America who own guns and read the Constitution.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

We are so fucked.

Soooo.... How you liking yo' Change™ so far?

In a legal sleight of hand, the New York Federal Reserve -- under Geithner's supervision and in corroboration with then-Secretary Hank Paulson -- established the AIG trust, an ill-conceived and likely unconstitutional arrangement. According to Geithner's scheme, three handpicked government trustees represent taxpayer interests with indemnity from lawsuits and exemptions that allow them to take advantage of business opportunities for personal profit that would otherwise benefit AIG.

A sweetheart deal to be sure. And while it's easy to see how the trust was structured to protect the trustees -- and perhaps the Treasury, in whose interests they are legally compelled to act -- there is almost no protection for the taxpayers who fronted the cash that's keeping AIG afloat.

In fact, provisions of the AIG trust threaten U.S. taxpayers. By tying the trustees' fiduciary duty to the Treasury -- now run by Secretary Geithner -- the risk that short-term political interests will trump long-term financial soundness is intensified.

Moreover, where ordinary trustees are generally prohibited from exploiting investment opportunities that they learn about as a direct result of their responsibilities, the AIG trustees are free to secretly invest their own capital without disclosure.

Finally, Secretary Geithner has ensured the broadest possible indemnity protections for AIG trustees. Ostensibly, the trustees could initiate a clandestine investment plan to pad their own portfolios, appoint directors complicit in the fraudulent scheme, run AIG into the ground while making dollar-for-dollar counterparty payments and leave U.S. taxpayers holding a paper company with no market capitalization and drowning in debt -- all without any legal recourse.

In the end, the bailout of AIG has made U.S. taxpayers more vulnerable, not less. It has established a dangerous precedent for impulsive federal control of private corporations, siphoned off billions of taxpayer dollars and aggravated our economic pain rather than heal it.

Astoundingly, Secretary Geithner recently announced the possibility of structuring a similar bailout trust for Citigroup. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, I'm afraid the inmates are running the asylum over at the Department of Treasury.

Yet another reason our Creator endowed us with the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Purnelle Predicted HopeChange in 1983

I've not read much Jerry Pournelle -- just a couple of his novels co-written with Larry Niven ("Lucifer's Hammer", "The Mote in God's Eye") and a great book on the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Mutual Assured Survival") that he wrote in the 80's. One might say he has a gift for foresight, but I'd say such a gift is hardly unique or supernatural -- anyone who reads and understands history (real history, not the garbage they teach in academia these days) could have predicted the mess we're in today without benefit of psychic abilities.

On his web site, Pournelle posts a piece originally written in 1983, but it could have been written yesterday to describe the present state of HopeyChangey affairs (h/t: Ace):

"Tyrants seldom come openly, their hands dripping with blood, their eyes blazing with hate. More often they come as friends of the people, tireless workers for the public good, heroes who will save the nation; who will cut the Gordian knot of parliamentary babble; who will carry out the people’s will.

"They come with promises. If we will disarm ourselves, they will provide professionals to protect us. If we give over our property they will assure us jobs. Crime will be abolished. Poverty will vanish. Together we will build a nation worthy of the future."

Any of this sound familiar?

Oppose S.843

Another idiotic assassination attempt on the Second Amendment, another round of emails to my elected mis-representatives.

I recently moved to Texas from the pitiful little state of New Jersey. I did so for many reasons, one of which was to reclaim my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It seems, however, that my erstwhile Senator, Frank Lautenberg, has not given up on his quest to infringe upon my rights.

I'm sure Lautenberg's hatred of firearms stems from his younger days as a Tory during the American revolution; he should do well to remember how badly the whole gun control thing worked out in 1775. But I digress...

I write to urge you to OPPOSE S. 843 (To establish background check procedures for gun shows).

Thank you.

I'm sure my two Senators (Hutchison and Cornyn) will do the right thing.

Update I (4/25): More on this abomination.

Update II (4/25): Reply from Sen. Cornyn:

Thank you for contacting my offices. Your correspondence has been received, and we will respond to you as quickly as possible. A copy of your message is attached below for your records.

If you need immediate assistance regarding an urgent problem you are experiencing with the federal government, visit the "Help With Federal Agencies" section of the website for details on how to proceed so that your difficulties are brought to my attention as soon as possible.

If you are seeking information or services from my offices that are NOT related to my Legislative duties, please visit my "Services For Texans" section for more information.

