Tribute to Ron - Defender of Liberty

Just one year ago today, my friend Ron was interviewed by purepolitics.com. Read the interview. I just had a visit with my friend Ron. Although I have only known him for a couple of years, he has always been a solid guy. He was always smiling, great attitude, never shirking responsibility, never whining about what OTHERS should do, never passing the buck, never ashamed or afraid to speak up with his opinions or to defend his beliefs. He is just one of those guys who bears down on whatever needs doing and gets it done. I saw him a couple of months ago at a meeting and he was looking good, but he had so much going on that he wasn't sure if he would be able to run for office this year. In 2002, Ron ran for Congress.
In addition to running for Congress, Ron was working full time and raising race horses. He had a full schedule, but still had time for softball and to watch the Utah Jazz games.
Ron had a birthday yesterday. His home was filled with flowers, balloons and friends and family. Although Ron is a dedicated freedom activist, he will not be running for office this year. He will not be going to any more Jazz games, he won't be playing any more softball, and he is getting rid of the horses he loves. Ron is sick - and short of a miracle, may not live to see another month, let alone another birthday. To my friend Ron, I send my deepest prayers and thank him for his work in the fight for freedom. May his passage be painless and easy.

WARNING! US Government Disarming Those Who Rebel Against Despots!

(Copied from There4IAm list)
"...Gee, so the whole "your paranoid, the govt. isn't out to get your guns" is a bunch of crap. The gov. obviously is out to disarm people, in and out of the US.
A man or woman without arms is not only foolish, they are contemptable. If you don't own arms at this point you are nothing more than a bag of noxious gas spewing propaganda you don't have the fortitude to back up. "

Attached article opened:

Peaceable Texans For Firearm Rights
1122 Colorado Ste. 2320 Austin, TX 78701
512-476-2299 Fax 476-9504

Sunday, March 28, 2004 Copyright 2004 Las Vegas Review-Journal

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: You can't hide your lying eyes

I see where the people of Haiti finally got sick of defrocked collectivist
priest and all-around "necklace" killer Jean-Bertrand Aristide, took up arms, and kicked him out.

So what are U.S. forces doing there now? About 1,800 of our guys have been sent in to -- in the words of Associated Press reporter Paisley Dodds -- "rid the nation of guns."

Hey, good plan. In the great tradition of George Washington, Francis Marion, and young Jim Monroe, the Haitian people just used firearms to throw out a vicious tyrant, and the immediate goal of Big White Brother is to "rebuild a shattered police force and disarm militants who began the insurgency."

At least back in 1994, when the freedom-loving Bill Clinton sent in 20,000 troops to install Aristide the murderous dictator, U.S. troops offered to buy these weapons of freedom in order to better enslave the natives. This time (Mr. Dodds reports) "Haitians ... are being asked to give up their guns with little or no incentive and in a very insecure environment."

The only good news? U.S. forces, Mr. Dodds reports, have so far "recovered two shotguns. Their Chilean counterparts have confiscated three weapons."

Washington City has no constitutional authorization whatever to spend our tax dollars sending troops into Haiti to disarm "uppity Negroes" who dared fight to win their own freedom. And also for the record, there were no organized police departments in this country until the 1850s.

That's right: From 1776 until at least 1850 America was a nation of "armed insurgent militants" with no government police. And we got along just fine.

How do you think the people of the proud, young, free United States of America would have reacted if some foreign army had arrived here in 1783 with the declared the goal of "ridding the nation of the guns" that had just been used to win America's freedom?

Why does our Second Amendment say a well-armed citizen militia is necessary?
That's right, it's "necessary to the security of a free state."

After all, as early as 1785, our own Southern states were passing laws that "No slaves shall keep any arms whatever, nor pass, unless with written orders from his master or employer, or in his company, with arms from one place to another."

Whereas, in his proposed constitution for the state of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Notice the definitive difference there between "free men" and "slaves"?

In 1788, debating the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, a great patriot and friend of Washington named George Mason stood in Richmond and recalled: "When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was Governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should do it not openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. ... I ask, who are the Militia? They consist now
of the whole people, except a few public officers." And it was no less a freedom-fighter than Mohandas Gandhi who said, in 1927: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of its arms as the blackest."

And this conspiracy to attack and remove the very tools of freedom is not isolated. There isn't even any Second Amendment in the new Iraqi constitution, according to World Net Daily.

In a March 10 piece bearing the sub-headline "Colin Powell hails prohibition on arms while emphasizing 'liberty,' " WND correspondent Ron Strom writes:
"Iraq's new interim constitution sounds many of the same themes as the U.S. Constitution in guaranteeing freedom of the people -- with one stark difference: There is no right to keep and bear arms in the new charter."

The document does indeed promise a whole bunch of freedoms. (So did the Soviet Constitution.) But when it comes to civilian ownership of military-style arms -- which our founding fathers warned us was the last and only real safeguard of the rest of our liberties?

The only reference to individual ownership of arms is in Article 17: "It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law."

And Article 27 further addresses the formation of militias: "Armed forces and militias not under the command structure of the Iraqi Transitional Government are prohibited, except as provided by federal law."

