Tag Archives: Thomas Jefferson

Ann, Ann, Ann, Ann….

05 Friday Jul 2019

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Ann, Ann, Ann, Ann….

Tags

, , ,

Ann Coulter once again sheds a little truth on the lies of “history,” this time defending Thomas Jefferson.

In response to DNA proof that only one of Hemings’ children was related to any Jefferson male — and her firstborn son was definitely NOT fathered by any Jefferson — the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the Monticello Association and the National Genealogical Society promptly announced their official positions: Thomas Jefferson fathered all six of Hemings’ children! Guided tours of Monticello today include the provably false information that Jefferson fathered all of Hemings’ children.

So now you, at least, know the truth — not that it matters in the slightest. Happy Fourth of July!

If recent history is a guide to historiography, “historians” will use Coulter’s column to “prove” TJ raped a stripper…

Venezuela: Statist Paradise

29 Sunday May 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simon Bolivar, the father of Venezuela, was a fan of Thomas Jefferson and both the American and the French revolutions. His belief was that South American countries would benefit from republican government so long as there was a firm hand in the government. Looking around his lands, he decried what he called the “triple yoke of ignorance, tyranny, and vice”. Over the past two centuries he’s been proven right and wrong about his creations.

Modern Venezuela is a fantastic country plagued with less-than-fantastic governance. The firm hand Bolivar thought necessary has proven a curse of late (from Hugo Chavez to Nicolas Maduro). The country has also slowly slid off the American model (a little more than America itself has) and into the abyss of socialism.

The United States has, thanks to the industriousness of her people, resisted the perils of statism longer and better than most. That is rapidly changing in the 21st century. Still, some think that America was made great because of various socialistic experiments rather than in spite of them. All of the popular contenders for President are pro-government. Two push traditional liberal/socialist policies and one of those two (Bernie) is a hardliner. Anyone thinking of supporting Bernie, specifically, or the government in general should take a close look at what is unfolding in Venezuela.

Electricity, water, phone access, police services and food are in short supply as a result of decades of mismanagement of the economy. (All socialist intervention is mismanagement.) The global financial crisis is helping to accelerate the vulnerable nation’s decline. A seeming side benefit of the crisis – curtailing of government services on a grand scale – is an illusion. Martial law is being formulated, being partly enacted via two recent state of emergency decrees from Maduro. Such places are prone to military coops. Venezuela will survive but not before the people there see a good deal of needless suffering.

American preppers are taking note as the scenario in Venezuela might as well have come from the warnings of a prepping website. Some are pointing and saying, “see, we told you so.” It could all happen to the U.S.

Others would do well to pay attention too. Most will not. The majority of America citizens are not aware of any wolf at the door until he comes through and pounces on the bed. Even then, most would only ask him not to block the TV. Many elites don’t or won’t care as they have helped create these conditions in the first place. Academics share a large responsibility. A huge share of that blame goes to law professors. American law schools, demographically, do not resemble America – at least not traditional (former) America. According to a Rasmussen Media study 82% of law school professors are Democrats and less than half are Christians.

Based on my experience, I’d say 82% is a little light. Substituting “leftist” for “Democrat” would steer the number closer to 99%. As of last year there were six professors in the entire nation who identified as libertarian, anarchist, or adherents of Natural Law – and one died in January. They are statistical outliers.

The 82% or 99% (or virtual 100%) preach never-ending statism. Government, they say, is the end-all, be-all super solution to any and all problems. Given the “triumph” of their adored system in Venezuela, I’d suggest most of them move there. I know they won’t as they also have a fondness for things like electricity, telephones, and food. To think, they shun paradise. Odd.

El Libertador. Google.

**Note: two names in this non-cigar piece are titanic in the cigar world. “Bernie” ain’t one.

FDA ASSAULTS CIGAR INDUSTRY

22 Sunday May 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I like cigars. I hate government. I really really hate when government interferes with cigars. As if the regulations, restrictions and taxes, taxes, and even more taxes aren’t enough, now the FDA is hell-bent on yet more dastardly regulation of the good leaf.

This issue has been on my radar for a while but it was brought back to my attention over the past few weeks via murmurs I hear in the shops I frequent. Then I saw this Facebook post/plea from my friend Patrick Vivalo:

nimbus-image-1463964608610

Thank you Patrick (and re-post of Russell Wilder).

I think I signed the petition some time back. And I’m not really into petitions (or remembering them).

The FDA’s new rules would wreak havoc on the cigar business through some of the strangest, communist bullshit imaginable. “New” cigars, meaning those crafted since 2007, would have to be inspected and approved by Big Brother. Older, pre-2007 sticks would be exempt. The approval process (GAWD only knows how that will work) will be both time-consuming and onerously expensive – I’ve heard estimates in the hundreds of thousands per cigar type. And more and worse is to come.

WORLD EXCLUSIVE!!!!! I have the first ever photograph of a prototype FDA cigar inspector. Yes, this dude (or someone like him) will regulate our smokes:

U.S. FDA Office of Idiocy.

I could care less what the stated reasons for this unnecessary intrusion into my hobby are. I suspect the FDA wants to protect all of those children one is constantly tripping over at the local cigar shop – every bit as common as honest politicians and useful regulators!

