Friday, July 08, 2005

Free West... More Than Ever

After re-examining my original reason for starting this blog, I realize that I have recently strayed from my original ideas and succumbed to posting political rants and commentary on current news events. I had planned on leaving that commentary to other sites and simply focusing on why a "free west" was just good common sense.
I will try to move my focus back to my original intent and ask your help in keeping me focused. In the future, if I start to stray, drop me a message telling me to stay on topic.
Now, more than ever, the idea of a "free zone" seems imperative. The world leaders at the G8 are determined to establish a one world government. I have friends who plan to move to Argentina and Costa Rica to escape what America has become, but as far as I know, they are losing their freedom there as well. No, I think that the answer is for liberty minded folks who seek freedom; the only answer is to band together with as many like minded folks as possible and relocate to a quiet little place that will allow you to live as freely as possible. Taxes will increase, laws restricting our freedoms will increase, gas prices will rise, and foreign hatred for Americans will increase due to our insistence in sticking our nose in the business and politics of other nations. But, in your own little "free zone" you can elect your own sheriff, mayor, county clerk, and other local office holders. You can either home school your own kids or school them at a private school that you and your friends establish. You can make your own biodiesel and you can raise 50%-70% of your own food without pesticides or herbicides. You and your friends can establish your own "underground economy" that may allow you to acquire most of your needs through bartering or a voucher system which may reduce your tax burden and make you more independent.
I believe that the best chance for a free zone is within the borders of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. However, if enough people can get together and agree to work together and help defend each other's freedom, I suppose it might be possible anywhere.
I have been throwing around an idea with some others to establish a camp for teaching survival skills, gun safety, and marksmanship skills.
Can you imagine a place where young men and women could go for a week and actually learn skills that might actually save their life someday? A camp without TV's, vending machines, ice cream, and video games; A place where the optional two day survival test will give them more self-confidence and self-esteem than 12 years of public school. Wouldn't that be great for a kid from New York, Chicago, New Jersey, or California who otherwise would never learn these things?
Someone else suggested a camp for these wimpy, emasculated men who now seem to be everywhere - "Man Camp". Man Camp would be similar to the other camp but could also teach how to cook with a Dutch oven, ride a horse, ride an ATV, fly fish, throw darts, find decent cigars and scotch, sharpen a knife, do an oil change, work with basic tools, and skeet shooting. What better gift could a wife give to her man?

Let me know what you think - comments

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Lost Liberty Hotel

Over at "Sunni & Conspirators" website, they have started to discuss why the Lost Liberty Hotel isn't morally correct or Libertarian in nature.
Well, I am one who believes in fighting fire with fire. The Supreme Court decision last week was a clear declaration of war on the rights of property owners. I suggest that war isn't pretty. In this war, we are clearly outnumbered. The government has seemingly unlimited manpower, money, weapons, lawyers, and court room clout. They have demonstrated time and again that there is nothing they won't do to gain more power. They have denied citizens their right to redress of grievance; They have jailed people for wearing a gun in a peaceful bill of rights rally; They have killed innocent people and stolen land for years without so much as an apology. I think that this latest court ruling is astonishing. The powers that be have gotten so bold that they don't even TRY to hide their motivation or complete disregard for constitutional law anymore. The "activists" have been snickered at for years and are constantly reminded to "use legal means" if you have a problem with government.
While I, like Sunni, am opposed to "using the law as a club when it suits me", in this case, due to the dire circumstances that this new ruling poses, I think it might be the quickest way to reverse the ruling and provide the fewest casualties. Besides, now that the law provides that cities can take private lands, wouldn't it be a good idea to see that the courts a jammed with cases from those who have been offenders of property rights for years. I think it has a kind of poetic justice. Let a few judges, Attorney Generals, Mayors, and Governors lose all their money in a few property rights battles and I think the law might change in short order. Until then, at least the courts will be too busy to go after the common folks for a while.
Until people are ready to start using their guns to remove the tyrants as Jefferson suggested, the Lost Liberty Hotel will serve as an interim solution.


Thursday, June 23, 2005

Supreme Court Nullifies 5th Amendment!

Folks, they have finally done it. The following WSJ article shows how The Supreme Court has eliminated your rights as a land owner. They have decided that city government can now determine what is the best use for your land. Just because you own deed and title, pay taxes, and have built something for generations to pass on to your heirs, doesn't mean a thing. Now, government can simply pay you what THEY say is fair value for your dream and send you packing. Therefore, if Donald Trump bribes your city officials into putting a casino in your neighborhood, your home and all your neighbor's homes will legally be bull-dozed and a casino that provides more revenue and more jobs will be erected instead. Welcome to the United Soviet States of America. This will end those petty lawsuits regarding whether or not Walmart, K-Mart, or Target have a right to build where your city park was planned. Be sure to re-elect all those politicians who have made this possible. Be sure to reward all those who have helped to shred our once-important constitution. Thanks to them, we have pared our bill of rights down to a more manageable size.

(Dale's Notes)This news will further embolden, if such is possible, the already incredibly arrogant city governments of Utah. This country is rapidly morphing into some kind of tinny, Orwellian stage-play. Government is tripping over itself in an effort to rake-in all of the powers left lying about and unclaimed by a citizenry that is so stupid and pacified that even the highest hopes of the bureaucrats are now far exceeded.

Here it is, Supreme Court sanction for one of the worst phenomenon of present- day America: property condemnation -- zoning rule tyranny -- flouting of the 4th Amendment. The fox runs the hen house. And, its not so much a conspiracy as it is the rise of a privileged and empowered class which recognizes, perhaps subliminally, that the act of upholding an arrogation of power by one branch of the family inherently indemnifies the other's unlawful influence.

Utah in particular, it seems to me, is a very dangerous place, where a random contact with one of these people (police/judges/bureaucrats) can incur more severe penalties than anywhere else -- in the U.S. -- that I know of.

But, anyone can see that the problem is also pandemic. Where in contemporary America can one not find a ready supply of compliant soccer moms? Where is there not a politically potent majority of urbanized, group-grope, 'what's best for everybody', state-minded, "responsible" people? This is the medium without which the now hyper-mutating organism of government could not have arisen.

The blatant us-against-them hostility which we have all experienced at the hands of all levels of government is the true, unveiled nature of maternalism co-mingled with coercive power. Despite all of the warnings and foretelling talk, I guess that I never thought that I would actually live to see the day when the bureaucrats coalesced into such an exquisitely uniform front of open hostility towards the unconnected, toward the non-government-employed citizen -- nationwide.

Its time for savvy folks to flee Utah. And personally, if I had the capital to do so, I would leave the U.S., not wishing to be a first hand witness, and possible victim, of the final permutation this country must now assume. -D.W.

Read and leave comments -

The Wall Street Journal

June 23, 2005 11:28 a.m. EDT


High Court Rules Governments Can Seize Land for Private Use

Associated Press June 23, 2005 11:28 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home in New London, Conn., even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use" and if "just compensation" is provided.

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities shouldn't have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," Justice O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. (Kelo et al v. City of New London)

Michigan Ruling

In other court action Thursday, justices struck down a Michigan law that barred state-paid legal help for poor defendants who plead guilty but then want to appeal.

The one-of-a-kind law had been challenged by Antonio Dwayne Halbert, who pleaded no contest in 2001 to two child-molestation charges and received up to 30 years in prison. He wanted a state-appointed lawyer to help him contest the way his sentence was calculated.

But Michigan's 1994 law, designed to clear a backlog of thousands of cases, barred automatic appeals for defendants who plead guilty or no contest. There are some exceptions, including if a prosecutor seeks an appeal. Those defendants may ask the Michigan Court of Appeals for permission to appeal, but that request is seldom granted.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Mr. Halbert had a right to an attorney. "Navigating the appellate process without a lawyer's assistance is a perilous endeavor for a layperson, and well beyond the competence of individuals, like Halbert, who have little education, learning disabilities, and mental impairments," she wrote.

Had justices upheld the law, other states likely would have copied it as a way of cutting back appeals and unclogging courts. Seventeen states filed arguments supporting Michigan. Opponents argued that the law discriminates against the poor.

Justice John Paul Stevens, during arguments in the case, had said that defendants aren't always represented at trial by able attorneys. "If that counsel happens to be incompetent, that's the end of the ball game," Justice Stevens said.

The 17 states supporting Michigan were: Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington. The case is Halbert v. Michigan.

Copyright © 2005 Associated Press URL for this article:,,SB111953671238667630,00.html

Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1),,SB111642390345836898,00.html Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

TOTALLY AWESOME Prevention of Crime!

In Utah today, the radio is airing a news story that “Super Dell”, founder of Totally Awesome Computers, was charged with “brandishing a firearm” in an argument at his paragliding business. This sounded very fishy to me. I have met Dell on a few occasions and he did not strike me as irrational or one unfamiliar with firearm law. So I called Dell directly and as I suspected, the news got it wrong... again. Here are the facts as told to me directly by Dell:

He was chased by not one, but THREE young men in Draper who jumped out of their car and came towards him in a very threatening manner. One of the young men picked up a rock. In an effort to prepare for the worst, he put his hand on his gun to make sure that it was accessible and would clear his clothing if he needed it. He never even pulled his weapon out of his pants.
However, seeing that he was armed, the three men quickly changed their attitude and no longer appeared to be a threat.

