From The Natural News:

Shock revelation: City of Aurora, Colorado would have arrested anyone who stopped the Batman massacre with a concealed weapon

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Two days ago I asked the commonsense question, "Why didn't anyone fight back against James Holmes, the shooter who shot so many people in the Batman movie theater?" See that article here: http://www.naturalnews.com/036537_James_Holmes_Batman_shooting.html

Now the answer has become clear: Because Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:

• Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.

• Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.

Thus, any person who would have shot James Holmes and stopped the massacre would, themselves, have been arrested as a criminal!

In Aurora, Colorado, it is illegal to stop a massacre

"I cannot help but think, if one person in that audience was carrying a gun with them, that person could have saved lives. Unfortunately - despite what some of the Left have said - this tragedy is an example of the importance of our Second Amendment Rights," reports Ron Meyer at CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/blog/ron-meyer/auroras-strict-gun-laws-didnt-prevent-shooting-if-one-law-abiding-person-theater-had).

"Crime rates alone of cities such as Chicago and Washington D.C. prove that gun bans only increase crime. The D.C. police response rate is eight minutes; most crimes are done in less than one. Gun bans create a trouble-free world for criminals considering no one can defend themselves."

As a lawful, FBI-background-checked individual with a concealed carry permit, if I had been present in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater during this shooting, I would have been arrested and charged as a felon for discharging my own firearm aimed at James Holmes. It is apparently a "crime" to defend innocent lives, protect children, stop a shooting and end a massacre in Aurora Colorado. It is a crime to protect your own children from violence.

Violent criminals now know to target Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Longmont and other "gun ban" cities in Colorado

According to current Colorado law (http://www.coloradoceasefire.org/munilaws.htm), it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in all the following cities:

Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Colorado Springs, Denver, Englewood, Lakewood, Littleton, Longmont, Northglenn, Pueblo, Thornton, Westminster, Wheat Ridge.

It is illegal to even OWN a large number of firearms in Thornton and Lafayette. In Aurora, it is illegal to carry a firearm in a vehicle! Thus, even driving to a movie theater with a firearm in your own car makes you a criminal.

These laws did not stop James Holmes from driving with a loaded gun in his car, along with explosives that were also found in his car. Once again, this demonstrates that gun control laws only disarm the public while allowing criminals to have "free reign" over a completely helpless public.

Here are some of the other gun control laws that already exist in Aurora: (http://www.coloradoceasefire.org/munilaws.htm)

1. "Dangerous weapon" includes firearm
2. Revocation of license for furnishing a firearm to a minor or someone under the influence.
3. Window displays cannot include firearms with barrels less than 12 inches long.
4. Unlawful to carry concealed "dangerous weapon"
5. Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range.
6. Unlawful to possess firearm while under the influence of intoxicant
7. Unlawful to have loaded firearm in motor vehicle.
8. Unlawful for a juvenile to possess a firearm.

By definition criminals do not abide by such laws

Notice, again, that none of these laws stopped James Holmes. By definition criminals do not follow these laws. Thus, the only real impact of gun disarmament of the public is to create yet more victims by making sure the honest, law-abiding citizenry is completely defenseless against criminals.

So this answers my previous question of why nobody shot back. The answer is that all law-abiding citizens left their guns at home in order to "comply" with Aurora gun control laws!

This is precisely what allowed the massacre to produce such a high body count. Had just one person been in that audience with a concealed carry permit and a loaded firearm, they could have shot back and ended the massacre. The number of dead could have been sharply reduced. Lives could have been saved.

"Mass shootings can be stopped. People need to arm themselves with the facts (and with weapons). If one law-abiding person in the theater had been carrying a gun, lives could have been saved," writes Hillary Cherry at CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/blog/ron-meyer/auroras-strict-gun-laws-didnt-prevent-shooting-if-one-law-abiding-person-theater-had).

And she's right.

Gun disarmament really means gun concentration in the hands of government

A disarmed public is helpless against crazed shooters. But the government wants you to believe that the answer to all this is yet more gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens.