Reading through the Constitution I found no authority for cigar regulation. I double checked, doubting my own senses. Still not there. In fact the word”cigar” does not appear even once in the text. Believe it or not, the FDA isn’t mentioned either. A reading of what is in there would lead one to think the government does not have legal authority to regulate cigars – or much of anything else. Odd, that. Not to worry; what the feds lack in legality, they make up for with threats and sheer violence. Tyranny, I think they call it.

Patrick and Russell and many others signed the petition. Russell even went to Washington (an act of supreme bravery and sacrifice) on a mission with other industry leaders to protest this meddlesome evil in Congress. I hate to say they failed … but here we are back at the petition again. (Two petitions – one for the criminals in Congress and one for the chief criminal in the Whitehouse.) I fear none of this will work.

A better, more comprehensive approach would be to get an honest member of Congress to initiate legislation to abolish the FDA entirely. Somehow humanity survived without it up until 1906. Given the departure of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, it might be just as worthwhile to consult the Wizard of Oz on this matter…

Petitions, Congress, the President, and the various apparati of the bureaucracy are all by-products of the Constitution which established this particular corrupt government in the first place. Like all systems, this one was destined to grow dangerously out of control. Working within the system to fix the system is insane and self-defeating. The Constitution created the government; government killed the Constitution; “let’s have the government follow the Constitution!” Get it? It’s kind of like trying to get to know the termites and reason with them so they won’t eat your house. That won’t work. Tents and gas work.

Thomas Jefferson said, “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” The tree is all but dead in Amerika despite the copious amounts of unnatural manure lying about D.C. At any rate, our “patriots” are now completely preoccupied with television, chasing fake money, sports, and other triviality. “Ain’t nobody got time for revolution!”

So we humbly petition our masters to mind their own business. These regulatory measures, very likely to come to pass, will not kill the business just yet. Life will go on. Children will be safe. Voodoo, busybody inspectors will be well paid.

You, the non-cigar reader, might pause to wonder why you should care about this issue. It doesn’t concern you directly. Yet, you rest assured the ever-benevolent forces of the state have some new regulatory scheme in mind for what does concern you. “First they came for the cigar lovers…”

Google.

The Satanic Verses: American Political Style

19 Tuesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes, Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Satanic Verses: American Political Style

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Government and religion go together like whiskey and water: they don’t really go together but one finds them paired frequently nonetheless. In 1988-89 Salman Rushdie found out in extreme fashion how the two strange bedfellows behave. His novel The Satanic Verses earned him critical acclaim along with a death sentence from the Ayatollah of Iran. Rushdie resumed normal life after years and years of living as a shadow under heavy police protection.

Iran is and was a theocracy where Shia Islamic law is the basis for the organized state. There are other nations of a similar composition. Rushdie’s England is a mix-up writ large – the Queen is the head of state and head of the state church though Parliament passes most laws in an otherwise secular society. America had, via the First Amendment, and by its history and constituency, a separation of church and state (so said Thomas Jefferson). Of course, 200 years before Rushdie’s troubles began, almost all Americans were Christians. Because the government was so very small it did not really matter who believed what. It was a Christian society with a small and separate governing group. As far as it goes or went, the arrangement worked rather well. Things change.

Gradually the people abandoned God while the government grew in power and influence. Today one finds the polar opposite of that scene of 1789. It is a government society with a small and dwindling Christian group. My hypothesis (still only that because I have not declared it law) is that the people have replaced, or have allowed the replacement of, God with government. This was not a wise decision. The consequences manifest far and wide. God, for the most part, has left the building. With Him He took morality, decency, common sense, curiosity, courage, the family unit, good television, and most of the Blessings of the Holy Spirit. Those who remain faithful are like oases in a bleak, barren and dismal landscape. Many remain also who are positive in their thinking that things can be repaired, that the government (so different today) can still be restored and that decent civilization will then resume. Their struggle is born both of true optimistic faith and of delusional confusion, sometimes blended together.

In no other realm of American life is this struggle more prominently displayed than in politics. Political activity today, be it Republican, Democratic, or of third-party nature, is a study in obsessive self defeat. One may choose to shovel water into the canoe with the big red bucket on the starboard or the big blue bucket on the port side. One may choose the small paper cup of Libertarianism back aft. Whatever the choice, the result is still the same – the boat is sinking. What amazes this author is the zeal with which people these days participate in the flooding even as they know where the vessel is headed.

Recently I wrote several pieces on the sham democracy and fake electoral practices attendant to the Republican presidential nomination process. GOP voters in Colorado, Wyoming, Georgia, New York and elsewhere are discovering the rude truth, that they do not matter – not to their party and not in the grand scheme of politics. I tire of these stories both because they serve little epistemological purpose and because there are just too many of them to track. The Democrats have a similar level of disdain for their voters and of crooked processes.

A few years ago Jimmy Carter (my remembrance grows fonder every time I think of him) proposed that the U.N. or some other neutral outside party step in to monitor American elections as those of third world countries are policed. His suggestion came in response to the staggering fact that, like, just like those “lesser” nations, America and its elections have fallen into a pit of fraud, deception and criminality. I applaud his honesty though I see the point as futile. The government and its gangster parties know they are debased, criminal; they will not accept possible interference with their game (and no one has either the power or the interest to force compliance). And, even if the pleas for help were heard, I do not relish what might come of it. I see it as running to Br’er Bear to complain about Br’er Wolf. Come what may, Br’er Rabbit and friends had still better watch their backs. A safer alternative would be to get rid of the underlying corruption of the state, that is to say, get rid of the state itself. That also will not happen, not yet. It’s not quite time.

