Neil is on a tear this week!!

For My Friend Grisham, among others.

Neil Smith has fun with a Canadian Rag's Lies.

Despite Russell's insistance upon referring to a "Creator", this article does an EXCELLENT job of defining and explaining what an unalienable right actually is. Read it. Absorb it. And discuss it.

The dollar just ain't what it used to be.

Literally: For most of the United States' existence, the value of dollar had been tied to gold. That ended in 1971, when President Richard Nixon decided that the dollar could no longer be converted, at a fixed rate, into gold. But now, 40 years after abandoning what's known as the gold standard, fears over a falling dollar—both due to America's debt and the recent fiscal indecision of its leaders—may be giving gold, and its advocates, like GOP presidential contender Ron Paul, a new shot.

Recently, a person I have fun arguing with here on the vine pointed out I've been missing from the political article scene lately. She's been right. I've taken a little semi-vacation from the political field, and I've been playing around on a couple private groups, messing around with fiction writing and humor. Now, fully restored and refreshed, I decided to re-visit one of my favorite articles, and see what new quotes we can come up with. Soo... this is going to be a selection of pro-gun and pro-liberty quotes from various sources, famous and not-so-much. I'll edit this article and add more as they occur to me. YOU can add to this in the comment section. Please attribute the quotes where possible. Even give quotes of your own! No quote is too over-used. If you are anti-gun, feel free to be ignored if you get obnoxious. But also feel free to dispute the accuracy of, or the source of, the quotes contained.Here's a few to start.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin.

"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free."
—A.E. van Vogt (1951)

"An armed man is a citizen, an un-armed man is a slave" (Sometimes ended as "subject") Robert A. Heinlein

"An Armed Society is a polite Society" Robert A. Heinlein

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." (Often attributed to G. Washington, there is doubt as to it's veracity as a quote. If he didn't say it, he should have!)

"I've heard that phallic symbol argument before, and always from ineffectual people driven to make everyone else as helpless as they are. who's more confused, those who think weapons are sexual organs, or those who want to take everyone's sexual organs away?." Clarissa Olson, a character in "The Probability Broach", L. Neil Smith, author.

"No one has ever raped a .38! " Paxton Quigley, a pre-eminent female self defense instructor.

"Make love, not war, but be prepared for both!" Anonymous

"God created all men. Colonel Colt made'em equal!" If you know, tell me!

"The only thing that can make a 110 lb woman the physical equal to a 220 lb man is 2 lbs of Hartford steel." Various forms heard, author unknown (Hartford, Connecticut, home of Colt Firearms)

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry

"I know not what course Y'all might take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Die, Mother@!$%#er DIE!!" Neale Osborn and A.X. Perez, November, 2010

"Take a gun with you on all your walks." Thomas Jefferson to his nephew (supplied by L.Neil Smith and Robertlyn Schultz)

The following is taken verbatim from "The Probability Broach", a novel by pre-eminent Libertarian author L. Neil Smith. Permission granted by author after a request by myself. Permission may be verified by e-mailing to Mr. Smith at

Neil Smith(lneil@netzero.com)

"Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220 pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110 pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong?" Also, Clarissa Olson to Lieutenant Win Bear, in said novel.

This is from the esteemed Mr. Smith, but NOT from any novel-

“Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable
individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and
carry, openly or concealed, any weapon — rifle, shotgun, handgun,
machinegun, _anything— — any time, any place, without asking anyone’s
permission.” The Atlanta Declaration of the Libertarian Party, written by L. Neil Smith. The author of this article is a signatory to same.

 The following are from the (LAST incarnation's) comment section, but were so good I mved them up here verbatim- Originators unknown, but supplied by Mark in Wyoming;

I don’t carry a gun……..

…to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in this world.

I don’t carry a gun because I am evil. I carry a gun because I’ve lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose they were intended for a good long time to come.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because a real man knows how to take care and protect their property, themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing armed thugs I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

I don’t carry a gun to shoot to kill someone. I carry a gun and would shoot as necessary to stay alive. If the assailant dies as a result of a desire to harm me, it’s no loss to society

All the following is from a single work of L. Neil Smith;

"[I]f a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a
man - and you're not - what does his lack of trust tell you about his real
attitude toward women? If 'he' happens to be a woman, what makes her so
perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean
and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when
she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care
program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

"On the other hand - or the other party - should you believe anything
politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and
make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons?
What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and
ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other
countries?

"Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -
health care, international trade - all you have to do is use this X-ray
machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out
how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they
hate it."
L. Neil Smith, Sept, 1999, "Why did it have to be guns?"

"Since the criminals, being criminals, are NOT going to obey bans, therefore the law-abiding citizen MUST have the ability to fight fire with firepower." Neale Osborn, January 27, 2011.

"The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20." - Sam Cohen (inventor of the neutron bomb) Provided by etva

ANd finally, a story, sent to me in an e-mail from There They Go Again-

A Pennsylvania State Police Officer pulled over a pick-up truck owner for a faulty taillight. When the officer approached the driver, the man behind the wheel handed the officer his driver’s license, insurance card and a concealed weapon carry permit.

The officer took all the documents, looked them over and said. "Mr Smith, I see you have a CCP. Do you have any weapons with you?"

The driver replied, " Yes sir, I have a 357 handgun in a hip holster, a .45 in the glove box and a .22 derringer in my boot."

The officer looked at the driver and asked, "Anything else?"

"Yes sir, I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge and an AR-15 behind the seat."

The officer asked if the man was driving to or from a shooting range and the man said he wasn't, so the officer bent over and looked into the driver's face and said "Mr. Smith, you're carrying quite a few guns. May I ask what you are afraid of?

Mr. Smith locked eyes with the officer and calmly answered, "Not a @!$%#ing thing!

Have fun, be friendly and polite. And DON'T feed the liberals!!

In the middle of last month, while you slept (or struggled to earn a paycheck so you could turn half of it over to governments at various levels) America was invaded by alien forces—by which I mean forces alien to every last principle that once made this country worth living in.

Or fighting for.

According to a copyrighted story in the Parkersburg (West Virginia) News and Sentinel written by Pamela Brust, the Transportation Security Administration—those detestable gropers and perverts of song and lawsuit—in conjunction with other federal, state, and local agencies held an all-day field fascist-fest Wednesday, June 14, covering 5,000 square miles of what they termed the "Ohio River Transportation Corridor", a huge area covering parts of Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, all under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security, and cleverly dubbed "Visible Intermodel Prevention and Response".

"VIPR", get it?

All of our lives, we Baby Boomers and those who have come after us, have been loftily informed by the culture's intelligentsia, by the literati, by the cognoscenti that the way we live—we children of the Productive Class—where we choose to live, mostly in the suburbs, is all wrong, hideous, like something out of a horror movie.

If we choose, instead, to live out in the country, then it's even worse. We become—in the hallucinations of the intelligentsia, the literati, the cognoscenti, those who imagine themseves superior to us (but who, in fact, can be reliably gulled by sleazy con-men pushing one transparently ridiculous scam after another, hoaxes like global warming, overpopulation, ozone depletion, acid rain, and the Sacred Advent of Barack Obama)—we become inbred, toothless, gun-toting, Bible-thumping cannibals, all of it played to the tune of "Duelling Banjos".