This makes about as much sense as trying to fight a fire by throwing gasoline on it. If the reality is that police can't protect you and that honest, law-abiding citizens are forced to leave all their guns at home, then how are violent criminals (who ignore laws, of course) supposed to be stopped by forcing even more restrictive gun control laws onto the victims themselves?

The Aurora, Colorado shooting victims died in their seats because they could not shoot back. Now, Obama, Bloomberg and others want to actually promote those same victim conditions across the entire nation, practically ensuring more violent crime takes place against a disarmed and helpless public.

Washington D.C., it seems, will not be satisfied until we are all placed in the same seats under which the victims of Aurora, Colorado helplessly died. We are all to be made powerless, defenseless and totally dependent on government employees with guns (i.e. police) instead of having the right to defend our own families against random acts of sudden violence.

Now it all makes sense: Aurora, Denver and Boulder will be the perfect targets for future massacres because violent criminals who want to kill as many people as possible are smart enough to understand their odds are better when nobody can shoot back.

This is why Hitler disarmed the Jews, of course, before sending them to the gas chambers. It's so much easier to load people onto railroad cars at gunpoint if they can't shoot back. Disarmament has always been the aim of every government that sought total power over the People. Historically, this has almost always led to mass murder or genocide at the hands of corrupt, criminal government.

Self defense is a DIVINE right

The right to protect your person, your children and your family is a divine right, granted in alignment with the principles of our Creator. We see self defense reflected throughout nature, from the spines on a cactus plant to the ability of nearly every plant or animal to fight back against predators that would cause it harm.

The United Nations, which is an evil, destructive force of global domination, does not recognize the fundamental human right of self defense. Instead, it pursues a philosophy of a "monopoly of violence" in the hands of world governments.

The United Nations, in other words, is not truly "anti-gun," it simply wants all the guns in the hands of government workers and none of the guns in the hands of the people.

Remember this about gun control: No government seeks to eliminate ALL guns. It only seeks to monopolize the guns in the hands of government and thereby create a so-called "monopoly of violence" to be used against the People.

You don't hear governments, for example, say they're going to disarm all their police, disarm the FBI, disarm the ATF and disarm the military. That would be "disarmament" if really true. No, what they propose is selectively disarming only the public while concentrating the "monopoly of violence" in the hands of the government.

This creates a dangerous imbalance of power, especially given that cities and states are sharply cutting back on law enforcement budgets due to increasing debt. The police simply can't protect private citizens from violence, and the recent shooting in Aurora, Colorado absolutely proves it. Let there be no doubt that dialing 911 and screaming for help does about as much good as crossing your fingers and wishing for a magical genie to appear and take out the bad guy.

But we don't need magical genies to do that job. We already have millions of law-abiding citizens all across the country who responsibly carry concealed weapons, acting as a powerful deterrent to outbreaks of violence. Those citizens pass background checks, they get fingerprinted, they must pass training courses to show competency in handling firearms. But citizens who can stop crime are not welcomed in Aurora, Colorado!

Because stopping a massacre in Aurora is a crime!

Aurora, the city of surrender to violent crime

Aurora, Colorado should rename itself "the city of surrender" to violent crime. Welcome to Aurora! Disarm yourself and prepare to be shot, because even though you're not allowed to protect yourself, our police force is so thin and spread out that we can't protect you either. Good luck!

Mass shootings CAN be stopped. They can be stopped by private citizens working with the same aims as peace officers: to stop the violence immediately, thereby saving lives.

It is astonishing that cities like Aurora, Colorado do not allow citizens to protect themselves against violence. The deaths of those 12 victims rest squarely on the officials of the city of Aurora who deliberately created an environment of total helplessness that directly led to the unnecessary deaths of innocent people, including young women and children.

City and state officials of Colorado are, in my view, negligent in these deaths and should be sued by the families of the survivors for criminalizing self defense. Shame on these officials! Shame of those who demand that we all become victims of violent crime. Shame on those who call for yet more disarmament of the public which will inevitably lead to yet more violent crime that can't be stopped.

Think about these FACTS for a second

• The massacre in Aurora took only two minutes to carry out.
• The average response time of police is, at minimum, six minutes (and getting worse).
• A typical concealed carry holder can draw, aim and shoot back in less than five seconds.
Do the math.

