CISPA Alert

As we all know, our privacy is already violated every day, in numerous ways . . . but it could get worse. Calling your representative in Congress takes only a moment. In this case, your call might make a difference, for just a little while . . . .

From EFF:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/amendment-wont-stop-data-going-nationa-security-agency

Posted on EFF’s Twitter timeline:

http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/17/cispa-us-companies/

This morning, from Campaign for Liberty:

On Saturday, I sent you an important email (“Cyber Spies”) regarding the U.S. House taking up the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

The House will vote TODAY on CISPA, so it’s critical the liberty movement makes its voices loudly heard right away.

If this bill becomes law, the personal information you store with your Internet Service Provider, social media, email providers, and more will not be secure from prying bureaucratic eyes.

In fact, it could very likely end up in the hands of the National Security Agency or another military or civilian “security” agency.

This vote could come down to the wire.

I’ve heard from sources on the Hill that bill sponsor Mike Rogers (R-MI) has been frantically twisting arms and holding closed-door briefings on the “cybersecurity threat,” all to whip up the final votes in his favor.

Bill sponsors even threw together a last minute amendment to send your information straight to the DHS rather than the NSA to garner support from Democrats.

Please contact your representative this morning and urge them to oppose CISPA!

And here’s the message sent last Saturday:

On Wednesday, the House Intelligence Committee passed the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). If you hadn’t heard this news, it might be because the general public and media weren’t allowed to attend the hearing – even CSPAN’s cameras were ordered out of the hearing room.

This dangerous legislation is expected to hit the House floor this Thursday and could come up as soon as Wednesday, as part of the House’s “cyber week.”

Make no mistake, this bill poses a great threat to our online privacy.

Every privacy concern we’ve raised over this bill in the past was confirmed this past Wednesday, when the committee passed an amendment supposedly “addressing” them.

Of course, the amendment doesn’t do anything to prevent the government from spying on you.

In fact, it clearly states the government can use your personally identifiable information they’ve collected if federal bureaucrats deem it’s a matter of “national security.”

While the government raises the specter of “cyberterrorism” from China, Russia, and non-state actors like the well-known hacker collective Anonymous, it is the American people that will be caught in the crossfire if this legislation passes.

Information such as online chats, email content, browsing history, and bank records would all be vulnerable to collection by the government’s spy network.

You see, once the government gets this information from a corporation, it’s handed over to the National Security Agency and other military and civilian “security” agencies.

Under CISPA, corporations handing over information for alleged “cybersecurity purposes” don’t even have to make an attempt to remove personally identifiable information before sending your private info to government agents.

Even worse, CISPA lacks any meaningful “minimization procedures.” In other words, the government can store that information as long as they want – and use it for whatever purposes they want.

Now, some have suggested that just adopting minimization procedures alone would assuage privacy concerns.

Not so fast . . .

During debate over renewal of the egregious FISA Amendments Act, we learned that on at least one occasion, NSA surveillance was found “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” for violating their minimization procedures.

Why should we be so naïve as to think they wouldn’t act the same under CISPA?

So it’s critical the entire bill be rejected . . .

 . . . I shudder to think what the world would be like if we were all to live in fear that our online activities could be monitored by our own government.

As a matter of fact, so much of the governments’ argument for so-called “cybersecurity” legislation is based on classified briefings members of Congress receive.

Their argument seems to be: “Trust us, we need this legislation.”

And, “Trust us, we won’t abuse it.”

This is NOT the way it’s supposed to be.

The Constitution was intended to be a check on government power to protect the rights of its citizens.

When it comes to matters of “national security,” however, this government makes our rights play second fiddle to their schemes.

When this is the case, Americans must DEMAND their representative show why such extraordinary power is necessary.

The burden of proof lies with government.

And “classified information” only available to select members of Congress shouldn’t cut it.

I know there are a lot of battles to fight right now.

Between “gun control” schemes, National ID, the National Internet Tax Mandate, and numerous other Big Government plots, it seems Congress has seldom been this eager to steal our liberties and crush us under the heavy hand of the State . . .

For @Veresapiens . . .

For my Truly Wise, Truly Human online acquaintance and liberty-friend whom I met on Twitter: @Veresapiens . . .

Here is, at least, part of an essay I’ve been promising him for a long time; I started several others so those may get finished and appear at some point. I didn’t intend to do this today. And I never thought I’d use a message from Campaign for Liberty as a jumping off point. But as it turns out, it is appropriate.

Campaign for Liberty’s John Tate sent an email message this morning urging immediate action. I’ve included an excerpt below. While I can see how the actions he advises may seem essential to significantly advancing the Cause of Liberty, after fully immersing myself in the study of *politics, for at least two years now, I have serious doubts.

While at some level I have known it much of my life, it is now abundantly clear to me that politics and coerced government are equivalent to endless war, with the blood usually being shed by those subject to the decisions of the political actors, rather than by the political actors themselves. It is an inherently ugly and treacherous system, designed to benefit the corrupt while it purports to protect the good.

Yet some see coerced government and politics as the only possible path to a relatively peaceful and free world. They view the alternative as world-wide chaos and tribalism, with regions ruled by warlords, themselves engaged-in and coercing others into endless and bloody battle. They view the end of politics and, by extension, the end of government as the certain death of individual liberty.

In contrast, some believe the path to a peaceful and free world requires complete disengagement from the never-ceasing battle of politics. They believe that to participate in politics is to endorse and support the system, which extends the life of coercive government (the state). They believe that civil disobedience, engaging others in dialogue, and sharing information is the surest and quickest path to a freer world, perhaps the only path to a truly free world. Moreover, some believe that entering the political battle, at any level, or from any angle, even if it is simply to stop the bloodshed at the fringes, simply encourages more bloodshed. They see that the warlords are still with us, even here.

Is there a better way to secure individual liberty for the maximum number of individuals than politics, even politics aimed at limiting government and thereby limiting coercion?

Does politics essentially equal coercion?

Is only a limited measure of individual liberty ever possible, simply because it must ultimately be secured by some form of coercion and coercive systems always tend toward corruption and expansion?

In other words, can politics and coerced government ever result in genuine, widespread, and enduring liberty?

Are humans capable of achieving genuine, widespread, and enduring liberty?

Do we really do more harm than good by continuing to participate in politics, even only in selected ways, which means participating at some level in coercive government?

Will complete disengagement from (shunning) politics, except in the form of civil disobedience, result in more freedom and less violence than selective engagement? [Both approaches being combined with dialogue and education]

Will the shunning of politics bring an end to coercive government sooner than carefully chosen political engagement?

Is genuine, widespread, and enduring liberty worth devoting one’s emotion and energy to, even though it may never be achieved?

Is genuine, widespread, and enduring liberty simply a philosophers’ dream?

Is it possible we are held captive only by continuing to believe in the illusion that we are enslaved?

What happens to someone who sees the world as already free and behaves as though coercive government simply does not exist?

Why does liberty matter?

Can we live full and meaningful lives without seeking liberty?

Should we be willing to stop seeking liberty if doing so makes life easier and less turbulent for those around us?