Now, this appears to me to be a clear example of another crime prevented because a responsible citizen chose to exercise their right to carry a firearm. Situations like the one faced by Dell today are a perfect example of why people should carry a gun at all times. Those of you who know Dell know that he is about 150 lbs soaking wet. By contrast, I am 6' 2", 260 lbs. and have studied martial arts. However, If three men chased me, jumped out of their car and ran towards me swearing and picking up rocks, MY gun would be out and pointed directly at their chests immediately. In fact, I challenge you to find a police officer in the world who wouldn’t do exactly the same thing.

Utah law ONLY allows CCW permit holders to brandish their weapon if they believe that their life is in imminent danger and you intend to mortally shoot the perpetrator. However, sometimes, when a gun is produced, the threat immediately vanishes and so does the need to shoot to stop a crime. I would say, without question that Dell was fully within his rights to brandish his weapon. Frankly, I am surprised that he chose not to.
Hopefully, this weak attempt by the media to paint permit holders in a bad light, while trying to harm the reputation of one of the most successful entrepreneurs in Utah history (not to mention one of the biggest advertisers in Utah) will not only backfire on them but will also serve as an opportunity to educate folks on the need to carry and the proper use of personally carried firearms.

What if Dell had not had a gun? What if his attackers had pummeled him with rocks, fists, and boots and then drove off leaving him a broken, bloody mess? Would the police have protected him? Would the police have made any effort to find his attackers? What if it were Dell’s wife who was attacked? Would the media have even covered the story?

The fact is that it is not the job of the police to protect individuals. The fact is that Dell should be commended for having the courage to take personal responsibility for his own safety and well being, and for taking on the responsibility of carrying a loaded gun with him every day. Perhaps if more people did, there would be fewer assaults, rapes, and violent crimes. Rather than the media spinning the story to once again make the gun owner out to be the threat to society, maybe just ONCE, they could present the story accurately. Just once, I’d like to hear a news story like this:


Can you imagine what a field day the media would have had if Dell – the owner of Totally Awesome Guns and Range – had been left for dead by these punks because he wasn’t carrying a gun?
I believe that everyone who has had the misfortune of being harassed by some punk under the influence of road rage owes a debt of gratitude to Dell. I hope his businesses continue to thrive and that his courage will encourage others to take personal responsibility for their own safety.

Fran Tully

Sunday, May 08, 2005

Laissez Faire Books - Hypocrites!

A few months back, I wrote a review on THE BLACK ARROW, the fantastic new novel by Vin Suprynowicz. I proclaimed it to be one of the best "freedom books" of our generation. I heard from Vin yesterday and he told me that Laissez Faire Books had requested a copy of his book and after reviewing it, had declined to carry it. Their reason was:

'We have decided not to carry THE BLACK ARROW. While we are confident that we could sell some and that we will have customers looking for it, we are concerned about offending our customers with what we see as the gratuitous vulgar sexual content. I couldn't see any good reason for including it, and I think it makes the book inappropriate for a significant segment of our market.


Kathleen Hiserodt
Laissez Faire Books
7123 Interstate 30, Suite 42
Little Rock, AR 72209

I was astounded to hear this for several reasons. First of all, after reading the book, I fail to find anything to substantiate their reason. The following email from Amy Willard (a long time Colorado Republican and office holder in the local Republican party organization who's trying to arrange a book signing for Vin while he is visit there in early June.) puts a finer point on my understanding:


The response from Laissez Faire Books just shows how far off center their moral compass has become. They have become so acclimatized to moral decay and gratuitous sexual content that they don't recognize when this type of content is used to make value statements.

Laissez Faire Books should get someone to actually read The Black Arrow instead of just looking at the picture and flipping the pages. My guess is that their current staff haven't actually read either The Black Arrow or Atlas Shrugged. They do carry Atlas Shrugged. I've seen it featured prominently in their catalogs.

Atlas Shrugged has quite a bit of "gratuitous vulgar sexual content", with an emphasis on "gratuitous". The sexual content in The Black Arrow was clearly there to make value statements and it was obvious to the reader, at least to this reader, the moral points that were being made. There was nothing gratuitous about it.

You are quite welcome to share my response with Laissez Faire Books.

Amy Willard

In fact, in "Atlas Shrugged," Dagney Taggart has sex with THREE men she's not married to! Despite that, LFB has chosen NOT to censor sale of that book to their customers.

Another had the following comment:

"...even if "Black Arrow" ISN'T the Next Great Freedom Novel, the chances that the Next Great Freedom Novel will read like a Franklin W. Dixon "Hardy Boys" adventure ("Gosh, chums, whatever shall we do?") is slim enough, that these folks have virtually guaranteed they WON'T stock the Next Great Freedom Novel, no matter WHO the hell writes it. And perhaps that IS something Libertarians and other freedom fighters need to know."

Indeed! Can you imagine a an organization whose parent company is The Center for Libertarian Thought censoring the libertarian books that their clients should read? If it weren't so disturbing, it would be comical.

"The primary focus of the Center for Libertarian Thought is to support libertarian scholarship and to distribute libertarian-oriented books worldwide. We also work to keep the "classics of liberty" in print and available. We strive to do this through the following CLT programs:

* Laissez Faire Books: This division promotes and distributes libertarian-oriented books worldwide."

Perhaps they should add "Except when the books contain love scenes," so that their customers know that despite all their talk about being libertarian, they choose to control what their customers should read.

Isn't it curious that the same company who chose the name LAISSEZ FAIRE would choose to act as a Nanny and suppress the best libertarian book of the year? The very term "LAISSEZ FAIRE", as defined by their own site means "leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives".
Maybe a more appropriate name would be "LESS THAN FAIR".

Kathleen Hiserodt, the editor at LFB, has once again proven that fact IS stranger than fiction. Perhaps there are a few libertarian readers out there who would like to personally thank Ms. Hiserodt and LFB for protecting them from themselves. If so, you can phone them at 501-975-3650.

I asked Vin for a comment and all he had to say was, "As a private outfit, LFB of course has the right to stock or not stock any book they choose."
Yeah, I suppose that is true, but I think it is important for those interested in freedom, liberty, and libertarianism to know the kind of hypocrites they are dealing with at LFB. I know that if I were in Vin's shoes, I wouldn't ALLOW LFB the opportunity to sell ANY of my books - past, current or future!

As Amy said, the book does an excellent job of making a moral statement about sex - the opposite of vulgar gratuitous sex. In "The Black Arrow," it's the BAD GUYS who are after sex without commitment, while the HEROES consistently aim to get knocked up and get married.

After you have communicated your thanks to LFB for their consideration and censorship, you might want to go to and read an interview by Sunni Maravillosa where Vin and Scott Bieser, the artist, spent some time discussing the sexuality in the novel.

In an effort to help my visitors fully grasp our appreciation for the mothering efforts of LFB, I welcome your feedback, not only on the topic of LFB and their nearly suicidal reluctance of some oh-so-correct "Junior Republican" Libertarians to embrace the "culture of freedom" when it involves sex or sexiness or drugs or tattooed bikers promoting legalized prostitution or whatever -- cutting themselves off from the cultural revolution and ALL KINDS or lively and energetic potential constituencies -- but also specifically on the topic of sexuality as used in "The Black Arrow," where one of the government's most serious crimes is DESTROYING families. Sex in "The Black Arrow" is represented as the furthest thing from James Bond boffing the stewardess in the galley, or characters in TV dramas conducting little government-approved reminder courses for us on "always using a condom," which have become the norm for "expressing sexuality" in statist, NON-Freedom fiction.

If for some bizarre reason you haven't yet ordered your own copy of THE BLACK ARROW, please go to and do so at once. Only when top authors can earn a great living promoting freedom, will we be able to truly spread the word.

"An absolutely wonderful read. ... 'The Black Arrow' is a fantastic book ... the 'Gone With the Wind' of our time. ... Good plot action, well rounded characters, the dialogue 'rings true' ... I am, frankly, blown away; I'd read it all over again tomorrow, but I want to get it
into others' hands. I am just SO tickled it's SO good!!!!"

-- South Carolina Libertarian Party activist Mary Lou Seymour

"Vin shoots a wild, bright spark of freedom into a dark, stylized, near-future America. The book's got it all: A freedom underground (literally), and plenty of sex and rock 'n roll. Think Tim Burton's treatment of Batman's Gotham City and you'll come close to the ambiance of 'The Black Arrow.' But for a freedom lover, Vin's hero beats Batman any day."

-- Claire Wolfe, author of "101 Things to do 'Til the Revolution" and "Don't Shoot the Bastards ... Yet"

PS - Sunni Marivillosa has posted an open letter to Ms. H. and also has several excellent comments on her site. Messages on her open letter just keep getting better and better -- especially those from Ms.Hiserodt:

And check this outstanding blog which also has a new posting on this subject:

Please post a comment
Go here to read comments -

Friday, May 06, 2005

City Planners with Nose Trouble

Why is it that our esteemed city planners feel that it is their duty to tell private home owners what surface they can park their RV's on?
Last night I attended the planning committee's meeting. One of the items on the agenda was due to my raising a stink at having the city code enforcement officers advise me that my RV must be parked on a concrete slab.
Last night at the meeting, I let the committee know exactly how I feel about their decision to look into the code and advise the city council to "toughen" it.