The fact is, the places where these specimens prefer to live— the intelligentsia, the literati, the cognoscenti—the once- great cities of a once-great America, have become rotting piles of manure, due to the policies they advocate: extortionate taxation, rent control, victim disarmament, professional licensing. Before it's over, every single one of them will look like Detroit, refashioned in the spiritual likeness of the intelligentsia, the literati, the cognoscenti, and the bloodsucking political vampires who cater to them.

Earlier today, on another of my articles comment section, a person I have fun with said she'd love to live in a communist society. Here's the relevant part of her comment.

Well Neale, I would welcome communism. I think the state should own everything. If they did, it could distribute it fairly. There would be no rich people or poor people. All would be equal forever. All our rights would be intact except the right to "own" things. But I would settle for reasonable socialism.

Out of kindness, I will refrain from saying her name here unless she wants to come here and give it herself. So, let's start with a simple fact- Humans aren't ants. We do not, and never will, selflessly surrender all our rights to the state for "the good of all mankind"as determined by our state masters. WHY? Because mankind isn't made up of mindless cogs, willing to slave away in at a task they have no say in. Slavery was outlawed in America in the 1860s. Remember the Civil war? Well, communism only needs slaves. It doesn't need brains, a drive to succeed, or any independent thinking. In point of fact- communism requires people NOT to think, or else people eventually revolt. Think that's not true? Then why did Communist Russia have to build walls and fences around their country? It sure wasn't to keep the capitalists out!

In a communist society, the state owns everything. So why should people try to invent a new widget? If they do, the state owns it, and the inventor gets nothing from his work. Why work harder on the job? It isn't going to get you a raise, or more pay, or a better house to live in. This is why the Soviet Union, despite it's vaunted "collectivs" that were to produce all the food the state needed to feed it's people, they regularly had to import as much as 50% of the wheat it needed to actually feed it's people.

Next- people aren't pieces of equipment. People like to work at things they find interesting. Now, we all lnow that many people do not actually bother to try to find a job they can enjoy, but that doesn't change the fact they CAN try. In a communist society, if they need more farmers, then THAT is what they will decide YOU are going to be. Need more people to assemble tractors? Then that's the job you are going to have. Like your children? Well they aren't YOUR responsibility, nor are you going to get to help them decide what they want to do in life. It's the state's decision what they will grow up to be. Remember- you are owned by the state, just like they own everything else!

Now, I am sure there are people out there who like the idea of never having to make a decision for themselves. But they aren't ever going to get off their asses and make the decision to create a truly communist society for themselves, so WHO, exactly, decides to become communists? Why, the people who want to BE the people in the state who make the decisions- the "Apparatchiks" or the "Nomeklatura". The people who sum up this phrase "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Don't recognize the phrase?? Go read George Orwell's "Animal Farm". I know it USED to be required reading. It should still be. The people who create communist society are those who want to tell others exactly how to live their lives, where to live, what they can eat, where they will work, and what they will work at. They are power hungry scumbags, who just need to fool enough people to get tehm to give the scumbags the power, then it's all over until the NEXT revolution. And if you don't start your communist society with un-educated peasants, that revolution will be coming pretty quickly.

So let me ask each of YOU if you are willing to surender all your rights (NO, it doesn't just take your right to property, it takes ALL your rights, since you no longer can OWN anything, and the most important thing you own IS YOUR RIGHTS!!!) I sure won't!!

I found myself invited, this morning, to participate in an online poll concerning the Texas School Board's planned purchase of "science" textbooks giving undeserved acknowledgement and respect to that great stinking mountain of superstitious Neolithic garbage called "creation science".

This issue has always been important to me, although I haven't written about it nearly as much as I probably should. In high school in northern Florida, my biology teacher was a Baptist lay-minister who refused to accept the established body of scientific fact regarding evolution by natural selection. Me, I would have fired the guy, not because his opinion differed (like that of a Flat-Earther) from the truth, but because he was committing a fraud when he claimed to teach science.

THe following is a Pre-seed from The Libertarian Enterprise, done with full permission of the author, L. Neil Smith. Even though this will appear in my column as an article rather than a seed, I am not claiming this work as my own. I am merely spreading the word, as Neil requested, on an important (if not vital) topic.

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ZERO AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE

By L. Neil Smith <mailto:lneil@netzero.com>

Attribute to _The Libertarian Enterprise_

The Zero Aggression Principle holds that nobody has a right (that
is, no such right exists) to initiate physical force against anybody
else for any reason whatever. Neither is it ethically acceptable to
advocate or to delegate the initiation of force. Observe the central
importance of the word "initiate". What libertarians call the "ZAP" is
not a call for pacifism. It does not prohibit the legitimate act of
self-defense.

Although I've always understood perfectly that it won't solve all
human problems, I've been known, from time to time, to defend the ZAP
-- which is the very heart and soul of libertarianism -- by pointing
out that, if an individual absolutely refuses to take or live by the
non-aggression pledge, I have no other choice than to believe that
he's reserving some right he mistakenly believes he has to initiate
force against me whenever he finds it convenient, or the mood strikes
him.

Let me repeat that, so there can be no misunderstanding whatever.
Anyone who rejects the Zero Aggression Principle has to be regarded as
reserving some right that he mistakenly believes he has to initiate
force against me whenever he finds it convenient, or the mood strikes
him.

Precautions will be taken accordingly.

Believe me, after 49 years in the freedom movement, I'm quite
adamant about this. If you aren't willing, formally, to forego the
initiation of force, then you're not a libertarian no matter what you
claim.

Recently, it occurred to me that a similar relationship exists
between the Constitution -- especially the Bill of Rights -- and
politicians. Every office holder is required to take a formal oath,
one hand on a Holy Book (make mine _Atlas Shrugged_), the other hand
in the air, to uphold and defend the Constitution against "all enemies
foreign and domestic". Sometimes these oaths even add "without mental
reservation".

And yet, every office holder violates that oath within the first
half hour of his term -- giving or accepting paper money, for example
-- and keeps violating it until he dies, quits, or the voters turn him
out.

Some politicians have the decency, at least, to _pretend— to be
apologetic about this. We can probably forgive Ron Paul, for example.
He's done his absolute damnedest to get our battered country back on a
Constitutional basis, including shutting down the Fed and making real
money legal once again. Others are considerably less so. One, asked
about the constitutionality of her behavior, infamously snapped back,
"Are you kidding?" Another, known widely as a buckethead, snarled that
the Constitution is "just a piece of paper", which, in point of fact,
is inaccurate. It's vellum, the prepared skin of some unspecified
mammal.

Some politicians claim the Constitution is a "living document" --
that it somehow mysteriously morphs all by itself to fit the political
correctness of the times. It's extremely common to hear members of the
parasitic class blather that, because the document in question is so
old, it's clearly obsolete and therefore, somehow, no longer the
highest law of the land. One particularly bean-brained chair-warmer
asserted recently that because it's more than 100 years old -- it's
222 years old at the moment -- nobody can possibly understand what it
means.