As individuals who value liberty, how do we determine which path is best to follow?

One enormous, overarching problem we all face is that while our politicians are distracted by being allowed to play tug-of-war with a scrap of cloth, along the edges of a world-wide chess board, the real GLOBAL warlords (UN, IMF, CFR, CIA, etc.) and their minions are raiding, raping, and pillaging–literally and figuratively.

They view national politicians as so many chess pieces and a convenient distraction for the masses. True, a few liberty-minded politicians have occasionally managed to gain control over a few insignificant moves on the chess board, but that’s about all they ever accomplish, other than raising awareness.

So? Well? What do we do then?

Is it possible that both approaches–political engagement AND shunning of politics (combined with dialogue and education on many fronts)–are helpful and necessary?

Because our common goal is a world in which individual life, liberty, and property are fully respected, where the non-aggression principle rules the day, we usually agree that smaller and local are better than bigger and farther from the individuals concerned. This is especially true when individuals enjoy freedom of movement and when options abound in other locations.

Also, can anyone reasonably deny that engaging in politics at the local and state level is already an effective way to defend individual liberty and property at least to a small extent (better than individuals can currently achieve solely with private coalitions) from vast forces already oppressing so many good people?

Some obvious examples of real successes (albeit small ones) include local efforts to block drone flights, Agenda 21, and SMART Meters and state-level nullification of Agenda 21, NDAA, HR-347, ObamaCare, Gun Bans, and National ID cards.

Would we really be further down the path to a freer world if the globalists’ attempts to undermine national, state, and individual sovereignty were left unchallenged by these available and relatively peaceful means?

Are we wrong to use the power of a smaller and less-tyrannical state to protect us from the overwhelming power of a larger and far more evil coalition? At least for now?

I have been thinking about this a lot, for a long time. When I decided to vote in the last presidential election, I greatly disappointed @Veresapiens, who firmly believed my doing so, even if only to cast a vote for a liberty candidate, lent credibility to the tug-of-war and the chess masters and helped to ensure perpetuation of the evil game.

Regarding national politics, I am prepared to say he is mostly correct. Again, especially because the globalists are really the ones in charge, not our so-called representative government of the United States.

Even if a liberty-minded president is elected, there will be little he or she can do to significantly restore liberty. Yes, the behind-the-scenes actors have that much control, including of the media. So national elections are a big distraction from more urgent matters, which is no accident.

But it is hard not to feel a little hope when people such as Ron and Rand Paul are in the national spotlight. And I see no harm in cheering them on when they do good work. It seems that what they do helps to spread the liberty-message to a lot of individuals who would otherwise never listen. And their efforts offer much-needed moral support to those already convinced.

Do I wish their actions were more principled at times? Yes, yes, yes. The more principled the better. Do I agree with them in every respect? No, no, no. So are they helping to perpetuate the big game by engaging in politics? Or are they helping, ultimately, to end it by enlightening and supporting others? Are they doing a little of each? Does one outweigh the other?

@Veresapiens once agreed with me, at least slightly, that local politics might be an exception to the no-engagement rule. I hope we still agree on that, because I think engaging in local and state-level politics is currently our only significant means of seeking protection from oppressive measures the globalists are imposing and hoping to impose through federal force.

Perhaps this is a tired analogy, but if we were more directly and visibly enslaved, imprisoned, than we are today, say, held inside a physical camp on a few acres of ground, would we be wrong to seek some measure of protection from the more sympathetic “guards”? Doing so could help us to maintain health until escape is possible. Perhaps some sympathetic guards could even be convinced to help us escape.

Would it be somehow better to disengage completely, refusing to cooperate in every way, and let ourselves starve or be beaten to death by the more brutal guards? I suppose we would offer inspiration and revelation to others through this approach. But is it morally superior and more effective than limited, principled engagement for the purpose of immediately easing suffering (less brutality), while trying to protect what little liberty remains and even to increase it?

National politics in this analogy would be, say, being allowed to choose one prison camp warden over another. We might be able to elect the less-brutal warden, but we could be certain the difference between any two wardens would be very small. And we could be certain the same governor has tight control over both.

For those somehow yet unaware of the futility of such an election, engaging in the process could lead to unfounded hope and to a prolonged failure to become cognizant of the extent of their enslavement. That would be the purpose of holding a vote in the first place, to create the illusion that the enslaved have some measure of control, granted by “benign” governors, into which illusion the enslaved then invest emotion and energy, thus detracting from their ability to grasp reality and seek to change it.

But for the enslaved ones who are aware, perhaps voting for the warden who MIGHT ease the daily pain just a little is not a terrible idea. Perhaps discussions among inmates of possible differences might lead to the enlightenment of others.

But again, whether one votes or not for warden does little or nothing to change the system or to physically free one from it. This particular system is already too corrupt, extensive, and powerful and the warden and governors are too distant from the inmates to care and to be swayed by them.

Within this same analogy, local politics could be seen as the creating of enclaves more sympathetic to preserving humanity and the ideals of liberty, through education and creative use of existing rules, with the ultimate goal being converting and enlisting the assistance of the guards or else escaping from the system, the camp, through coordinated action.

In this prison-camp world, failure to engage at the local level, with the guards, could mean that both individuals and ideals rapidly succumb to temptation or to extreme oppression and ultimately, to utter destruction. Coordinated civil disobedience, provided such coordination were possible, could result in easing conditions, at least temporarily, but would it be any more likely than engagement to result in greater freedom in the long run? Either approach alone, could be helpful. Both approaches combined–local engagement and civil disobedience–along with dialogue and education, could be even more helpful.  Of course no approach guarantees complete success.

Alas, we are already living in a prison-camp world. While its walls may be invisible for the moment, they exist, nonetheless. We are truly free only in our hearts and minds, if we are among the more fortunate ones. And while there isn’t much that most of us can do to directly change the national or world-wide picture, much can be done–in the form of engaging and enlightening others and in undoing or preventing harmful measures–closer to home. Simply offering moral support to other liberty-minded individuals is an important contribution.

I don’t think engagement in politics, even at the local level, is right for everyone. And I think that individuals who take the stance of refusing to interact with guards, wardens, and governors play an essential role. On the other hand, I also believe that liberty-seeking individuals who are willing to engage in certain aspects of politics are also essential and no less principled, but that they should not waste too much time or effort on national politics (wardens and governors) and instead look closer to home (guards and fellow inmates); I also believe they must be exceedingly careful not to succumb to temptation and to ensure any political action they support is truly aimed at reducing coercion.

-LMN

The excerpt from Tate’s message, the one that inspired me to get busy on this essay, follows:

The GOP establishment’s sheer HATRED for those of us who truly believe in liberty, limited government, and constitutional principles was on full display in Tampa, Florida, last summer.

New rules designed to weaken grassroots activists were RAMMED through at the hands of establishment-insider lawyer Ben Ginsberg over the SCREAMING objections of rank-and-file delegates at the Republican National Convention.

In the process of telling all Ron Paul supporters to hit the road, they stabbed our liberty movement, Tea Party types, and grassroots activists of every stripe in the back.