And it seems time is relative to the problem. Government has, since its inception, been corrupt. It is eternally dangerous. The American experience does not defy the universal trend. Those in and around the government are generally corrupt themselves. Consider this example: there is and has been for some time a literal cult of Abraham Lincoln worshipers in this county. Lincoln is revered as nearly the second coming of Jesus Christ though, in truth, Lincoln was one of the vilest, most destructive, and tyrannical men to ever occupy the Presidency. It was he who set into motion that transformation which gave us today’s superstate under which we labor daily. Lincoln was a destroyer of freedom and civility like few others in history.

In 1862 he murdered 38 or 39 Sioux Indians in Minnesota. The next year he kicked the entire tribe out of the state, off of their ancestral lands under threat of death. The real story, of total war, fanatical racism, cronyism and kickbacks, and a complete absence of due process, may be read here. The sanitized, Lincoln-as-hero, version may be read here. Evil grows like a cancer, even after 150 years. And, remember, in 1862 America was much more of a “Christian” nation than what passes today.

As we begin the final act of our Platonic (not in the friendly sense) play, enter a new and ultimate character – long hinted at but not seen outright until now – actual in the open Satanism. On their respective islands in the great sea of decadence and pollution the Faithful now face their enemy. The enemy is demanding and getting equal time, more than equal to be honest. There sad and dangerous story is found here: Can a burgeoning satanic movement actually effect political change?, The Conversation, April 19, 2016. The story centers on the efforts of The Satanic Temple to compass the ruin of our people under the guise of “equality”. I do not directly link to the Temple nor to their Sabbat Cycle and I suggest you, dear reader, refrain from clicking those links from my citation story. This group is pure and utter filth, worse than filth.

The Temple and its Cycle are touring America promoting Lucifer alongside some lame horror movie. Garbage and flies, you know. It is little wonder these pathetic beings seek to join the political fray. They are already come too late unless their true purpose is to clearly advertise what has been forging for decades.

America has fallen or is falling now. Our government, state and federal, our financial system, nearly the whole economy, our political parties, our military, and our buraeucracy is under the sway of Satanic control. It is, all of it, firmly under the power of a small oligarchy of very evil people who serve only themselves and the Devil. Larger society is besieged as well. The pop trash one listens to, the violent, thoughtless movies one sees, the mindless television drug one ingests are all in the service of darkness. Our wars are fought and contrived based on lies alone. What passes for education is largely mere systemic propaganda. Families are falling apart. The people are crude, rude, and at each other’s throats for no reason. Civilization teeters on the brink of annihilation, The individual body, a temple of the Lord, is disrespected, desecrated with blubber, tattoos, intoxication and all manner of uncleanliness. The mind is debased with willful idiocy.

I fear there is no reforming this too-far-gone system. The Faithful must free themselves from its Hellish shackles. They must resist until they are either delivered or they outlast the corruption and destruction. As they are faithful, so they should be free. Freedom starts with knowledge. Know that there is no hope within the camp of one’s enemies, only without. Leave the false god and its Dark Master behind. Be free. Be Faithful.

Google.

Reading The Law: The Ancient Alternative to Law School

07 Monday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Reading The Law: The Ancient Alternative to Law School

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A few days ago I wrote a column about the trials and tribulations of a beautiful, talented young woman enrolled and embattled at the Moritz College of Law at THE Ohio State University. I’ve also written about my legal education.

Law schools have become a collection of expensive but houses where, if one can tolerate the boredom and foolishness, one is allowed the honor of applying for a state license to practice law. The courses studied in these schools bear little resemblance to the actual law. Graduation does not guarantee admittance to the Bar. Bar test preparation is left to the student once he graduates.

Many determined and intelligent students will succeed on their own merits. A few law schools do a fair job readying students for the profession; most are dismal in their attempts. Alan Watson, of whom I have sung praise before, is the preeminent expert on legal philosophy. He wrote a book, The Shame of American Legal Education, which should be required reading for any American giving serious thought to attending law school.

Watson decries the lack of intellectual rigor and dependence of the case method (religious study of court interpretation of the law) which plague American law colleges. He praises the system of his native Scotland where students attend school for a shorter period of time and actually learn both the letter of and the ideas behind the law. Following graduation the Scots apprentice under established barristers to round out their education and transition into the field.

It’s a far better approach than we Americans use. It is similar to our old system which we adopted from the British. They had adopted it from the Romans and the Greeks.

For ages attorneys were educated men who studied the law under the tutelage of a practicing attorney. A few had a short period of standardized class time at a college. This formal lecturing range from a few weeks to a year. Upon completion of the apprenticeship the budding lawyers were either certified by a local court or eligible to sit for Bar examination (if any) or they just started working on their own.

The institution was known as “reading the law.” Most of the greatest attorneys of history were produced this way. Their ranks include: Solon, Cato, Cicero, St. Thomas More, William Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Jay, Lysander Spooner, Abraham Lincoln, James Byrnes, and Robert Jackson. All of these men were accomplished attorneys. Some were titans of the field.

Marco_Porcio_Caton_Major

Cato the Elder.

In America this was the standard of legal instruction from colonial times until the early 20th Century. The College of William and Mary was the first American school with formal law lectures. These were designed to enhance the student’s apprenticeship. Jefferson attended lectures at William and Mary.

