Chronicling the depravities of the State.
Of the candidates running in this election the one who wants to give every American a free pony, harness the power of zombies to generate green energy, and enforce mandatory tooth brushing laws is the one that makes the most sense. Forget the phones, vote for ponies!
There are many reasons I like Ron Paul including the fact that he’s the only candidate who opposes war, doesn’t want to use the state’s gun to enforce behavior, and recognizes the right of self-ownership. He’s also the only candidate who doesn’t cover in fear at the name Lysander Spooner and is willing to admit that the Constitution isn’t perfect but merely an effective tool available at the moment to reclaim liberty:
We’re in the midsts of what some are calling the most important election in the history of the United States and so far the main issues being brought up are Romney strapping his dog to the top of his car during a trip vs. Obama eating dog meat as a child and Romney’s 13.9% tax rate vs. Obama’s 20.5% tax rate. This country is fucked.
No, seriously, consider getting out while you still can. This country is starting to look more and more like Idiocracy every day. What are the next big issues that people will be concerning themselves with? How about who has better fashion sense? Perhaps we can investigate eat candidate’s choice in toilet paper. One thing is for certain, people don’t seem to give a damn about the debt, civil liberties, the government arming Mexican drug cartels, or anything else that actually matters.
While a majority of other states in the Union have rolled over and recommended fascists as their presidential candidates of choice Minnesota has been fighting the good fight. Instead of surrendering to the media’s propaganda that Romney is the chosen one we’ve given that dictator wannabe some headaches:
Mitt Romney may be the supposed frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination – but he’s not the most popular GOP candidate in Minnesota. Texas Congressman Ron Paul swept the 3rd, 5th and 6th Congressional District conventions over the weekend. Paul landed nine of nine state delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida. Paul also won one delegate in Minnesota’s 7th District March 31st while Rick Santorum picked up two. The four remaining districts will chose their delegates and alternates this weekend. Paul’s campaign is banking on Santorum backers throwing their support behind him. Romney finished third in Minnesota’s February caucuses which were non-binding.
This is one of the few times I can say I’m actually proud of my state. While every other state has been elevating Romney or Santorum as their recommended ruler for the next four years Minnesota is working hard to elevate the one candidate who doesn’t want to run our lives. At this rate when we have a choice between Obama and Obama Romney I can proudly say my state wasn’t responsible for the mess.
I love those rare occasions where politicians are actually honest. Usually they try to keep the appearance of the people holding power but once in a great while a politician comes out and simply says, “Shut up slave, you do what we tell you to!” “Representative” Mike Rogers just had one of these moments:
It appears that Congress still doesn’t get it. Rep. Mike Rogers, the sponsor of the bad CISPA bill that puts your privacy at risk, really doesn’t seem particularly concerned about the protests that have been happening online this week. He referred to them as being “like turbulence on the way down to landing” for the bill. He also said that he fully expects the bill to easily pass next week when its brought to the floor.
For those of you unaware, Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA is basically the return of SOPA/PROTECT-IP. Politicians are crafty individuals with a great deal of patients. If a bill one of their constituents (who are the major donors to their campaign funds, not you or me) wants passed is meeting with resistance they pull it back, rename it, and introduce it against later hoping nobody will notice. Politicians know they can get any bill passed so long as it’s named property, introduced at the right time, and the opponents to the bill are demonized thoroughly.
It’s nice to see Rogers stated that these protests are nothing more than turbulence during landing, which indicates this bill is mostly a done deal and it will happen.
Ron Paul supporters in several Minnesota congressional districts have had great luck usurping power from the establishment. This brings joy to my heart because it acts as a thorn in the side of the neocons; neocons like my new favoritest candidate ever, Lynne Torgerson:
On Saturday, April 14, 2012, I attended the Republican 5th Congressional District Endorsing Convention.
There was a stage at the front of the room. Approximately 6 people were seated on the stage. Every person seated was a Ron Paul Libertarian. The Convention was overrun by Ron Paul Libertarians. More than 2/3 of the delegates were Ron Paul Libertarians. When I mentioned that we were at a Republican Convention, they laughed out loud.
Torgerson hates libertarians because we oppose everything she stands for such as killing people overseas, the abolition of state controlled marriage, and religious freedom. I’m sure if Torgerson were allowed to have her way all the non-Christians in the United States would be rounded up into concentration camps and gases. Thankfully she can’t have her way because the American people still aren’t ready to get behind ideas as bat shit crazy as what this woman is advocating.
