Friday, December 18, 2009

Joe Kennedy, Independent Candidate for US Senate Special Election, Jan 19, 2010, Massachusetts

Joe Kennedy for US Senate

I strongly suggest you all place the above banner on your websites, and use it to contribute to the campaign for US Senate. (The text for placing the banner on your website is available at:

) Now matter how small the amount is that you contribute, it makes a difference, and we greatly appreciate it!

Joe just made it on the ballot for the special election to replace Ted Kennedy.

Joe is a free market voice who would make a strong and independent representative in the US Senate. He endorses Ron Paul's "Free Competition in Currency Act" here:


Jake Witmer

Saturday, August 1, 2009

RE: Radley Balko's Continuing Ownership of The Libertarian Blogosphere

Radley Balko is exactly right in his uncovering and continuing analysis of the Cory Maye case. I agree 100% with his assessment of the appeal. The Appellant attorneys both make LaDonna Holland look like a slobbering mongoloid (make that a slobbering _fascist_ mongoloid).

I can't commend Radley Balko highly enough. I am in awe of his ability to continually be on the cutting edge of what is important, relevant, and useful to the cause of liberty. The fact that he recommends Clay Conrad's book "Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine" is even more amazing. (Clay Conrad is the primary force in the jury rights movement in favor of challenging the unconstitutionality of "voir dire" AKA "prosecutorial jury rigging". )

The "jury duty" link below is Clay's.
-The History of Jury Nullification of Law
-How Informed Juries Represent New Hope For Individual Freedom
-How Prosecutors Rig Juries in Favor of Fascism, and What You Can Do To Set An Innocent Person Free
-The Fully Informed Jury Association

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
—Thomas Jefferson

"If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another,
then, I say, break the law."
—Henry David Thoreau

PS: Judges: If you uphold Maye's conviction, you will be ruling in favor of secret police and "disappearances" in America, and you may be igniting the next civil war (read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross). Moreover, you will be hammering one more nail into the coffin of the principle of the moral right to self-defense (a big reason why those who perpetrate the drug war are guilty of treason; When it became obvious that the "war" could not be won, they failed to do what Hirohito did: surrender to avoid innocent casualties, Cory Maye). Ignorance of philosophy is no excuse in this one: the side of justice has too much information.

PPS: Nice shot, Cory. I'm amazed you did it without the herstal 5.7. ...John Bad Elk (1900 SCOTUS ) has nothing on you (I'm kind of surprised I haven't heard the case mentioned in reference to Maye yet). If you're not acquitted, Mississippi's Burning will outshine Los Angelos after Rodney King. I'll be able to roast marshmallows from Chicago on its flames. If you remain in prison until the Singularity, I hope you are treated as a hero, until the prison walls can be torn down. You should not lose your life to appease the white bigots' (anti-black, anti-drug, anti-gun-rights, anti-property rights, anti-America) "war on (some) drugs".

Long live Liberty, Free Cory Maye!

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

A Huge Victory For Jim Crow Gun Laws Today!

Wednesday, 07/22/2009: In news that will bring happiness to the hearts of racists, tyrants, Demopublican voters, and klansmen all across the USA, the Senate struck down a bill that would have prevented police from arresting traveling firearm owners and ruining their lives in the unconstitutional "court" system. (Court is in parenthesis, since proper jury trials have been done away with in favor of "voir dire"-rigged juries, high-pressure plea bargains, interest-conflicted bar-licensed defense attorneys, and unlawful judicial instruction.)

Although the law would have only restated the already clear and plain english of the Second Amendment, it would have done so in such a way that even the mentally-deficient Chuck Shumers of the US Senate couldn't deny.

And let's face it. "Gun control" (more properly known as "victim disarmament") has been the tool of racist proponents of Jim Crow since Virginia first outlawed the carrying of firearms by negroes in 1647. Gun control was rarely enforced against whites until the 1960s, and the 1986 gun-control act was designed primarily to maintain control over the urban black population in Chicago that was becoming increasingly aware that unequal enforcement of drug prohibition was responsible for the violence in the black community. (Drug laws can never be significantly enforced in a free country, so they get enforced using fascist tactics only in the areas that cannot defend themselves with a vote.) If you're black or latino, you're much more likely to be profiled by law enforcement, and patted down in a "Terry search". Any law against owning widely-owned private property is going to be enforced against people who cannot defend themselves with a vote.

