The Libertists

Snippets from the President's speech and my rebuttal: Obama: “I want to make sure every American is listening today,” Rebutt:  This is an interesting line.  It says a couple of things all at once.  One thing it says is that it assumes we are a united front, that we believe in the change he wishes to force on us.   This is patently false, as all of what he wishes to accomplish is in fact unconstitutional, illegal, and outside his authority to do.   It is so illegal in fact, that it is outside the ability of congress to do.  If "every American is listening..." then perhaps a Constitutional amendment should be passed around, then we'd have a legal approach to what the government is attempting instead of hijacking human rights and throwing out the Constitution. This statement is also a warning, it stands like "Dad Obama" telling us we had better be careful, that we had better listen up.  We better listen while the King tells us whom we are and what are abou

Rand Paul and others have signed an agreement to filibuster any proposed gun measures brought forth by the Senate's Majority Leader, this is what the White House responsed with:  "White House press secretary Jay Carney suggested Tuesday that GOP Sens. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul are out of step with the public on gun-control measures. The three lawmakers have threatened to filibuster 'any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.' Carney said he hasn’t spoken with President Obama about the threat, but the White House position is clear. 'Filibusters of efforts to move forward with common-sense measures to reduce gun violence would be unfortunate,' he said. We have worked with Congress, with the Senate, to try to advance the elements of the president’s plan that require legislative action and these again are common-sense measures. Closing gun-show loopholes, that’s an idea that has something like 90 percent sup

The coward's gamble, one more time, is this: The hope that a slight concession of Liberty, Freedom, or Property will keep the individual from being punished, hurt, or otherwise shunned by society. It is also composed of the word; "coward"  which is defined by websters.com as: one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity   So, for clarity, a person of disgraceful fear concedes freedom to a superior person out of worry that harm will come to them.  In grade school, this is exemplified by the relationship between bullies and their victims. I was in this particular social framework, being that I was tall, extremely thin, and awkward most of my life, I found myself the brunt of many a bully.   At first, I played the cowards gamble, often relenting to the bully whatever he wished.  It wasn't until late in fifth grade that I was accosted by a bully on my way home from baseball practice that I had the intellectual situation that fixed me from having this part

Comparing Child Pornography to Gun Control It was bound to happen that someone would make the comparison to the 2nd amendment against the 1st or the 4th, being that those other amendments specify specific rights of The People.  It was, therefore, an eventuality that someone would chime back with the reply, "well, is child pornography protected under the 1st amendment?" This is where the fundamental disconnect occurs.  They are not even the same thing.  One is an inalienable right of an individual, the other is an act against another human being.  That is.  You're right to speak or own your thoughts is untouchable against any action or power and you are the single most influential authority when it comes to your vision and images (1st amendment).  A right is an extension of the personal self, of the self property.  A right is personal, safe from intrusion form others. A person whom takes a child and forces them to commit acts against their own property (their bodies)

To the members of Government: I received this from whitehouse.gov: "The American people made their voices heard, and the Senate made progress to make it harder for criminals and people with serious mental illnesses to get guns, to crack down on anyone trying to funnel guns to criminals, and to reinstate and strengthen a ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons. Each of these ideas deserves a vote. The President urges Congress to pass these commonsense measures while affirming our nation’s tradition of responsible gun ownership." Let us examine this piece by piece: "The American people made their voices..."  Obviously this is not relevant nor accurate.  It is not relevant because the federal government has zero authority to alter the Constitution, nor the right to ignore the Constitution.  Any act that the federal government imposes on the Liberty of a Free People is in fact crime.  It is also not relevant because we do not live in a democracy, the 51

When in the course of human history we, The People, come face to face with unspeakable acts of ignorance and fear that are aimed not at the vast majority of freemen, but at a tiny sliver of the society that does not, in action, wish to agree to the fearmongers anyway, we, all free men, find ourselves facing down a giant that does not wish to be slain. But slay these dragons we must. For they represent not the acts of free thinking men, but the chains of labor restrictive egoists, bent on dictating the lives of others through courts, laws, and a blatant attempt to subvert the facts in order to make their case. For they, these enemies, do not act in the best interest of progress, but instead, pull, with their laws at the very hands of advancement and say to it that it should stop moving forward and instead regress to a point where these little men have rested their own minds.  These men are not progressive, but children really, whom never grown up and feel that all of man should be