This next week – at the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting April 10-13 – you and I have a chance to reverse this outrage and guard against new assaults already rearing their ugly heads.

I’ll explain more about the new attacks shortly …

But the result of next week’s meetings will finally show you and me whether or not the GOP is serious about growing and winning – or if its insiders want to keep their party small, old, and impotent.

Now, Virginia RNC Committeeman Morton Blackwell – who led the fight against implementation of the new rules in Tampa – will be introducing a resolution to reverse them.

That is why I need you to contact your Republican National Committee representatives IMMEDIATELY to urge them to support Blackwell’s repeal effort.

You are represented at the RNC by the State Party Chairman, a National Committeeman, and a National Committeewoman from your state.

It requires a 75% vote of all RNC members to overturn these rules, so your action could not be more critical . . .

. . . Please remember, this fight could have ramifications that last for years.

Each one of the GOP’s new rules are designed to hand even MORE control to party insiders, fat-cat donors, and GOP hack consultants.

The new rules force more “winner take all” primaries, discourage states from allowing grassroots activists to have “too much” power over the selection of the eventual GOP nominee in state convention processes, create more national delegates beholden to campaign operatives, and raise the number of states needed to place a candidate’s name in nomination at the convention.

The effect will be to disenfranchise liberty candidates like Ron Paul in 2012, Ronald Reagan in 1976, and Barry Goldwater in 1964, who were powered by armies of small donors and activists inspired by principle rather than opportunism …

… the very people that are proven to create the foundation for a healthy and vibrant Republican Party.

I know you’re not surprised.

In recent months, you and I have seen more than our fair share of assaults coming from the establishment.

In fact, not long ago, Karl Rove launched his own Super PAC designed to combat liberty activists and Tea Party types.

Breitbart news just reported that the RNC Chief of Staff “effectively declared war on the conservative grassroots” at an exclusive meeting at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, D.C.

Now, as part of the GOP’s “Growth and Opportunity Project,” the establishment is doubling down.

Buried amongst the report’s platitudes about building a more inclusive Republican Party are three recommendations designed to cement the establishment’s control over picking the nominee in 2016, including:

***    Requiring every state to hold primaries instead of caucuses and conventions.

Establishment candidates that can afford multi-million dollar ad campaigns have a built-in advantage over liberty candidates, who rely on grassroots donors and volunteers. And this would also cost already struggling state governments as much as $30 million;

***    Replacing individual state primaries with a series of “regional” primaries, further advantaging well-heeled        establishment candidates who can afford to run massive multiple-state campaigns at once;

***    Placing primary debates under the control of the GOP, virtually guaranteeing moderators favor their established frontrunners and that those who challenge the status quo are simply shut out.

I hope you’re as outraged as I am.  The liberty wing of the party is the only part of the GOP that is growing.

But I’m afraid far too many in the GOP establishment would rather lose to statist Democrats than see grassroots types gain party positions.

This next week is the GOP’s chance to prove that’s not true.

But it’s critical you act at once.

You and I simply must make clear that we will not settle for Obama-lite.

And we will not allow the GOP establishment to silence or control the liberty movement!

So please call your state’s RNC representatives today and ask them to support Morton Blackwell’s motion to repeal the Tampa rules changes and reject the three proposals in the “Growth and Opportunity Project” that further empower the establishment.

Please act at once . . .

*Politics – defined – http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/politics?q=politics

noun

• 1 [usually treated as singular] the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power: the party quickly gained influence in French politics; thereafter he dropped out of active politics
• the activities of governments concerning the political relations between states: in the conduct of global politics, economic status must be backed by military capacity
• the academic study of government and the state: [as modifier]:a politics lecturer
• a particular set of political beliefs or principles: people do not buy their paper purely for its politics
• (often the politics of) the principles relating to or inherent in a sphere or activity, especially when concerned with power and status: the politics of gender
• 2 activities aimed at improving someone’s status or increasing power within an organization: yet another discussion of office politics and personalities

Revised April 7, 2013

Tom Woods Announces the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum

Sharing this April 6, 2013 message from The Tom Woods Letter . . . . 

If you’re not familiar with Tom Woods (Thomas E. Woods, Jr.), please explore the information at the two links below.

http://www.tomwoods.com/about/

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/

Here’s the message:

Announcing the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum

Not long ago I noted that I was at work on a K-12 homeschool curriculum. What I didn’t say, because it hadn’t yet been made public, was that it’s Ron Paul’s homeschool curriculum I’m working on.

I’ll be teaching much of the history for the upper grades, as well as co-teaching a course on government for ninth graders. It’s a full-service curriculum, containing all the courses, including math and the sciences, that a student needs.

Here are seven things that are great about this curriculum:

(1) Grades K-5 will be available for free. You have six years to try out the program without having to spend a dime.

(2) Students will learn the origins and travails of liberty in the Western world and in the United States in particular.

(3) Students will learn the economics of the Austrian School.

(4) Students can learn at their own pace. If they’re advanced and move more quickly, they can quiz out of the first two years of college and enter college as juniors.

(5) The emphasis in this program is not simply on teaching from a different point of view, or teaching material that no other school or curriculum offers, although the Ron Paul Curriculum does both of these things. But it also emphasizes oral and written communication, so that students will be able to spread and defend their ideas effectively. Students will have their own blogs, start YouTube channels, and even learn the basics of video production, website design, and Internet marketing.

(6) It’s cheap. For access to the forums, it’s $250 per year, per family. (If you have ten children, it’s still just $250 for you.) Each course is just $50. No textbooks — they’re awful, and we use pdfs and primary documents to teach students — so you’ll save hundreds of dollars that way as well.

(7) Parents who wish they’d had the chance for this kind of education can listen to the lectures their children are hearing. We’ve made them of a length that works well with the average commute.

By September 2, we expect to have the material for grades 6-10 available. We’ll continue to add grades until December 2015 — our target date — when we expect to have the entire K-12 curriculum finished.

The website officially launched today. Check it out, and sign up. Right now the site has an excellent course on high school preparation, which covers such topics as how to study, personal goal-setting, time management, public speaking, speed reading, typing, note-taking and retrieval, software for essay writing, how to set up a YouTube channel, how to set up a WordPress blog site, and that most challenging skill, how to read a book. Between now and September 2 you can join the site and access that course for $25.

This, I am convinced, will prove to be Ron Paul’s most significant contribution to the cause of liberty — and that’s saying something. Please check out RonPaulCurriculum.com, and stay tuned for more news as we move forward with this exciting project!

P.S. Here’s my three-minute video pitch.

***

This is a great opportunity, especially for parents who are reluctant to homeschool their children without the guidance of a structured curriculum. And it is great that it’s available free of charge for K-5. This makes it a great resource for unschoolers who may wish to use it not as a daily curriculum but only when the offerings pertain to a particular line of inquiry. -LMN

Who will control the food supply? And other hard questions

A family with well-protected property rights (including, ideally, NO property tax), a good set of reference books, essential tools, a patch of relatively good ground, a little pasture, some heirloom seeds, some woods, relatively clean air, an adequate source of potable water, a few chickens, goats, rabbits, and some honey bees can live quite well with very little money. They can also feed a number of other people. Add a few good weapons and some ammunition and they can also hunt and protect themselves and their animals.