I love the fact that delegates outright laughed at her when she said they were at a Republican convention. Guess what? It’s not a Republican convention is the Republican Party doesn’t hold the power. So what outrageous acts did the “Ron Paul Libertarians” pull with their newly found powers? Did they make everybody swear a blood oath to Odin? Did they demand everybody dance around like monkeys? As far as Torgerson is likely concerned they did far worse:
They began the Convention. There was no opening prayer. Not even a mention of it.
No opening prayer? You mean a non-religious convention didn’t try to inject religion into itself? That’s crazy! What’s next? A convention that doesn’t begin with a reading from a physic book? After all physics has an equal place to religion in a political convention.
It gets better:
There was also no Pledge of Allegiance to the US flag.
Good. Let me state something that is likely to piss a few people off: I will never cite the Pledge of Allegiance, I hate the Pledge of Allegiance. When I say this I’m usually met with numerous comments about how treasonous my distain of the Pledge is. You want treasonous? How about mindlessly reciting a pledge written by a socialist to build nationalism:
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850–1898). The original “Pledge of Allegiance” was published in the September 8 issue of the popular children’s magazine The Youth’s Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism by selling flags to public schools and magazines to students.
The Pledge of Allegiance was a marketing ploy to instill nationalism. Since nationalism is one of the planks of fascism I’m not too fond of practicing it. Furthermore I’m none too inclined to recite a piece of propaganda written by a socialist. Hey Lynne Torgerson, how does if feel to be outraged by people not wanting to recite socialist propaganda? Does is hurt? I hope it hurts, I hope it hurts like fucking Hell.
Eventually the Pledge was recited, but with a little twist:
Then, a man up front stood up and requested that we recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But alas, upon looking around, there was not a flag to be seen.
Then, a clown came forward, dressed in garb, with a very large hat, that somewhat resembled a flag. In Wikipedia, wearing a flag is a form of flag desecration. Wikipedia states the following:
It is increasingly common to see clothing with the image of the flags forming a substantial part of the piece. Views vary as to whether some of this is an act of disrespect.
Such actions may be undertaken for a variety of reasons:
– As a protest against a country’s foreign policy.
– To distance oneself from the foreign or domestic policies of one’s home country.
– As a protest at the very laws prohibiting the actions in question.
– As a protest against nationalism.
– As a protest against the government in power in the country, or against the country’s form of government.
– A symbolic insult to the people of that country.So it appears that this person was wearing the US flag in order to desecrate our flag.
Wearing an image of the flag is desecration? Really? Then a huge number of Americans are walking around desecrating the flag right now. In fact people I often shoot with, people who are ultra nationalistic, are desecrating the flag every time I see them. Either that or these people are trying to display their patriotism, and we all know how much Torgerson loves patriotism.
The clown in the flag suit then went up front and stood on the stage. We were then led in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Stunning. To me this seemed a further desecration of the US flag and the Pledge of Allegiance. I refused to participate.
So much hilarity. Politics to me, and to many libertarians, is nothing more than a form of sick amusement. We use it to entertain ourselves and thus little stunts like this are always likely when libertarians are able to sieze control of political events. Honestly, I want to give a round of applause to the people who made this possible, if it pissed Torgerson off this badly it was worth every drop of sweat it took to accomplish it. Torgerson also got pissy because the delegates pressent at the convention didn’t want to waste their time listening to her crazy shit:
There were going to be 3 candidates allowed to speak. I was told a couple of days before the Convention by Adam Weigold, Chair, that I would be allowed an unlimited amount of time to speak. The first candidate allowed to speak, Chris Fields, a Libertarian, was allowed an unlimited amount of time. I was then asked by Chris Sinn, a Libertarian, how long my speech would take. I had prepared a 30 minute speech. I told Chris the length of time I expected my speech to take. They knew that I was going to criticize the Libertarian platform, and expose that Chris Fields is actually a Libertarian, and expose his positions, etc. Chris Fields has been trying to pass himself off as a moderate Republican, and has avoided taking any positions in public or on his website. Juliette Jordahl, a Libertarian, then quickly brought a motion to limit my speech to 10 minutes. It passed. I am currently reading a book, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. One of the first things the Nazis did was to outlaw speech criticizing the Nazis.