I am concerned that the Planners and Council are overstepping the authority granted them by the community.
Why is the city planning committee involved in where I park or what the surface is?
I am told that the reason is that the homes are not as aesthetically acceptable. What possible concern is it to the city if my RV is parked on wood, gravel, clay, asphalt, or concrete. All of these are used for roads and bridges, why should the council presume that we need concrete at a cost of nearly $6,000, when gravel costs a fraction of that and can be done by the homeowner?
Why is the planning committee involved with a 30 year old home?
When I bought my home, I signed no covenants. I deliberately avoided gated or planned communities. Years ago, I lived in Boca Raton. There, the members of the planned communities determined what color you could paint your home and your shutters, what vehicles you could park in your driveway (no pickup trucks, not even with a cap), and how many vehicles you could park on your own property. I am tired of planners and councilmen deciding what changes need to be made. It is my opinion that it is none of your business where I park or what surface I park on. I am the one who has to live with my neighbors and I am the one who will suffer or benefit by the effect of my property values. If my neighbors have an issue with where I park, I would be happy to discuss it with them and do my best to accommodate them. I am tired of neighbors calling the city to enforce their will on my private property.

I wish more folks would attend these meetings and let them know that we are sick of their continual intrusions on our property rights.

Monday, April 18, 2005

Field Test - Utilikilts

It's about FREEDOM.
I got a chance to test out my Utilikilt this weekend. I took the family camping in the mountains. Despite the snow and brisk evening and early morning temperatures, I was very comfortable. The Utilikilt is modeled after a traditional kilt, but has heavy cargo pockets and is made from your choice of colors and material. For my UK, I chose a heavy cloth with a woodland camo design. The waist band on the UK is about 3.5 inches, and each UK is custom designed to fit the owner's body type. Mine is 6'2", 250 lbs. with a beer gut and not much of a butt. On my outdoor outings, I like to have my survival tools. This weekend, I wore my Gerber multi-tool, Busse Battle Mistress, and a full-sized .45 caliber Glock. What is interesting is that I hardly remembered that my Glock was on. I believe this was due to the waistband resting in a spot that makes wearing a heavy load not uncomfortable. I also felt that the pleats in the kilt made my 15 inch battle mistress much less conspicuous. I never felt the kilt slipping, or the need to hike it up or adjust. I also noticed that just pulling my t-shirt out allowed me to completely conceal the Glock. That is a real bonus with summer right around the corner.

For hiking and jumping across creeks, the UK was outstanding. Very comfortable even if I did get a couple of cold splashes of stream water on areas that are normally covered. I did sustained a LOT of scratches and small punctures on my shins from briars, sticks, and from breaking firewood that I wouldn't have gotten if I were wearing thick jeans or BDU's. I also noticed that when I had to kneel, my knee was on the ground - not as comfortable as kneeling with pants. However, I believe the trade off is worth it.

I admit it was also a bit awkward manually pulling fabric under my butt when I sat on a seat. Bending over is a new experience too. I learned to be aware of which direction the wind is coming from. Once or twice, I had the feeling I was giving the neighbors a glimpse of my plumber's crack from the ground up, but nobody said anything, so I don't know for sure. Oddly, NOBODY even commented on the fact that I was wearing a kilt except for my 5 year old daughter who said, "Dad, why are you wearing a skirt?" and my 7 year old who lifted the back up to see what I had on underneath. Her gasp and snicker said it all. In stores, it was amazing that people hardly even seemed to notice. Clerks smiled to greet me, but no more than usual and never appeared to glance down or raise an eyebrow. The funniest was the National Guardsman who noticed me, did a double take, and then pretended not to notice me. Several times I would notice him looking at me, but when I would look right at him, he always seemed to be busy reading ingredients on bottles. I thing he was concerned that the camo kilt might become summer issue BDU's. :-)

When "nature called" another convenient aspect of the UK shined. For those who are modest or travel outdoors with groups, you can have plenty of privacy with the UK and still take care of business.

I also laid on a hammock for a while. It felt great and I must admit, some naughty ideas crossed my mind. I was so comfortable, I think I actually rested. If my family were not on the trip, I probably would have slept in the hammock overnight.

After two days in the woods, I was glad to throw it in the washing machine when I got home. From the washer, I just shook it, laid it flat, snapped the pleats and let it dry on the floor.

No seams, less heat, lots of cargo space, freedom of movement, and a great unique look all make the UK my new favorite clothing. I can't wait to get a couple of different colors. I think tan and black will be next.

If you desire Freedom, you can get it right away with the Utilikilt. For a good look at the UK and some very entertaining "Mock-U-Mercials" check out

"Special" DEA Agent Shoots Himself in the Foot...LITERALLY

Found on Militant Libertarian today posted by Militant Libertarian

Proper Firearms Safety
Watch this federal police officer (DEA Agent) in front of a class of Fourth Graders shoot himself in the foot while giving a "gun safety" speech. Funny, he claims to be "the only one in [the] room special enough to carry a Glock .40."

He makes several classic safety mistakes: he fails to remove the magazine, fails to check the chamber for a round when handed the gun by his compadre, and he fails to keep his finger off the trigger (obviously) when NOT intending to fire the gun.

This, of course, is one of the "police" that are the only people "properly trained" to carry weapons in our society with the full faith of the public...

Oh boy.

Click here to view it (not graphic or bloody).

Special thanks to the Firearms Coalition ( for posting this to the 'Net.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Why Do All the "FREE ZONES" Have to be so Cold?

There are several groups now seeking havens for "free zones", or communities where one might have a better chance of living with limited government. The Free State Project voted to move to New Hampshire, the Free State Wyoming group has chosen five counties in Wyoming, and other groups are considering Idaho or Montana.
People have whined, "why do all the free zones have to be in area's that are so cold?"
One of my favorite responses to this is from Ken Royce; he says, "because the socialist have already taken over all the warm areas."
The truth is that parts of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are not only bearable, but damn-near balmy.
There are parts of Idaho that are in the "banana belt" and areas in Montana and Wyoming whose temperatures are within 5 degrees of Salt Lake City year round.

To find out how your current cities weather compares with towns in some of these "free zones", go to

Monday, March 21, 2005

Why I Think Our Judicial System Doesn't Work

Here are two stories that really upset me. In the first, the refusal of the police to help a woman, resulted in her children being murdered.
The second story is about a judge whose bias resulted in a woman being murdered despite her begging the judge for help. Incidentally, this is the same judge who recently ruled to starve Terri Schindler Schiavo to death.
Isn't it great to live in the country with the best judicial system on earth?
- FT

Police Refuse to Help Desparate Woman - Children Murdered

Frightened by her estranged husband Simon's erratic behavior, Jessica Gonzales took out a restraining order against him. When Simon kidnapped the couple's three
children, Jessica called the police multiple times begging for help, and even told them where the children were.

Despite Simon's volatile history, despite his blatant violation of the restraining order, despite Jessica's information on where the children could be found, and
despite Colorado law that violators of restraining orders must be arrested ... it wasn't until Simon showed up at the Castle Rock police station and began firing upon it that Castle Rock's finest responded. After killing Simon with return fire, police found the gunshot bodies of the couple's three children in Simon's truck, murdered by their own father.

Do you have the right to police protection? That's the question the US Supreme Court will be deciding in the case of Gonzalez vs. Castle Rock


Events such as this do not prove the need for "gun control" -- they prove the utter inability of the police to protect individuals from violent crime. Even Castle Rock's police chief Tony Lane said in a letter to _60 Minutes_,
"[Restraining orders] do not protect society from the Simon Gonzales of the world." Indeed, especially when police have neither the obligation nor the inclination to enforce them.

Retired Sheriff Speaks About Judge Greer
By John J McDougall - Retired Florida Sheriff of Lee County Florida

Imagine for a moment that you are a Circuit Court Judge. A terrified woman comes before your Court pleading for her life. She testifies, under oath, that her violent and demented husband raped her, set her clothes on fire and threatens to kill her. She needs your help and petitions your court for an Injunction for Protection. What would you do? Well, this is what a real Circuit Court Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida; by the name of Judge George W. Greer decided.
He actually had this exact case come before his bench seven years ago, when Helene Ball McGee, from Dunedin Florida pleaded with him to grant her an Injunction for Protection. Helene was in absolute fear for her life. Judge George W. Greer, however, refused to help her, because (according to him) she had not shown him enough proof that her husband was physically violent yet. Two weeks later her deranged husband, Bobby Lane McGee, stabbed her to death. Perhaps if Bobby Lane McGee, had raped Judge Greer first, he would have had a much better insight into the physically violent nature of her husband.
Now this same gender-biased Judge, with utter disdain for women, is the same Judge in charge of the Terri Schindler Schiavo Case. True to form, this Judge continues to ignore the Constitutional rights of Due Process for Terri Schindler Schiavo, in much the same way he did to Helene Ball McGee, who was violently murdered seven years ago this month. Terri who is physically disabled, has trouble swallowing food on her own and because of this Judge Greer has seen fit to order her feeding tube removed. Her Court appointed 'Guardian' husband who has since abandoned her for another woman, (with whom he has fathered two children) wants her dead and has asked Judge Greer's permission to use hundreds of thousands of dollars from her Medical Trust Fund Money to pay his blood-sucking lawyers to find a way to make this happen.
It worked. Judge George W. Greer has now ignored her parents plea for help and has ordered Terri's execution by starvation and dehydration to begin on March 18, 2005. This cruel, torturous, and horrifying death of yet another woman before his Court will take up to 10 days of horrific suffering to cause her to die. But Judge Greer is not without mercy, no sir; he will allow her parents permission to stay and watch their daughter starve to death.
What is wrong with this picture? Is this the same United States of America, whose US Supreme Court is inscribed with the words, 'Equal Justice under law.' While Terri starves and cries out for justice; our distinguished Supreme Court Justices will be too busy to hear, because they will be deciding how best to abolish those embarrassing 'Ten Commandments' of which, the Fifth Commandment is, 'Thou shall not kill.'
God help us. Every person of conscience in this Country should be ready to travel to the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court House, in Pinellas County Florida, and scream at the top of their lungs, that this is Murder! This is Murder! This is Murder!