Somebody should point out to this clown that Shakespeare's works
are twice as old as the Constitution, and plenty of people still seem
to enjoy them. _Beowulf— is probably a thousand years old and remains
perfectly understandable to those who expend the minimal effort
required to learn the almost-English it's written in. And would this
guy claim that nobody understands the five thousand year old Ten
Commandments?

If a politician denies the historical validity and the ultimate
legal authority of the Constitution -- particularly the first ten
amendments -- it isn't any different than with the Zero Aggression
Principle. He's reserving some right he mistakenly believes he has to
violate the law whenever he finds it convenient, or the mood strikes
him.

Let me repeat that, too, so there can be no misunderstanding. Any
politician who denies the Constitution has to be regarded as reserving
some right that he mistakenly believes he has to violate the highest
law of the land whenever he finds it convenient, or the mood strikes
him.

As with the ZAP, precautions should be taken accordingly.

Understand clearly that nobody is ever _forced— to take the Zero
Aggression Pledge. As the great Roger Price observed many years ago,
that would be like all of us who believe the Earth is round, gathering
up all those who believe the Earth is flat -- and shoving them off the
edge. As it is, and like it or not, the pledge/no pledge dichotomy has
established two tiers within the libertarian movement, those who can
be trusted to be left in a room with your baby daughter, and those who
cannot.

But I digress.

All public officeholders, on the other hand, are required by law
to take an oath with regard to the Constitution. If they do so with
the immediate intention of disregarding it, then they have committed
perjury, a felony. If they violate it at any time while in office,
that is a crime, as well, for which they must be made to pay the
price.

The price that I have long suggested is that they be transported
to a little town in Pennsylvania called Nuremberg where, with money
donated voluntarily, a great hall will be erected, in order that these
criminals be indicted and tried -- as conspicuously as possible in our
age of technology -- for their many and heinous crimes against the
Constitution.

We will call these the "Nuremberg II Tribunals".

Upon conviction, they will be transported to a brand new 100-story
prison, black and windowless, built atop the ruins of the old federal
prison on the island of Alcatraz, exclusively designed for government
miscreants. Prisoners will be allowed out once a day on its unrailed
rooftop. Tourists on excursion boats will pay happily for meat past
its expiration date to chum the shark-infested waters of San Francisco
Bay.

Life in solitary confinement might be appropriate for those who
have abused Bradley Manning and wish to abuse Julian Assange the same
way.

It's a small dream, but my own.

Feel free to dream it with me.

It's no coincidence at all that "Constitutionalists" are just one
of dozens of perfectly respectable American groups against whom Sisty
Step-ugler Janet Napolitano has repeatedly tried to arouse local law
enforcement. Such folks must be dealt with; they understand that she's
a criminal. Happily, Napolitano couldn't arouse anything but another
warthog.

The following is an authorized re-print of an article to be published in the Sunday, Feb. 20 issue of The Libertarian Enterprise. This article is re-printed and published with full consent of both TLE and the Author (L. Neil Smith). This means it is fully ATTRIBUTED, and not claimed as my own work. Once it is published on Sunday, I will add a link to the specific article, which will be this exact one.

FEDERAL MARSHALS THREATEN,
CENSOR _LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE_

By L. Neil Smith
Publisher and Senior Columnist
<mailto:lneil@netzero.com>

Distribute Widely
Attribute to _The Libertarian Enterprise_

For the first time, in its sixteenth year of publication, this
journal of libertarian views and opinion -- bound by an absolute moral
resolve never to initiate force against anyone for any reason, nor to
advocate or delegate its initiation -- has been threatened by agents
of the federal government and ordered to remove content from its
website.

We have done so. When you learn, in a general way, what that
content consisted of, you will be perplexed, at first, then angrier
and angrier as you see what has been done to what was once a free
country, and realize precisely who is most responsible for having done
it.

Last August, _TLE— ran a piece by our frequent contributor Jim
Davidson about the hypocrisy of the federal judiciary. Three federal
judges had just authorized a practice in which armed government agents
could feel free to trespass on a citizen's property without a warrant
or probable cause, in order to affix a GPS tracker to that citizen's
car.

Our columnist's natural and logical response was to deprive these
judges of privacy the same way they were allowing the privacy of the
individuals who pay their salaries (however involuntarily) to be
violated. Using only publicly available sources, he published their
names, addresses, and other information. Let me state that again, so
there can be no mistake: he published their names, addresses, and
other such information which he had obtained from purely public
sources.

This week -- six months later -- we have been notified, first by
our domain registrar GoDaddy.com, then in an e-mail from the U.S.
Marshals' "service" that we must remove the offending article from
_TLE_'s website, in order to assure the safety of the judges and their
families. (This, of course, begs the question, why in the hell their
information is publicly available if it constitutes a threat to their
safety.) GoDaddy.com has refused to answer reasonable questions about
this affair -- such as precisely what Terms of Service we were in
violation of -- instead simply repeating the order to remove the
material.

We have complied.

I used to have a little respect for the U.S. Marshals' "service".
They had a long, distinguished history, and for some reason, they
seemed cleaner to me, nobler, better than the bottom of the barrel
scrapings infesting other federal "law enforcement" agencies, like the
ones, for example, that disgraced themselves at Ruby Ridge and Mount
Carmel.

I wonder if any of them ever thought, when they were growing up,
dreaming little kid dreams of being the "goodguys" and saving folks
from the "badguys", that they'd end up merely doing the bidding of
corrupt and irrational federal judges, thuggishly intimidating the
very folks they once dreamed of saving, helping a new and unAmerican
aristocracy to establish themselves as an elite with rights -- like
simple privacy -- that ordinary individuals are no longer allowed to
enjoy.

But we have complied.

And yet, our compliance is not without its cost. Everyone who
reads this will now understand a little better what those who wish to
rule their lives are made of. And they will know -- as if they didn't
know already -- that these distinguished, cleaner, nobler keepers of
the peace are nothing more than a cruel myth. And that knowledge --
enough of it -- will be all that it takes to change the course of
history.

Meanwhile, whom do we hold responsible for this unjustifiable
violation of the First Amendment? The Republican administration of
Abraham Lincoln was probably not the first, but was by far the worst
of its time. Presidents like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt
began to see the people as their property and treated them
accordingly.

The RICO Act was specifically designed to deprive the accused of
representation in court. The authorities and their stooges in media
work overtime to convince us that anyone who "lawyers up" is guilty.
Agencies like the FBI and CIA are not authorized in the Constitution.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have ever said a word to stop these
practices.

Now we have the Department of Homeland Security which officially
regards the average American wage earner, homemaker, student, hunter,
sportsman, scholar of the Bible or the Constitution as an uncaught
criminal. The so-called Transportation Safety Administration shakes
down just as many inmates of this nation-sized prison as it can every
day.