Warmest Regards,
U.S. Senator John Cornyn

Update III (4/27): Reply from Sen. Hutchison:

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation and the protection of law-abiding citizens' right to own firearms. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

While we all support the strongest measures to ensure that guns do not end up in the wrong hands, I believe that one of the most powerful deterrents we have is the consistent, full enforcement of the numerous laws that already address many aspects of the problem. For instance, there are more than a dozen laws at the state and federal level that deal with the use, carrying, ownership, or trafficking of guns, and we must prosecute without qualification those who violate these laws.

Rather than usurping the rights of law-abiding citizens, I believe we should vigorously prosecute those who use guns to commit crimes. I have worked to enact federal anti-crime legislation that imposes tough minimum sentences on those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes, prevents early parole for violent criminals, and provides federal funds to build new prisons and fund local law enforcement. I will continue to support legislation that fights crime and upholds our Second Amendment rights.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller. I submitted an amicusbrief to the Court in support of affirming the District of Columbia's gun ban as unconstitutional, and was joined by 55 Senators, 250 House members, and the Vice President of the United States. This historic decision will affect gun laws throughout the country that try to unjustly undermine our rights under the Second Amendment.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

Well, OK then...

Williams on Secession

The great Walter Williams sums it up:

Perry is right when he says that there is no reason for Texas to secede. There are indeed intermediate actions short of secession that states can take. Thomas Jefferson said, "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." That suggests that one response to federal encroachment is for state governments to declare federal laws that have no constitutional authority null and void and refuse to enforce them.

While the U.S. Constitution does not provide a specific provision for nullification, the case for nullification is found in the nature of compacts and agreements. Our Constitution represents a compact between the states and the federal government. As with any compact, one party does not have a monopoly over its interpretation, nor can one party change it without the consent of the other. Additionally, no one has a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. That's not to say there is not a compelling case for obedience of unconstitutional laws. That compelling case is the brute force of the federal government to coerce obedience, possibly going as far as using its military might to lay waste to a disobedient state and its peoples.

Finally, here's my secession question for you. Some Americans accept and have respect for the Tenth Amendment, which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Other Americans, the majority I fear, say to hell with the Tenth Amendment limits on the federal government. Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?

Emphasis mine.

(h/t: Reason)

Right-Wing Extremist

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Code Red!

In light of the shocking revelations presented in the recent report on Right-Ring Extremism, Janet Napolitano has announced a restructuring of the Dept. of Homeland Security advisory system to better reflect the current threats to America:


Duck and cover.

Of Extremists, Secession, and Disavowal

Democrats: Texas gov should disavow secession talk

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A group of Texas Democrats says Republican Gov. Rick Perry was reckless when he suggested at an anti-tax rally that fed-up Americans may one day want to secede from the United States. They said Thursday that he should disavow such talk. Democratic state Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco says talk of secession is anti-American and that some people associate it with racial division and the Civil War. Perry's office did not immediately respond Thursday. Answering a question from The Associated Press at an anti-tax rally Wednesday, Perry said he doesn't think Texas should secede. But he said the federal government was thumbing its nose at the American people and added, "who knows what might come out of that."

Well, I think the Democrats should disavow socialism and reaffirm their commitment to states rights and limited federal powers. But they're not going to do that, are they?

If "some people" mistakenly associate our legitimate concerns about the Federal oligarchy overstepping its Constitutional limitations for "racial division," it only proves how out of touch and irrelevant they are.

What exactly did Perry say? The widely reported quote in question is hardly a rally cry for secession:

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

This is what has Leftoids outraged? Please.

As for this Dunnam character, I'll the opportunity to vote against him next time his name shows up on a ballot. I've already written to him urging his support of Texas House Bill 1803 (Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of institutions of higher education); a wrong vote on that issue and his seat is toast anyway.

Regarding secession: Do I believe the Tenth Amendment upholds a state's right to secede from the Union? Yes, 100%. Do I believe Texas is going to secede? No -- certainly not yet. Is Rich Perry pandering for votes? Probably. Are his remarks being blown out of both context and proportion by the Left? Yes... and most of those doing so are doing it for the single reason of making Perry and the state rights advocates look like loony separatists. They should study their history.

Our founders were loyal Brits, most of whom were initially opposed to colonial independence; they were dragged into the independence movement slowly by the increasing suppression of their rights as free men by an overpowering government who took them for granted and treated them as serfs. Independence was only a serious consideration after all other avenues of addressing their grievances were exhausted and ignored by the Crown and Parliament.