The enforcement of gun prohibition and drug prohibition has had several effects:
1) Cops are allowed to legally retaliate against any Black or Mexican that takes umbrage to the roughshod searches and individual rights violations that accompany drug prohibition. After all, if everyone's right to privacy is maintained, the police never have any idea who has drugs, and who doesn't. When police violate primarily the rights of minorities, strong-willed minorities finally say "no more" and arm themselves for defense. (As an example of someone standing up to police, a friend of mine once got out of his car after being pulled over, and showed the police officer his sidearm, on Alaska's highway one. He was legally allowed to do this, simply to let the cop know he had a gun, so there were no surprises. The cop --from a distance of 30 feet-- simply got back in his car and drove off. Tickets are insulting, demeaning, and usually unnecessary. When they are handed out indiscriminately, individualists eventually take enough offense to retaliate against them. In the same way, blacks who were selling large amounts of drugs to the suburbanites around Chicago eventually got sick of being the ones who went to jail for selling highly-demanded products to willing buyers. If you make $1,000 per day selling products that are no more dangerous than whiskey to adults, then why should you submit to being imprisoned without a fight? No logical person would agree to this state of affairs. Even a sloppy drug dealer rapidly makes enough money to purchase an excellent firearm. Enormous firearm markets exist right outside the city of Chicago, in the slightly-freer State of Indiana. A slightly longer drive to Missouri or Michigan also allows one to buy a gun with relative ease --excluding occasional "busts" caused by unconstitutional police state snooping and usually racist profiling.)
2) Cops can have absolute power over anyone they wish, simply by planting drugs on them. The cops have learned that the courts favor them, having instituted many obstacles to proper jury trial. Sympathetic judges typically gag the defendant from making any remarks that would result in a "not guilty" verdict. The cops know that the First Amendment no longer applies in courtrooms, and are totally aware that the prosecutor and judge will happily refuse to honor the Constitution. After all, a strict reading of the Constitution forbids drug prohibition itself, and the un-American general public was too ursine, obedient, and servile to object to being told what substances they can include in their own diet.
3) Minorities know that there are thousands of laws that can result in their being ticketed, harassed, arrested, and assaulted. They know that they have as much to fear from "law enforcement" as they do from criminals. In fact, the common criminal will not follow them, and harass them with an ongoing series of legal challenges. (As Lysander Spooner noted in "Vices Are Not Crimes".) This knowledge leads logical and strong willed minorities to desire the ability to defend themselves. At which point, if they live with lots of other blacks, they realize they have been legally disarmed. The smart ones move out of their idiotic and self-enslaved communities. (All communities are comprised of mostly-servile and stupid people, but only minority communities feel the extreme negative effects of this, since the majority vote of the entire rest of the nation is also being wielded against them, instead of only the majority vote of their ignorant communities. Most people are simply ignorant. Since the Northern US started out as mostly free, minority areas are simply being made unfree at a slightly faster pace than the entire USA.)

This is why Demopublicans love gun control: It allows them to have absolute power over their own supporters! What better serves the will of a tyrant than willing slaves who inform on themselves? Slaves who rebel against even the thought of individual freedom? Slaves so hopelessly enslaved that they cannot even comprehend the concept of individual freedom? Slaves that fear the very tools they need to protect their own lives?

Nothing is better for tyrants than laws against owning certain kinds of "scary" property. (Whatever scares the conformist herd is easy to prohibit.) These laws are called "mala prohibita" (laws created by legislation, not moral right), as opposed to "mala in se" (laws created by moral right / common sense, such as laws against murder, laws against rape, etc... ...Laws that any individual of reasonable moral character would enforce on their own, even in the absence of police power.)

Chuck Shumer is an ignorant tyrant (the worst kind of tyrant, one who can honestly claim to be doing good while destroying innocent lives). He stated that "The defeat of this law will save lives."

No Chuck, it won't. In fact, it will murder thousands of innocent people. Even the Department of Defense estimates that there are 2.5 million defensive uses of handguns every year. The number one crime decreased by private handgun ownership? --RAPE. (According to the most exhaustive gun violence study ever performed.)