Watch my video message about grieving for the loss of life as well as the "Divine Right of self defense"

Watch the full video here:
http://youtu.be/3CB91v8njhw

Additional sources:
Shooting suspect gun club membership rejected
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/07/22/police_colo_suspect_planned_massacre_for_months/

'What?' Confused 911 caller outs NYPD spying in NJ

By ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZO | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (AP) — It's an audiotape the New York Police Department hoped you would never hear.

A building superintendent at an apartment complex just off the Rutgers University campus called the New Brunswick Police 911 line in June 2009. He said his staff had been conducting a routine inspection and came across something suspicious.

"What's suspicious?" the dispatcher asked.

"Suspicious in the sense that the apartment has about — has no furniture except two beds, has no clothing, has New York City Police Department radios."

"Really?" the dispatcher asked, her voice rising with surprise.

The caller, Salil Sheth, had stumbled upon one of the NYPD's biggest secrets: a safe house, a place where undercover officers working well outside the department's jurisdiction could lie low and coordinate surveillance. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the NYPD, with training and guidance from the CIA, has monitored the activities of Muslims in New York and far beyond. Detectives infiltrated mosques, eavesdropped in cafes and kept tabs on Muslim student groups, including at Rutgers.

The NYPD kept files on innocent sermons, recorded the names of political organizers in police documents and built databases of where Muslims lived and shopped, even where they were likely to gather to watch sports. Out-of-state operations, like the one in New Brunswick, were one aspect of this larger intelligence-gathering effort. The Associated Press previously described the discovery of the NYPD inside the New Jersey apartment, but police now have released the tape of the 911 call and other materials after a legal fight.

"There's computer hardware, software, you know, just laying around," the caller continued. "There's pictures of terrorists. There's pictures of our neighboring building that they have."

"In New Brunswick?" the dispatcher asked, sounding as confused as the caller.

The AP requested a copy of the 911 tape last year. Under pressure from the NYPD, the New Brunswick Police Department refused. After the AP sued, the city this week turned over the tape and emails that described the NYPD's efforts to keep the recording a secret.

The call sent New Brunswick police and the FBI rushing to the apartment complex. Officers and agents were surprised at what they found. None had been told that the NYPD was in town.

At the NYPD, the bungled operation was an embarrassment. It made the department look amateurish and forced it to ask the FBI to return the department's materials.

The emails highlight the sometimes convoluted arguments the NYPD has used to justify its out-of-state activities, which have been criticized by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and some members of Congress. The NYPD has infiltrated and photographed Muslim businesses and mosques in New Jersey, monitored the Internet postings of Muslim college students across the Northeast and traveled as far away as New Orleans to infiltrate and build files on liberal advocacy groups.

In February, NYPD's deputy commissioner for legal matters, Andrew Schaffer, told reporters that detectives can operate outside New York because they aren't conducting official police duties.

"They're not acting as police officers in other jurisdictions," Schaffer said.

In trying to keep the 911 tape under wraps, however, the NYPD made no mention of the fact that its officers were not acting as police. In fact, Lt. Cmdr. William McGroarty and Assistant Chief Thomas Galati argued that releasing the recording would jeopardize investigations and endanger the people and buildings.

Further, the apartment, No. 1076, was rented by an undercover NYPD officer using a fake name that he was still using, New Brunswick attorneys told the AP.
"Such identification will place the safety of any officers identified, as well as the undercover operatives with whom they work, at risk," Galati wrote in a letter to New Brunswick.
The city deleted that name from the copy of the tape that it released.
Reached by phone Tuesday, McGroarty declined to discuss the New Brunswick operation. But the recording offers a glimpse inside the safe house: a small apartment with two computers, dozens of black plastic boxes and no furniture or clothes except one suit.

"And pictures of our neighboring buildings?" the dispatcher asked.

"Yes, the Matrix building," Sheth replied, referring to a local developer. "There's pictures of terrorists. There's literature on the Muslim religion."