The fate of our Union lies -- today, tomorrow, and always -- squarely in the hands of the federal government. Good, hard-working Americans are finally taking notice of the way D.C. takes its citizens for granted and they are speaking out. Our government has forgotten who works for whom, and who should fear whom. The Tenth Amendment is clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." There is no language in the Constitution that specifically allows for secession; neither is there any language that prohibits it.

For the Left's part, their reactions to both Perry's statement and the Tea Party phenomenon are more concerning to me. With their silly Homeland Security and MIAC memos tucked firmly under their arms along with "Rules for Radicals" and "Das Kapital", they label as a "right-wing extremist" and a "terrorist threat" anyone who distrusts the government, who holds strong Tenth Amendment views, who owns guns or supports the Second Amendment, who wants lower taxation and responsible government spending -- basically, anyone who voted against Obama.

That's right, folks -- we're all Timothy McVeighs now. Funny, though... our "terrorists" get executed; theirs get pardons and tenure, and the unwavering support of the Left.

Speaking of "right-wing extremist terrorist threats" -- thank God this guy's off the streets... (h/t: Codrea):



Any questions about why people no longer trust our government?

Sovereignty

“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.” - Sam Houston

Why Republicans Are The Minority Party (Part MCXVII)

Witness Spencer Bachus (R-AL):

Bachus discussed a number of topics in his speech Thursday morning. He did not give the response some small city officials were hoping for when they asked if he would oppose all gun bans.

Instead, he said, it may be necessary to ban some assault weapons to keep hunting rifles and guns from being outlawed.

How would Spencer feel about giving up some of his First Amendment rights -- say, the freedom to exercise his religion -- in order to protect other First Amendment rights, like his right to open his mouth to release his flatulence about gun rights?

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is not about target shooting. If you believe that it is, you are not fit for elected office.

He said he is discouraging those who ask him whether they should arm themselves in preparation for economic or government trouble ahead. "I think peaceful, nonviolent protest is the way to go," he said.

Sure. And when citizens attend peaceful, nonviolent protests and are categorized by their government as extremists and homegrown terrorists, then what?

This DHS report warns of the terrorist threat from those who "are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely."

Wow... that sounds just like me! Now I'm a Homeland Security terrorist threat! See you at the re-education camp, folks. But I digress... back to Bachus:

He said he also believes it is a threat that the criminals will begin out-gunning the police officers. He said everyone should also be aware of the role weapons are playing in the recent multiple shooting tragedies around the country.

I'm concerned about criminals out-gunning the police, too. But I am far more concerned about criminals out-gunning me. I do not and will not rely on the police or any other government agency for protection of my rights, life or property. They are under no obligation to protect me; this is a fact. Why should I depend on them?

If others want their lives to hinge on a 9-1-1 operator or a police officer who might be 30 minutes away, that is their choice; I would oppose any and all legislation to prevent them from doing so. Just don't interfere with my right and my duty to protect myself and my family by telling me which and how many guns I may own.

Obama Wins Illegal, Immoral War Against the Pirate-African Community

I just fucking knew it was all Bush's fault:

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., offered his praised of the military but also said that piracy had long been neglected by the Bush administration.

"I am elated by the safe rescue of Captain Richard Phillips and the crew of the Maersk Alabama and I thank and congratulate the Navy SEALS and others whose remarkable efforts resulted in a successful end to this troubling situation," Feingold said. "While the episode involving the crew of the Maersk Alabama had a happy ending, piracy off the coast of Somalia will assuredly continue since it is a symptom of the state collapse in Somalia, which presents a much greater and more dangerous problem. For years, Somalia's growing instability was neglected by the Bush administration and the international community. The new administration must not make the same mistake."

Feingold, as we all know, is a deceitful cocksucker. Anyone with a modicum of decency and honesty would understand that Bush "neglected" to do somethingthing about Somali piracy during his term because they never successfully took a US-flagged vessel until last week. Isn't it Feingold's despicable leftoid ilk that castigates its own country whenever it takes action "unilaterally?" Isn't it his party that condemns America when it tries to be (as you derisively call it) "the policeman of the world?" Oh, right -- that's only when it's a Republican CINC.

Fact #1: All the vessels that have previously been victims of high-seas piracy off the horn of Africa were under flags of other nations.

Fact #2: These nations did nothing to defend their ships and country except acquiesce to the demands of the thugs, pay out the ransoms as demanded, and further embolden the fucking pirates.