Moreover, the food they all eat will be nutritious and free of anything significantly injurious to their health and well-being. Sure there will be some dangers and risks, but these are low and can be kept to a minimum. And while a lot of hard work is required, it is doable, even for a small family, with time to spare for creating, reading, studying, playing, and socializing.

Of course, not everyone will choose this sort of life, and that is as it should be. However, it is a tried and true way of life to resort to during an economic crisis, one that will practically ensure the survival of individuals, the survival of others who turn to them for help, and the survival of a moral culture.

Most people, when given some information on these matters, even those who don’t live on a small farm and have no desire to, want healthy, nutritious food grown from seeds and plants with genes evolved through natural means, not by manipulation in the laboratory, at the micro-level of genetic material, and without excessive doses of toxic pesticides. They want nutritious food from naturally born animals that live in a healthy outdoor environment, eat what nature intended, and are spared from constant dosing with antibiotics, hormones, and toxic pesticides (through their feed).

This is a very intelligent desire. And it is also a reasonable one. It is quite possible to grow plenty of food for everyone, at an affordable price, in a manner in keeping with these natural principles. When necessary, people are even willing to pay a little more for groceries. And there are an increasing number of people willing to run larger-scale farms to help meet the increasing demand. Many people are growing their own, when and where they are able.

Meanwhile, there are too many in government acting in collusion with corrupt corporations, and they are pushing the other way, hard, sometimes openly, often stealthily. Why? Return on “investment”? Power? Status? The blind machinations of bureaucracy? But could there also be an even more nefarious reason?

To centralize control of most land, food, air, water, fuel, weapons, vehicles, and movement of individuals is to ensure the ability of a few to control most of humankind, in every aspect of life.

What is necessary to achieve this level of centralization?

1. A United Nations designed to undermine the sovereignty of individual nations (see below)

2. Corrupt officials at the highest levels of all the major countries and of the largest corporations

3. Central banks controlled by corrupt officials and their corporate cronies; fiat currency; artificially controlled interest rates; entitlement programs, i.e. food stamps, unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.; an income tax

4. A docile, compliant people who are drugged by doctors; dumbed-down and de-moralized by compulsory, collective schools; overworked by necessity owing to a struggling economy; and overstimulated by purulent media preying upon these created vulnerabilities

5. A steady flow of “news” stories designed to convey an underlying message that independent individualists (even if they revere and support real community) are old-school and frightening and that collectives (even forced ones) are cool and comforting, not to mention far more stylish

6. A means to disarm, thoroughly identify, and survey the remaining individualists and to crush any defiance: staged attacks and shootings; UN Treaties; weapons bans; registries; national ID cards, with biometric identifiers; issuing licenses to illegal immigrants (to bio-identify them and to make it easier for them to vote)

7. A means to control the food supply, access to medical care, fertility, comfort, and mobility–essential elements in the daily life of a “free” individual: Constant oversight and interference (including paying bribes in the form of subsidies) from the USDA and FDA; genetically engineered, patented seeds protected from the jurisdiction of courts; cloud seeding using poisons that contaminate the air, ground, and water; fluoridated water supplies (fluoride is a potent neurotoxin); nationalized health care systems or the equivalent (ObamaCare); easy, promoted abortions; genetically engineered foods that cause sterility in animals and humans, not to mention immune disorders; vaccines that cause miscarriages, infant deaths, brain damage, and immune dysfunction; false data and created hysteria about climate change and global warming to push prices for gasoline, oil, and electricity so high that individuals will lose not only comfort but also mobility; a massive electronic surveillance system, including drones and the “legal” authorization to disappear and assassinate citizens; a militarized police force and an enormous federal police force hoarding ammunition and amassing equipment and facilities

8. High property taxes, zoning, EPA regulations, and low interest rates: If one must pay property tax one can never really own a property; property taxes and regulations push people off the land; restrictive zoning and regulations restrict ability to use land efficiently and for growing food and fuel; interest rates held so low that savers are punished and retirees forced to take excessive risks and possibly to spend their principle, thus impoverishing them and ensuring they cannot pass wealth to the next generation

9. Constant meddling in the affairs of other nations, at great cost, in blood and treasure, to our own people and to the people of other nations, ensuring the steady growth of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned of

10. Perpetuation of the artificially created War-on-Drugs ensuring a steady flow of money through drug trafficking to clandestine operations in government and corporations and ensuring a large proportion of the population is imprisoned and held back from their potential

Sadly, I am certain to be leaving out a number of other significant horrors . . . as if this list isn’t awful enough.

Lamentably, this is the world we live in. Is it an accident? Is it simply the application of the law of unintended consequences to the well-intended meddling of a lot of good people with terrible ideas? Is it merely the crude patchwork of moronic politicians easily swayed and bought? Is it a conspiracy of the power-elite, drunk with arrogance and power and determined to have their eugenics, their excesses, and a lion’s share of resources? Is it all of the above?

Whatever it is, it isn’t good.

Whatever it is, it isn’t easy to stop.

Whatever it is, the brunt of it has not hit most people yet.

What can we do, through peaceful means, to stop it?

Here’s a collection of supporting information. I hope to add to it over time. I know of many more relevant articles and sites but I am too tired tonight to locate and link to all of them. Many of these first few are just the ones I happened to have open today. Please do your own research and see where it leads.

ONE

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/14914-gun-control-calls-for-strict-control-of-arms-ammo-in-un-treaty

TWO

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/03/24/nullification-for-lawyers/

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2013/03/doj-tries-to-turn-fedex-and-ups-into-cops-big-pharma-aplauds/

http://shoebat.com/2013/03/27/secretary-of-state-john-kerry-demonstrates-why-huma-abedins-background-mattered/

THREE

Investments

http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/jim-rogers-major-crash-ahead.php?p=PPYRP206&utm_campaign=content&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=taboola#.UVShwjenefi

Currency, Money

http://lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff213.html

Meddling

http://mises.org/daily/6390/Stopping-the-Keynesian-Death-March

FOUR

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm

FIVE

http://memoryholeblog.com/

http://www.corbettreport.com/

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/component/content/frontpage.html

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/about-us/

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/

http://www.mises.org/

http://www.tomwoods.com/

http://mises.org/daily/6389/Elizabeth-Warrens-Unwarranted-Wage#.UVIfDUi-TTc.twitter

SIX

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5518

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/14927-senators-cruz-lee-and-paul-promise-to-protect-the-second-amendment

SEVEN

Food Supply

http://naturalsociety.com/obama-signs-monsanto-protection-act-into-law-after-promising-gmo-labeling-in-2007/

http://naturalsociety.com/surprised-monsanto-openly-wrote-own-monsanto-protection-act/

http://www.naturalnews.com/039668_Monsanto_Protection_Act_Obama_deception_GMOs.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/039652_USDA_agriculture_census_government_surveillance.html

http://www.heirloomsolutions.com/?utm_source=OTGA_HSship_Mar27&utm_medium=OTGA_HSship_Mar27&utm_campaign=OTGA_HSship_Mar27

Individual Liberty

http://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano93.1.html

http://markstoval.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-dark-heart-of-the-people/

Militarization

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/03/26/the-militarization-of-american-life/

EIGHT

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cobb/130219

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/14833-oklahoma-house-passes-bill-to-ban-un-agenda-21

NINE

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/14904-u-s-involvement-in-syrian-war-becoming-more-apparent

TEN

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/follow-money-how-former-anti-drug-officials-ridiculously-still-say-pot-dangerous-order-make

-LMN

Hank’s Story

Only 21 and already so brilliant and thoughtful and kind . . . thoughts from a young liberty-friend:

Hank’s Story.