Rebuttal to Los Angeles Times Editoral piece labeled: “Peril from ‘patriots” (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/08/opinion/la-ed-patriot-groups-splc-report-20130308) Normally I would never waste my time with even examining such a piece, simply because it makes zero actual arguments and instead uses generalizations, fear, worry, and doubt as divisive tools to get at its general point, being: guns bad, vis. People who like guns really bad. Let us first, examine the title of the piece: Peril from ‘patriots’ I did not include the apostrophes’, those are listed in the original story.   Normally the inclusion of quotes of some kind around a word implies that the meaning of the word has been skewed from its actual meaning and requires a sort of tongue-in-cheek definition or an out and out reversal of its intended meaning.  If one also takes the word from into consideration in the title, then the quotes around the word patriot must imply that the writer is making a statement about wh

Dear Sirs, It has come to my attention that Senator Chris Murphy is asking that NASCAR drop the NRA sponsorship. Please sirs, if I may, offer my opinion. We are approaching a crossroads of ideology.  A fundamental shift in human consciousness is beginning, between those that believe in the removal of Life, Liberty, and Property for the illusion of Security and Stability, and those whom have began to awaken to the reality that Rights are beyond human control and are in fact something created in us for us and because of us.  Firearms are but one Right, one of the few that are actually listed amongst the Constitution and adamantly protected against intrusion by anyone; be they citizen or government, the Rights of our Constitution are expressly protected against infringement.  Those listed, are but the tip of the iceberg of what John Locke and the those men whom founded our Country had in mind.  Thomas Jefferson said, "Let us secure what rights we can.  Better half a

To the President and other members of Government, The cigarette argument It goes something like this. “Yes people have rights.  You have the right to smoke, but what about my right to clean air?” It sounds convincing.  For it makes a claim that one persons ‘right’ is in fact causing harm to another person’s ‘right’, that is, the act of an individual smoking creates unclean air that the non-smoker must inhale. Unfortunately, it’s absolutely incorrect. It does two specific things that nullify its authority as an argument: 1. It makes a claim that ONLY cigarette smoke is harmful to a non-smokers lungs.  It forgets to take into account that everything we do as living beings damage the air around us. Bottled water plastic uses fossil fuels to turn the petroleum into plastic, even recycled plastic requires the burning of fossil fuels.  In fact, everything you purchase from pots to automobiles,  food to ways to dispose of food require the expulsion of products into the air.  Thi

Illegal in NYC as of March 12th, 2013 Come March 12th individuals will no longer be able to purchase the image of the Dr. Pepper I have listed in this blog.  The reason being; it is 20 ounces, 4 ounces of soda over the limit a free person, under our bill of rights, in a nation of free men, will now legally be able to purchase.  What could possibly be the argument?  I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, because the whole notion is just plain absurd, I just want you all to notice, that there is still soda in the bottle.  I am done drinking it.  I didn't even need the full 20 ounces.  In fact, in my case, I would have saved money if I had purchased a 16 ounce can, but the choice, THE CHOICE of freedom of property and the right of me expressing my use as I desire is far more important than any asinine reason a government could come up with.  We are said to believe in the right of woman to do what she wants with her body, but I can't buy 4 more ounces of soda?

To The President and the rest of Government, I am fervently against any further erosion of the Constitution. David Crockett warned us in the 19th century that "It is not yours to give" when he stood on the House floor and told them they had no authority to take the property of We The People and use it how they wished. Apparently not a person in that Gomorrah on the Hill listened and over the course of our History We the People have been forced to continually fight against Tyranny and the theft of our Liberty.  Yet, the most puzzling is that the rights we have to fight for are clearly protected and spelled out in our own Constitution!  How terribly disrespectful one must feel of the Constitution if they could simply ignore it and worse, how little such people must think the flesh and blood of this country really is. Governments despisal of his fellow man apparently knows no bounds. The Rights of the Constitution are not your to give, not yours to manipulate,