Let me state for the record that Chris Sinn isn’t a real person. I know several people who attended that convention and nobody by the name of Chris Sinn was present. Making up a person is a common mistake made by those who hear voices in their heads.
For those of you who haven’t attended political conventions it should be noted that the majority really does rule. If a delegate makes a motion, receives a second, and get a majority to vote in favor of that motion it’s done. In this case the “Ron Paul Libertarians” conspired against Torgerson to cut her crazy talk time down to 10 minutes, a conspiracy that will probably add to her paranoid tendencies. Heck the “Ron Paul Libertarians” were probably conspiring with the gay libertarian islamist extremist terrorists! They’re probably all out to get her!
I wonder how her 10 minutes of public crazy time went:
During my presentation, as mentioned above, they laughed out loud when I mentioned that we were at a Republican Convention. The mention that the Constitution did not protect homosexual behavior brought jeers. I also mentioned that Chris Fields has said that Saddam Hussein got a bad deal, that he applauds Keith Ellison’s representation of Muslims, that he thinks our cherished US Constitution is not perfect, that he supports gay rights legislation, and that he would not protect Life with legislation.
Wait… she actually things our “cherished US Constitution” is perfect? That’s rich, heck that’s downright hilarious! If the Constitution was prefect our country would be the fascist state it currently is.
The United States Constitution isn’t perfect, it’s nowhere near perfect. Sure, it’s a damned side better than the constitutions of many other countries but perfect it isn’t. Speaking of the Constitution let’s see if her claim that it doesn’t protect homosexual behavior holds true.
No, it doesn’t. Funny enough it also doesn’t protect heterosexual behavior. So, according to Torgerson’s “logic”, we could ban heterosexual marriages since the Constitution doesn’t specifically protect such practices. I’m down with that. Let’s ban all forms of marriage in this country for the lulz and to shove Torgerson’s “logic” down her throat. The real money quote is yet to come:
I mentioned that President and General George Washington did not advocate pot smoking and that if he did, we probably would not have won the American Revolutionary War.
George Washington raised large quantities of hemp. So did Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and virtually every other 1700s American farmer.
It is also highly likely at least some of them smoked its potent sibling, now known as marijuana.
Back in George Washington’s time smoking marijuana wasn’t seen as some kind of dirty activity performed only by lowly criminals. So it’s unlikely George Washington would have opposed marijuana, making Torgerson’s statement idiotic… which is par for the course when she’s talking. The crazy isn’t quite done yet:
Jacquelyn America proudly mentioned more than once that she has been working with the Somali community.
I’m not sure what Jacquelyn did, nor if her last name is really America, but I fail to see how working with the Somali community could possibly be seen as a ding against her. Does Torgerson believe the Somali immigrants are somehow diry, evil, or otherwise undesirable? Oh, that’s right, many of them are Muslims and Torgerson believes the Muslims are out to impose Sharia law upon the entire country! No, I’m not making that up.
I really hope this woman continues to campaign because her crazy has given me a great deal of amusement.
Of all the political parties in the United States I didn’t realized this was one of them:
The American Nazi Party has registered its first lobbyist in Washington DC.
John Bowles, 55, told US media he wanted to address political rights and ballot access and he expected congressmen would accept meetings.
Lobbying was something the party would “try out for the first time and see if it flies,” Mr Bowles told ABC News. He registered as a lobbyist this week.
The American Nazi Party has its work cut out for it, at least if it’s hoping to be the premier fascist party in the United States. Right now the top two contenders for most prominent fascist party are the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. The American Nazi Party is really going to have to step up their game to compete with the two elephants in the political room.
A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that I met Gary Johnson as he was traveling through Minnesota. I also promised that I would do a writeup regarding my throughs on the man that weekend, a promise I entirely broke. They say it’s better to be late than never show up so here are my thoughts on Gary Johnson based on that meeting (if you would like to file a complaint about my tardiness with this article feel free to send me money so I actually get paid for this blog, when I’m getting paid my consideration of what others want goes up).
For those who are in the dark Gary Johnson was running for the Republican presidential nominee but was even more shunned than Ron Paul. He’s now running for nominee of the Libertarian Party, which means he won’t become the president but he’ll be running in the least evil party that currently gets any kind of media attention (sometimes they’re mentioned at the 06:00 news block as a group of kooks who want to destroy the American way of life).