So who is to blame? Those who do the shaking. Those who abuse
their fellow citizens for no other reason than that they can. Or
because the sociopaths in power have paid them to do so. And we, the
abused, are forced at gunpoint to give them half of everything we
earn.

And we have complied.
--

I'm a novelist by trade, with overwhelming emphasis on science fiction. While many folks believe that "if it's sci-fi it doesn't have to make sense", the truth is, if a science fiction writer doesn't have all his ducks in a row, scientifically and otherwise, his loyal fans will make him think being eaten alive by piranhas is a pleasurable experience.

Over thirty-odd years, I've predicted many things: bone-mending electronics, the rise of .40 caliber handguns, the Internet, computer aided forensics, Wall-sized video screens, the laptop computer and iPads.

I bought a Corvette back in 2006. After that, I noticed all the other Corvettes on the road that I'd ignored before that. Haven't you had similar experiences? You become aware of a certain thing, and from then on, you notice it every time you encounter it.

Well I promise after today, every time you hear or see the word "deserve" used, you'll never think about it the same way again. One of those words that tightens my colon is the word "deserve."

As if individual liberty were not sufficiently under assault already, a runaway government agency, whose very existence is not sanctioned by Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution—which lists those few activities in which government is legally permitted to engage—is trying to carry off a fascist coup d'etat against the First Amendment freedoms afforded to Americans by the Internet.

That runaway agency is the Federal Communications Commission.

For years, the people who support all kinds of gun control laws, regulations, licenses, permits, and other infringements upon our 2nd Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms have pooh-pooh'ed claims that only the 2nd Amendment truly enables you to protect the OTHER rights in the Bill of Rights. (YES, I mean YOU!) When I proposed that all of YOU go through the exact same trials and tribulations I have to go through to own and carry my pistol so that YOU can own and post on YOUR computer, you laughed and called me paranoid. Do you feel stupid yet?? You should!

The Department of Homeland Security recently decided that the Internet is a dangerous place, and needs their able hands to "protect" us from EEEVVVVIIIILLLLS on the 'net. They need to protect Intellectual Property Rights. The funny thing is, the DHS has NOTHING to do with IPR. While IPR needs to be protected, the government doesn't need to do it, and DHS DEFINITELY doesn't. The FCC is going to REGULATE "Net Neutrality", despite the Supreme Court saying it is un-Constitutional to mak it law, and the Senate refusing to do it for the same reason. But regulations by federal agencies do not have to meet Constitutional criteria, apparently. The DHS has siezed 75 computers for supposed IPR violations. The FCC wants to license the use of the internet. SUPPOSEDLY because the internet is being somehow denied to certain people, or "divisive postings" are being made. The real reason, of course, is because the internet is the ONLY totally un-regulated news source out there.

Assange has shown that government secrets can be dispersed quickly and un-stoppably. Agree or disagree with what he actually did, he did a damn good job of making sure we all got the opportunity to see it! The Hackers who posted the thousands of e-mails proving (to those who chose to see, at least) that global warming being a proven result of human intervention. The TEA Party dispersed information on the 'Net. Various undesireable, radical, revolutionary, or anti-establishment groups pass info back and forth on the 'Net. Even those paragons of individual freedoms, the Libertarians, use the 'Net for their nefarious purposes, the spread fo self-reliant individualism.

So, in steps Big Brother to "Protect Society (read the federal government) from these dangerous people." Now, if they go ahead with this, you are going to need to buy a license from them to go on-line. How, exactly, is that going to protect society? I don't know, but it's sure as hell gonna give a LOT of new federal agents high paying jobs, snooping into what we do online. It's ALSO going to put yet another hole in the personal freedoms of each and every one of you. And guess what? YOU ASKED FOR IT! Every time you said "Well, no one wants to go through a TSA patdown, but we need to be safe!" or "I don't want people to be able to protect themselves, one of them might flip out and kill somebody.", you told Uncle Sam "I trust you to take care of me, and I won't fight if you take a few rights! Just tell me it's for the children." THe truly sad thing is that while you deserve these infringements, after all, you've defended them vigorously enough, they are going to get shoved down the throats of me and other freedom loving Americans keep getting bitten with the same things, and WE are the ones who have been fighting them from the start.

But I WILL be one of the ones who try to find a way around it. Are YOU going to be happy having to buy a license, undergo a background check, provide a documented need to use the net, and possibly have to have a monitoring program running in your computer, ready to tell Big Brother if you stray into un-approved areas of the 'net? I won't do it. I'll find a black-market internet source. Just remember, left or right is irrelevant here. If you've EVER advocated licensing for guns, or limiting free speech, or supported the USA Patriots Act, or the TSA searches (AT ANY TIME), or advocated the government banning anyone from using the "net, you approved this, THe FIRST right you infringe, you open the door to ALL of these infringements.

ENJOY!!

The following is a copy of an article intended to be pub;lished in this weeks "The Libertarian Enterprise", whose publication this week has been unfortunately delayed by illness. Mr Smith, the author, has given me permission to publish this here. I give him full credit for the entire article, and consider this a seed with no linked article. See teh end of the article for permission. Anyone with questions as to my permission to use, or comments to pass directly to the author, may contact him at the E-mail address listed in the body of the article.

MY TEA PARTY

By L. Neil Smith <mailto:lneil@netzero.com>

Attribute to _The Libertarian Enterprise_

So we Tea Partiers cling bitterly to our guns and
religion, do we, Barry? Well, everybody seems to cling to
something. Liberals cling to their envy and resentment.
Republicans cling to their golf clubs.

-- L. Neil Smith

The proverbial Chinese wish, "May you live in interesting times"
isn't always a curse, although it has seemed like that for most of our
lives.

Billy Joel did an amazing job summing up the dark side of the last
half of the 20th century in his 1989 song, "We Didn't Start the Fire",
attempting, it says here, to demonstrate that _All the Trouble in the
World_, as P.J. O'Rourke put it, is not the fault of us Baby Boomers.
Most news is bad news, as Lord Acton might have observed if he'd ever
seen CNN. There's always plenty of trouble and plenty of blame to go
around.

Bad news is easier. As a novelist, I can assure you that writing
post-apocalyptic distopias is a piece of cake. Making movies out of
them is like falling off a log. Nobody likes being cold. Nobody likes
being hungry. Nobody likes being afraid all the time. Tattered
clothing, rusting machinery, ruined cities all look pretty much the
same, no matter the specific nature of the events that made them that
way.

Futures in which people are happy, however, where they enjoy
peace, freedom, progress, and prosperity, are harder because each of
us has a different answer to the classic question "What is the good?"
And letting people know what makes you happy is a risk. It might make
you look ridiculous. I confess that I like liver and onions, BB Bats,
bluegrass, Maria Muldaur, and Joanne Kelly. And there's a Captain
Bringdown somewhere with the dubious talent -- and the sneer-power --
to make every one of those purely personal joys appear absurd or even
contemptible.

So what? There's something else that's been making me very happy
lately, and frankly I don't give a chipmunk's cheeks who knows or what
they may think about it. After years, decades, what even seems like
centuries of unremittingly putrescent political news, we are suddenly
all witnesses to the spectacular emergence of the so-called Tea Party
movement.