Young men were encouraged to read the law, to understand theory and application:

If you are absolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself the thing is more than half done already. It is a small matter whether you read with any one or not. I did not read with any one. Get the books and read and study them in their every feature, and that is the main thing. It is no consequence to be in a large town while you are reading. I read at New Salem, which never had three hundred people in it. The books and your capacity for understanding them are just the same in all places.

Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other one thing.

Abraham Lincoln, 1855

Things began to change in the late 1800s. It was then the newly formed American Bar Association began to lobby states to restrict licensing to those who had attended law schools. Later the ABA commenced its practice of certifying the schools. This cartel approach of command and control protected the monopoly of the existing bar members. The results, from a quality viewpoint, were mixed. Blackstones and Jeffersons are hard to come by these days.

The radical expansion of law school power coincided with the massive growth of government. Both resulted in the growth and increased complexity of the laws. As Cicero noted, more laws means less justice. Of course, justice had nothing to do with these trends. They were premised entirely on control and money.

Nonetheless a few states still adhere to the reading tradition although it is frowned upon. Those who stand to lose prestige and tuition frown a lot.

California, Maine, New York, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington still allow reading in place of law schooling. Each has its own standards and in some a period of law school attendance is required. Out of over 80,000 new lawyers minted in 2013, less than 100 read the law.

The surviving process of reading has been lauded of late by Business Insider and the New York Times. Both note the difficulties faced by a reader.

“The A.B.A. takes the position that the most appropriate process for becoming a lawyer should include obtaining a J.D. degree from a law school approved by the A.B.A. and passing a bar examination,” said Barry A. Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education for the group.

Robert E. Glenn, president of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, was less circumspect. “It’s a cruel hoax,” he said of apprenticeships. “It’s such a waste of time for someone to spend three years in this program but not have anything at the end.”

NY Times.

Of course, anything but the cartel’s way is a hoax. The frowners frown. Never mind the vast number of students who drop out of law school or graduate but cannot pass the bar. At least they paid tuition.

A few organizations exist to perpetuate the old tradition. Sterling Education Services is one. “What if, instead of a traditional law school degree and six-figure debt, you could take the bar exam and achieve your goal through hands-on legal experience?” – Sterling. These groups offer study aids and seminars. They’re looking to cash in on the alternative. Then again, these are the exact same bar prep services law school graduates turn to immediately after law school.

Though frowned upon this ancient alternative is viable. If a lawyer reads the law in a reading state and passes that state’s bar, he can then apply in other states. It would certainly warrant examination by those considering the legal profession. Those who follow this path follow in the footsteps of giants.

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.  Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform.  I decided to make a professional examination of his paper.  Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment.  Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination.  I don’t have that kind of time.  Trump gets the spotlight.  Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general.  Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject.  You will soon realize my failure.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).  I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment.  While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law.  It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time.  It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win.  “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”  J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”  He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

trump

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law.  I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense.  It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary.  The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.”  That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not.  “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says.  He gives examples of local violent crimes.  The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States.  There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason.  And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence.  My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot.  This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms.  Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense.  That’s good!  He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.”  That’s bad!  Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right??  Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system.  Again, that’s great.  It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…).  I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill.  For that I commend him.  Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”  By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment).  He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms.  I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A?  The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms.  Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice.  Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated.  Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree).  Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional.  I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent!  However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.).  He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem.  That’s really the only valid reason to have a government.  He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective.  This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah.  Another Bush.  Bush number three.  Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website.  I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong.  Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights.  The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh).  Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution.  The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example.  And, The People themselves retain political power.  By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual.  None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people.  Illegitimately, it happens all the time.  Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun.  Anti-freedom is more accurate.  They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton.  Yes, one married to that other Clinton.  Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words.  To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things.  Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”  Hillary, August 27, 2015.  Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban.  That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence.  That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment.  I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent.  Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race.  He has no papers or issue statements yet.  However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here.  Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to.  Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters.  Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence.  We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians.  In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President.  He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.”  “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.”  Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry?  “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set.  What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant.  Ah.  That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times.  But, suppose there’s a government on the loose?  What then?  Defense?  Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election.  No word on whether he’s in for this bout.  Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine.  If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government.  None.  But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one.  Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office.  Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).

The Unfriendly Skies: Drones Banned In Augusta

18 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on The Unfriendly Skies: Drones Banned In Augusta

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Should you have the honor of attending this years Masters Tournament you may breathe easy – no pesky drones will disturb your golf gazing.  I doubt you were concerned to begin with.  You probably hadn’t even considered the idea.

Never apt to miss out on a non-issue the idiots of the Augusta City Commission has outlawed the (private) use of unmanned aircraft during this year’s tournament. “Hoping to prevent a drone disruption at this year’s Masters Tournament, Augusta commissioners approved a county-wide ban on launching or operating the remote-controlled aircraft between April 2 and April 13.”  Susan McCord, Drone ban in effect April 2-13, Augusta (GA) Chronicle, March 18, 2015.

The reasoning behind the ban is as solid as the air above the Augusta National: “Drones ‘have gotten very sophisticated,’ and Augusta has a ‘very big, international event’ coming up, said sheriff’s Col. Robert Partain.”  This is as logically connected as saying there are a lot of people in India and pillows are very soft, thus we must own lawnmowers…

drone1

(Bad drone.  Google Images.)