But Chuck Shumer doesn't give a damn if your wife or daughter is raped because they didn't have access to a handgun. ...After all, he travels with an armed security escort. He can afford to be a hypocrite. The voters in his district are not bothered by injustice and hypocrisy, in fact, they also personally favor injustice and hypocrisy (and since the ballot is secret, they never have to be accountable for taking the revolver out of the hands of the inner city girl who then gets raped and murdered, or the liquor store owner who meets the same fate, etc...). Shumer doesn't need to worry about getting raped, and "We The Sheeple" of America have continually reelected him (and his identical counterparts in every state), while ignoring the Libertarian candidate(s).

Not only will there be more rape because this bill was defeated, but there's also the long term to think about: Every nation that has ever successfully restricted individual gun ownership has gone on to murder millions of its own citizens during peacetime. Proof of this is online at the following links:

The price of ignorance about the tools of conflict(firearms) is death.

Death for some will come when trigger-happy prohibitionist cop fears a black man reaching for his wallet, since they know that many blacks are under pressure from a lifetime of being unfairly targeted by police.

Death for others will come when --after having already imprisoned all the "low hanging fruit" in the inner cities, the prohibitionist cops begin using the same tactics in suburban Libertyville, IL. A gunowner will react angrily to cops shoving his pregnant wife up against a wall in handcuffs, and the police will shoot him.

Congratulations, Demopublicans (Democrats + Republicans)! You're finally starting to see the fruits of your choosing, after having voted the will of the central bankers for over 100 years. Because you couldn't be bothered to put down your krispy kreme doughnuts, turn off the TV, and come out of your diabetic coma long enough to learn what a free market is, your children will grow up as slaves (or be swiftly and unceremoniously killed by the unmerciful police state).

All you ever had to do was read a book by Harry Browne, Vin Suprynowicz, Kenneth Royce, or Wayne Root, and you'd have a clue about how to win back a free America.

But that was too much for your little minds to handle.

So now we have the largest prison population in the world, our adult children are afraid of guns (and afraid of the very ability to defend themselves), and the language of the second amendment still reads:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In IL and WI, the police can pat you down arrest you, and their prosecutors, and former-prosecutor judges will send you to jail for 14 years if you are "bearing" (or even peacefully traveling with) "arms".

Does that sound like an "infringement" to you? For those of you who are as inept at understanding English as you are political theory, and information theory, perhaps there's a more appropriate question:

What does "infringe" mean? The American Heritage (R) Dictionary defines it thus:
in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.


[Latin nfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]



Do you think that threatening someone with arrest, imprisonment, or death for exercising "an individual right" (according to the US Supreme Court) means that that right has been "infringed"?

I think so. But then again, I speak English, am not mentally deficient, and am a socially tolerant person (libertarian). Unfortunately, noone in the US Senate or Supreme Court can meet any of the preceding criteria, so there is still a "heated debate" about just how many of our individual rights are "subject to interpretation".

If any of this makes sense to you, you should value freedom more greatly. If you value freedom greatly, you should perform actions that will lead to more individual freedom. Some of those actions include continuously reading useful books about how best to win individual freedom. The best book on that subject that I currently know is "Molon Labe" by Boston T. Party, AKA Kenneth Royce.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

CheckpointUSA: an excellent youtube series/blog on unlawful government checkpoints

Recalls " be leaned on by halfwits" in "The Usual Suspects". LOL

I think this guy is great. I love how he stands his ground when they try to escalate things. It takes a civilized man to put the rule-dogs in their place.

Listen to the illiterate "Agent Soto" "You are doing an instruction to my job", "This is easy" --Yeah, it's easy to waive your rights...
What an ignorant asshole!

Examine the "logic" of the other assholes:
"Agent/Tool Gilmore": "Are you gonna hinder our progress?"
Destroying and disrespecting the rule of law is not "progress".

"You are creating a safety hazard for these other drivers right now"
Yeah, because he stopped them all. Right. Duhhrrrrr...
...Fucking illiterate mongoloids. Amazing video.

It's like a game of "Simon Says!" I love the bluff threats of arrest.