And this was Bush's problem how, exactly? Was the United States supposed to act on the behalf of Hong Kong? Of Panama? Of Denmark? Of the fucking Fwench? Are American soldiers and sailors now supposed to defend citizens of all the gutless countries of "the world community" who would rather pay ransom money to thugs than rescue their own people? Last I remember, the United Nations was in charge of "peacekeeping" in Somalia, not Bush. Oddly, I don't hear any mention of UN "neglect"...

Memo to Feingold: You're a dickless scumbag. What happened to the outrage against America that you and your so-called "world community" constantly spewed at Bush every time he did anything on behalf of America's allies? And now... this is all Bush's fault because he didn't launch what you and your miserable fucking ilk would surely have denounced as another "immoral, illegal, unilateral war against a nation that didn't attack us." You make me want to puke.

Sure, Bush does deserve some blame; after all, wasn't it Bush who denied his troops proper armor, then humiliated the US military by declaring defeat and pulling out of Somalia after they shot down a couple of Blackhawk helicopters and killed 18 American troops in Mogadishu?

Oh, wait... that wasn't Bush. Never mind.

Of course the lapdog media hacks are now hailing The Messiah-Hero for "his" success in his "first national security test". Wow, that was some test: four teenagers with AK-47s and a dinghy against a US Naval frigate, and the mightiest naval power in human history had to stand by for three days while Dear Leader "mulled" the situation and weighed "the intentions" of the pirates.

Make no mistake: the Navy snipers are the real heros. They performed brilliantly, as expected; it is their success, not Obama's. This rescue could have, and should have, been done exactly 5 minutes after the US Navy arrived on the scene, but not for the pussyfooting and hand-wringing in Washington. And for all this, the leftoids want to unroll the "Mission Accomplished" banner? Why not a fucking ticker-tape parade while we're at it?

Sorry, I'm not ready to proclaim Obama as the greatest military leader since Alexander the Great, not just yet -- let's talk after he orders air strikes on Iranian and North Korean nuclear reactors. Or is that too nuanced a "National Security Test" for the left? Instead, how about the next time a DC cop busts a drunk driver, Obama can be hailed for his successful handling of his "first Domestic Terrorism test."

The Free and The Unashamed

I didn't write this... but I wish I had.

= A Declaration of Separation =

==== To The Governments & People of Earth: ====
We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it.

We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone.

All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed.

We no longer see any benefit in working through the world’s systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity.

We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this – it was forced upon us.

==== To The Governments of Earth: ====
You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era.

Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects. Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not.

We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives.

We are on every continent.

This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life.

For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems. If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us.

- From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly.

But if you come after us, there will be consequences. You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do.

You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.

==== To The People of Earth: ====
We seek nothing from you. We do not want to rule you and we do not want to control you.

All we wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, we will be helpful neighbors and generous acquaintances. We will remain honest business partners and trustworthy employees. We will continue to be loving parents and respectful children.

We will not, however, be sacrificial animals. We reject the idea that others have a right to our lives and our property. We will not demand anything from you, and we will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon us. We have left that game. We reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life.

We will shortly explain what we believe, but we are not demanding that you agree with us. All we ask is that you do not try to stop us. Continue to play the game if you wish; we will not try to disrupt it. We have merely walked away from it.

We wish you peace.

==== To Those Who Will Condemn Us: ====
We will ignore you.

We welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom we are willing to expose our innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing?

We would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day we will have to accept slaughter for our crime of independence, but not yet.

Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose our philosophy, you oppose our existence. Our presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill us than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human.

You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but we know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, we know you, servant of the state; don’t forget, we were raised with you. We played with you in the schoolyard, we sat next to you in the classroom. Some of us studied at the same elite universities. We watched as you had your first tastes of power. We were the boys and girls standing next to you.

Some of us were your first victims. We are not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.

==== What We Believe ====
#1: Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. We accept those responsibilities and we embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to us (avoiding consciousness), we accept consciousness and choose to act in our own interest. We do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do we take refuge in crowds. We are willing to act on our personal judgment, and we are willing to accept the consequences thereof.

#2: We believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that we oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.

#3: We do not believe that our way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. We expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and we are prepared to deal with them. We do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for us. We agree to see to them ourselves.

#4: We believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene – before, during or after.

#5: We believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.

#6: We believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.

#7: We believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. We accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.

#8: We believe that humans can self-organize effectively. We expect them to cooperate. We reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.