John J McDougall, retired Florida Sheriff of Lee County Florida

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Drugs, not Thugs! - Police start program to drug ADD kids into submission.

Coming soon to a police state near you:

Police fight attention disorder

The aggressive behaviour associated with attention deficit disorders can sometimes land children in trouble with the law.
Without the right care and treatment these children's lives can be ruined at a tender age.

With this in mind, police in east Lancashire have launched an initiative to help such vulnerable children avoid the risk of getting involved in crime.


How long before this program is adopted by our public school system? Are you SURE you don't want to home school?


Ever since folks started speaking out against Bush, America has adopted "free speech zones". These are small restricted or roped in areas where folks can exercise their first amendment right to free speech. These are generally found about 4 blocks away from any human activity and media reporters. In other words, you can exercise your right to free speech as long as nobody can hear or see you.
When I grew up, the free speech zone was everything within the boundaries of the United States. But, times have changed.
Below is a story showing how one group of activists was threatened if they did not comply with the "free speech zone" rules. The disturbing part about this is that today it happened to people wanting to inform citizens about the lies regarding marijuana, tomorrow, it could be gun groups, tax groups, home schoolers, or religious groups. If we don't stand up for the rights of others, why should we expect others to stand up for OUR rights? 'We must all hang together or we will surely hang separately'.

# # # #
(If they can do this to NORML, they can do it to gun owners, too. Or libertarians. Or anyone who's message the government doesn't like. Then they can send in the headbreakers who can hide behind badges.)

Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:59:48 EST

My name is Henry Koch and I am the President of Midlands NORML, the Columbia, SC chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Last year we were forced to bring suit against the city of Columbia and the Three Rivers Music Festival Association, through the ACLU, in US District
Court. Three Rivers was creating barriers and arguably attempting to completely exclude us from participating in an annual three day publicly funded music and arts festival which is held on public property because they don't like our literature. The lawsuit is centered around first amendment violations.

The day the festival started, Judge Cameron Currie set aside our case since we could no longer prove damage. The festival attorney promised the court that NORML would not be removed from the festival, nor harmed in any way should we leave our booth to distribute literature to festival attendees. Judge Currie continued the case - she didn't rule nor dismiss in the event there might be a need to continue the case the following year.

Festival organizers threatened to remove us from the festival if we left our 100 sq. ft (10x10) space to pass out literature or speak to anyone who didn't approach us first and specifically request information. This conditional free speech policy that the festival organizers attempted to enforce violates free speech as outlined in the US Constitution.

In previous years non-profit organizations (NPO's) paid a nominal fee to
attend the festival - $250 compared to over $1000 for merchandise and food

This year, in their continued efforts to exclude Midlands NORML or
significantly suppress our ability to get our message out to as many people as possible, they have removed the NPO status and increased the fee to $1060.00. All organizations, including university sanctioned student groups, must pay the same fees for-profit merchandise vendors pay.

An article in The State newspaper by John Drake stated this policy change was made because of NORML. Mr. Drake told me that he received that information in an email from Virginia Bedford, President of the Three Rivers Music Festival.

This year the free speech zone has been extended to 1,100 Sq. Ft. within
which we will be permitted to exercise our constitutional rights to freedom of speech up to 20 feet from our tent. Evidently, beyond that 20 foot barrier, the Three Rivers organizers have declared that the United States Constitution does not apply and free speech is strictly prohibited.

Ms. Bedford told me, that if someone not affiliated with NORML hands out our literature outside the authorized free speech zone, we will be removed from the festival. She then went on to state that if I want to sue her after the festival is over that is okay with her.

Ms. Bedford is knowingly planning on breaking laws and violating the United States Constitution. She knows she will be culpable for these violations, yet feels this tactic is justified to suppress our message.

Ms. Bedford told me that all vendors will be watched closely for violations of the twenty foot limit and that Midlands NORML would be watched closest of all since we broke the rules last year by violating the festival's limited free speech policy.

I suspect that someone working with the festival organizers might sabotage
us. They could employ a number of tactics, including the distribution of drug law reform literature away from our space and then remove us from the festival for breaking the rules, despite that their rules violate the Constitutionally protected right of expression and speech.

Our message is not to advocate the use of marijuana or breaking any laws
regarding use or possession. Rather, it is teaching the truth about the most beneficial plant on the planet, cannabis sativa, and exposing the lies the US Government has been perpetuating for almost 70 years in their attempt to eradicate this plant from the planet.

We teach the benefits of industrial hemp and how hemp can save the planet. We teach about the medical benefits of cannabis for many ailments. We teach about the damage prohibition has caused and is causing in our society. We show how gangs exist and children have easy access to illegal drugs because of prohibition. We advocate for a change in laws to stop arresting adults for the responsible use of marijuana.

If you feel the policy of the festival organizers is wrong you might want to contact Virginia Bedford and let her know how you feel. She can be reached at any of the following which are in the public domain:

Virginia Bedford
Three Rivers Music Festival
1511 Taylor St.
Columbia, SC 29201

Fax 803-401-8992
Email -
Yahoo newsgroup, not-moderated:

Home address:
Virginia Bedford
2926 Clark St.
Columbia, SC 29201
fax 803-254-9568

In order to ensure she gets your message you may wish to use every means
available to contact her. She arguably ignores mail that she doesn't like.

I would appreciate you forwarding this plea for help to everyone you know who supports free speech.

Live free or die!

Henry Koch
Midlands NORML

US: KGB and STASI reinforce Homeland Security. For whom?

Foreign Press Foundation | 16.12.2004 13:06 | Anti-militarism | Repression

Why have Soviet secret service 'KGB', General Yevgeni Primakov, as well as Markus Wolfe, the ex-boss of the ''STASI'', the equally feared former East German 'State Security Police' been hired by - and for - the US Gov't.?


US: KGB and STASI reinforce Homeland Security. For whom?

"These appointments have already been made"

Dec. 16th - 2004 - If somebody would inform you, that the former Ex-head of the inhuman and despicable Soviet secret service 'KGB', General Yevgeni Primakov, as well as Markus Wolfe, the ex-boss of the ''STASI'', the equally feared former East German ''State Security Police'' - (Staats Sicherheitsdienst) - have been hired by the United States Gov't for the lawless and already feared secret service "HOMELAND Security", as experts to reinforce the control in the US of all it's citizens: would that make you sleep badly ? Im sorry to wreck your night's rest, but it seems that it just happened to you, or, better said: to all of us globally.

Nobody - outside the US mainstream media's reach - would be surprised if the US neocons would appoint a revived Dr. Josef Mengele from Auschwitz as the new Head of Medicare.


Read the entire story here

Robert Blake acquitted

After 4 years in prison, actor Robert Blake was acquitted of killing his wife of 6 months. Wow... 4 years. Anyway, now that he is 71, he should have no trouble finding some other California gold-digger to marry him.

Judge Upholds Death Sentence for Peterson

All over the news today I heard that Peterson is a monster for killing his wife Laci and her unborn child. "Unborn child"...Isn't that an oxymoron?
Peterson was sentenced to death for 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder.
So if a woman or a doctor performs an abortion, it is not murder; If a mother puts herself at risk and loses the baby, it is not murder.
If Peterson is guilty of 2nd degree murder, why are abortions legal? It seems like a double standard to me.
It seems to me that one can't kill something that isn't born. But, if we can establish when life begins, then we can determine when ending that life becomes murder. If ending the life of a fetus is murder, we better start building more prisons (or gas chambers).

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Ebbers Convicted of All Counts

A New York jury has FINALLY convicted Bernard Ebbers on all counts in an accounting fraud that sank WorldCom.

After an eight day dilberation, Ebbers was convicted of conspiracy, securities fraud and making false filings with federal regulators. Ebbers himself took the stand and said he knew nothing about fraud on his watch. (Maybe they should have hit him with contempt of court, too.)

This means that this greedy billionaire could go to prison for up to 85 years. (But with billions to bribe with, what are the chances of that happening?)

His conviction follows an accounting investigation that found more than eleven billion dollars in cooked books.

I wonder how this conviction will impact the loyal employees whose 401K's dropped in value from $1,000,000 to only $500?


Terror Suspect Buying Firearm, US Report Finds - From New York Times

(My comments at the end - Fran)

From Today's New York Times
Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, U.S. Report Finds

WASHINGTON, March 7 - Dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year, according to a Congressional investigation that points up major vulnerabilities in federal gun laws.

People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon and using it in an attack.

The G.A.O. study offers the first full-scale examination of the possible dangers posed by gaps in the law, Congressional officials said, and it concludes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation "could better manage" its gun-buying records in matching them against lists of suspected terrorists.

F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.

At least 44 times from February 2004 to June, people whom the F.B.I. regards as known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry a gun, the investigation found.

In all but nine cases, the F.B.I. or state authorities who handled the requests allowed the applications to proceed because a check of the would-be buyer found no automatic disqualification like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or someone deemed "mentally defective," the report found.

In the four months after the formal study ended, the authorities received an additional 14 gun applications from terror suspects, and all but 2 of those were cleared to proceed, the investigation found. In all, officials approved 47 of 58 gun applications from terror suspects over a nine-month period last year, it found.

The gun buyers came up as positive matches on a classified internal F.B.I. watch list that includes thousands of terrorist suspects, many of whom are being monitored, trailed or sought for questioning as part of terrorism investigations into Islamic-based, militia-style and other groups, official said. G.A.O. investigators were not given access to the identities of the gun buyers because of those investigations.