How can I describe Johnson? In short I would describe him as a good man. He is a politician but he’s the least offensive politician I’ve met in ages. Unlike most of his counterparts, Johnson appears to have little interest in controlling others and is actually willing to admit when he’s been wrong. Like Ron Paul, I would say Johnson is a politician for self-defense reasons. That is to say he wants to get into office in order to protect himself against the state by vetoing the attempts by other state agents to increase governmental authority.
Why run as a Libertarian Party candidate? The election system in this country is so rigged that it’s practically impossible for anybody not running as a Republican or Democrat to get into office. When asked about this Johnson stated he wants to spread the message of liberty. His argument was basically this; when you only have one man expressing an idea people will say it’s crazy, but when you have multiple people expressing an idea people will be more apt to listen. At the moment Ron Paul is the only candidate expressing an actual liberty message and Johnson wants to be the second candidate doing so. It makes sense and Johnson has no delusions about getting the presidency, but he wants to get federal campaign money for the Libertarian Party in the hopes of spreading the message further. I’m glad he’s grounded in reality, too often politicians become delusional and begin believing the malarkey they speak.
Where does he stand on the issues? No, not the real issues, the issues the average public actually argue about? Let’s start with the social issues. Johnson supports gay marriage, women’s right to choose, and legalizing marijuana. I don’t feel the first two items need any clarification but I do want to expand on the final item; Johnson was very straightforward about his support for legalizing marijuana but vague on legalizing other drugs. When asked whether or not he would support decriminalizing drugs beyond marijuana he mostly ducked the question by stating drug usage needs to be viewed as a health issues instead of a legal issue and we need to start with marijuana because that’s the drug most people support decriminalizing. I was not impressed by that answer, it’s a convenient way to copout of actually giving a straightforward answer.
What about other issues, issues that actually matter? Johnson stated he would support abolishing the Federal Reserve, wanted to bring all the troops home, and opposes all foreign aid.
Let’s talk about the fun issues, issues that are generally discussed solely in libertarian circles. I asked Johnson if, as president, he would individuals currently imprisoned for victimless crimes. One of my pet peeves is the punishment system currently implemented in the United States as it leads to the imprisonment of individuals who haven’t actually committed any crimes. Failing to meet government regulations; selling, possessing, and using drugs; and avoiding paying taxes are crimes that have no victims (the state can’t be a victim since you can’t steal from a thief). Surprisingly Johnson didn’t attempt to duck this question and very clearly stated he would pardon any person currently in prison for victimless crimes. Beyond that he specifically brought up individuals currently in cages because they failed to comply with government regulations. His statement on this alone put him far ahead of any other candidate besides Ron Paul (he has stated he will do the same thing).
Libertarianism, like any philosophy, has many different branches. Some libertarians are simply advocates of smaller government, some are strict constitutionalists, others are minarchists, and there even individuals who oppose the state in its entirety and openly refer to themselves as anarchists. As a voluntaryist I fall into the last category and firmly believe the ultimate goal of libertarianism should be the complete abolition of the state. Needless to say I was taken by surprise when Johnson, without being prompted by any other questions or statements from the audience, dropped the ‘A’ word. What is the ‘A’ word? Anarchism. In politics anarchism is the dirty word, it’s is the word to always avoided using, it is the thirteenth floor of the political tower.
During his speech Johnson thew political caution to the wind and actually stated that the eventual goal of libertarianism is anarchism. I had to do a double take on that and asked him if I heard correctly, did he actually say he is supportive of the idea of entirely eliminating the state. Although he did hem and haw a bit by saying a stateless society was not possible in our lifetime but eventually stated support of the idea. That takes guts when you’re running for office (although not so much when you’re running as a candidate in the Libertarian Party) and I have to hand it to Johnson for brining up the ‘A’ word during a campaign speech (technically it was more of a conversation than a speech).
So Johnson is a libertarian through and through. But this is a gun blog so the obvious question many readers are likely to ask is if Johnson is pro-gun or not. Yes, Johnson is pro-gun. I asked him if, as president, he would be willing to work on abolishing federal regulations regarding firearm ownership and he flat out said he would. Obviously such a feat can just be done by the waving of a magic wand so I asked him if a piece of legislation were put on his desk legalizing the unrestricted ownership of suppressor would he sign it and he said absolutely. Furthermore he also signed one of my friend’s loaded Springfield XD magazines, which I thought was a nice touch (I started a fad).