I was not present for the drafting, discussion or voting on this ordinance.  I really don’t think that matters.  The thing smells funny.  The Chronicle mentions a single incident whereby an event was disrupted by a drone – one event in Europe.  I have heard of no threat posed by non-government drones in America.  Government drones are another story; see: Don’t Drone Me, Bro! and Droning On and On.

Drone11111111-156150-165663-166189-172588-640x480

(Good drone.  Google.)

Other American cities (Charlottesville, VA, Syracuse, NY, etc.) have previously banned drones.  However, their bans are directed towards drones nefariously used by government agents in an effort to defend civil liberties.  Charlottesville, home of Thomas Jefferson’s home and University, has a “long tradition of promoting civil liberties.” Augusta has a long tradition of the opposite kind.

Here follows the pertinent and sensible resolutions of Syracuse’s ordinance:

BE IT RESOLVED, that this Resolution declares that no agency of the City of Syracuse, nor any agents under contract with the City, will operate Drones in the airspace over the City of Syracuse until federal and state laws, rules and regulations regarding the use of Drones are adopted that adequately protects the privacy of the population as guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Syracuse Common Council urges our Federal and State officials to create and adopt such laws, rules and regulations regarding the use of Drones which ensures Constitutional protections of individuals; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, to the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of this Common Council that no Drones will be purchased, leased, borrowed, tested or otherwise utilized by the City of Syracuse or its agencies, directly or through contract, until such Constitutional safeguards are in place, the appropriate personnel are trained and fully authorized by the FAA to safely operate Drones and that the Corporation Counsel of the City of Syracuse certifies that all City of Syracuse personnel engaged in the use of Drones have been trained in federal, state and local privacy laws, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms affecting drone operations and any data collected by drone operations…

Note that this ordinance is aimed at ensuring “Constitutional protections of individuals.” The Georgia version ensures a media monopoly for a single sporting event at the expense of the liberty of hundreds of thousands of individuals in the surrounding area. It is as stupid and illegal as it is unnecessary.

The National naturally desires to keep the most prestigious sporting event in the world private.  That is understandable; they have a right to privacy.  Happily, their rights and the rights of their patrons and golfers are protected by existing laws.  Flying a drone over the property without permission already would constitute a trespass and a nuisance – prohibited by both existing criminal and civil tort law.

Now, should you, as a news reporter, wish to film from the air the crowd entering the National patron gate, you are out of luck.  If you’re the President needing to remotely bomb demonstrators (terrorists), no problem.  A real estate broker surveying land, not this week.  A cop spying on a gardener, sure, why not.  Concerned citizen keeping an eye on one of the cops’ illegal roadblocks, you are a criminal.  See where this is going?

Something tells me that, if challenged, the Augusta ordinance will fall in Court – after the tournament is over, of course.  I have already heard of plans to defy the law.  One aviator proposes to use a balloon or kite to launch a camera skyward.  Whether the city defines these devices as drones or not they will likely prosecute this man.  They will lose. They will face a lawsuit.  Those hundreds of thousands of citizens whose liberties have been infringed will be forced to pay damages.  Sadly, those citizens will continue to re-elect the Commission.  The beat goes on.

If you come to Augusta for the tournament, enjoy it.  You’ll have a great, drone free experience.  If you live in the Garden City, consider moving somewhere else where your rights are valued.

 

 

Slavery in America, Part III of III.

04 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This concluding article has been delayed a while – it’s finally done!  And, I hereby dedicate it to Antywan, who gave me the inspiration to finish it.  Thanks for the encouragement, buddy.

This is the third and final segment in my series on modern American slavery.  So far, I’ve detailed human trafficking and the big corporate/government plantation.  Find the first two installments here: Part One; Part Two.

In Part Two I mentioned the astounding prosecution levels for victim-less crimes (non-crimes, mind you).  Here’s a recent example from the news, a story within a story, which illustrates another problem with the modern criminal “justice” system.  I’ve read, and experienced in court, that around 90% of criminal cases end with plea bargains, where the accused admits guilt and forgoes a trial.  Maybe it’s more like 97%.  Anyway, of the remaining cases, which are tried, another 90 – 97% end with convictions.  Many might say this is efficient justice.  I say it indicates a “fixed” system.

A recent sting operation in the Southern District of Georgia by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (and Explosives) (“ATF”) resulted in about 200 indictments in Federal Court.  Sandy Hodson, Federal Prosecutor, ATF Agent Under Investigation, Augusta (GA) Chronicle, Feb. 2, 2015.  “At least one of the defendants in the Savannah operation, Eduardo Cruz-Camacho, stood trial.”  Chronicle, Ibid.  One out of 200 is .5%.  Of course, the defendant was convicted by a Jury, November 2013.  U.S. v. Cruz-Camacho, NO. 4:13-CR-129-2, (So. Dist. U.S., 2014).  Total justice…

Oh, did you catch the headline of the Chronicle story?  Due to their illegal actions, the U.S. Assistant Attorney on the case and an ATF agent are under investigation.  The agent, with the Attorney’s blessing, falsified a visa application for an informant, withheld information to the Defendant, and lied about it.  U.S. Attorney Ed Tarver estimates the fiasco may taint at least four of those 200 cases.  The Court has ordered an accounting of each and every case touched by the ATF agent.

I know Ed Tarver.  He is as honest a government employee as one can find and he pre-emptively came forward with this information.  I know of the subject AUSA and agent but not well enough to judge their character nor actions.  However, I can easily pass judgment on the ATF as an organization.