The report is to be released on Tuesday, and an advance copy was provided to The New York Times.

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who requested the study, plans to introduce legislation to address the problem in part by requiring federal officials to keep records of gun purchases by terror suspects for a minimum of 10 years. Such records must now be destroyed within 24 hours as a result of a change ordered by Congress last year. Mr. Lautenberg maintains that the new policy has hindered terrorism investigations by eliminating the paper trail on gun purchases.

"Destroying these records in 24 hours is senseless and will only help terrorists cover their tracks," Mr. Lautenberg said Monday. "It's an absurd policy."

He blamed what he called the Bush administration's "twisted allegiances" to the National Rifle Association for the situation.

The N.R.A. and gun rights supporters in Congress have fought - successfully, for the most part - to limit the use of the F.B.I.'s national gun-buying database as a tool for law enforcement investigators, saying the database would amount to an illegal registry of gun owners nationwide.

The legal debate over how gun records are used became particularly contentious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, when it was disclosed that the Justice Department and John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, had blocked the F.B.I. from using the gun-buying records to match against some 1,200 suspects who were detained as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. Mr. Ashcroft maintained that using the records in a criminal investigation would violate the federal law that created the system for instant background gun checks, but Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the issue said they saw no such prohibition.

In response to the report, Mr. Lautenberg also plans to ask Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to assess whether people listed on the F.B.I.'s terror watch list should be automatically barred from buying a gun. Such a policy would require a change in federal law.

F.B.I. officials acknowledge shortcomings in the current approach to using gun-buying records in terror cases, but they say they are somewhat constrained by gun laws as established by Congress and interpreted by the Justice Department.

"We're in a tough position," said an F.B.I. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been formally released. "Obviously, we want to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, but we also have to be mindful of privacy and civil rights concerns, and we can't do anything beyond what the law allows us to do."

After initial reluctance from Mr. Ashcroft over Second Amendment concerns, the Justice Department changed its policy in February 2004 to allow the F.B.I. to do more cross-checking between gun-buying records and terrorist intelligence.

Under the new policy, millions of gun applications are run against the F.B.I.'s internal terrorist watch list, and if there is a match, bureau field agents or other counterterrorism personnel are to be contacted to determine whether they have any information about the terror suspect.

In some cases, the extra review allowed the F.B.I. to block a gun purchase by a suspected terrorist that might otherwise have proceeded because of a lag time in putting information into the database, the accountability office's report said.

In one instance last year, follow-up information provided by F.B.I. field agents revealed that someone on a terror watch list was deemed "mentally defective," even though that information had not yet made its way into the gun database. In a second case, field agents disclosed that an applicant was in the country illegally. Both applications were denied.

Even so, the report concluded that the Justice Department should clarify what information could and could not be shared between gun-buying administrators and terrorism investigators. It also concluded that the F.B.I. should keep closer track of the performance of state officials who handle gun background checks in lieu of the F.B.I.

"Given that these background checks involve known or suspected terrorists who could pose homeland security risks," the report said, "more frequent F.B.I. oversight or centralized management would help ensure that suspected terrorists who have disqualifying factors do not obtain firearms in violation of the law."

# # #
My comments:
The FBI will always blame someone else for their incompetence. The current laws prohibit known CRIMINALS from buying guns. They want to use this report so that they can now prohibit known SUSPECTS. They use the term SUSPECTED TERRORIST because they know the kind of knee jerk response that the people will have to that phrase. However, a few years back, the FBI released a flyer defining Suspected Terrorists. It included political activists, Christians, tax-evaders/protestors, people who refer to the constitution, and generally speaking anyone who spoke out against government. This proposed bill needs to be watched closely and people need to understand that the FBI's idea of a terrorist is all encompassing. On the other hand, perhaps this will help educate people why they need to only buy guns through private gun sales. The bit about "destroying the list in 24 hours" is a total crock. When congress approved of background checks, it was conditional upon the "immediate destruction" of the list after application. This was NEVER done. What's worse, is that the FBI has released those records to new state task forces that were set up for the sole purpose of confiscating guns that had been legally purchased.



Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is putting his anti-gun spin on a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on firearms purchases by suspected terrorists during a five-month period last year to push his gun control agenda, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today.

Sen. Lautenberg announced that he will introduce legislation requiring the National Instant Check System (NICS) to retain records of gun purchases by suspected terrorists for at least ten years.

"In Sen. Lautenberg's warped view, anyone who buys a gun is a suspected terrorist," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. "Based on his past record, he is looking for any avenue to justify a back door gun registration scheme so that if he could get even one of his gun ban bills passed, he will know where to go to collect them all. The report demonstrates that the NICS system works. The GAO clearly notes that only 44 out of more than 3.1 million gun transactions showed valid matches to 36 different people whose names are on terrorist watch lists. Of those, 35 transactions were allowed to proceed, six were denied, and three were subject to pending resolution.

"Remember," Gottlieb noted, "none of the people who successfully purchased firearms has been charged with, or convicted of any crime, yet their names are on a watch list. How does somebody's name get on one of those lists? How is it removed? Lautenberg wants to keep records on these people for ten years. Where is the ACLU? If this involved anything but a gun purchase, the ACLU would be in hysterics over invasion of privacy issues."

"Actually," added CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, "the report indicates that procedures have been changed already to further reduce the potential that the wrong people will obtain guns. Unfortunately, no system will ever be one hundred percent fool-proof. Even if we adopted all of the gun controls Frank Lautenberg has ever advocated, we would only disarm honest citizens, not criminals or potential terrorists, and he knows it.

"However, there is more to this story that Sen. Lautenberg won't mention," Waldron added. "The report says an estimated 650 NICS transactions generated initial hits on terrorist watch lists during the GAO study period. Yet, the vast majority of those hits did not result in valid matches. The bottom line is that the NICS system works and Sen. Lautenberg is trying to say it doesn't so he can demand that we keep records on people who may have broken no laws. Should we deny them the exercise of a civil right? If we do, what's next? Do we take away their other rights? Will we hold them in confinement without trial? How far do we go? Where does it stop?"

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.


Smoke and Mirrors From the FBI

Gun Owners,

Unfortunately, CCRKBA – like so many others – has taken the bait.

Rather than expressing their outrage at the FBI, they have focused on Lautenberg and are now pleading that the Instant background checks for firearms purchases should be left alone, begging the congress to leave NICS as it is.

Why is there no one pointing out that congress only approved the NICS system on the condition that all records were destroyed immediately and that NO Database of US gun owners be kept. The FBI has blatantly IGNORED this contingency and has even provided those records to City taskforces (Chicago) for the express purpose of confiscating these guns that were legally purchased. In fact, FBI even participated in those confiscations.

How dare CCRKBA send out a news release stating, “The bottom line is that the NICS system works and Sen. Lautenberg is trying to say it doesn't so he can demand that we keep records on people who may have broken no laws.”

Wake up! The system doesn’t work! It does NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It does NOT prevent crime.

It DOES what it was originally proposed to DO. Prevent citizens from buying guns, allow local records to be kept on law-abiding gun owners, create a national database of gun owners, and provides a shopping list of guns and locations for confiscation task forces. It is just another incremental step towards gun confiscation in the US. And as far as the FBI wanting to use the NICS system to prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns… think again. The FBI put out a flyer a few years ago to help their field offices identify suspected terrorists. I URGE you to read the FBI flyer.

Essentially, Christians, defenders of the Constitution, and anyone who questions the authority of the police are on their terrorist watch list. Therefore, anyone who is opposed to their plan IS by THEIR definition a suspected terrorist.

This should be offensive to all gun owners, all citizens who believe that the constitution is the supreme law of the law, and especially to RKBA groups.

Rather than play defense, why not attack the FBI and Lautenberg for violating their oath to uphold the constitution? Why not demand that the NICS system be stopped immediately until we can prove that they have ignored congresses order to NOT maintain a database of gun owners? Why not demand that congress immediately investigate the FBI and order them to destroy the records that they were ordered not to have in the first place? Why? Because it is too late; The database already exists, it has be given to states and is being used exactly as it was intended to be used – to take guns away from law abiding citizens. If I were on the board of CCRKBA, I would send out an immediate retraction of this release. If I were a member of a group professing to be working to protect members gun rights, I would be outraged at that group for stating that “NICS is working”. Hopefully, my message has outraged you enough to read the FBI flyer yourself, and to contact your gun rights organizations and let them know that you are not interested in any more compromises. You want the NICS system to END, not to be given MORE power to trample our rights.

Fran Tully

Monday, March 14, 2005

Review: The Black Arrow by Vin Suprynowicz

by Fran Tully

The Black Arrow is a futuristic tale of hope and resistance. Set in the year 2030, it opens in the streets of Gotham . The reader is introduced to a world where homeland security has blossomed and bestowed upon us its wonderful "protection" against terrorism--not only in our airports, but right off busy sidewalks at impromptu "portals." Passers by are treated to an inspection for weapons, illegal software, drugs, and proper ID. Of course, if they don't find any problems, inspectors often treat themselves to a good grope or other sexual rewards from the defenseless citizens in this new "police state." Ah, but on the rooftops and in the shadows lurks the Black Arrow--a hero along the lines of Batman or Superman. While the book may open with an almost comic book feel, we soon learn that it is a serious, believable novel that stirs our souls much like the film “Spartacus” does.