As the race appears to be nothing more than Obama vs. Other Obama the only real pro-gun candidate on the ballot is likely to be Johnson. If you support gun rights your only option will likely be to vote Johnson. I know most gun owners will vote for Romney after buying into the bullshit that voting for the “lesser” of two evils will somehow protect gun rights but I can’t help people who are unwilling to learn. If you go to vote and want to vote for gun rights check the box next to Gary Johnson.
The last thing I want to mention is the fact Johnson is actually human. What I mean by that is he admits when he feels slighted and when he’s made mistakes. Another attendee of this meeting asked Johnson if he felt slighted during the Republican debate where the moderator asked who, of the onstage candidates, each candidate would select as vice president. Johnson said Paul was his pick whereas Paul refused to answer the question. Most of us who support Paul felt he slighted Johnson there and it was refreshing to hear Johnson admit he felt slighted as well. It’s rare to hear a politician actually admit to having feelings, perhaps because most of them are cylons. The other thing Johnson expressed regret over was signing several pieces of legislation when he was governor of New Mexico. While the legislation he signed appeared to have good intentions he saw how those laws twisted and fulfill the desires of other politicians. Admitting mistakes is something politicians almost never do, once again it’s likely because they’re cylons.
Overall I admit I really like Johnson, he’s a good man and I would actually have no regrets voting for him. Although it’s unlikely I’ll actually vote in November if I do it’ll be for Johnson (unless Hell freezes over, unicorns becomes a real species, and Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination).
With Santorum pulling out, Gingrich remaining entirely irrelevant, and the Inner Republican Party members doing everything in their power to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination it appears as through this election will likely boil down to Romney vs. Obama. I’ve already stated my opion about a Romney vs. Obama election but I think it’s time we stop, take a deep breathe, and consider the wisdom of George Carlin:
Unemployment statistics, like everything else political, is entirely deceptive. When you see unemployment statistics released by the state you should know they are being manipulated to make the situation look better or worse, depending on what the state goons need. One of the most interesting massages to the unemployment numbers made by the state is taking anybody who has been unemployed for more than six months off of the statistics as they’re considered bums and no longer looking for work. Shadow Stats has a nice graph that shows the publicly announced unemployment numbers, the unemployment numbers according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the actual unemployment numbers.
Well color me skeptical but I’m guessing there is some kind of ulterior motive to the sudden claim of honesty being made:
A Republican lawmaker is intensifying his push for legislation that would change how the government measures the unemployment rate.
Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.) intends to press GOP leaders to move his bill to include the number of individuals who gave up looking for work in the percentage of jobless claims.
Should the government measure unemployment with Hunter’s figure, the unemployment rate would be higher than the current rate of approximately 8 percent– a potentially devastating assessment for the White House, especially in an election year.
And I believe the actual ulterior motive was actively denied by Hunter himself:
The San Diego-based lawmaker contends that he did not introduce his bill to make the president look bad, since the number would reflect poorly on all individuals in charge of government.
On a recent interview with Fox News Channel’s Martha MacCallum, Hunter said, “it makes me look bad too when unemployment is sliding … it makes the Republican Congress, the president and the Democratic Senate – anybody who is an elected representative and in charge look bad. I don’t think it goes one way.”
Hunter isn’t an idiot, he realizes that all problems in the United States are blamed on the president. For example, people are currently blaming Obama for high gas prices even though the president has nothing to do with setting those prices. Whatever major crisis is being faced by the nation is blamed on the guy in the Oval Office, and if the unemployment numbers suddenly “spike” it to will be blamed on Obama.
Politics is a dirty business and any underhanded trick goes. While Hunter claims his move isn’t meant to make Obama look bad it really is, and it could pave the way for a Republican victory in November. Don’t be me wrong though, I’m all for most honesty coming out of the state, but I also realize such honesty only happens when it benefits agents of the state in some manner. What this bill pass, the news report about the sudden “spike” in unemployment, Romney get a narrow presidential victory, and a new bill changing the way unemployment is tracked back to the way it is today. It’s all a big shell game.