This is the same ATF that ran Operation Gunrunner (aka Fast and Furious).  In this dubious program thousands of military grade weapons were delivered by the ATF to the Mexican drug cartels.  At first the ATF used straw purchasers to funnel the weapons.  When sales slowed due to a drop in demand the ATF actually started giving the guns (and grenades) away.  One of the guns was later used to murder U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.  See: Issa, Grassley Report on Fast & Furious Finds Widespread Justice Department Management Failures, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 2012.

This is the same ATF which played a deadly role in the murders at Waco and Ruby Ridge.  As no-one (in the government) has ever been held accountable for these criminal conspiracies, I suggest Mr. Cruz-Camacho and associates are out of luck.

The Georgia sting operation worked by entrapping hundreds of individuals in the exact same kinds of crimes the ATF routinely commits with impunity.  These operations occur year after year all over the country.  One difference is that I do not think anyone was hurt by Cruz-Camachos actions.  The other difference is the acceptance of the courts, of Congress, and the public of the ATF’s programs.  It’s a double standard writ large and written in blood.

That public acceptance is the worst part of this sordid story.  Most don’t merely accept this kind of government railroading; they demand it.  Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect that the people are the best defenders of their own liberty and the gravest threat to their liberty.

In other words, the people are their own worst enemies.  We turn ourselves into slaves when no-one else can.  Most do so without any thought.  It’s not just with the government, but with all facets of society.

We continually tolerate domination by a failed two-party political system.  We ensnare ourselves in mortgages, student loans, car loans, credit cards and any other debts we can acquire – usually to purchase worthless trinkets or dreams we don’t need.  We work decades in jobs and careers we hate.  We willingly participate in a banking/financial system operated by a cartel.  We devote hours every day watching idiocy on television.  We idolize devil-worshipping celebrities who prey on our children.  We ship those children off to government concentration camps to learn how to repeat our mistakes.  On and on and on…

On Sunday I watched the Super Bowl along with 100 million of you.  Per my prediction, New England picked up their fourth trophy.  Along with a great game came dozens of the worst commercials I have ever seen.  “I died in an accident.”  “Sorry, it’s a boy.” “Drink our beer – horses save a puppy from a wolf.”  Pitiful.  The marketing geniuses on Madison Avenue think we’re slaves – the lowest and dumbest to ever walk the earth.  Are they right?  Do you choose your beverage based on the plight of a puppy?

I did not watch Katy Perry’s half-time show.  Last year I read about her performance at the Grammy Awards wherein she literally conducted a witchcraft ceremony before a national audience.  See: KATY PERRY: ILLUMINATI PRIESTESS CONDUCTS WITCHCRAFT CEREMONY IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.  Should we let our children (or ourselves) listen to this type of music?  These people are serious in their desire to enslave us to materialism and dark forces.  Do we let them?

The answer should be “no.”  There is no way to immediately turn back the tide of big government.  The Federal Reserve and its criminal predator member institutions cannot be undone this year.  Fear of life and ease of entertainment will always follow us.  But, we can begin to slowly free ourselves.  Stop voting for the same cabal of nit-wits every election.  Rethink your commitment to debt.  Stop trusting the voices of the government and their media.  Turn off the tube.

broken-chain

(Google.)

You can make a difference.  You can free yourselves.  You have tremendous power.  Break those chains.

 

Police State America: A Permanent Standing Army in Our Midst

28 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday I re-posted a popular column on the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878 to deter a standing army.  It did not work, as I noted in that article.  That piece briefly examined the use of the actual, federal military to combat drugs, terror, churches, etc.  Here, I want to delve into a growing trend, the development of a psuedo-military, based entirely within our society.  I’m writing about the militarization of our domestic police force.

This trend has resulted in a paramilitary police as well-trained and equipped as our national army.  Barney Fife has been replaced by an armored, machine gun wielding storm-trooper.

Barney was a goofy, good-natured fellow with one bullet (in his pocket):

nip-it

(Then. Google Images.)

The new masked face of law enforcement more resembles Darth Vader than a peace officer:

swat

(Now.  Google Images.)

William Grigg is far and away the best chronicler of modern, martial law enforcement.  Just pick any one of his humorous and shocking articles on police state abuse: Article Archive at lewrockwell.com.  Be forewarned, like a Pringles, just one won’t be enough.

I too have written short news notes on this phenomenon, none as good as Will’s.

Here’s a picture of a platoon of “officers” on the hunt for Boston Bombing patsy Dzhokhar Tsarnaev:

SWAT teams enter a suburban neighborhood to search an apartment for the remaining suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings in Watertown

(Google Images.)

French police in similar fashion:

french swat

(Google, DailyMail, UK.)

The Pose Comitatus Act (“PCA”) reads, in its entirety: “Whoever, except in cases and circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 1385.

There has never been a prosecution under the PCA.  Considering the constant creation of exceptions to the Act and the fact that the police are not a direct portion of the Army nor the Air Force, the militarization trend will not run afoul of the watered-down letter of the law.  However, it violates the spirit of the law in horrific fashion.

At the end of the Roman Republic, more than twenty centuries ago, Gauis Curio attempted to disarm Caesar’s returning army in order to preserve domestic tranquility. See: Caesar, The Gallic War, Loeb Classical Library, 587 (Harvard U. Press, 2000). As you know, Caesar “crossed the Rubicon” and the Empire shortly thereafter commenced.