The Tea Parties are just one of a number of historically pivotal
developments (including the Internet, conservative talk radio, and
perhaps even on-demand publishing) that became necessary to get over,
under, around, and through the Great Wall of the Northeastern Liberal
Establishment and its numberless, faceless hordes of duly appointed
gatekeepers.

In that sense, the Tea Parties are exactly what the Berkeley Free
Speech Movement and the New Left always aspired to be and never really
were.

Just like each of those other developments, the Tea Parties are
essentially a medium of communications. So far, they are leaderless
and centerless (and at all costs, must remain that way). They have no
founders, and no headquarters. They have no constitution, no by-laws,
and no platform to argue over endlessly. More conventionally-minded
politicrats might view all of these qualities as weaknesses, but they
would be mistaken. As presently (un)constituted, Tea Parties can't be
taken over by high school student government types or mercenaries from
the major political parties, who have nothing better to do with their
lives.

I would point out, especially in the light of the recent Bob Barr
embarrassment, that this arrangement is inexpressibly better suited to
libertarians and to libertarianism than any formal, hierarchical
structure copied from the other political parties (and I have been
doing exactly that for almost thirty years) but that would be a
digression.

Wouldn't it?

Your Tea Party may look a little different from mine. That's
inevitable, and it's a _good— thing. The Tea Parties have become the
last free marketplace for ideas left in America. You can't truthfully
say, "Tea Partiers oppose abortion". Some of them do, certainly. Maybe
the overwhelming majority. But not all of them, not by any means. I
don't.

I suppose it's possible that some Tea Partiers aren't particularly
interested in the individual right to own and carry weapons, or don't
like guns at all, although it isn't very likely. Equally, I'm sure, if
you looked hard enough, you could find some racists among their
number.

And some of them might be white.

In my political experience, however, the most bigoted individuals
and organizations are liberal individuals and liberal organizations:
those who assume that, because you're black, you need a hand-up from
superior white folks like them; those who assume, cynically, if not
nihilistically, that if you actually believe in anything -- and admit
it -- you're a naive idiot; those who assume that, because you own
firearms, advocate self-defense, and adhere to the Bill of Rights,
you're some kind of "wingnut" Nazi redneck; those who've forgotten (if
they ever new) that Hitler and the Nazis were socialists, just like
them.

Just like them.

There are things I don't like about what seems to be a majority of
the Tea Party movement, just as I expect that there are things they
wouldn't like about me. I am utterly opposed to all current wars, both
foreign and domestic. I find it particularly difficult to rely on or
even take seriously the intellectual processes of any individual who
denies the scientifically established truth of evolution by natural
selection.

These are things I plan to keep an eye on in the future and fight
over if they make it necessary, but we have bigger problems now. Much
bigger. And no Tea Partier I know of wants to take half of my money
away. Or my guns. Or my house and land. No Tea Partier wants to round
me and my family up and herd us into hundred-story tenements to clear
the land and return it to nature -- and, of course, to the politically
elite _nomenklatura— who will be allowed to build their personal
_dachas— there and maintain a staff of pretty and compliant peasant
slaves.

No Tea Partier that I know of believes that what the Earth needs
is another Great Plague. Or that we must be forced to stop using
incandescent light bulbs, driving automobiles and eating meat. Or that
reducing the human population ninety percent is a goal worth striving
for. No Tea Partier wants to march us all down some country road
somewhere until we collapse and they can beat our heads in with rifle
butts.

And shovels.

But, and this is vitally important, nearly everybody on the other
side -- the liberal side, the "progressive" side, the Democratic side,
the socialist side, the Marxist side, the communist side, the Harry
Reid side, the Nancy Pelosi side, the Barack and Michelle Obama side,
the Hillary and Waco Willy Clinton side -- nearly everybody on that
other side believes in and ardently advocates some or all of those
things.

The United Nations calls the worst of it "Agenda 21".

Look it up. They're proud of it.

So, until we finally fling the mass-murdering cannibals who
currently rule us onto the reeking, oozing garbage-heap of history
where they belong, and are free to deal with other, less-pressing
matters, I will stand by, and I will stand for, and I will stand _in_
the Tea Party movement, or at least my little libertarian corner of
it.

I will surrender nothing of my principles, nothing of my personal
integrity (not that anybody seems to be demanding it) but I will do my
best to share my understanding of history and human nature, all of the
things that led me to become a libertarian 48 years ago and have kept
me a libertarian since then, until I convince my fellow travelers I'm
right, or at least convince myself that it's safe for us to agree to
disagree.

Which is what America was supposed to be all about.

-----------

Permission herewith give to post and repost and rerepost,
in unaltered form and with proper credit. -- LNS

Life in America these days is like swimming through an ocean of sewage, and the most horrifying thing about it is that we're used to it.

If our species manages somehow to survive this bizarre period of history and looks backward on it, say, from five hundred years in the future, the characteristics that will distinguish our culture far more than anything else are the constantly shifting foundation of outright falsehoods on which it rests uneasily, and the continuous outpouring of baldfaced lies that comprise practically every public utterance by politicians, the "news" media, and even what represents itself as entertainment.

An excellent example is the way that conservatives blather all the time about individual liberty and limited government, and nevertheless idolize Abraham Lincoln, who was a lifelong mortal enemy of those ideals. Or the way Democrats defame the founder of their own party when those same ideals, which he championed, threaten to become an inconvenience

The "neolibertarians" over at the Ludwig von Mises Institute who appear set on courting the libertarian left have taken it upon themselves, led into battle most notably by Jeffrey Tucker and Stephan Kinsella, to declare that those who are advocates of liberty may not, by definition, be in favor of what have been termed "intellectual property rights". Of course this proves, in the twisted logic of the beneficiaries of their largesse, that anyone who asserts their right to own and control their intellectual property is, by definition, "a statist @!$%#".

One basis for their argument consists of the mantra (a sound, syllable, word, or group of words that are considered capable of creating transformation) that "ideas" are not scarce, and cannot, therefore, be considered property. Leaving aside the notion that scarcity is the only, or even predominant, basis for the identification of something as "property" there are more pressing problems.

A good friend of mine, L. Neil Smith, Libertarian philosopher and science fiction author, has stopped referring to gun control attempts AS gun control. He has (correctly) called it VICTIM DISARMAMENT.nd he's correct. They aren't trying to "control guns", if they were they'd just enforce the laws on the books against crimes, and punish criminals as the law requires (more on that later). No, they just insist on trying to make gun owners into criminals, and disarming the common man and woman. So, you say, what's so bad about disarming the average person, after all, we have police, don't we? "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away." Also, keep in mind the simple fact that according to the Supreme Court, the police are also under NO obligation to protect you. they are there to investigat, solve, and apprehend AFTER the fact. IF they show up in time, they MAY help, but aren't required to do so.