#9: We believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.

#10: We believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.

#11: We believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others - either directly or through intermediaries - and those who have no such desires.

#12: Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.

==== Our Plans: ====
We are building our own society. We will supplement traditional tools with networking, cryptography, sound money, digital currency and anonymous messaging.

Our society will not be centrally controlled. It will rely solely on voluntary arrangements. We welcome others to join us. We are looking for people who are independent creators of value, people who act more than talk, and people who do the right thing because it is the right thing.

We will develop our own methods of dealing with injustice, built on the principles of negative rights, restitution, integrity and equal justice.

We do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm - ours and the old realm - although we demand that they do no damage to our realm. We are fully opposed to any use of our realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds.

We expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. We expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. We expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies, at least at first.

We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses.

Any who wish to join us are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of our new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.

Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.

We are The Free and The Unashamed.

What more to say? Except, of course, "Amen!"

To Protect and Serve

A little sample what we have to look forward to in the new & improved Former United States of America...



"Freeze and drop your Constitutional rights!"

Why I Support Human Cloning.

Can we get 535 copies of this guy for our Senate and House of (mis)Representatives?

But they support the troops!

Not merely satisfied with plans to disarm American citizens, our new hopey-changey overlords (whose patriotism cannot be questioned, mind you) now plan to disarm the American military, too:

Gates to cut several major weapons programs
By ANNE GEARAN - The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates is proposing deep cuts to some big weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter jet as the Pentagon takes a hard look at how it spends money. Gates announced a broad range of cuts Monday to weapons spending, saying he plans to cut programs ranging from a new helicopter for the president to ending production of the $140 billion F-22 fighter jet.

Not enough change for you? But wait -- there's more!

Barack Obama's new offensive against nuclear weapons - Radical drive among series of measures to improve security

Barack Obama yesterday announced a radical drive aimed at ridding the world of nuclear weapons, as the focus of his European visit switched from financial to geopolitical security.

"In Prague, I will lay out an agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said yesterday after arriving in continental Europe for the first time as president. "The spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet," he warned, adding that suspected rogue nuclear states, such as North Korea or Iran, may only be persuaded to abandon their quests if the big nuclear powers set an example.

"We can't reduce the threat of a nuclear weapon going off unless those that possess the most nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia, take serious steps to reduce our stockpiles," Obama said. "So we want to pursue that vigorously in the years ahead."

A "radical drive" indeed! No better way to improve security than by eliminating the nuclear deterrent that has kept the free world free since 1945. I'm sure Iran and North Korea will follow suit soon after our unilateral disarmament is complete. I'm sure.

Perhaps Obama will lead the way towards a safer world by disbanding his Secret Service detail (after all, they carry guns, and guns cause violence) and fly coach from now on instead of using that relic of the Cold War, Air Force One, with all those unnecessary air defense gizmos.

"Write Your Congressman" -- Not Just a Cliché Anymore...

I don't remember ever writing to any of my elected representatives before, but I feel compelled to do so now. Here is my first (of many?) letters to Chet Edwards (D-TX), who represents the 17th Congressional District of Texas in which I currently reside:

Dear Congressman Edwards,

It has been said that if one's elected representatives do not know you, then they can not, and do not, represent you. With this in mind, I write to you to introduce myself. I am a new resident of your district, having left New Jersey after 45 years to settle in central Texas with my family. I choose to live in Texas, in part, because I believe in freedom; I oppose punitive taxation; and I take the Second Amendment literally. The elected officials in New Jersey clearly do not share my beliefs, therefore I voted with a U-Haul truck last August and now happily reside in the great state of Texas.

I am a member of no political party; I view Republicans and Democrats with equal suspicion. I judge politicians by their votes and actions, not their promises and rhetoric. Being new to your district, I know little about you other than what I've read on your web site and by briefly searching the Congressional records on THOMAS.

I applaud your support for our veterans, for domestic oil drilling, and for border security, yet I'm disappointed by your votes on the so-called "stimulus" package and other spending bills. I am of the opinion that government must live within its financial means just as my family must. If our household budget runs into a deficit, we do not have the option of transferring wealth from others in order to cover our shortfall; that government does this through forced taxation is irresponsible and contrary to everything I believe in.

