Publisher's Note: Sometimes someone comes along who simply explains a complex phenomenon in such clear and unguarded terms that you stand up and take notice.  I find Marxism to be a vapid and ultimately, infantile, view of the world that has one sole interest - to invest a self-selected nomeklatura with the means to ideologically and morally justify the creation of a prison state.  To stamp out  individual volition and embrace the culture of the ant and the bee.  To ensure that harmony is struck no matter what the human cost.  Absent violence and mass privation, Marxism in the world of humanity simply does not ring true to both its ambitions and the fruit of its practice.  Marxism is, at bottom, a death cult. -BB
"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother." - George Orwell, 1984
  There is a three stage answer to that. My interpretation of Obama, which I believe is correct beyond a reasonable doubt, is based in what Stanely Kurtz uncovered about him (augmented by some other background on him) while researching Radical-in-Chief. That said, my conclusions begin where Kurtz stops. I don’t think that he would necessarily disagree with me, but to say what I do about this would mark him as a “right-wing extremist.” There are certain places one must not go. First, there’s no question that Obama is, as you say, a “political animal,” but that’s a secondary characteristic. He is not simply another Bill Clinton. Far from it. He does not exist just to get elected. He expects to get elected. And he expects to be elected to fulfill a purpose, not simply to be re-elected. Second, as Kurtz demonstrates beyond any doubt, Obama is a born and bred to be radical socialist. Only a few times does Kurtz let slip the ‘M’ word, but I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that not only is Obama a studied Marxist, but that he is in almost every respect an orthodox Marxist. This might confuse some because he took on the “community organizer” guise at an early age, but the theory behind that modality, as Kurtz shows, is to move Marxist concepts stealthily through grassroots organizing which eschews the use of Marxist language and to create a broad-based revolution from below, rather than from the top down. But of course that phase is ipso facto over with when Obama becomes president. It’s no more bottom up; he is at the top. But, as to community organizing, he still does that, but he’s doing it from the top (that’s another discussion, how he does that).

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" -Thomas Jefferson A majority of people seem to believe I must have had a "conversion experience", a traumatic encounter with some agent of The State, such as an arrest for violating some governmental rule, to have become as skeptical and outright opposed as I am of the legitimacy of all forms of The State. This belief seems strange to me.  Must you see your best friend murdered before you hate murder?  How hard must you contemplate rape before realizing it is wrong? Probably some people came to libertarianism in its most radical form because of an event of this nature.  More people undoubtedly will in the future, while some will always feel they deserve anything done to them by The State and will never lose their patriotic [sic] fervor no matter how much it harms them and their loved ones. In my case, however, there was no horrible event to make me dislike the externally-imposed form of coercion commonly known as "government". It was simply a lifetime of observation and an inner need for peeling away the inconsistencies I discover. The more I saw and the more I learned the less I bought into the lie that government was "necessary" or "good". I began to see that every excuse for having "government" was based upon a trained helplessness, and every justification for The State necessarily ignored both solutions that were known and within reach, and the demonstrable harm that comes from relying upon coercion to get your way, rather...

Publisher's Note: All of you are aware I think voting is nonsensical and does nothing more than lend legitimacy to the statist quo.  Nonetheless, Jim March has produced an expose that I think is instructive to bolster my case.  Voter and voting fraud is epidemic in America and the world.  Yet, the state cannot even keep its grubby paws off THAT system without trying to game the power brokers and give advantage to the rulers every time.  If voting could change the system in a significant way, it would be illegal. For a witty compendium on why non-voting is the only virtuous course of action: https://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/non-vote-arch.html -BB Introduction OK.  This is a weird situation.  I’m going to make some extraordinary claims here, and by law I’m unable to prove them.  That alone should tell you something has gone funky here. In short, when I finally had a chance to compare a county’s list of registered voters (Apache County) against the Arizona Secretary of State’s database of who’s registered, I found no matches at all in the year of initial voter registration that we would expect the most support for: 2009. In other words, the county thinks these people are registered, the state doesn’t.  Which should be impossible – because due to recent federal laws and statewide procedures changes, they claim to be operating out of the same database. What’s going on here?  I have no idea.  But I can tell you this – it ain’t working the way they say it’s supposed to work.  It can’t be.  Something is broken or operating in full-on retard mode, or worse there’s fraud afoot.  I dunno, but I do know this needs looking into. Welcome to the sausage factory.  Grab some nose plugs or a barf bag and do try and keep up. The Process They Claim Is Going On In most counties (Pima notably excepted), when you register to vote you fill out a paper form which gets it’s contents typed into a computer database.  That database doesn’t reside in your county (again: Pima excepted).  Instead, the election clerk in, say, Apache County uses a terminal application on a PC that talks to a database in Phoenix, at the AZ SecState’s office.  The application is provided by ES&S (Election Systems and Services), one of the major vendors of electronic voting systems – but unlike electronic voting machines, no outside auditing of the statewide voter registration database is mandated.