Since time immemorial, strong men have bullied and oppressed weaker men, and ALL women. When weapons were muscle-powered, the guy with the muscles ran the world, or at least s much of it as his muscles allowed. The weak suffered under his "tender care" or left to try to find one of the rare muscle men with the personality to protect, rather than oppress.Thus arose feudalism. Eventually, as in England, there arose a "noble" class. These were families that at one time, had muscles. They used these muscles to gather land, wealth, and followers. They used the followers as additional muscle, acquired more land, wealth, and followers, and repeated until they ran up against a guy with MORE land, wealth, and followers. Some of these men were basically decent, and some wern't. As time went by, the entire system degraded into "I've got the money to hire muscles, so you, the peasant, must obey me." Even the good ones died, and their children, or grandchildren, who inherited these "muscles", forgot the good thinngs they could do, and lived for their "rightful excercise of God-given power". No matter how you try to cover it up, THIS is the history of mankind. The muscle was often used by churches, by it was STILL "Might makes Right" as the law of the world. Occasional attempts were made to change things, but it ALWAYS returns to "Might makes Right." No matter the intent, no matter the century, it always happens.

The bow was invented. It made it harder to oppress a man with a bow, because the tools of a hunter are also the tools of a warrior. So they outlaw hunting "the King's deer" to oppress the yeoman. Posessing a sword was often a crime, as only soldiers (hired muscles) and nobles were permitted them. And even these things, swords and bows, STILL require muscles. They made MORE men able to oppose tyranny, but did nothing for women. YES, I know some excellent swordswomen existed and still do today. And women can pull a bow (not as powerful a bow, but they can be QUITE excellent at it.) But physiologically speaking, it is a rare women who can compete in the muscle department with a man. So women REMAINED the property of the man.

With the invention of the "Gonne", the world started to change. They were heavy, unwieldy to use, but they started to change the world. as "gonnes" became "handgonnes", a man might carry easily on his person the means to defend himself from criminals (both "noble" and otherwise) without resorting to muscle alone. Even a woman could carry such protection. But these "handgonnes" were STILL bulky, unwieldy, and at BEST two shot devices, then requiring a lengthy process during which muscle power STILL ruled the day. Enter Samuel Colt.

Sam invented a device to enable men and women to at last defend themselves with minimal reliance upon muscles. The six shot revolver. NOW, a 110 pound woman, with 2 pounds of steel, gunpowder, and lead, could defend herself from a 220 pound man intent upon robbery or worse. The elderly could protect themselves from thieves as well. And the "noble doesn't stand a chance against the commoner head to head if the commoner is in posession of one of Colonel Colt's "equalizers". In England, posession of these devices has remained controlled, and the controls keep getting tighter. And in America, DESPITE the 2nd Amendment, controls are tightening, as well. It started in the smaller towns of the Old West, where towns decided to demand that outsiders "Check their guns at the town line". Then the New York City "Sullivan Act" really got he ball rolling. And every time, it was presented as "Protecting the People", when in fact, it only made the people less safe.

When men and women were able to carry guns everywhere, women were safer on the streets (even though most DIDN'T carry) because men would carry, and criminals KNEW that if the woman didn't shoot him the passersby WOULD. Was crime eliminated ? NO! Were the streets safe? NO! But they were, overall. safer. And crime was, overall, less.

Now, we have laws prohibiting Certain kinds of guns. Laws prohibiting certain kinds of ammunition. Laws prohibiting certain (or ALL) types of carry OF the guns we are still permitted to own. We even have laws against self defense in many areas. In New Jersey, for example, if the law determines you COULD have escaped, you can be prosecuted for murder if you kill an intruder in your own home. An able bodied man, confronted by an armed intruder, should jump out his window rather than shoot the invader. Ridiculous. In an era where women are fighting the "glass ceiling" in the job market, for reproductive rights, for equal political power, and a growing incidence of rape, their own representatives are voting to curtail their ability to buy equality from the local gun shop. WHY DO YOU LET THEM DO THIS TO YOU??? You keep voting for these people to "represent" you. You keep demanding equality. You keep deme=anding protection. Yet you constantly keep demanding laws to restrict byour rights to protect yourselves. And Ladies, I am NOT just blaming YOU! But overall, YOU are getting the worst out of this. If guns are outlawed, YOU go back to being property. That abusive husband/boyfriend you kicked out can STILL beat you up, rape you, and kill or hospitalize you with the muscles he has. Un-armed defense IS wonderful, but a trained women vs a traind man, the woman has a disadvantage from the start most of the time.

I am a husband of a beautiful woman. I am the Daddy of a beautiful daughter. I don't want MY family to be unable to defend themselves in case of need. My wife is one tough lady. I outweigh her by a lot. It would definitely be a fight, if I were to ever go over to the dark side and try to treat her like property. But unless she got to a gun, the odds aren't in her favor. If a rapist were to enter the house, and she called the cops, unless an officer were driving past the farm, she could be raped, killed, and the perp could be 10 minutes dow the road before the cops arrive. I don't want ANY woman ti face that prospect. I want EVERY woman to have the right to posess the means to apply deadly force to an attacker, EVEN IF THAT ATTACKER WAS ONCE FAMILY! The saddest thing, to me, is knowing that there IS the means out there to enable this, and people keep letting the government prevent them from using it.

THousands of times a year, according to many sources, including various newspapers, an armed citizen defends him/her self from criminals by brandishing OR using a firearm. Think of the crime rate if ALL Americans had the right to do so. Sadly, MANY of these thousands of people every year find themselves facing criminal charges because the gun they used was "illegally" posessed. In my opinion, THAT is one of the biggest crimes there is. Being charged with a crime for defending yourself or your property.

If I had my way, the legal system would be different. Restitution would be the rule. Return your victim to the state he/she was in before you committed the crime. NO EXCEPTIONS. If this isn't possible (murder, rape, etc). remove the criminal from society. NOT jail, just boot them out of the country. IF they don't go, do not allow them access to the necessities of life. Let them starve. I would also allow for family members to, if they desire, challenge the criminal to a duel and kill the scumbag if they so desire and have the ability. But hen, I am NOT a nice guy when it comes to scum. One thing I cannot, in clear conscience advocate, is imprisonment an a jail. First off, it punishes society by forcing us to both PAY for the upkeep of a criminal. It also makes us defacto slaveholders, something anathema to me. And last, but certainly not least, it DOES NOT make a criminal into a decent human. It just teaches the bastard more skills to continue his trade. But if he makes restitution, then IT'S OVER, he can rejoin society and perhaps become a viable part OF it. Or else, take a bullt the next time around. I DO, however, support the idea of indenture (to the victim, NOT the state) until such restitution is made. (I KNOW that one is going to piss off some of my friends, but Oh Well!)

BTW, the government is, in MY opinion, one of the biggest criminal organizations out there. They violate the rights of the citizens in ways that are astounding. They think THEY are the new "Noble" class. And they want the peasants unable to defend themselves against their depredations. Yup, Victim Disarmament it is, no matter WHO the victim is, and no matter WHO the criminal is, either.

A shy and retiring sort, my good friend Al from El Paso has proposed the following legislation be introduced.