With The Black Arrow, Vin has given us a real treasure. For example, when was the last time that “Passionate”. . . "Sexy". . . "Stylish" . . . "Thought-provoking" . . . "Funny". . . "Exhilarating!". . . "Action-packed!" . . . and "Tear-jerker" were all used to describe the same book--let alone a book about FREEDOM???

The characters are so real, likable, and unique that you believe that you know them. The Black Arrow starts out with a righteous assassination by an archer. The ancient method of attack is chosen to effectively render the vast “SonicNet gunfire detection grid” about as useful as the ancient Maginot Line.

Later, we find that the resistance is equally proficient with blades, martial arts, or firearms. I found it extremely refreshing to read a novel with technically accurate gun battles. Without going overboard or getting too technical, the author provides the reader with a real sense of what it feels like, sounds like, and looks like to engage an armed enemy while equipped with bows and guns. After some of the shooting scenes, you'll actually find yourself with ringing ears yawning, trying to get your ears to pop, as though a low-flying jet had just broken Mach 1 overhead.

The masterful word pictures put you on the front line. You feel the cold rain, are aroused by the sex, and smell the dark, dank, vast Gotham underground. This is a thriller with soul. You will go from laughing out loud, to shaking with sheer hatred, and then down to a lump in your throat--from the tear-jerking romance.

If you're part of the "gun culture," you'll feel absolutely privileged to be surrounded by serious, well trained freedom fighters who not only practice good muzzle control, but also let you in on their thoughts before and AFTER they pull the trigger. You find yourself understanding their justification for their conflict and their willingness to “hold the line”--despite their terrible odds of survival.

Some of the scenes are so heinous that you question the need to be so graphic; after all, no government could be THAT cruel. And then you recall that you've seen these stories before . . . you remember that these are real events. Vin has craftily taken the most horrific injustices to our liberties and magically made them appear as current news items in 2030. The Black Arrow is a must-read for romantics, libertarians, resistance fighters, and anyone who is passionate about life. It also provides the ultimate solution for the elimination of "boot-on-your-neck" politics.

The dialogue is witty and sharp. The history lessons and quotes from the Founding Fathers are timeless and pertinent.

Vin has given us a stunning first novel that is sure to be a timeless classic among such greats as Atlas Shrugged, The Count of Monte Cristo, Animal Farm, 1984, and Unintended Consequences. Get the limited edition, leather-bound printing while it lasts and pass it on to your grandchildren. It is guaranteed to stir even the faintest glowing cinder of patriotism into a raging fire of resistance. I can't wait to see what Vin will come up with next--and I hope it is soon.

About the author: Vin Suprynowicz , a collector of surplus military firearms, spent his youth in New England and worked his way through school as a disc jockey, short-order cook, motel night clerk, and member of the relentlessly unsuccessful rock & roll band "The Four Shadowings of Doom." Vin has had an extensive, award-winning career in journalism and is currently a columnist and editorial writer at Nevada 's largest newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal. He is also the author of two non-fiction books, Send in the Waco Killers and The Ballad of Carl Drega. Both of his non-fiction works were awarded Freedom Book of the Year by, and The Black Arrow is certain to win it this year.

The targets of Vin's books and columns include taxation, gun control, and the War to Spread Pain (more generally dubbed the "War On Some Drugs.")

But Homeland Security and our new national pastime, the airport grope-and-grab, also do not escape his literary scalpel.

You can buy "The Black Arrow" from the Liberty Book Shop online.

Is "THE INCREDIBLES" based on Ayn Rand philosophy?

Superhero Me!by David Kelley

Countless articles and books have exposed the injustice of egalitarian policies, from affirmative action to "comparable worth" pay. Economists have documented their destructive effects. Newspapers bring daily reports of egalitarian lunacy: a school that won't post honor rolls, lest it be sued by parents of C students; SAT tests "re-normed" to boost the scores of minorities; a teacher hauled up before a college court for using the word "niggardly," taken as a slur by semantically challenged students. None of this seems to have done much to stem the egalitarian tide. Who would have thought that an animated film would finally touch a nerve, putting egalitarians on the defensive? That is the achievement of Pixar Studios' new hit, The Incredibles, the story of a family of superheroes who struggle against the reign of mediocrity and finally break free to excel. Along the way it skewers the dumbing down of schools, the mantra that everyone is special, and the laws that give losers special status as victims. Banishing Heroes The movie begins with a droll conceit: Superheroes with miraculous powers have been put out of action by the very people they saved from fires, felons, and other fiascoes. With the help, naturally, of trial lawyers, these "victims" brought a rash of lawsuits against their saviors for incidental injuries and "wrongful rescue." The former heroes are now living in suburban obscurity under the government's Superhero Protection Program, forbidden to exercise their powers in public. Bob Parr, formerly Mr. Incredible, works as a claims adjustor in an insurance company, commuting in a beat-up sedan barely large enough to hold his still-immense bulk. His wife, Helen (Elastigirl), stays home raising the kids, who also have superhuman powers. The family chafes at their enforced normality. Dash, the grade-school son who runs like a rabbit on speed, is angry that he can't join the track team lest he reveal his special power. "Dad says our powers make us special," he complains to his mother. "Everyone's special, Dash," she says - and he mutters, "Which is another way of saying that nobody is." Bob sneaks off at night to fight crime with an old superhero buddy. When Helen tells him he's missing a meaningless ceremony at Dash's school, he grumbles: "They keep finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity." It's only a matter of time before Bob accepts a secret superhero mission, one that eventually draws the entire family into a battle with a surprising villain, named Syndrome. Syndrome was a young wannabe in the days when superheroes flourished but, lacking any special powers of his own, wasn't admitted to the club. Now, filled with resentful envy, he has been eliminating the retired superheroes one by one. Like a James Bond villain, operating from a high-tech desert island lair, he has invented technology that neutralizes the superheroes' advantage. He has also invented an indestructible weapon he can use to get even with the world, demanding money, power, and respect. When Bob is lured to the island and trapped, Helen and the children come to the rescue, and the whole family saves the day in a wonderfully orchestrated blur of animated prowess. Pixar's computer-generated animation is stunning throughout. The Parr's struggle with family life gives the characters depth; the dialogue is witty, the action inventive. No wonder the movie is a runaway hit, with revenues of nearly $178 million by its third weekend out. But the most interesting thing about it is the controversy it has stirred. In this respect, the film's distinction is not that it features exceptional characters doing heroic things. Such films are a dime a dozen, from comic-book classics like Superman to the latest thriller. What's distinctive is that the film explicitly defends the value of talent and achievement against the leveling values of egalitarianism. In doing so it has unleashed a storm of commentary, pro and con, by reviewers, commentators, and bloggers. A Rand Connection? New York Times reviewer A.O. Scott said the film suggests an "immersion in both the history of American comic books and the philosophy of Ayn Rand." In the Nation, Stuart Klawans sneered: "The superheroes are in hiding because greedy trial lawyers sued them into retirement; and, while concealed, they chafe at their confinement, like Ayn Rand railing against enforced mediocrity." Scott and Klawans were among the many who cited Rand as a point of reference, and possible inspiration, for the movie's theme. To judge by the discussion of The Incredibles, Rand is known as much for her unapologetic love of excellence as for her ethic of self-interest and her libertarian politics. She was indeed a great admirer of human achievement, and, as a consequence, defended the rights and the honor of the highest achievers. Her goal as a novelist, she said, was "the projection of an ideal man." In the world she created in Atlas Shrugged, the economy comes to a halt when the most productive people go on strike against the altruist moral code and its demand that they serve as keepers of their less able brothers. Rand also understood the envy and power lust that fuel egalitarian doctrines. In an arresting scene in The Fountainhead that has particular relevance to The Incredibles, her power-hungry villain Ellsworth Toohey explains one of the techniques he used to break the spirit of individuals and make them willing to submit to the collective. Kill man's sense of values. Kill his capacity to recognize greatness or to achieve it. Great men can't be ruled. We don't want any great men. Don't deny the conception of greatness. Destroy it from within. The great is the rare, the difficult, the exceptional. Set up standards of achievement open to all, to the least, to the most inept - and you stop the impetus to effort in all men, great or small. You stop all incentive to improvement, to excellence, to perfection. . . . Don't set out to raze all shrines - you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity - and the shrines are razed. The Incredibles elicited predictable howls from the egalitarian Left. One blogger saw the movie as a page out of Nietzsche: "The strong, the movie suggests, should be allowed to thrive outside the false laws and values of the weak, acting according to their own superior, self-generated code." Another complained that the filmmakers were "apparently oblivious to the critiques of the Nietzsche/Rand/Nazi undertones beneath every superhero from Superman on down. There's a huge difference between respecting difference, and instructing the weak to honor the inherent superiority of the great." Peter Conrad, a writer for England's left-wing Guardian, wrote a particularly nasty commentary on the superhero genre. "The superman is a man of power, which means that from the first his mission was political. Superheroes are instinctive bullies and despots," he claims, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or George W. Bush, or America as a world power. In The Incredibles itself, however, there is no sign whatever that the heroes are interested in power. Nor of course did Ayn Rand believe that great ability entitled a person to control others, as she made abundantly clear in distinguishing herself from Nietzsche and defending the rights of all people to live as they choose. Egalitarians insist on reading elitist political motivation into every work that recognizes differences in ability because of their own collectivist blinders. If one assumes from the outset that the group is the primary unit of existence, which controls the lives of individuals and gives them their identity, then indeed there are only two basic choices: an egalitarian society with democratic governance or a hierarchical society with aristocratic governance. But the assumption and the dichotomy are false. A Few Complaints While The Incredibles has a theme to warm the hearts of Objectivists and has made the right people angry, it is not Atlas Shrugged. For one thing, the heroes are not productive geniuses who create value through exceptional ability in art, science, business, or invention. They are traditional heroes who ward off the destruction of value by criminals or natural disasters. The film's only scenes of work are of Bob in his miserable insurance-company cubicle and of his conflicts with his boss—a Scrooge-like caricature of the greedy capitalist who wants to turn down every customer's claim and watches indifferently when a man is mugged on the street outside his window. In fighting crime and rescuing people, traditional heroes embody the classical virtues of the warrior, especially strength and courage, combined with the altruism of the Christian knight, dedicated to protecting the weak. In a review for Box Office Mojo, Objectivist Scott Holleran accused The Incredibles of altruism on this score, because the superheroes are engaged in "saving lives as a moral duty for 'the greater good.'" It's true that the Parrs risk their lives to help others, battling a villain portrayed as a selfish monster. Nevertheless, it seemed to me that their deeper motivation was the joy of exercising their powers - just as someone might choose to practice medicine, a profession whose goal is to heal the sick, because he loves the challenge of the work. Bob embarks on his heroic exploits not because others need him but because he needs to break out of a life he finds stifling. It was, after all, an ungrateful public that consigned him to that life in the first place. Indeed, many liberal commentators complained that the film's superheroes are too selfish in pursuing self-realization rather than service. A hostile article in the York Observer, for example, quoted liberal author Richard Goldstein: "And what is The Incredibles? It's really a movie about people sort of bursting out of this model of decency and concern for others, and all of those values that now get labeled politically correct, and bursting forth with their true strength and power, like an animated Hobbes." The one unambiguous flaw in the movie's conception of heroism lies in its portrayal of the villain. Syndrome has invented technological marvels, like boots that enable him to fly, a fortress run by computers, and a ray gun that traps its target in an anti-gravitational force field. Though he puts these tools to evil uses, they are obviously the product of exceptional mental ability that makes the superheroes' athletic gifts seem crude by comparison. By invoking the stock figure of the evil genius, the filmmakers have signed on to the conventional view that intelligence is at best amoral. Had they simply omitted any character of heroic mental powers, they would have conveyed a merely limited conception of heroism; by introducing such a character and making him the villain, they have offered a distorted conception. In an extraordinary moment near the end, Syndrome says his goal in inventing the technology was to destroy the superheroes by enabling everyone to do what they do. "Everybody will be super, which means no one will be." In that one line, writer Brad Bird managed to equate murder and invention as acts of envy-driven hatred, and to elevate native physical abilities over the exercise of man's distinctive ability to think, create, and magnify his powers through technology. The latter is an especially bizarre statement for the wizards at Pixar to make. But it's only one line. Write it off as temporary insanity and enjoy the rest of the film.