After perusing your web site I am happy to see that you share my beliefs with respect to American citizens' Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, I urge you to support the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 (H.R. 197). The notion that I can cross a state border and instantly be transformed from a law-abiding citizen into a felon is pure insanity and antithetical to the Second Amendment which grants citizens of the United States of America gun ownership and possession rights, regardless of what state they happen to find themselves in. Any state law that infringes upon this right, I believe, is unconstitutional. While H.R. 197 is not a perfect solution to unconstitutional firearm laws, it is certainly a step in the right direction and must be enacted into law as soon as possible.

I also urge you to oppose all current and future anti-gun legislation, including the so-called "assault rifle" ban which targets firearms for their looks, not their function. Even though a blackened rifle with a folding stock might be too scary-looking for certain elected officials and bureaucrats, and even though the mere sight of such weapons might cause them to soil their panties, that is not reason enough to infringe on the Constitutional rights of honest, law-abiding citizens who keep and bear such arms for self-defense and sporting purposes. I do not own any rifles at this time, scary-looking or otherwise, but I reserve my right to own one or more in the future and resent a government that attempts to decide which firearms I may or may not own; that they would do so based on cosmetics makes it all the more insulting.

Thank you for taking the time to listen. I will be following your voting record closely during this 111th Congress and sincerely hope that you will earn my support in the next election.

I will post any and all future correspondence here.

Honor Student Kills 4 Cops, Guns Clearly To Blame

Honor Student

More proof that gun control works:

Gunman kills 3 officers, wounds 4th in Oakland
(AP) Sun Mar 22, 10:03 am ET - OAKLAND, Calif.

A police officer was battling for his life and three more were dead after a parolee with an "extensive criminal history" opened fire at a routine traffic stop and hours later gunned down members of a SWAT team searching for him.

The gunman was also killed Saturday, capping a day of violence that the Oakland Police Department said was the worst in its history. Never before had three police officers died in the line of duty on the same day.

[...]

Police said Mixon wielded two different weapons. One gun was used at the first scene and an assault rifle was used at the apartment building where he was hiding.

Jordan said Mixon had an "extensive criminal history" and was wanted on a no-bail warrant.

"(Mixon) was on parole and he had a warrant out for his arrest for violating that parole. And he was on parole for assault with a deadly weapon," said Oakland police Deputy Chief Jeffery Israel.

Call for tougher gun control in California (if that's even possible) in 4...3...2... Oh, silly me. It didn't even take that long:

Officer killings renew gun control issue
[...] Oakland police say Lovelle Mixon used a handgun to shoot the motorcyle cops who pulled him over and an assault rifle at the apartment. They say they believe this is an example of why parolees should not be allowed to have guns.

Mixon was on parole and had a warrant out for his arrest for violating that parole. He was also on parole for assault with a deadly weapon according to Oakland Deputy Police Chief Jeffery Israel.

The gun control issue is a controversial one, with 65 House democrats saying just on Wednesday, that they would oppose any attempt by the Obama administration to ban any military-style weapons.

Yes, gun control is the answer. It is obvious that the laws in this country need to be changed to make it illegal for violent felons to keep and bear arms. That would have stopped this guy, for sure.

Oh, wait -- it's already illegal for violent felons to keep and bear arms!?!?!? The hell you say! Well then, we should change the laws to place more restrictions on honest, law-abiding gun owners; that would have stopped this guy, for sure.

Note also the requisite mention of "assault rifle" in both these articles. Wouldn't be complete without that! They've got to go, too. I mean, aside from the gazillions of murders they commit (all by themselves, no trigger-puller required), think about all the bed-wetting by limp-wristed Leftoids that can be avoided if we eliminate scary looking guns.

In a nutshell: A career criminal let out of jail to walk the streets (by whom, I wonder...) commits murder with guns that he is forbidden by Federal and State law to own. Murder is illegal, gun possession by a felon is illegal, there are countless laws on the books already that this asshole has broken. The State of California knew he was a violent felon, they had him incarcerated, but decided it was in the public interest to let him walk free amongst us humans. And when this honor student commits murder (despite laws saying he can't do that) with guns (despite laws saying he can't own them) the answer is to place further gun restrictions on me?!?!?

Makes perfect sense, I suppose, if you're a citizen of the Leftoid Bizarro World.

Bonus Question -- Find the "assault rifle":

Now, what's the difference between the two?

Answer: NOTHING. Except that one is scary looking and makes Leftoids wet their panties. Both shoot the same rounds, both accept the same magazines, both can be used for "assault." Yet, one is on the would-be gun grabbers' shit list, the other is not.

Well, not yet, anyway...