Proposed legislation:

Whereas the right to protect one's life, liberty and property is perhaps the most fundamental of rights;and whereas this entails the right to own the means to carry out this right;

and whereas the law should reflect the best in human ethics, morals, and pursuit of justice;

And whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms and that the Fourteenth Amendment binds the several states and local governments to respect this right;

therefor all laws, executive orders and rules enacted by regulatory agencies preventing the ownership of personal weapons and the public carrying of weapons be declared null and void and were in fact always null and void;

all laws, executive orders and rules enacted by regulatory agencies restricting the manufacture, importation,and transportation for sale or personal use of certain weapons and types of weapons be declared null and void,

All taxes and fees designed to prevent people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms by making it too costly be declared null and void and that furthermore all attempts to enact and/or enforce such legislation in the future shall constitute armed rebellion and an act of war constituting treason against the United State and/or this state.

That no person shall be denied the right to keep and bear arms except while he is being restrained as punishment for crime or under arrest for suspicion of crime or as a consequence of mental impairment or intoxication and that his weapons and right to keep weapons be restored upon the end of his restraint.

Now, obviously, some of you out there are going to say that one part or another of this is un-acceptable for one reason or another. Tough. It is the ONLY gun law that would be 100% Constitutional, following both the Bill of Rights and Article 6, Section 2.

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Article 6, Section 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding

I am going to write this up as an actual proposition, and submit it to my local Congresscritter (once the Blind Bastard of Albany actually lets us have one!!), both my Senators, President Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and I'll be nice and forward a copy to Al's Congresscritter and Senators if he wants me to. Anybody out there willing to join forces with us and see what happens??

This article may be copied in full or in part to further the passage of this legislation. The author of this piece, and the only contributor to it, both give their permissions for said useage.

Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise

Given today's technology, as well as the temper of the times, there is no longer any justification for the existence of city governments.

For maybe as long as 10,000 years, cities, constructed on the sites of resources such as obsidian (in what may be mankind's earliest city, mentioned in the title, above), metals, fuel, and water, have served humans as gathering and trading places, refuges of mutual defense, focal-points for the arts and sciences as they began to develop.

As many of my readers are aware, I am fairly close to finishing my
second non-fiction book, to be called _Where We Stand_, a sort of
unprecedented manual, not of libertarian theory, but of libertarian
policy.

As might be expected, this little book has a rather long chapter
on the proper place for "law enforcement" in a free society. For those
who are familiar with my writing — especially a brace of essays
entitled "Toward A Police Reform Movement" — it should contain no
surprises.

As I prepared my police …

Recently, the following was posted; http://simba1.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/27/4377434-our-caveman-ancestors-were-liberals?commentId=14486011#c14486011 , and while I enjoyed the ensuing conversation, the entire premise was wrong. Soooo, being me, I had to respond in greater detail than would be fair to the author to put in his response column. Here we go.

First, Liberals (as currently defined) are NOT into trying new things any more than conservatives are. Liberls keep trying to restore socialism and communism, which are two failed forms of population control. Look at Europe and the USSR. Europe's attempt at socialism is failing rapidly, Greece bankrupt due to welfare state overspending, Portugal to follow, France having financial difficulties, etc. The USSR (putatively communist) is no more. So what do liberals push? Welfare programs, socialized medicine, government control of industry and commerce, and finally, expanding the role of government in every direction.

Conservatives (again, as currently defined) claim to be pro-freedom yet they deny rights to gays, support stripping personal freedoms from individuals, and themselves continue to cause the growth of an intrusive federal government, just aimed in different directions than the liberals. In other words, they are as socialist as the liberals.

Now, to our caveman ancestors. First, they weren't communists or socialists. Hunter-gatherers can't be. Everyone is capable of feeding themself with minimal labor. The tools of a hunter-gatherer are also ideally suited to use for personal defense (an idea abhorrent to the current crop of liberals). Life was nowhere near as hard as some try to present it as. Much research into bone structure has revealed that until the invention of agriculture, people were healthier, taller, stronger, and lived longer unless killed in hunting accidents. It was only after the beginning of agriculture that severe bone diseases (such as arthritis and rheumatism) became prevalent. The backbreaking labor necessary to farm in a pre-industrial society is never-ending and debilitating. The tools of a farmer do not lend themselves to self defense or hunting. Therefore, the farmer, tied to the land and held hostage to same, becomes the victim of the ultimate evil- GOVERNMENT. Once governments were introduced, the terms liberal and conservative came into play. Conservatives generally ran things, and were the kings, lords, and rulers of the farmers. They were usually nomadic hunter-gatherers, well armed, who moved in and "protected" the farmers out of a large portion of the fruits of their labors.

In other words, farming may well have been the cause of the biggest evil ever perpetrated on mankind. So what does this have to do with cavemen and liberals? Until there was a repressive government (of conservatives), there was no need for liberals. Greece had the first liberals. The formed a republic, attempting to equalize everyone to some extent. Please note, they were classic liberals, NOT modern liberals, they are an entirely different breed. Eventually, we arrived at the founding fathers of the US. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were definitely Liberals, and certinly would have felt at home with the Libertarian party, but they would have despised the 20th and 21st century people who call themselves liberals, for they AND the conservatives both represent the very things the founding fathers fought the Revolution against.

The founding fathers fought against a repressive central government. The fought against taxation without representation (DO NOT EVEN GO THERE!! If we have true representation, then why does everyone always say "I didn't vote for that guy in order for him to impose more taxes") They would NEVER have approved of raising taxes on productive people to give hand-outs to the un-productive. Hell, they would have found the income tax abhorrent to even consider, they opposed the idea of a central bank (the Federal Reserve), they opposed the idea of a large standing army, and until Madison and friends hijacked the Articles of Confederation and forced the Constitution on us, they opposed a strong central government.

So, unlike the theory presented in the aforementioned article, cavemen COULD NOT be liberal, because to be a liberal, you need a government to sponge off of. And that government needs taxpayers to rob in order to GIVE the liberals of today the largesse they require in order to exist.

Unless you've spent the past couple of weeks hermetically sealed in a mayonnaise jar under Funk & Wagnalls' porch, you know the state of Arizona has been doing some interesting and possibly historical things.

First—and, to my way of thinking, foremost—is the passage of a new law mandating what I started calling "Vermont Carry" a quarter century ago, and which others have subsequently called "Alaska Carry" and even "Constitutional Carry". What it means—whatever you choose to call it—is that, in Arizona, you don't need anybody's knowledge or consent to carry a weapon in your daily activities any way you want.

Laugh if you want to. It is STILL true. Income tax is NOT a voluntary system, even though it is classified by the government as such. If it WAS voluntary, then WHY DO THEY JAIL TAX EVADERS??? Since it is NOT voluntary, and compulsory labor is slavery, hence illegal, TAXATION IS SLAVERY in my book. So, how about we fight it on those grounds? And why am I asking these questions? Well, I'll tell you the answers to these questions.