I'm so glad he didn't pull his car off to the side. Big Balls. Looks like he knows the law. I love the ending. "State it very clearly, Agent Soto, am I free to go?" I love how it's all a mystery to the damned dog in a man's body. "But master, I barked at him, and now you're going to let him into the house??!" "...Heel."

And he drives away with no problems. The cops don't know what to do with someone who knows their rights and exercises them.

Too bad we let it get to this point. In another few years, the Gestapo will probably just start shooting civilians who exercise their rights, and the country will fall into bloody pandemonium. Let's enjoy our fiat currency police state while it lasts.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Pete Guither, of Drug War Rant

Why is marijuana illegal?
...Racism, and the government's desire to have one more source of income and one more area of control over individual lives.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Papers Please! All Aboard! ...Last Stop, Auschwitz...

This latest essay of mine asks what will happen if
we do not begin stopping the violations of our rights,
as they are happening. ...If we do not begin to defend
ourselves with force, when we are met with force.

They have overwhelming force, but they do not have
planning or intelligence. They bully us with brute force
and expect us to submit. We should learn to disappoint
them, as did a small group of "citizen-subjects" in Warsaw,
Poland, in 1941.

Do you want to hear what became of America?
It died a long, long time ago. It died when Americans
refused to rebel the first time they were told that
they couldn't own whatever private property they
wanted to own, and when they lost the product
of their labor to the Federal Reserve. And now, we
have mongoloids in airports demanding that we
waive our rights, without cause, provocation, or

I'm sorry to use such harsh language, but listening
to the following recording made my blood boil. I
understand that socialists like Ashcroft and
Gonzalez and Holder have all turned America's
eagles into vultures, but sometimes I can't view it
dispassionately. I spent all day at the range,
shooting paper plates at 25 yards with my handguns.
I didn't miss once. I'm so glad I hadn't listened to
this before I left, or I would have been literally
trembling with rage.

Scroll down to the link marked:
"recorded all but the start of the incident"
audio recording of the actual interrogation:

You will hear mindless children in men's bodies
threatening and questioning an American citizen
about why and how he came into possession of
money. How dare he be free to travel, free
from harassment and questioning, and
inconvenience? How dare he assert his rights,
or even ask why they are being abridged?!

They repeatedly threaten him, and pressure him to
waive his 4th amendment rights: "We can avoid all
of this, if you'd just submit."

They proceed to insult his intelligence ("It's a
simple question"), and threaten him with unlawful
DEA searches, harassment, and further
interrogation. They return time and again to
the tired bromide of "If you don't have anything
to hide, then why won't you answer our questions?"

...Maybe because the 4th amendment says he doesn't
have to answer them!

It's "suspicious" if you don't waive your rights.

Just like Germany in the mid 1930s. Everyone
has something to hide! And if they don't, it
can be fabricated, since due process is gone.

Is this the last stop? ...America's final

Few Americans realize that this train ride has
a final destination, since we've allowed the
government unlimited power. The power to hold
the purse strings, the power to make us beg for
permission to own property.

...But the train is moving really slow, and
it's such wonderful scenery!

For temporary comfort and apathy, we've sold
our future down the river, to a slave trader
that makes those in Frederick Douglass's
"Narrative" look positively benign.

Hopefully, us freedom lovers can begin working
together, before the train slows to a halt, and
we find out where our cattle car has taken us.

The man being questioned in the recording? He
works for Ron Paul's "Campaign for Liberty".

As such, he is a suspected "terrorist" is anyone capable of reason, and incapable
of "doublethink".

Monday, April 13, 2009

A Review of Marc Stevens' Speech "Delusions", "Opinions" Vs. "Facts"

I want to link you to the uncut truth. Go to and watch "Delusions".

Now then, understand that I am not as critical of electoral politicians as some people are. I understand that there is good that can be done using counter-systemic psychology, among the voting masses.

To some of you who are receiving this, Marc Stevens' speech might be painful, to others, cathartic, to others, an annoyance.

I understand the idea of the Constitution, and of declaring war. I get it. Al qaeda is an external threat. But they can't get to me very well, unless it's because the internal threats to my freedom have won, making my country weak and servile.

In truth, like all anarchists, I have no country.

...The only war I can believe in is a personal war.

Nature is anarchist, human action is the best when it is libertarian and decentralized.