Friday, March 11, 2005

Idiots on the Airwaves

I wish there were a nicer way to put it, but I think Idiot is the most exact.
I love to listen to talk radio. I listen for different reasons. First, for entertainment, and second, in hopes of hearing someone discussing something educational or of great interest to me. Naturally, I enjoy political discussions and am grateful that we still have some small trace of our first amendment rights, so we can hear opinions from all points of the political spectrum.
lately, it has gotten very difficult to find a station with anyone willing to speak out against the current administration or to even hint at how our basic rights are being trampled. Some of the biggest puppets (or members of the Bush kiss-ass club) out there that I have heard are Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Ingram. Some of the more amusing and more educated include Savage, Drudge, and Boortz, with Boortz being my favorite syndicated host. One of the most annoying hosts to me however, is Michael Medved. I have a difficult time even listening to him, but every now and then, I tune in when no other talk shows are available.

Of course, the hosts aren't the only idiots on the airways. Some of the callers are as bad or worse. I often wonder if some of the chronic callers have any idea how bad their calls sound to the average listener. In Utah where I live, we have some callers whose thinking is so mixed up that you almost feel sorry for them. For those of you who are regular callers or who are considering calling in or appearing as a guest on a talk show, I'd like to provide the following suggestions.

1. KNOW the subject that you are discussing. This may sound obvious, but I am always surprised at the number of people who call in and have no facts about what they are discussing.
2. Know what you are calling to say. Write down your key points before you call the station.
3. Speak clearly and directly. Don't ramble. Keep a smile on your face. Try to use humor, but do so subtly...don't force it.
4. Unless you have permission or authority to represent a group, or organization, clarify that you are only giving YOUR opinion and this is NOT the official position of the group your host may have linked you to in your introduction.
5. Allow the host to complete their questions without interrupting them. Then, pause before answering to consider if they have set a trap to make you look like a fool. If they have, simply state that you are not sure that the question is relevant or if you can answer such a question. If the host continues to try to make you look like an idiot, let him know that you are not interested in continuing the call and excuse yourself. A good host can make you look like an idiot if that is his goal, so be careful who you accept invitations from.

Below is a link from a fellow who was bragging about how well he did on his recent interview on The Michael Medved Show. I listened to the show in utter disbelief. I could not comprehend how he could actually believe that the interview had gone well. Following are several of our email exchanges.
"The libertarian lawyer Rex Curry trounced Michael Medved on nationwide radio
Tuesday. Here is some audio "

I commend you and any Libertarian who can stomach Medved enough to speak to him for an hour.
However, after listening to the entire torturous hour, I fail to see where you "trounced" him. It appeared to me that he had you on the program for the sole purpose of furthering his argument that Libertarians are kooks. What's more is that Medved and his callers seemed to be mocking you and went away with the understanding that your "pledge of allegiance" cause is the cause of all Libertarians. They didn't sound to me as thought they thought that you were "trouncing" Medved either. You seemed to willingly step into every trap he set for you. Your appearance seemed to me to be nothing more that an opportunity for you to get as many free plugs for your website as possible in 60 minutes. It seemed to me that you did not do well at answering callers questions and in my opinion, it didn't sound to me like you changed a single listeners mind about the "pledge".

Sorry, but I fail see how you can consider that interview as a success. How could you actually believe that Medved's closing statement was indicative a successful interview? Thanks to you, a million conservative listeners heard one of their favorite talk show hosts end his nationally syndicated radio program with the words: "Rex Kerry I appreciate your coming on the show; You have performed a great public service in helping to illustrate to people just how marginal, pathetic, and truly disgraceful the Libertarian Party has become."

Rex, next time you want to promote the philosophy of the Libertarian Party, you might want to reconsider. As state chair of the LP Utah, I can honestly say that I would have preferred that you didn't mention your political affiliation.

Anyone Libertarian who is invited on Medved's program can rest assured that if Medved thinks that there is any possible chance that he can NOT make you look like a kook, a wacko, or a lunatic, that there is NO chance of you getting on his program.


Thanks for your comments Fran, I would be happy to meet with you and Utah
libertarians in person in late March in Utah in Park City. More comments
are below.

>Here is audio of me trouncing Michael Medved for an hour on nationwide
radio (Tuesday)-

>I commend you and any Libertarian who can stomach Medved enough to
>speak to him for an hour.

You got that part right. thanks.

>However, after listening to the entire torturous hour, I fail to see
>where you "trounced" him.

Have you ever done talk radio? I trounced him. Oh, and I LOVED IT. It was
cathartic, too. He said what I expected him to say pretty much, and I said
what I had intended to say in response. In that sense, there weren't a lot
of surprises.

Of course, you could call his show 1-800-955-1776 and "correct all my
errors" and show us how libertarianism is properly explicated. Try to
actually mention that you want to end government schools, as I did
repeatedly, as that is the actual position of libertarianism and it is the
real issue when discussing the pledge. Heck, if you say what you said here,
he might have you on for a whole show. Try not to leave him and his
listeners with the impression that libertarians are the same as he and his
listeners and support government schools, want to perpetuate the social
security scam and expand it to nationalize the entire economy and they
support a government that is twice as socialistic as was Clinton's (in
social spending alone). Otherwise Libertarians might attract so many
republican-socialists and democrat-socialists that we could actually elect a
president who would outspend Clinton by double while we pretend that we hate

>It appeared to me that he had you on the program for the
>sole purpose of furthering his argument that Libertarians are kooks.

No sh$t? (that's facetious) remember your comment if you ever do a similar

>What's more is that Medved and his callers seemed to be mocking you

Yes, that is why I mocked back.

> and went away
>with the understanding that your "pledge of allegiance" cause is the
>cause of all Libertarians.

It certainly should be, and of course the bigger point that he (and you?)
disagree with or miss: ending government schools (is that not a cause of all
libertarians, but the pledge is?). And remember that I made it perfectly
clear that the actual position and solution was ending government
involvement in education. You haven't mentioned that trouncing part.

> They didn't sound to me as thought they thought that
>you were "trouncing" Medved either.

No kidding? And is that because they like the pledge, like government
schools, want to perpetuate the social security scam and expand it to
nationalize the entire economy and they support a government that is twice
as socialistic as was Clinton (in social spending alone)?
Oh, they did think I was trouncing Medved and that is why they called in to
be cheerleaders for socialism.

>You seemed to willingly step into every trap he set for you. Your
>appearance seemed to me to be nothing more that an opportunity for you
>to get as many free plugs for your website as possible in 60 minutes.

BINGO. As a libertarian, when you talk to any twit like Medved, you are not
doing a good job if he doesn't tell you to stop mentioning your website.
Now you are starting to understand one of the things you do with
republican-socialists and democrat-socialists in the process of trouncing
them. You apparently do not understand that.