In early America the fear of armed military forces present in everyday life was of grave concern to our Founding Fathers.  Beginning the Declaration of Independence with a nod to Natural Law, Thomas Jefferson listed the first grievance against the King that “He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. … He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.” Dec. Independence, para. 13 – 14 (1776).

In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, himself not the greatest proponent of freedom, railed against the standing army as “unsupported by any precise or intelligible designations of reasons.” The Federalist, No. 27 (Hamilton).  “Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. ”  The Federalist, No. 8 (Hamilton).

A more concise explanation was set forth by Robert Yates: “The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.” The Anti-Federalist, No. 10 (Brutus [Yates]).

“Brutus” described the plight of both Rome and Britain under the rule of a standing army.  “Julius Cesar … changed [Rome] from a free republic, whose fame had sounded, and is still celebrated by all the world, into that of the most absolute despotism. A standing army effected this change, and a standing army supported it through a succession of ages, which are marked in the annals of history, with the most horrid cruelties, bloodshed, and carnage; — The most devilish, beastly, and unnatural vices, that ever punished or disgraced human nature.”  Anti-Federalist, No. 10 (Yates).

“The same army, that in Britain, vindicated the liberties of that people from the encroachments and despotism of a tyrant king, assisted Cromwell, their General, in wresting from the people, that liberty they had so dearly earned.”  Id.

The Forty-Fifth Congress considered several issues in developing the PCA: a standing army versus a militia; limited central government; and, the proper (if any) uses for an army within the confines of the territory of the Republic.  Rep. Abram S. Hewitt of New York commented on the subject: “If you want to fan communism, increase your standing army and you will have enough of it.” 7 Cong. Rec. H. 3538 (1878).

Numerous examples of Constitutional violations by federal troops aiding tax agents, governors, sheriffs, and district attorneys in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York were cited to Congress.  Other related troubles occurred all across the country. The problem was national in scope.

Senator Benjamin Hill of Georgia remarked, “A posse comitatus is a wholly different thing from an army; it is different in every respect from an army…” 7 Cong. Rec. 4246. He continued, “it never was lawful, it never shall be lawful, to employ the army as a posse comitatus until you destroy the distinction between civil power and the military power in this country.” Id.

Today we see the destruction of that distinction.  The police appear one and the same with the military – same tactics, same equipment.

The military equipment utilized by our police largely comes from the The Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) under the 1033 program (National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 (“NDAA”) (FY 1997)).  “This law allows transfer of excess Department of Defense property that might otherwise be destroyed to law enforcement agencies across the United States and its territories.”

Since 1997 the program has transferred over $5 BILLION worth of military equipment to the police agencies of America – $450 million in 2013 alone.  Again, the various, yearly NDAA provide Congressional cover which allows potential PCA violations to occur unabated.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently released a report which examined program 1033 and several examples of police militarization in the news.  Kara Dansky, An MRAP Is Not a Blanket, ACLU, (12/02/2014).

Ms. Dansky recounted the police responses in Ferguson, MO and the horrific maiming of baby Bou Bou Phonesavanh in rural Georgia.  The then 18 month old had “his chest ripped open and his face torn off by a flashbang grenade that police officers … threw into his crib during a paramilitary raid.”  Id.   The attack was part of a drug raid based on an erroneous tip from an informant – Bou Bou was not a suspect.

The Phonesavanh family faces over $1 Million in medical expenses as a result of this unnecessary, indefensible terror attack.  ABC News.  Look at the picture below (unpleasant).

Bou Bou is making a recovery but the police involved will not help with his recovery.  UK Daily Mail. And, of course, they will face no charges for their evil acts.  AJC.com.

bou bou

(The fears of the Founding Fathers realized.  ABC News.)

Baby Bou Bou’s ordeal blows apart the oft-repeated idiot’s argument that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”  These SS-style atrocities are oft-repeated as well – in every corner of America.

Echoing the Founding Fathers, the ACLU piece ends: “Militarized policing is dangerous, and American communities deserve better.”  We’re not likely to get better any time soon.  In 1980 there were approximately 3,000 paramilitary SWAT team raids in America; now there are more than 80,000 per year. Michael Synder, 10 Facts About The Growing SWAT Team Raids In America….  Over one-third of those raids are erroneous.  Id.  Will Grigg has an endless supply of horror stories about the needless, often deadly attacks on innocent Americans.

Yes, there are circumstances which warrant overwhelming police force, but they are few and far between.  Anymore, SWAT teams are deployed for anything and everything – from traffic offenses to searches for teenagers.

The worst part of this is the near complete acceptance of these tactics by the American public.  In the immediate wake of the Boston False Flag Bombing the entire city of Bay Area dutifully sheltered in place while a veritable army combed the streets looking for one man.  Travel was restricted, homes were searched without warrants, businesses closed, and millions willingly surrendered their freedoms.

It is my theory that the bombing was conducted as part of a test – designed to gauge the public’s willingness to accept a police state.  If I am correct, the experiment was a total success.  This scenario could likely be played out anywhere.  Your local police department (certainly your State) likely has the resources – the tanks, guns, training – to carry out a similar invasion.  The odds are you will shelter and comply as told too.