Freeman DeFacto “Fighting for a Lost Clause: The Case for the Sovereign Individual”

Below you will find another guest-post from my friend Freeman DeFacto. I am so pleased he is allowing me to share his thinking and writing with you. He deserves a much wider audience than I have here at the moment.

Those not yet familiar with the actual history of the United States, as opposed to the propaganda so often taught in schools and purveyed by politicians and the media, may wish to read the next paragraph, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, as a prologue to Freeman’s work. I believe it will contribute greatly to your understanding. The full article is at the link.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo242.html

Jim Powell’s book, Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery, provides chapter and verse of how real statesmen of the world, in sharp contrast to Lincoln, ended slavery without resorting to waging total war on their own citizens. Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves. There were some incidents of violence, but nothing remotely approaching the violence of a war that ended up killing 800,000 Americans.

It is important to recognize that when individuals are truly free, they are free to pursue any goals of their choosing, regardless of whether others deem these worthy or appropriate, as long as they use voluntary, individual cooperation (as opposed to governmental or other coercion, fraud, or physical force) to achieve them; any harm done to others or to their property in the pursuit of goals will not easily be done without appropriate consequences.

Government routinely “legalizes” illegitimate force and separates actions from appropriate consequences.

It is ironic that most people view government as the great protector against injustices such as slavery, yet “legal” slavery and segregation could never have existed without the approval and support of an overly-powerful government.

One of the many beauties of Liberty is that it works to the benefit of everyone.

Happy reading!

-LMN

********

Fighting for a Lost Clause: The Case for the Sovereign Individual

by Freeman DeFacto

These are the times that try men’s souls.

― Thomas Paine, opening line of American Crisis I, 23 DEC 1776

INTRODUCTION ― The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is the key that contains the framework for building the freest and greatest nation ever founded. It deserves to be read, thoroughly understood, and held sacred by advocates of individual freedom the world over. Here it is:

WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness [originally Property] ― That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . .

The clause the Consent of the Governed, right in the middle of that paragraph, is crucial to the concept of individual liberty. We show below how it has been “lost” over the years.

The remaining paragraphs in the Declaration go into great detail listing the innumerable, unreasonable, oppressive measures that the British King and Parliament were trying to force upon the early American colonists.

HAMILTON’S CURSE  ― Alexander Hamilton is usually viewed as a hero and one of the “Founding Fathers.” He was very close to George Washington during the Revolution, serving as the general’s aide de camp. President George Washington
appointed him to be the very first Secretary of the Treasury and as such he created the first Bank of the United States. It’s purpose was the same as that of the Federal Reserve System today.

Historian Thomas J. DiLorenzo has documented that Hamilton was a monarchist and mercantilist who advocated a collectivist government modeled after the British system that had just been defeated in the Revolution. He even vigorously lobbied for George Washington to be king instead of president. Luckily for us, Washington refused.

DiLorenzo spells out all the details in his monumental book Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch-Enemy Betrayed the Revolution ― And What it Means to Americans Today. Please be sure to read DiLorenzo’s very short summary at URL: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo136.html Hamilton’s legacy is his establishment of the model for all the “Progressive” politicians who came along after him.

BIG CHANGE ― Beginning with Abraham Lincoln’s winning of the presidency in the election of 1860, the American ruling class, “the power elite,” began more vigorously siphoning political power away from the supposedly sovereign states and centralizing it in the growing, centralized national government. Lincoln’s defeat of the Confederate States of America enabled the newly-formed Republican Party essentially to control the US political scene.

From the very beginning of the union, the main theme of the prevailing Democrat-Republican Party led by the agrarian southern states was “free trade with no tariffs.” The northeastern manufacturing and financial interests (Hamilton-followers) along with the Whig and Free Soil Parties, opposed the Democrats. They greatly resented the southern policy of free trade and waged a long fight for “protective tariffs against foreign competition.”

In 1854 anti-slavery activists initiated the formation of the Republican Party (GOP). They were led by Hamiltonian northeastern “modernizers” who were joined by ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers. Their campaign slogan was: “Free labor, Free land, Free men.”

The GOP goal was to win control of the centralized national government so they could impose protective tariffs and thereby put the southern agrarians at an economic and political disadvantage. They aimed to diminish the south’s economic and political power by destroying the system of slave labor on the plantations.

Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression [sometimes erroneously called the American Civil War* (1861-1865)] delivered a crushing defeat to the Patrick Henry-Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Confederate States of America. As a result the newly-
formed GOP dominated the national political scene from 1860 unto 1928.

[*A civil war is defined as a battle between two or more factions seeking to take control of the same central government. The so-called American Civil War was no such thing. The southern states merely wished to secede peacefully and form their own separate government called the Confederate States of America.]

In 1900 William McKinley ran for president and the vivacious Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt ran for vice-president. Teddy’s energetic advocacy of a GOP platform of high tariffs, the gold standard, world-imperialism, prosperity at home, and victory abroad greatly helped William McKinley win the presidency.

Upon McKinley’s assassination in 1901, Roosevelt became the youngest person ever to ascend to the US presidency. He immediately began trying to expand the powers of the centralized national government by advocating “trust-busting” and Federal controls on all businesses. In 1903 he established two new Cabinet Departments:  Commerce and Labor.

In 1904 TR won re-election in a landslide with the slogan: “Square Deal,” implying that the average citizen would get his “fair share” and that the rich “would get theirs.”  In 1906 he pushed the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act through congress. He also championed Federal control and takeover of wilderness areas through Federally-controlled conservationism of 230 million acres. He created the US Forest Service, five National Parks, and 150 National Forests.

In addition, he coined the phrase: “Speak softly but carry a big stick” while he vastly increased the US Navy. He then “showed the flag” by sending “The Great White Fleet” on a world tour, dispatching several warships to intimidate the government of Columbia into allowing Panamanians to secede peacefully. The Panamanians formed a new nation and sold him the isthmus so he could complete the Panama Canal. To top it all off, he was the very first US president to win the Nobel Peace Prize (1906).

THE TAKEOVER ― Around 1891 a young GOP congressman from Wisconsin, Robert M. LaFollette, Sr, formed and led a group of Republican political activists calling themselves “Progressives” or “The Insurgent Faction.” Their goal was to reform the GOP and to make government even more centralized, efficient, caring, and democratic (“responsive to the people”).