America's leading gun-rights organization quickly registered strong opposition to this nonsense.

"It's a very big mistake," said Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America. "What an interesting contrast to what our Founding Fathers thought."

Not that any of this should come as a surprise. Aaron Zelman's Milwaukee-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership recently noticed our own federal naturalization folks now require incoming citizens to study a booklet which claims our Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms "subject
to certain reasonable restrictions." When JPFO contacted our duplicitous federal masters to ask where in our founding documents they found this "subject to certain reasonable restrictions" language ... they received no answer.

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the books "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega."
His Web site is www.privacyalert.us.

Poverty Level Park Rangers

Members of the Utah Park Service sent around a questionaaire to candidates seeking public office this week. In a nut shell, it said that starting pay for park rangers was only $25,000 a year and if elected, would you be willing to see that they get pay raises - at least as much as the law enforcement officers in West Valley City?

Here is my initial, though not politically correct, response:

I know 4 people who work for the park service. All but one are single.
One of them gets FREE lodging from the park service in exchange for 4
hours a week of cleaning outhouses.
I also know someone who has a family of four who recently was fired
from his job of 14 years. He was making over $70K a year and now
qualifies for food stamps.
I know people who own restaurants that make $60,000 a year, but entry
level jobs in the restaurant business pay $4 an hour.
The fact is that "entry level" jobs with the park service are
typically snapped up by tree huggers fresh out of college. If you have
a family of 4 and still have an entry level job with park service,
move on.
The entry pay for teachers is pathetic, yet most folks in the state
see these jobs as vital to our future. With such a fragile economy,
gas prices hovering at $2 per gallon, a war sucking Billions of taxes
a year and rising taxes on the horizon, how on earth does the park
service have the nerve to ask Utahns to raise taxes again so that
people who get to hike and ride 4-wheelers all day get pay equal to
someone who drives a patrol car in West Valley City?
According to Bush, the economy is wonderful and getting better every
day. If watching trees grow isn't paying the bills, considering
changing jobs.
By the way, what is the "perceived value" of the benefits package of a
full time park ranger? I'll bet it is a darn site better than the
benefits package of a full time dishwasher at Denny's.

Open Borders - Revised 4/2/04

I hate it when "nitwits" try to oversimplify political ideals in an effort to "dismiss" entire political parties. As an example, here are a few excerpts from a racist email editorial by Joe McCarthy that is making the rounds. My comments are in Bold.
I have also included a great response from Ragnar following the original message.

Why Libertarians Are a Joke, by Joe McCarthy

"...the issue that convinces me of the patent lunacy of Libertarians is found in the
Libertarian Party plank on immigration. Here is the pertinent excerpt:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html

"Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to
labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be
restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual
preference.

We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration,
the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border
Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered
the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement
payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to
all other persons."

I hope I don't have to point how nutty it is to call for getting rid of the
Border Patrol and abolishing the border! It should be taken for granted how
nutty it is. If we abolished the border, America would end.
(Joe has employed "selective" memory in his presentation of LP philosophy. Here is another link to an editorial on the LP website which I feel BETTER summarizes the LP position on immigration - http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.html. For the record, the platform can only be changed at the National convention. The next convention will be held in Atlanta later this year. The platform committee has been working on plaform changes to present at the convention.)


Those "huddled masses" that we read about on the plaque of the Statue of Liberty would pour
in by the millions. Anyone who could scrape together the funds would be here
on the first boat. Let's be serious -- this is lunacy!
(It is not lunacy. It happened for 100 years and we were the freest, most productive nation on earth.)
With zero border controls, coupled with our infinitely higher living standards, I don't think that it would be alarmist to say that we could expect HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of third world immigrants on our doorstep within a few months! Can you imagine the strain on our social services, infrastructure, and schools? (We have similar problems today! But isn't the REAL problem the social services? If we did away with free medical, free housing, food stamps, welfare checks, and minimum wage laws, how many millions would be flooding over the borders to live here? Then, wouldn't those coming to the US be contributing to the development? Isn't it possible that those coming in would actually benfit us all?)
...to mention the anarchy that would ensue as a result of so many people coming in so fast? WOW! Obviously the idea of abolishing the border is a silly idea. Anyone suggesting it should probably be under the care of a psychiatrist. (Isn't the notion that our borders are currently protecting us from a flood of imigrants equally silly?)

As if the above problems with open borders aren't bad enough, we have the
issue of terrorists entering our nation, which has been in focus since 9/11.
Unshaken, the Libertarians continue to push for their open borders nonsense!

Another pertinent point was raised by Pat Buchanan in his syndicated column
sometime back. Libertarianism, despite its anti-statist ideology, leads to
statism. Their advocacy of loose immigration will lead to a swarm of third
world immigrants who inevitably vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers.
Of course, it is only natural that immigrants (and non-Whites generally)
would vote for the party that promises them the most lucre out of Whitey's
pocket.(See what I mean about racist? Joe is losing any credibility he may have started with.) Immigrants, on average are on welfare at a much higher rate than
natives, and Democrats excel at giving them other people's money. The idea
that Mexican immigrants, for example, would support privatizing Social
Security, or support Lockean ideas on property, or other Libertarianesque
ideas developed by 'dead white male racists' is absurd. Individual liberty
is a concept virtually unknown to the third world. It is not organic to
their culture or history. Therefore, Libertarianism, despite its avowed
anti-statism, would lead to statism on a massive scale. (It already has to a
degree. Most of us probably remember the Clinton scheme to short circuit the
naturalization process of making citizens out of immigrants in time for them
to vote Democrat in 1996. Sure enough, Libertarian 'think tanks' like the
Cato Institute have been on the front lines pushing hard for loose border
controls.)