I don't hate cops. Wait, let me clarify. I don't hate cops, and neither should you. Let me clarify further. It's become a theme in libertarian, anarchist, gun-rights and drug-rights communities to bash police officers. I've seen the sentiment "The only good pig...

  Available here: https://www.gunlaws.com/WGOG.htm I had the pleasure to pick up Larry’s book and I was surprised at the number of revelations in store.  I consider myself a senior member of the gun community in both the use of firearms and contending with the constant government depredations and threats visited on the gun community yet I had no idea the breadth and depth of gun cultures and ownership off our shores.  I have often thought that if these united States are the freest country in the world for guns, the planet must be a hoplophobe's paradise.  Not so.  We are considering a move overseas and Larry’s book was most instructive.  He was most kind to answer the ten questions I sent him.  I am certain that if anyone has any further questions I may not have entertained, we will post them to the ZeroGov Forum and discuss them there.  BTW, the US is number nine of the list meaning that eight nations are freer than America with respect to gun rights. -BB 1. What motivated you to write the book? I was motivated to write my book on gun laws in numerous other countries around the world when I realized that U.S. anti-gunners were either misinformed or untruthful when they claim the U.S. is the only country in the world with free and easy gun ownership rights and the only country with a gun culture. It seemed important to me to get accurate, usable information into the hands of our own defenders of the right to own and use firearms. 2. I was very surprised at the results in the book because we are propagandized to think that we are the only country on earth that protects private firearms ownership. Private ownership of firearms is seen by a significant number of people around the world as a deterrent to crime, civil unrest and tyranny, as evidenced by how quickly guns and ammunition are spirited away from battle sites or places where police confrontations have occurred and hidden.  Also some—but not all—nations that have been cruelly overrun by neighboring aggressors subsequently tend to allow relatively free and easy private gun ownership.  Finland, Switzerland and San Marino are examples.  Government officials in Israel, Belgium and Thailand have forgotten their lessons, but still allow some gun ownership. 3. Any updates or addition or deletions since you published the book? Gun laws on an international basis are a sometimes fast-moving target.  Change seems to be common.  This change, however, has—of late—been relatively modest.  Gun owners and citizens in general seem to have united within their various countries to minimize and deflect any significant tightening of rules and regulations.  This has been demonstrably true in England, Brazil, France and Switzerland.
 
“Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't.  You cannot shirk this and be a man.  To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.” ~Mark Twain "What signify a few lives in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Col. William S. Smith (November 13, 1787)
The quote above is employed by members of the Patriot and Sovereign movements all the time to provide the basis for what ails them.  These movements tend to be comprised of a startling number of professionals (dentists, doctors, etc) and, as expected, a fair number of them are in the courts and prison system maintained by our rulers in DC and their satraps in the states. I rarely, if ever, accept speaking invitations from Patriot or Sovereign groups whether clothed as militia or religionists.  I made that error early in my career but started to notice a disturbing trend of state idolatry, as long as it was their construct. These are the same folk who divine guidance from touchstones as various as the Illuminati to the New World Order to issues of Constitutional steerage.  On occasion, they think we share common cause and in that they are mistaken.  When I lived in north Idaho, some people in the community became Sovereigns as a convenient means to avoid fulfilling contracts they had entered in to and discovered they could not fulfill such as payments on loans.  They would talk about the evils of the Uniform Commercial Code and the strawman government, debt elimination and “rescinding” your Socialist Security Number.  I find no profit or merit in any of these contentions but they may believe what they wish.  The worst mistake these adherents make is thinking that they can prevail in a judicial system formed, maintained and staffed by the State.  Somehow, their amazing and passionate legalistic formulations are going to convince the robed government employee on the dais and his minions that the powers invested in the State must be reduced or eliminated.  Good luck with that.  As a matter of fact, there is no precedent or antecedent for that historically in America.  The history of America has been one long march toward greater and more expansive collectivism.
  Notes in the Margin: Ernie Hancock just published his new e-zine and I am featured on page 44.  See: https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Magazine/Magazine-List.htm?MagNo=00001 Publisher's Note: This a first guest post by Kent and while it may appear vitriolic in tone on occasion, he strikes at the heart of an important truth.  Cops are not here to defend the citizenry.  Their first job is the defense of the statist quo and the maintenance of power for the ruling elite and the bureaucratic satraps scattered through the land whose first loyalty is not to the local citizenry but to the body and corpus of laws endlessly vomited out by the Federal government and all its political subsidiaries in the complex tax jurisdiction known as these united States.  This is not Mayberry RFD, this is Vichy France in WWII. Here is some the finest on film for 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVf-iintxio -BB Recently, I have gotten very angry over cops. Very! Not just the cops themselves, but those who support (or even worship) cops. L. Neil Smith calls these starry-eyes fans "copsuckers". My first reaction to my own anger is "Why should I get mad? It's a waste of energy to get mad over stupid people." But then I remind myself that there are times when anger is the only reasonable response. Of course, I get mad. This is an outrage! Unconditional cop-loving is similar to saying it is OK to rape babies. Any decent person should get mad over such nonsense. I understand why cop-lovers focus on individual cops when they try to make the case that cops are "regular people" who have families to support, and are nice neighbors and good relatives. It deflects attention from the real problem. I am sure individual cops can be very nice to those they like. It is just the nature of the vast majority of humans. Pick any human monster or tyrant from history and I'd bet there were those who knew him personally and who would say he was a kind and loving person who was just misunderstood. It isn't how the cop treats people he knows in family situations or normal social situations that shows his character, but how he behaves when he is taking part in a check point, or when he sees a person with a gun on his hip walking down the street, or any time when he sees himself as the "authority". That is when the true character shines through.
Editor's note: This is the first guest post from Jim March, who may be reached for comment at 1.jim.march@gmail.com in addition to the comments section here. - KL Further Information: The Arizona Daily Star has released a PDF of the affidavit in support of the search warrant which led to the shooting. And Will Grigg chimes in: https://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w217.html Executive Summary: On Memorial Day, May 30th 2011, I attended a rally and set of speeches surrounding the shooting of recent Iraq-war returnee Jose Guerena, USMC. The Oath Keepers were the primary sponsors but to their credit didn’t try and dominate the proceedings, which included everything from a Code Pink contingent to Guerena family members and supporters and generally interested members of the community. What I learned there and in study of the available data suggests serious problems at all levels: horrible policy decisions beforehand, a grossly mis-managed raid and an appearance of a cover-up after the fact. Throughout this article, I will try and portray the facts available in the best possible light for the law enforcement officers and managers involved. As we’ll see, even when we try and do that, the resulting implications vary from disgusting to terrifying. First, before reading this, I urge you to study the available video footage of the shooting scene at least twice: Preliminary conclusions:
  • In my study of the actual shooting location and the video footage Pima County has made available to date, I have reason to think that the footage is incomplete. At a minimum, one of the deputies who was actually shooting had a helmet cam as one of two visible “dongles” on his helmet. Below is a still image from the video, at 30 seconds in – where is that video?

    Deputies knew that Mr. Guerena was a recent combat veteran of two tours in Iraq, that he legally owned guns, and that the raid was taking place just over two hours after he did a 12hr shift at a mine. Combined with the very brief warning period before battering his door in and the use of a “siren” that sounded more like a car alarm, they knew or should have known that Mr. Guerena wasn’t going to survive this encounter.

  • Because nothing whatsoever was found in Mr. Guerena’s home, we can be certain that if given the opportunity, Mr. Guerena would have consented to the search. He didn’t have to die.
  • Close-range photography of Mr. Guerena’s front door shows that “suppressive fire” was being sprayed in. This was closer to a “drive by” than anything resembling modern police work – and it happened in a home where they knew a woman and child were present.
  • Worse, the photographs of the front door show sprays of “misses” to either side that, at least at first glance, don’t appear to have been made during the period where most of the shots were made as per the video released by Pima County to date. If video is being withheld that shows additional firing, criminal misconduct may have happened that the Pima County sheriff’s office is attempting to suppress knowledge of. Again: I don’t know this for sure – the various “doorframe hits” may indeed have happened within the 54 seconds of video from a single, distant camera released so far. But, I don’t see those hits happen or anybody in position to make all of those exact hits.
  • If it is now policy to lethally eliminate anybody who attempts to defend their home when it is impossible to distinguish between home invaders and law enforcement because they behave in exactly the same fashion, then it is finally time to question the “war on drugs”. Ending it is now a simple survival measure for gun owners. To his credit, former “drug warrior” and former Sheriff Richard Mack is now admitting this, publicly. To their discredit, the “Oath Keepers” aren’t quite ready yet. Individual members clearly “got it” but the official policy isn’t there yet.
Direct Evidence – The Front Door