Teddy Roosevelt was the first Progressive president (1901-1909). And although only several presidents have actually called themselves Progressives [Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945), and Lyndon Baines Johnson (1963-1969)] almost every president since TR has embraced at least
some portions of the Progressive agenda.

WHAT IS PROGRESSIVISM?  ― Historian William Leuchtenburg summed up the Progressive agenda as follows:

The Progressives believed in the Hamiltonian concept of positive government, of a national government directing the destinies of the nation at home and abroad. They had little but contempt for the strict construction of the Constitution by conservative judges, who would restrict the power of the national government to act against social evils and to extend the blessings of democracy to less favored lands. The real enemy was particularism, state rights, limited government.  

The following table of Progressive agenda-items includes a long list of social causes, programs, and slogans:

• Efficiency in business and government

• Economic interventionism

• Social justice

• Environmental justice

• Fair trade

• Feminism & Women’s suffrage

• LBGT rights

• Labor rights

• Social welfare

• Square Deal

• New Nationalism

• New Freedom

• New Deal

• Second Bill of Rights

• Fair Deal

• New Frontier

• Great Society

• Compulsory “Voluntarism”

• Direct primary elections

• Direct election of senators (Amndmt XVII)

• Commission form of local governments by expert Scientific Professionals

• Government regulation of corporations

• Government schools (John Dewey)

• Trained professional social workers

• Government regulation of monopolies

• Collective bargaining and unions

• Child labor laws

• National parks and wildlife refuges

• Prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco

• Instant voting

• Reclamation and inland waterways

• Same-sex marriage

• Popular-vote election of president

• Affordable housing

• Universal (single-payer) health care

• Living wage & equal pay for women

• Elimination of death penalty

• Climate change/global warming

• Immigration reform & amnesty

• United Nations

• Smart growth (planning & zoning)

• New World Order/Agenda 21

• One-World Government

• Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (Can be useful against **EXIC governments, Ha Ha–see below)

THE PROGRESSIVE RESULT ― The Progressives and their allies have been very successful in maintaining control of the powerful political offices of the US centralized national government by gradually blurring and obscuring the vision of the Founders.

They found stealthy ways to abandon the principles of the Declaration and “morph” our representative republic (the original federation of individual sovereign states) into a strong, centralized, national so-called democracy with its tyranny of the majority.

[A simple majority (50 percent of the votes plus one more) always produces a tyranny of the majority because the 50+ percent who won will be happy, while the 49+ percent who lost will be unhappy and forced to act against their will. To more nearly approach a consensus with overwhelming general agreement, all votes should require a super-majority; seven-eights (87.5%) would be a nice number to start with.]

One of the signal accomplishments of the Progressives was the ratification on April 8, 1913 of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.  This amendment removed the last vestige of sovereignty that remained with the states. It changed the method of election for US Senators.

The Constitution originally specified that the legislature of each state shall choose its two senators. The XVIIth changed the procedure to the same method used to elect US Representatives: a popular vote of the people, a simple majority, a tyranny of the majority. This was the fatal step that turned electing Federal officials into a popularity contest. (To the winner goes the spoils.) The ultimate result has been The Lost Clause.

THE LOST CLAUSE ― This clause, The Consent of the Governed, consisting of five crucial words in the sixth line of the key paragraph of the Declaration, forms the basis of individual liberty. Each time government forces a person to act against his will, he loses part of his individual freedom. In the Declaration, the Founders emphasized the importance of The Consent of the Governed to keeping a society free.

Government’s actions are either legitimate or illegitimate. Legitimate actions are those that maintain the dignity, freedom, integrity, and individuality of every person by applying the universal natural laws of justice (to each, that which he deserves).

Illegitimate actions  are those that violate the dignity, freedom, integrity, and individuality of people by enforcing (usually whimsical) “positive” (man-made) rules, laws, mandates, orders, and statutes.

SOVEREIGNTY ― The person (or group) who makes the final decisions as the head of government is called the sovereign. There is no one of higher authority. The sovereign is boss, independent of all others; he is sovereign as defined in the following:

sovereign (sov’rin, sov’ễr-in, suv’rin), adj. [ME. soveraine, sovereyn, ; OFr. soverain, souverain; LL. *superanus, < L. super, above, over.] 1. above or superior to all others, chief; greatest; supreme. 2. supreme in power, rank, or authority. 3. of or holding the position of a ruler; royal; reigning. 4. independent of all others, as a sovereign state. 5. excellent; very effectual, as a cure or remedy.  n. 1. a person who possesses sovereign authority; monarch; ruler. 2.  a group of persons or a state that possesses sovereign authority. 3.  a British gold coin valued at 20 shillings or one pound sterling. Also sovran. Abbreviated sov.

The sovereign stands highest in the community, above, supreme and separate from all others. He (or they) impose their powers from a position external to the governed, the populace; thus the government is an EXternally-Imposed, Coercive (**EXIC) government.

[We shall show below that EXIC government is not the only form of government available to mankind.]

The Declaration made it clear that the sole legitimate purpose for an EXIC government is “. . to secure these Rights” (Life, Liberty, and Property)]; that is, to keep the peace by thwarting crimes that individuals commit against each other.

[An individual cannot commit a "crime against society or humanity." In actuality, there is no such thing. There are only crimes of one person against individuals.]

The Declaration asserts:

. . . that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends (securing the Rights of Life, Liberty, and Property) it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government …

The Declaration enshrines individual liberty and private property; the Founders deemed them to be sacred. However, the Constitution is seriously flawed because it allows the ruling class, the power-elite to ignore the requirement for consent of the governed. True individual liberty can exist only with the consent of the governed. Government without consent of the governed is involuntary servitude.

[Ironically, Amendment XIII to the Constitution specifically prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.]

John Adams brilliantly tied individual freedom to private property rights when he said:

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘”Thou shalt not covet” and “Thou shalt not steal” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

–John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitution, 1787

But private property is not sacred when EXIC government can use the power of eminent domain to “legally” steal it; or by using just plain old every-day statutes, passed with a simple majority, to take or tax anything they wish without consent of the governed.

WHAT IS EXIC GOVERNMENT? ― The Founders envisioned the only legitimate function of their government to be: thwarting crimes perpetrated by individuals against each other. Otherwise every person would be free to conduct his life in the manner best suited to him.

However, the Old World ideas of strong centralized-governmental-control immediately began to seep into the plans of those who had seized the reins of the new national government of the USA.

They saw government as simply nothing more than standardized, centralized-control of human behavior. And they saw their job as supplying that control in a manner similar to that of the Old World Europeans, Africans, and Asians. Unfortunately, even today most people presently think of government as EXIC, described as:

The legalized monopoly of a sovereign power to initiate violent, physical coercive force or threat of force in order to bring about specific desired human behavior in the populace.

In other words: most people envision government as legally and rightfully using threats and actual force to bring about government-desired behavior in the populace.

The understood rule is: When government tells you to do something, you had better do it, OR ELSE ! ! No one will ask for your consent. Obey, or government will use the ultimate “persuasion”: a threat, or when necessary, the actual application of force.