One thing that I find amusing about the Libertarian Party, is its utter
cluelessness on matters relating to race and culture. The fact that liberty
oriented, anti-statist ideas originated with White people, and is
consequently more likely to be implemented by Whites, seems to allude them.
Nor does it seem to dawn on them that the vast majority of their party
faithful are White. Do you see Mexican immigrants rushing to join the LP? Of
course not! Is there any reason to believe that Mexicans, who come from a
country rooted in socialism, statism, and collectivism will EVER support the
LP? Of course not!

So you see, at bottom, what clinches my argument that Libertarians are a
joke, is that they support a policy -- mass immigration -- which will
destroy any chance of their good ideas ever being implemented. Every time
another immigrant enters this country, the ideas of property rights,
constitutional government, and individual liberty go just that much farther
down the drain.

In conclusion, I'll leave any halfway sane Libertarians who may be reading
this with a parting message:

WAKE UP YOU NITWITS!

JOE McCARTHY

----- Begin Ragnar's comments ------

If I was held at gunpoint (the modus operandi of government) and forced to be
the "platform creator" for this plank of the LP, mine would go something like
this:

=== addition / modification ===
Undocumented non-citizens, whether from outside the boundaries claimed by the
governments of the United States, the several states, or any county or
municipality therein as containing a monopoly on the use of force, or those
human beings from within the same boundaries who of their own free will choose
to be undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to

> labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be
> restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual
> preference.
>
> We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration,
> the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border
> Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered
> the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement
> payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to
> all other persons."

We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration,
the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border
Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered
the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement
payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to
all other persons.
=== addition / modification ===
Therefore, to alleviate the potential problems that would result from open
borders with loose government purse strings, we call for a concurrent
elimination of welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, aid to dependent
children, Women Infants and Children (WIC), government schools, any other
wealth redistribution / transfer payment system of which we are not
specifically aware for any person be they "citizen," immigrant under current
"legal" status or immigrant currently considered illegal.

============================
Then this Joe McCarthy, who must be a direct inbred descendant of Senator
Joseph McCarthy, drools all over his shirt front as he spews forth a babbling,
ad-hominem rant with not one iota of proof toward his emotionally charged
assertions:
> ... I hope I don't have to point how nutty it is to call for getting rid of the
> Border Patrol and abolishing the border! It should be taken for granted how
>nutty it is.

Why should we take it for granted? Because this babbling neanderthal with a
thin veneer of intellectual prowess says it is so? If I start with an axiom
(that's right, I said axiom, it is axiomatic not derivative) that each human
being has a right to his own life, I cannot logically progress to a conclusion
that it is nutty to allow someone to travel unfettered where he desires without
first obtaining the approval of anyone other than the person who would own the
property where this person wants to travel.

>... WOW! Obviously the idea of abolishing the border is a silly
> idea. Anyone suggesting it should probably be under the care of a psychiatrist...

Maybe Joe can recommend his?

...Here we get an unsubstantiated conclusion posited by that virtuouso logician
Pat Buchanan:
> Another pertinent point was raised by Pat Buchanan in his syndicated column
> sometime back. Libertarianism, despite its anti-statist ideology, leads to statism.

Prove it!!!!!

> Their advocacy of loose immigration will lead to a swarm of third
> world immigrants who inevitably vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers.
> Of course, it is only natural that immigrants (and non-Whites generally)
> would vote for the party that promises them the most lucre out of Whitey's pocket.

You racist bastard - I see where you are coming from now.

> that Mexican immigrants, for example, would support privatizing Social
> Security, or support Lockean ideas on property, or other Libertarianesque
> ideas developed by 'dead white male racists' is absurd.

It would probably take at least 4 of Senor Joe to produce the labor of any one
of the Mexicans around where I live

> Therefore, Libertarianism, despite its avowed
> anti-statism, would lead to statism on a massive scale. (It already has to a degree.

Where was this where Libetarianism existed and it is now massively statist? I
don't recollect any previously existing Libertarian society. Was it the one
this inbred's ancestor tried to save by his Senate communist witch hunt?

...

> In conclusion, I'll leave any halfway sane Libertarians who may be reading
> this with a parting message:
>
> WAKE UP YOU NITWITS!
>
> JOE McCARTHY

Was that message for the half that was sane or the half that was insane? He
concludes with the same ad-hominems that permeated his slobbering screed.

(No time to proof read, ya gets what ya gets)

=====
Ragnar

"You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to
become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for
liberty ought to be the direct end of your government." Patrick Henry

"I need to go feed my hogs." Irwin Mann in Unintended Consequences