If you don't like Marc Stevens, it would help to read "No Treason: the constitution of no authority" at

and perhaps

"Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave" by Frederick Douglass.

Douglass was born into literal Southern Slavery. He taught himself to read and write, under the penalty of death. He had to pretend to be a happy slave for years, (happy to be allowed to keep some of his money, but not most of it) until he had saved enough money to escape.

Now that we are all slaves of the Federal Reserve, we are in a similar, though more
comfortable situation.

We have freedom of some choice, but not true freedom. Do we risk what we have, or press onward to find out what we've been missing?

We are allowed to keep a small piece of what we earn, and are expected to not
complain that we give the vast majority of it away. It helps to know that the
government is not stupid, and at the actual top, it is not bureaucratic and

You get as much money as you can, but just as easily, your claim on that money
can be targeted, since there is no law. Or, if it appears that many slaves similar
to you have gotten the same idea, a "financial crisis" can be manufactured.

Most people only realize this when they start to try to fight the law, and see
that they are, instead, fighting a pledge of allegiance (an emotional part of the mind of a million slaves).

And that's the real battle. The battle against conformity. Libertarian anarchism
is what the nonconformist subscribes to, once the illusions and chains of irrational
belief are lifted.

Let's just imagine that the USA was free, and that there was no state.

Would it be pretty obvious that people should learn how to defend themselves?

Would "front sight" rifle and pistol training academy have more or fewer students?

More, I would guess. And they would be vastly better prepared for violence than
the average citizen is. Moreover, they would have gone through more rounds of
ammunition than even military marksmen go through. (Parasitism doesn't pay as well as the earnings of a strong host. It is always less. The tape worms in the lion's guts don't have life as good as the lion has it. And the lions --who exist by means of force-- don't have life as good as the man --who lives by his mind-- has it. The military, which is parasitic, cannot spend as much on ammunition as the individual productive humans on which it feeds least not in a free market.)

Would Al-qaeda attack such a strong nation of individuals? --Not likely. And in the event that it did, it would be destroyed upon entry.

Would our politicians attack us with their courts, if we failed to use our productive efforts to prop up slave-states like China? Could they even attempt this, if we were not enslaved to a false belief in their paper?

No. We would be too wealthy for them to prevail against us in a court of law. Moreover, China and Iran would fail, and their leaders --Al qaeda among them-- would be swallowed whole, kicking and screaming by their rebelling countrymen, (who would demand to be as wealthy and happy as those they were trading with.)

By being closer in proximity to the Arabs, and mingling with them as their free superiors, we would wage psychological warfare against their irrational, emotional religious hatred of individualism. Psychological warfare is the most effective kind of warfare there is, as anyone who listens to Marc Stevens knows, or as those who have read the CIA manual on psychological warfare by Paul A. Linnebarger know.

Just as the wealthy libertarian anarchist wages a form of psychological warfare against the servile state thugs who see the superiority of his belief, and the material blessings it affords. The simplest view of this is the contrast between socially tolerant free-market Republicans and socialist Democrats. The Democrat at first feels superior for having suffered for his moral beliefs, but if the Republican is similarly moral, the Democrat can only feel stupid. (As Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov must have felt, throughout his time spent in Siberia.)

The same is true, but to a greater degree, between statists of all kinds (D or R or C or G or AI, or "weak-L") and anarchists.

The surest way we could have revenge against the middle-eastern terrorists is to eliminate our Federal Reserve bank, and reinstate the rights of US "citizens" to free speech, and due process. (Don't be so stupid as to believe there is such a thing as free speech, since effective free speech has been done away with. Frank Turney of Alaska was arrested for speaking the truth about jury rights to incoming jurors outside of a Fairbanks courthouse. He was sentenced to 160 days for "jury tampering" although his only crime was handing out general information about jury rights to incoming jurors.)

We tasted a small amount of the wealth that such a difference in policy creates during the Industrial revolution.

Plenty of nations experienced no industrial revolution, and remained in extreme poverty. Freedom is relative, and you have only as much of it as you desire.

That's why I desire a lot of it. I have enough desire for markets to give extra to thousands of my countrymen.

When I am successful, there will be such a thing as a true market.

What we have now is only a half-assed, stunted imitation of a market.

...It's not enough for me.