As I have written previously, the Second Amendment was crafted to ensure the people’s ability to resist, with arms, martial tyranny.  In addition to our lack of adequate arms and lack of resolve, we now have in our midst a formidable adversary.  This mixture is very dangerous indeed.

copmorph

(Google.)

Ten More Things You Can Do Today

29 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by in Other Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Building on my last happy advice column, I’d like to offer another ten easy things you can do today to make your life a little happier.

1. Smoke a Cigar.

This probably is more appealing to the male audience though quiet a few women enjoy the leaf as well.  Use my recent Cigar Guide as a starting point and see if you like the hobby.  You only need one, it won’t cost that much and it will only take an hour or so to enjoy.  I’ve researched the health risks associated with occasional cigar smoking – it’s negligent.  In fact, I think the relaxation benefits far outweigh the .002% increase in the risk of problems.

0329131544

2. Lose the News.

The commercial news in America is boring at best, toxic at worst.  You will not miss anything important if you take a break for a day or so.  Murders, wars, theft, depression, scandal, etc. will go on in your absence – only you won’t be dragged down by it.  Consider ignorance bliss and disconnect.  This advice, of course, does not extent to your favorite blog.

3. Slow Down Some More.

Last time I recommended slowing your pace in life in order to de-stress and feel better.  Do it some more.  Remember, even if you win the rat race, you’re still a rat.  Who likes rats?  Check the emails tomorrow.  There’s enough food at the house, lay off the super-market today.  Let the little old lady merge into your lane.  Be happy.  Be free.

tortoise

(This guy won the race.  Google.)

4. Let Someone Tell You, “You Can’t” and Prove Them Wrong.

So many people are afraid of things – everything.  If they can’t conceive of a way to do some particular thing, they assume nobody can do it.  In psychology this is called transference or projection or something.  They’ll say you can’t lose the weight.  They’ll say your business won’t make it.  They’ll say such a hot blonde will never go out with you.  Don’t listen.  If you really want to do something and it’s meant to be, you can’t fail – unless you fail to try.  A young man at Yale was told his presented idea in an economics class would never be feasible; years later, the man put his plan into action and founded Federal Express.  When you succeed, take comfort in your accomplishment.  Remember to be gracious to your detractors, maybe you will inspire them to rise above their own roadblocks.

5. Encourage Someone.

The pre-emptive strike against worldly negativity is to place faith in someone else’s ideas.  When someone runs by a plan for something new by you, tell them what you think, but make sure you end it positively.  A little encouragement goes a long way and may be just the boost a person needs to get over their fears and societal conditioning of failure and make “it” happen.  Praise is contagious too.  Start a fire!

6. Write a Letter to the Editor.

I used to do this with very limited success.  Now, I’m the editor and everything I write gets published – and read.  Pick a topic you’re passionate about and tell the world your opinions.  Everyone is an expert at something, share your insights.  Like encouragement, it might spark somebody to positive action.  A common tactic is to write an “open” letter to a CongressCritter or some other prominent person or organization and forward a copy to the local fish-wrapper.  Knowing your views will be viewed by a wide audience may give a politician or other figure more reason to act than your letter alone would.  Try it and see.

7. Question Authority.

People in power frequently use their power to limit the powerless.  Challenge them.  Thomas Jefferson once said, “I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”  One can’t have a better role model than old T.J.  When the cop asks you if you knew how fast you were going, don’t answer; this denies them your assistance in your prosecution and takes a little of the bully out of them.  If a teacher tells you heat rises, ask why, then, does the TOP of the pond freeze.  Make her explain thermodynamics in full.  Be polite and don’t do anything so outrageous as to risk arrest.  By speaking truth to power or denying the power altogether, you can preserve liberty and concurrently increase understanding – both admirable ends.  This, again, does not apply to your favorite blog (wink, wink).

8. Take a Hike!

Last time I relayed the benefits of a simple walk around the block.  Hiking through God’s country increases the benefits, both in terms of exercise exertion and scenery.  Hikes need not be limited to the woods or the mountains.  Stalk away through the dunes or a country road.  Explore your local park or the land along the river-side levee.  Make sure you have good shoes for this one.  I once reached in the closet, without looking, for boots to take to the Smokey Mountains.  A mile or so in I realized duck-hunting boots were not made for trudging up-hill… 

9. Write a Book.

I recommended reading a book.  That’s always good advice.  Take it to the next level and make your own literary contribution to the world.  If it’s not a full-length book, then write a pamphlet or start a blog!  By the way, books are easier than ever to publish these days.  Check out www.createspace.com, there’s a link here on the left.  This service will not only turn your ideas into print but will make them commercially available to the masses – all for free.  Your book can be about anything.  There are no rules and no constraints anymore.  Read James Altucher’s excellent column on the subject – http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/05/why-and-how-i-self-published-a-book/.  This was my inspiration to start blogging and ram through my first book (soon, I promise…).

alphasmart_neo_word_processor_f

(Create!  Google.)

10. Give Thanks for Something.

Anything.  Good or bad.  “In everything give thanks.”  1 Thessalonians 5:18.  God does everything for a reason.  Thank Him.  Too smart for God, then thank Mother Earth, or Father Time, the Tooth Fairy or whoever.  Believe in something bigger than you.  As for the good and the bad, even non-Christian philosophers speak of accepting both with the same stoic resolve.  See Marcus Aurelius on that point.  Spread the word.  Accept, give thanks, take action, be happy.

BONUS! 11. Forward this advice to people you know.  Come up with some more things people can do!