Force can take many different forms, such as:  fines, hostage-holding, incarceration, intimidation, kidnapping, beatings, torture, maiming, and/or even death. Recent examples of modern, “up-to-date” coercion have given us the “tazering” of feeble great-grandmothers and ten-year-old students with 50,000 volts of electrical energy in the hands of a trigger-happy psychopath.

THE LIBERTY ALTERNATIVE: SELF-GOVERNMENT ― By thinking “outside the box” of the conventional concept of EXIC government we find that the concept and process of governing also includes self-government: control of human behavior at the lowest possible level.

Some Republicans and libertarians already advocate government at the lowest possible level. Of course, they have in mind an EXIC government at state-, county-, municipal-, city-, town-, or district-level. They also glibly repeat the well-known phrase:  “That government is best that governs least.”

Yet they have in mind neighborhood, town, municipality, or county EXIC governments. Rarely, if ever, does the average person entertain the idea that the lowest possible level is that of the individual person.

Individuals always control their own behavior. It is an organic, natural law of human behavior that humans take conscious actions solely to improve their present condition.

Each time a person does something, he does it because he perceives his action will improve his immediate condition. Even prisoners under tyrannical conditions can co-operate or refuse to co-operate. If they think it will make things better, they co-operate. If they think it will make things worse, they refuse to co-operate. They control their own behavior and suffer the consequences.

The overwhelming majority of people in the world pursue their daily lives without “Big Brother,” a policeman, or a slave-driver peering over their shoulders to make sure they are under control. Were all governmental controls suddenly removed, it might take a little  time for some people to learn to run their own lives, but every “normal” adult has the full faculties and latent capabilities to be completely self-governing.

THE SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL ― Taken to its logical conclusion, a person who is totally responsible for all his own actions is a sovereign individual. There is no one of higher authority in his life. The questions of individual freedom ultimately come down to:

Whose life is it anyhow?

Do I own my life, or not ?

Must I get permission from someone else before I can take an action?

I assume total responsibility for all my actions.

A TRULY-FREE SOCIETY ― A society can be truly-free, even if it has an EXIC government, so long as it provides for individuals to “opt-out” without punishment or retribution of any kind. In a truly-free society, each (adult) person is a sovereign individual.

A sovereign individual has totally-free choice. He can “opt-in” (consent to be governed) under the control of an EXIC government; OR, the truly-free individual can “opt-out” (withdraw his consent to be governed) from the control of an EXIC government, without punishment or retribution.

A truly-free person ALWAYS has the choice of peacefully “opting-out.” At the present time there may be only one known,  truly-free, society on earth, the Kapauku Papuans of Papua, New Guinea. They can opt-out without retribution.

In a truly-free society, the sovereign individual is completely free to exercise his own will, to do anything he pleases so long as he does not violate the property rights of another person by committing any of the following crimes: (1) fraud; (2) extortion; (3) theft; and (4) unprovoked, violent, physical aggression.

[When a person commits a crime against another, he should fully-expect to receive the appropriate wrath and vengeance of the victim, his extended family, friends, and justice-minded strangers.]

When a person chooses to opt-out he immediately becomes totally responsible for every aspect of his own life. He owes neither allegiance nor submission to any other person or group of persons. The sovereign individual has no claims against others, nor any obligations to others, except those willingly and mutually agreed upon by contract, verbal or written.

However, the sovereign individual is totally responsible for tort damages caused to others by his own negligence.

A sovereign individual is akin to a “mini-state” or “micro-country”:

• He has a sovereign: himself.
• He has a deliberative legislature: in his mind.
• He has a self-defense force: himself, friends, neighbors, and contractors.
• He asserts his sovereignty: by refusing to be dominated by any others.
• He conducts trade and foreign relations: with other sovereign individuals.
• He negotiates peaceful agreements: with other sovereign individuals.
• He settles disputes: by voluntary binding arbitration.
• He forms alliances and confederations for co-operation, trade, and mutual self-defense: with friendly sovereign individuals.

Freedom Strategy

THE GOAL ― The ideal primary, long-range, ultimate, overriding goal is the establishment of the conditions of liberty for all in the shortest possible time.

OPT-OUT SOLUTION: RESISTANCE ― One good thing Alexander Hamilton did during the Revolution was to urge American colonists to:

Resist, resist, resist, until we hurl the demagogues and tyrants from their imaginary thrones.

This was part of his early advocacy for them to throw off the yoke of the British monarchy and parliament. But just how should we resist?

STEP-BY-STEP STRATEGY TO RE-ESTABLISH UNIVERSAL LIBERTY

A. Identify a specific offense to liberty

B.  Start at the level where you determine you can be most effective

1. Neighborhood, district, town, city, county, state

2. Federal (almost hopeless at the present time)

C. Research the history of the offense and identify the alleged reasons for its existence

1. Creation Details

a. Authority to create (question that authority)
b. Constitutionality (research and debate)
c. Date drafted, date debated, and date enacted
d. Identify the instigators, champions, constituency, & beneficiaries
e. Identify the injured, disadvantaged, exploited, plundered

2. Purpose

a. Question necessity
b. Question effectiveness of achieving purpose
c. Suggest alternatives

3. Budget

a. Revenue sources (taxpayers, grants, etc.)
b.  Expenditures (vendors, bureaucratic staff, management, PR)
c. Money trail (follow the money — all of it)

i. Beneficiaries (legal and illegal)
ii. Bribes, payoffs, etc.

4. Administration and Application

a. Enforcement agency
b. Mechanism (fine, jail, torture, death. etc.)

5. Resulting Effect (how does it restrict liberty)

a. Opportunity costs
b. Benefited or favored parties
c. damaged, diminished, and plundered Parties

6. Expected Results of Repeal of Offense to Liberty

7. Restitution, Restoration, and Retribution

a. Can Injustices be corrected and compensated?
b. Did officials commit criminal acts?
c. Is punishment (retribution) justified?

D. Identify the focal point (target agency) in government at which to direct action

E. Carefully design and think-out at least one approach to solutions for
eliminating the offense to liberty

1. Apply Philosophy of Liberty ala Jonathan Gullible
URL: http://jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.sw

2. Was the offense necessary in the first place? Was the intended goal just,
reasonable, and logical?

3. The first thought for a solution to a problem should be:  What could or
should have been done to solve this in a peaceful, non-coercive
manner without government help or interference?

4. The second thought for a solution to a problem should be: What can I
(we) do to solve this in a peaceful, non-coercive manner
without government help or interference and prevent a future re-
occurrence?

F. Draft proposed plan and legislation (when necessary) to accomplish the change

G. Prepare and distribute press releases to support the effort

H. Personally (or your alternate) attend every meeting of the target agency

1. Obtain copy of meeting agenda ahead of time

2. Prepare incisive questions to ask agency members

3. Sign-up to speak and/or ask questions of the members

4. Make audio recording of proceedings

I. Plan and hold public meetings, seminars, and educational sessions to engender support

1. Expand as fully as possible

J. Continue to repeat the above process-cycle until every offense to liberty has been repealed, withdrawn, or expunged.

***********************************************************************
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito.
“Do not give in to evil, but proceed evermore boldly against it.”
Virgil, The Aeneid, VI, 95 ― Motto of Ludwig von Mises
***********************************************************************

A lady shares her family story and thoughts on collectivism

An excellent post from Mark Stoval’s blog:

A lady shares her family story and thoughts on collectivism.