First off, I am NOT saying the government will ever agree, even if the Supreme Court were to rule me correct (FAT CHANCE THERE!!). They would never stop taxing us, they would never admit the truth of my assertions, and they would throw me in jail and throw away the key for even having the nerve to try (Dems and Reps both). This is NOT a partisan topic. No matter which of the two major parties, whether the moderates in the center, or the radical fringes on either end (politicians, not the voters) will ever vote for eliminating the income tax. They ay pay it lip service, propose a VAT, demand cuts of tax rates, or many other tricks to SEEM opposed to the income tax, but we all know they would never actually try to eliminate it.

But I think we could hammer it down their throats if we were all to refuse to pay them on the grounds that we refuse to be slaves to Washington. They can't jail us all! Of course, most people won't actually DO anything about it. They are all comfortable with their chains, even though they bitch of April 15th. Even though they bitch whenever DC decides to give aother few billion (or TRILLION) to some boondoggle. Most of you won't be willing to risk "Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honour" for mere freedom from slaves chains. Hell, with 4 kids, I'm not sure I'D do it. But I'd sure love to try!

I'm sure someone will bring up "Well, what services are YOU, Neale, willing to give up?" And I'm sure that no matter what services I say, there will be the inevitable comeback of "Oh, so you don't want ........ either?" I'll save you the time. With the exception of healthcare for veterans injured in the line of duty PRIOR to the implementation of the ending of taxation, and the elimination of SSI for all except those already on it or within 10 years of 65, the answer is I'll live with it privatized, or run for profit. Yes, cops. Yes, fire. Yes, emt service. YES,YES,YES.

Now, to the why. I'm sick of being a slave. Slaves MUST co-operate with their owners. If they don't, they either break free or die. Well, I'm tired of co-operating, and I wonder if any of you are, too. Well, are you?

Scary, isn't it?? To think the title of this article actually makes sense scares the @!$%# out of me, that's for sure! Today, on another post, I made this comment to an article by ECONOMICS101 (linked here http://a-s-n.newsvine.com/_news/2010/04/30/4225133-what-are-you-really-conservative-socialsit-facist-or-communist-how-to-figure-out-your-actual-political-makeup ). Then, a little later, it hit me. It's true, the thing we actually need the most rpotecting FROM is the very government that always claims it's trying to "protect" us! The really sad thing is the older I get, the more I see our government "Protecting" us out of everything we own, and every right we have, and all in the name of "Safety, Security, and Health". Think I'm wrong?? Read on, and see if you can at least see my reasoning.

We started out as a Confederacy. The original "rules" we wrote for operating this country were the Articles of Confederation (NO, this is not a reference to the South, look it up). They were a series of loose rules for the operation of the new country we had just founded. The AoC were pretty much a unanimous document. At the time they were written, all the people involved approved of them. But there WERE some small problems. So they called a "Constitutional Convention" (let the following serve as a warning why we NEVER want to see another) to fix these problems. BIG mistake. Now, pay attention here, this is important. I admire the Constitution. I base my political beliefs upon it. It is a remarkable document. It also happens to be the biggest mistake, in some ways, a free people could make. Why. you ask? Because we didn't put SPECIFIC ENOUGH limitations on the Federal Government, THAT'S WHY. It is full of the responsibilities the Federal Gov't has, and then it says "Anything else belongs to the states.

BIG MISTAKE!! We never said "This, this, and this ONLY, no spreading the powers out" We left it open to interpretation. General Welfare became welfare payments to people who don't work (requiring taxes). Defend the borders led to a 3 MILLION man standing army (something our founders, including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington warned us against)[and the border is still a problem]. Provide for public roads (fuel taxes, highway taxes, federal speed limits, mandated seatbelt laws, federal mandates for car construction). Not all of these results are necessarily bad, but the ARE a source of power over, and a reason to collect ever more monies from, the American people. By the way, the Constitution we got was NOT unanimously accepted by the convention, quite a few of the 52 (?) delegates refused to sign on, and the Bill of Rights was eventually added to make the whole thing acceptable to the several states.

Later, Abe Lincoln used the Constitution to justify a war to "Preserve the Union". Sounds like an abusive husband, beating his wife into submission when she demands a divorce, doesn't it??? Despite the comments I see coming about slavery, it was NOT the primary reason for the war. Slavery was A reason, but not THE reason. The main reason was State's Rights vs A Strong Federal Government's Rights. Even though several southern states did list slavery as one of their reasons to secede, it was not the main reason. Now, to those of you screaming "RACIST" at your computer monitor, do not take that as my supporting the issue of slavery in ANY form (even conscription into the army in time of war). Slavery needed a stake through it's heart, and it is a shame that Jefferson's attempts to outlaw it in the Declaration of Independence were struck down. Despite the fact that slavery WAS dying rapidly due to the invention of mechanized farming equipment (tractors don't need food, warmth, and constant monitoring to prevent their running away), killing it off even quicker WAS a good thing. But it wasn't the main reason for the war.

Now, we seem to need "protection" from islamic terrorists and those nasty insurance companies, according to the Federal Gov't. And BOY does it cost a lot of money and freedom to get that "Protection". Maybe you don't agree, but I think we need protection FROM our so-called "protectors" in the government.

The smirky caller asked, "You really believe Barack Obama is a socialist?" He went on to assert that the President is pro-business, a capitalist.

The show's host—amazingly, one of talk radio's Big Three—stuttered and stammered inarticulately, never really answering the caller's question, until he was finally rescued by the next commercial break. The fact is, even if he'd known exactly what socialism is, and how to spot it in the people all around you, he wouldn't have dared to say so, because Republicans, conservatives, have a dirty little secret.

Just like Barack Obama, they are socialists, too.

Pursuing Invariably the Same Object
by L. Neil Smith
Okay, let's get it over with, right up front. There are individuals who believe, whenever they're presented with evidence of what the Declaration of Independence called government's "long train of abuses and usurpations", that it's sufficient to lift their noses into the air and sneer haughtily, "Hmmph—conspiracy theory!"

Elsewhere in this issue is a letter I received from an individual named Ken Stern. It was the first of several, and I promised him that I would reply to his points as soon as I had the time and energy. In the first, he seems to be responding to my essay "Why Did It Have To Be Guns?"

I didn't hear it myself, but I've been told that radio talk show host Glenn Beck was whimpering the other day about the way firearms have been brought into discussion of the way that Barack Obama and his goblin hordes have attempted to impose socialism on the people of this country

On the heels of news yesterday from famously boring, overly-polite Canada, that those who didn't want anyone to hear Ann Coulter speak at the University of Ottowa had surrounded the venue wielding rocks and sticks, providing the cowardly institution with an excuse to cancel the event — it churlishly accused Coulter of provoking the violence — we hear even more threats this morning against the spirit of the First Amendment.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have listened to dozens of hours of talk radio, most of it focused on the effort to impose, by force, a collectivized medical system on what is clearly no longer a free people.

During all that time, plenty has been said about a wide range of related topics. Those I listen to are by no means monolithic in their views, but vary on details of policy, philosophy, personality, and attitude. Sometimes they differ to a startling degree, considering that the majority of them started out, more or less, as conservative Republicans.