>It seemed to me that you did not do well at answering callers questions
>and in my opinion, it didn't sound to me like you changed a single
>listeners mind about the "pledge".

Again, you sort of give yourself away by showing that you miss the point
yourself: ending government schools. It is clear that you would NEVER have
even mentioned the ultimate proper, ethical (libertarian) position if you
had done the show.

>Sorry, but I fail see how you can consider that interview as a success.

I am very sorry that I can not consider your comments a success for liberty.
You haven't mentioned the actual libertarian position yet.

> How could you actually believe that Medved's closing statement was
> indicative a
>successful interview? Thanks to you, a million conservative listeners heard
>one of their favorite talk show hosts end his nationally syndicated radio
>program with the words: "Rex Kerry I appreciate your coming on the show;
>have performed a great public service in helping to illustrate to people
>just how marginal, pathetic, and truly disgraceful the Libertarian Party

You completely miss the point. Medved doesn't like libertarians. See the
Libertarian Medved Response Team

Because of his past his callers are not libertarians and they share his
hatred of libertarianism. I do not control what he says at the end. He has
"off" buttons. What in the world do you think he should have said for you
at the end of the interview and how much more would you have SOLD OUT
liberty in order for you to have acheived what you would consider pleasant
comments from Medved at the close? You have already shown that you would
never have even mentioned the REAL ethical proper (libertarian) point of the
whole issue. How much worse would you have been? would you have left his
listeners believing that libertarians are actually socialists just like he
and his listeners are who like government schools, want to perpetuate the
social security scam and expand it to nationalize the entire economy and
they support a government that is twice as socialistic as was Clinton (in
social spending alone)?

>Rex, next time you want to promote the philosophy of the Libertarian
>Party, you might want to reconsider. As state chair of the LP Utah, I
>can honestly say that I would have preferred that you didn't mention
>your political affiliation.

Fran, next time you want to promote the philosophy of the Libertarian Party, you might want to reconsider. As state chair of the LP Utah, you never even
mentioned the proper ethical (libertarian) position on the topic. I can
honestly say that I would prefer that you didn't mention your political

>Anyone Libertarian who is invited on Medved's program can rest assured
>that if Medved thinks that there is any possible chance that he can NOT
>make you look like a kook, a wacko, or a lunatic, that there is NO
>chance of you getting on his program.

And you demonstrate that you will apparently never be on his show and that
if you ever are on it will be because you will never mention the actual
libertarian position on anything, and that you will compromise and bend over
so much that he will love you and his listeners will believe that
are actually socialists just like he and his listeners are, and that
libertarians support government schools, love pledging allegiance in
government schools, and want to perpetuate the social security scam and
expand it to nationalize the entire economy and they support a government
that is twice as socialistic as was Clinton (in social spending alone)? And
eventually the party would attract so many republican-socialists and
democrat-socialists that we could actually elect a president who would
outspend Clinton by double while we pretend that we were libertarians who
hate government.

And every "conservative" who listened did not think the way you do. I was
talking to THEM. I hear from people like that all the time. That is why I
have a website. And the "interview" as it were, is not over yet either. It
was a vehicle for further action.

Including my offer to meet with you and Utah libertarians in person in late
March. I can talk about the pledge or whatever you wish.


>Rex droned:
>Have you ever done talk radio? I trounced him.

Yes, I have done talk radio. I was a producer and a I was a co-host for 8 months. You didn't trounce him. If you still believe you did after my comments, you are either dillusional or completely incapable of an honest self-evaluation. But the next time you get air time, please don't present yourself as representative of the Libertarian Party.

> Oh, and I LOVED IT. It was cathartic, too. He said what I expected
> him to
say pretty much, and I said what I had intended to say in response. In
that sense, there weren't a lot of surprises.

Then you are even worse off than I imagined.

>Of course, you could call his show 1-800-955-1776 and "correct all my
errors" and show us how libertarianism is properly explicated.

I have no intention of debating you. If you want to find out if I can
effectively present Libertarian ideas, do a google search for "fran tully".

>remember your comment if you ever do a similar interview.

I am on the radio several times a week. Believe me, there are very few
similarities to your interview. The calls that follow my interviews all
embrace my ideas.

>>with the understanding that your "pledge of allegiance" cause is the cause
>>of all Libertarians.

>It certainly should be,

I suggest that you take that up with the LNP Before you go on national radio
and create more problems for the LP. The appropriate thing for you to have
done would to state, "this is MY cause and NOT the OFFICIAL position of the
LP. I am NOT AUTHORIZED to speak on their behalf."

>... and of course the bigger point that he (and you?)
disagree with or miss: ending government schools (is that not a cause of all

libertarians, but the pledge is?). And remember that I made it perfectly
clear that the actual position and solution was ending government
involvement in education.

Yes, I share that goal, but you were very ineffective in presenting the

>> They didn't sound to me as thought they thought that
>>you were "trouncing" Medved either.

>No kidding? And is that because they like the pledge, like government
schools, want to perpetuate the social security scam and expand it to
nationalize the entire economy and they support a government that is twice
as socialistic as was Clinton (in social spending alone)?

No... it was because you were not convincing.

>Oh, they did think I was trouncing Medved and that is why they called in to

be cheerleaders for socialism.

I think you need to be more objective. Why not set up a poll for all those
who you sent the link to. Many of us share many of your beliefs. In the
poll, ask on a scale of 1 - 10 how many folks believed you "trounced him". I
would ask for a recount if you got a higher average than 3.

>> How could you actually believe that Medved's closing statement was
>> indicative a successful interview? Thanks to you, a million conservative
listeners heard >one of their favorite talk show hosts end his nationally
syndicated radio >program with the words: "Rex Kerry I appreciate your
coming on the show; >You have performed a great public service in helping
to illustrate to people just how marginal, pathetic, and truly disgraceful
the Libertarian Party has become."

>You completely miss the point. Medved doesn't like libertarians. See the
Libertarian Medved Response Team

No Rex, YOU missed the point. He has you on to make you and the LP look
foolish. With your help, he was very effective.

>And you demonstrate that you will apparently never be on his show and that
if you ever are on it will be because you will never mention the actual
libertarian position on anything...

I would not put myself in a position of doing more harm than good to the LP.
As I suggested earlier, "google me" and determine for yourself if I am an
effective presenter of the LP philosophy.

>Including my offer to meet with you and Utah libertarians in person in late

March. I can talk about the pledge and the pics at or whatever you wish.

Thanks, but no thanks. Most of us in Utah are well aware of the roots behind
the pledge and many of us do not participate. Besides, I'm pretty sure I
will be "washing my hair" or something when you are in Utah.
I rarely "filter out" fellow libertarians, Rex, but if I don't respond to
your future posts, it is only because I see no point in trying to convince
you too use logic and reason. Therefore, there is very little point in our
continuing to discuss this with each other.


Then here was an exchange with another who commented on our thread:

kira sent:
>I am here in Killinois wondering why you two kiddies cannot play nice!
Fran--for many of us, the LP does not represent libertarianism, so I
think it is rather arrogant of you to tell Rex (and no, I did not hear
the show) that HE is not speaking for the LP....who decides?

The LP decides. Medved announced him as a "capital L, libertarian". As such, Rex knows that he is not permitted to speak on behalf of the party. However, we are all entitled to our opinions. All I pointed out was that in the future, Rex should remember to point out that it is HIS opinion and not the OFFICIAL position of the party.

>If he is a card-carrying LP-er, then why should he not speak for the LP
>as much as the next guy?

No. If he wants to state the LP's official position, he can. If he wants to present his position or opinion as that of the LP, he can't.

> And if you strenuously disagree, call in when he is on air
and say your piece.

I didn't hear the show live, Rex sent us a link to a pre-recorded file.

>This bickering is childish and unproductive versus talk about morals and ethics and the general futility of POLITICKING versus exactly what Rex did--getting air time--bad press is better than no press.

In some cases, you may be right. However, in the case of representing the largest 3rd party in the US, who is plagued with the reputation of having a bunch of nit wits, odd balls, and wackos, bad publicity is FAR worse than no publicity. The LP has been trying very hard to UNDUE all the bad publicity that has damaged and marginalized the party for so long. When clowns like Rex fly off on their own tangent, it is detrimental to the party as a whole.

>Once upon a time when I believed in
politics for a few days, I supported Russ Means for LP Presidential
candidate--why--because he would have the 3-ring media circus in full
tilt as a native american...who cared if he misrepresented some fine
point of the platform? with all that press and all those folks clamoring
to know more, someone could have gotten a chance to clear things up and
a zillion new people would have had the word libertarian on their

As the LP Presidential candidate, all libertarians should care if he "misrepresented" the party platform. But the difference is that if he was an LP Presidential candidate, he is permitted to discuss our platform with the media. Rex isn't permitted to invent platforms and present them as LP positions.

>Fran--chill out!

I am chilled out. But just as Rex is entitled to his opinion -"I trounced him" - I am entitled to mine - "he sucked and was damaging to the LP."

>And yes, I am thoroughly cured of politics--registered to vote only
once, worked an LP election only once--both experiences taught me that
politics and libertarianism are contradictions.

I too have had my fill of politics. However, I will make the distinction that while " politics and libertarianism are contradictions" politics and the Libertarian Party are married. I would have avoided the reference to the LP if Rex had not made an issue of it on his interview. Perhaps if you had followed the original link Rex had provided to the recorded interview, you would have more appreciation of the discussion.

>(forgive this it-and-run note--I am heading out of town for the next few
days--if reply is needed, be back in a week or so)

No need to reply. I am sick of this thread and am quite sure everyone else is too.