  • Round marked “one” hit the end of the door with it swung open, so the entry point isn’t visible with it closed. What you see here is the exit.
  • As best I can tell, entry holes two and three match door exit holes four and five – in other words, like hole number one they entered the door’s “end” with it swung open, but they also passed through the doorframe and made initial entry holes at two and three. If so, this indicates a fairly extreme downward angle, as if Mr. Guerena was already on the ground?
  • In general, what we see here is at best evidence of “spray and pray” fire. At worst, if these were made after the initial burst of fire, they were part of an attempt to “make sure he’s dead”.
  • This door proves that a fully military operating using distinctly military tactics1 have now been applied to somebody with no criminal record, with a recent distinguished combat record in the service of this country, in a densely populated suburban area against a home that contained a child that “law enforcement” knew was present.
"When there's a single thief, it's robbery.  When there are a thousand thieves, it's taxation." -Vanya Cohen
I know, it’s a bold claim. I could make the same old worn out claim that taxation is theft, which it is, but I believe I could take it a little further. I believe the failure to pay taxes will lead to your death, and paying your taxes will also lead to your death. Either the death of your freedom or your physical death. I hate paying my property taxes. I believe it is completely immoral to perpetually tax me on my property. I remember the first time I paid property taxes. I was 18, and still living at home. My father handed me a bill for the property tax on my car. I remember saying, "what's this?" He said "it's the tax bill for your car", I said "what?!? I already paid the taxes on my car!" He said "well, it is what it is". So after that little dialogue, he gave me a rundown on how the perpetual scam known as property tax works. I knew in my heart that this was wrong, but I paid it anyway. To this day, I refuse to pay my property taxes. The tax jurisdiction (county) I live in will tack on penalties and interest to the taxes they claim I owe. So they tax me on the annual tax bill they send me. I eventually drive down to the county office, and offer to pay the tax, but I always refuse to pay the penalties and interest. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. However, I only stroke the check for the amount of the tax they claim I owe. Let them continue to charge me a tax on a tax, so be it. That they can garnish my paycheck for, I refuse to pay it, at least face to face. Back in 2005 I tried to refuse to pay the IRS, and that went over like a lead balloon. My paychecks were eventually garnished. To make a long story very short, I claimed more dependents than I actually had, and they audited me. They claimed I committed "fraud" and I was lucky I wasn't going to jail. They took every paycheck from me for five weeks, I forgot exactly how much they stole from me, but I recall it was around 90% of my paycheck. I'm sure I could have called and begged them to be merciful, but that's just not my style. I am thankful I work with my hands, someone’s car is always broken, and that is money they will never get from me. So apparently it's "fraud" if you try to keep property that is rightfully yours. It's hard to try and take a principled stand on taxes, and have a young family at home. I applaud those that do. For now, I'll continue to tuck my tail, and pay up, therefore funding my own death.  I will do what I can without getting thrown in a cage. We do most of our shopping at places where no sales tax is charged, or at places where I can talk them out of charging me tax. Seeing as how everything is taxed, it's tough to avoid. I would like to examine both of these situations and see what would have happened to me if I absolutely refused to pay. I'm sure my mailbox would have been flooded with tax bills they claim I owed with astronomical "penalties" tacked on. After that, maybe some threatening letters. In the end, taxes are always backed up by the gun. It will always come down to heavily armed men paying me a visit. If I chose to resist the theft of my property, I will be killed. If I do not resist my arrest, and get thrown in a cage, my freedom that was already on life support would be dealt the final death blow. Either way, death will come from resistance or non-resistance, the death of me, or my freedom.
Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth. ~Ludwig Börne It's time to give up on the concept of rights. Like republics, democracies, and any other concept man have devised to only grant him partial freedom, they have outlived their usefulness. It's time to recognize them for what they have been, stepping stones on the bumpy road to liberty.
Throughout history, men have fought and died for the rights that we have today; these rights have not come easily, and they are lost much easier than they are gained (or more accurately, recognized). Men have demanded they have rights to limit the tyranny brought upon them by those claiming "authority" either by God, blood, or vote. When really examined, it has been a great injustice that men have had to plead with other men just to be left alone. It's hard to look at documents like the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights as triumphs of human rights when to this day we spend most of our time just trying to hold on to a fraction of the rights those documents proclaimed we have. We feebly hold up these pieces of paper with our hands trembling hoping to break the waves of tyranny, but alas, the tide of evil can only be held back for so long. Rights have become tools of the State. The basic human rights our forefathers fought for are now the very chains of our enslavement. The State has successfully co-opted a concept that was once a good thing, but this is a common tactic of all tyrannical governments. They are the proclaimed protector of these rights supposedly granted to you by your creator. They are allegedly "inalienable", these rights of ours. Just so that we are clear, here is the definition of inalienable. in·al·ien·a·ble > - adjective 1.  not to be taken away or transferred Now that we are all on the same page, does anyone of you still believe this? Or, did you ever believe it!? It does not matter if your rights are God-given, Natural, or Inalienable; they are non-existent! I will make a radical claim here, but I will attempt to prove it. You have no rights!