A letter from Freeman to a minarchist friend . . .

A friend of mine (really, I did not write this) shared this open letter to a friend of his. I thought it an excellent summary with helpful links. So I asked and he gave me permission to post it here. Wishing to remain anonymous, he stipulated that I call him Freeman. And so, here is “A letter from Freeman to a minarchist [I added this] friend.” Enjoy! -LMN

Dear Friend:

I think a much more important concept is:
There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Limited Government

It’s unfortunate but it is true. To return the federal government to operation under the Constitution as you and I envision it IS IMPOSSIBLE!

I would love nothing more than to see it happen, but I know that it cannot happen. For one thing, the ruling class, the “power elite” have created such a fiscal mess that a total collapse (world wide) is inevitable and will happen in the not too distant future.

I wish that it wouldn’t, but I know enough about the real laws of economics to know better.

If you carefully study the Constitution and the history of its interpretation you will find that the Constitution is seriously flawed. Why do you think that Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and all the other Anti-Federalists  were strongly opposed to its content and structure? They predicted exactly what has happened.

The concept of “Enumerated Powers” has been completely emasculated, ignored, and is currently a much-scorned laughingstock.

Jefferson wanted to “bind them (politicians) with the chains of the Constitution.” If it were only so. SCOTUS is wildly inconsistent and politically biased.

If you want to get what I think is a true, realist outlook on what a free society is all about, read Human Action  and Planned Chaos and The Anti-Capitalist Mentality all by Ludwig von Mises. They are available in PDF at no charge from the following URLs.

URL: http://library.mises.org/books/Ludwig%20von%20Mises/Human%20Action.pdf

URL: http://library.mises.org/books/Ludwig%20von%20Mises/Planned%20Chaos.pdf

URL: http://library.mises.org/books/Ludwig%20von%20Mises/The%20Anti-Capitalistic%20Mentality.pdf

If you haven’t read and devoured any Mises, you are missing out on the best explanations of free markets and individual freedom that exist.

Here’s another excellent book on truly free markets. It was originally targeted for kids, but it works real well for any adult who is not  trained Austrian economist. Download in PDF at no charge.

URL: http://www.jonathangullible.com/translations/UK_Comnt040222.pdf

In case you haven’t read it, I commend to you Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch-Enemy Betrayed the Revolution — And what it means to Americans today by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.

It opened my eyes to lots of stuff that is missing from the so-called history books that are in the schools and on the market. The intellectual establishment in the US, England, and the rest of the world is dominated by collectivist “Progressives,” Democrats, RINOs, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalists, Mercantilists, Fascists, Communitarians, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Externally-imposed coercive governments are collectivist by definition.

Another good book is Lincoln Uncensored by Joseph S. Fallon. It shows Lincoln up for the murderous beast that he was. The dedication read as follows:

Dedicated to the memory of the 38 Dakota hanged in Mankato, Minnesota on December 26, 1862,
And to the Americans, 620,000 soldiers and an unknown number of civilians, North and South, black and white, killed in Lincoln’s war of 1861-1865.

For a number of years I have called him America’s first dictator. Of course, we have had many more that followed him.

Your friend,

Freeman

Note: After I received permission to post this letter, the same friend sent this link to What Hamilton Has Wrought by Thomas J. DiLorenzo: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo151.html

Earl Ray Tomblin – Governor, we are counting on you to protect us

My sister passed along an email from the West Virginia Campaign for Liberty this morning that was urging calls to governor Earl Ray Tomblin’s office regarding the desire to be excluded from participation in the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” ObamaCare.

I called the governor’s office right away to ask about the status of West Virginia’s actions in this regard and to voice my opinion, but the person I spoke with had no information to offer, except to basically say it was still under consideration and that they were accepting comments.

She claimed she would pass along my views, but offered little reassurance they would be taken seriously. Thus, I decided to write a quick letter, hoping it might have a greater impact.

If you are a resident of West Virginia with the same or similar views on this matter, I hope you, too, will call or, preferably, write the governor’s office right away. Please feel free to use excerpts from my letter, if doing so would make it a less daunting task. The text is below.

Here is some background: http://wvgazette.com/News/politics/201211140107?

Here is the Contact Us page from Governor Tomblin’s website: http://www.governor.wv.gov/pages/contact.aspx

If you are not a fellow Mountaineer, please check with your own governor to see where your state stands. First, you may wish to consult the Nullification legislation tracking maps available here: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care-nullification-act/

Here’s the letter:

Dear Governor Tomblin:

The Affordable Care Act – ObamaCare – is a gross violation of individual liberties, not to mention horrible policy that will undermine what remains of our private health care industry. I urge you to decline state participation by whatever means are available to you.

In fact, I would hope that you might suggest that the legislature act to “Nullify” what is, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s dubious ruling on the matter, unconstitutional legislation. Here is model nullification legislation, making it easy to move quickly: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/federal-health-care-nullification-act/

As Governor of West Virginia, it is your duty to protect citizens from federal abuse of power. One of the most egregious examples of the potential for abuse lies in provision 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act. I urge you to support our West Virginia legislature in adopting a Liberty Preservation Act. Here is model legislation for this: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/liberty-preservation-act/#nullification

Will you stand idly by while our unalienable rights are trampled? Or will you show real leadership and take a stand against these violations? West Virginia can be among those states leading the way in protecting citizens’ rights–all citizens!: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/

That a majority of voting West Virginians declined to support President Obama in the general election should be a clear indication to you that West Virginians prefer freedom to an oppressive nanny-state. Our state motto, Montani Semper Liberi (Mountaineers are always free https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_West_Virginia), offers unequivocal guidance on this matter.

I would also urge to you to look at the number of signatures on the (symbolic-only, yes, but it makes an important statement) petition for West Virginia to secede without aggressive response from the federal government. Thus far, it has 7290 signatures, this despite attempts by media, left and right, to make people afraid or ashamed to sign it. I, for one, was neither afraid nor ashamed. When one is being abused, one has a right to peacefully withdraw from that abuse. Few would deny a battered wife or child such an exit; in principle, morally, federal abuse of citizens is the same as one individual abusing another.

But it is not necessary for West Virginia to secede. You and the legislature already possess the ability to protect citizens. Let us hope you and they will consider the gravity of the situation and take the necessary action to Nullify any and all federal attempts to abuse the citizens of West Virginia by infringing on their unalienable rights.

Isn’t Nullification a tool of racists and segregationists? The answer is a resounding NO! And here’s why:

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/19/is-nullification-american/

Governor, we are counting on you to protect us.

Sincerely,

Gretchen Myers

Gilbert’s New Lawsuit Without Merit, Motion to Dismiss Filed on Behalf of All 50 States

Gilbert’s New Lawsuit Without Merit, Motion to Dismiss Filed on Behalf of All 50 States.