New York authorities have encouraged people like Sheth to call 911. In its "Eight Signs of Terrorism," people are encouraged to call the police if they see evidence of surveillance, information gathering, suspicious activities or anything that looks out of place.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has defended the police department's right to go anywhere in the country in search of terrorists without telling local police. And New Jersey Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa has said he's seen no evidence that the NYPD's efforts violated his state's laws.

Muslim groups, however, have sued to shut down the NYPD programs. Civil rights lawyers have asked a federal judge to decide whether the spying violates federal rules that were set up to prevent a repeat of NYPD abuses of the 1950s, when police Red Squads spied on student groups and activists in search of communists.

And you wonder why us Libertarians having warning everyone about an approaching Police State. I beleive that the Church Amendment banned any domestic involvement by CIA!

Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?

Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war.

By L. GORDON CROVITZ

 

A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."

It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happens—and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way.
For many technologists, the idea of the Internet traces to Vannevar Bush, the presidential science adviser during World War II who oversaw the development of radar and the Manhattan Project. In a 1946 article in The Atlantic titled "As We May Think," Bush defined an ambitious peacetime goal for technologists: Build what he called a "memex" through which "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified."
That fired imaginations, and by the 1960s technologists were trying to connect separate physical communications networks into one global network—a "world-wide web." The federal government was involved, modestly, via the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Its goal was not maintaining communications during a nuclear attack, and it didn't build the Internet. Robert Taylor, who ran the ARPA program in the 1960s, sent an email to fellow technologists in 2004 setting the record straight: "The creation of the Arpanet was not motivated by considerations of war. The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks."
If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.

Enlarge Image

Xerox PARC headquarters.

 

But full credit goes to the company where Mr. Taylor worked after leaving ARPA: Xerox. It was at the Xerox PARC labs in Silicon Valley in the 1970s that the Ethernet was developed to link different computer networks. Researchers there also developed the first personal computer (the Xerox Alto) and the graphical user interface that still drives computer usage today.
According to a book about Xerox PARC, "Dealers of Lightning" (by Michael Hiltzik), its top researchers realized they couldn't wait for the government to connect different networks, so would have to do it themselves. "We have a more immediate problem than they do," Robert Metcalfe told his colleague John Shoch in 1973. "We have more networks than they do." Mr. Shoch later recalled that ARPA staffers "were working under government funding and university contracts. They had contract administrators . . . and all that slow, lugubrious behavior to contend with."
So having created the Internet, why didn't Xerox become the biggest company in the world? The answer explains the disconnect between a government-led view of business and how innovation actually happens.
Executives at Xerox headquarters in Rochester, N.Y., were focused on selling copiers. From their standpoint, the Ethernet was important only so that people in an office could link computers to share a copier. Then, in 1979, Steve Jobs negotiated an agreement whereby Xerox's venture-capital division invested $1 million in Apple, with the requirement that Jobs get a full briefing on all the Xerox PARC innovations. "They just had no idea what they had," Jobs later said, after launching hugely profitable Apple computers using concepts developed by Xerox.
Xerox's copier business was lucrative for decades, but the company eventually had years of losses during the digital revolution. Xerox managers can console themselves that it's rare for a company to make the transition from one technology era to another.
As for the government's role, the Internet was fully privatized in 1995, when a remaining piece of the network run by the National Science Foundation was closed—just as the commercial Web began to boom. Blogger Brian Carnell wrote in 1999: "The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique of large government. Here for 30 years the government had an immensely useful protocol for transferring information, TCP/IP, but it languished. . . . In less than a decade, private concerns have taken that protocol and created one of the most important technological revolutions of the millennia."
It's important to understand the history of the Internet because it's too often wrongly cited to justify big government. It's also important to recognize that building great technology businesses requires both innovation and the skills to bring innovations to market. As the contrast between Xerox and Apple shows, few business leaders succeed in this challenge. Those who do—not the government—deserve the credit for making it happen.
(Note: This column has been altered to correct the misattribution of Brian Carnell's quote.)

A version of this article appeared July 23, 2012, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Who Really Invented the Internet?.

Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
http://www.djreprints.com/

The Aurora Shootings

By David J. Theroux | Monday July 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM PDT

 615 19

 

The horrendous and calculated killings in Aurora Thursday evening are a great tragedy not just for the victims and their families but for everyone who can clearly see the utter evil of such acts and the helplessness we all feel as a result.
However this massacre might have been far less likely for there are a number of key problems that have gotten virtually no attention in the media and the political demagoguing that has resulted.
1. The patrons of the midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises had entered a zone in which there existed no real protection of any kind against acts of violence. The theater chain owned by Cinemark maintains a strict no-gun position, not just for customers but for all employees, including security personnel. Of course, the theater has full right to ban guns for its customers not just for safety purposes but to keep insurance costs to a minimum, but I draw the line when it also includes security personnel, deferring the only security to the local government police.
And while Colorado has a liberal policy of issuing concealed carry permits for adults over 21 years of age, the City of Aurora and twelve other cities in the state (including Colorado Springs, Denver, Littleton, and Boulder) have adopted local ordinances that prohibit concealed carry permits. In addition, most of the theater goers were under-age for such permits. Furthermore, at midnight the rest of the shopping center area was closed and deserted of employees and patrons, so that aid from others was not possible. Nevertheless, film critic Roger Ebert has predictably and ignorantly made wild claims that the incident proves the failure of concealed carry permits and that America’s gun laws as “insane.”

That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended.

Ironically enough the scene of the Columbine High School shootings took place just sixteen miles away on April 20, 1999, where the school zone for blocks also had a strict no-gun policy, giving predators open and unchecked access to murder at will. Contrary to Ebert, the evidence is overwhelming that private ownership of guns is not just a major deterrent to crime but enables rapid responses when crimes occur (see here, here, here, and here). Indeed, here is an instructive video:

2. The shootings went on for fifteen minutes with the initial recording at Aurora police at 12:39 am. Fortunately, the theaters are close to the police station which explains the short response time, but the fact remains that the police could only arrive after the fact and no one on the scene was allowed to be armed to stop the assailant. Indeed, most all police response occurs after crimes have been completed and for Cinemark, the decision was to defer such threats solely to the local police, producing the government failure that occurred.
3. While the theater firm bans guns, they encourage customers to come “in costume” as a marketing ploy and even carry “weapons” as characters in the film, including the mass-murdering Bane! And indeed, James Holmes apparently did just that, dressed in full-body armor including helmet and gas mask and carrying a shotgun, rifle, pistol, and gas canisters. The first question then is was no one watching, including all entrances? No, the answer is that the theater believed that people attending “in costume” was just A-Okay and looking like a mass murderer is apparently no reason to check for Cinemark. And why would Warner Brothers have such a hyper-violent film rated PG-13, except to entice unprotected children to see it?
4. Cinemark’s deferring entirely to the government police is also all part of the “Progressive” myth of the Zeitgeist view that holds that the citizenry cannot be trusted or allowed to make their own decisions but instead should be regulated and controlled by secular, government, bureaucratic “elites.” So for Cinemark and the Hollywood culture it works for, being P.C. to have a gun-free zone is a convenient “Progressive” way to be in sync with the entertainment industries’ support for gun control.
5. Finally, the “chic” entertainment culture of gratuitous death, sadism, depravity and torture, a/k/a Quentin Tarantino films, slasher films, gangster films, and vampire films, etc., reflects the post-modern, moral relativist norms in American elite, popular, and youth cultures. Ironically enough, the Obama re-election campaign tried initially to use the film to link the character Bane to Romney and Bain Capital with Obama and Biden the alleged Batman and Robin, but this has completely backfired as the director Christopher Nolan attacked the idea. In addition and despite the violence, the film’s themes are clearly anti-”Progressive” ones of a courageous, private and wealthy citizen (Bruce Wayne) standing up to the incoherent and immoral, “Progressive,” collectivist and statist forces of moral depravity and violence. In this regard, the Zeitgest support now for gun control in response to the Aurora shootings incoherently translates to mean that all innocent and peaceful citizens should be subject to the threat of lethal force by the State if they do not comply with gun control edicts, exactly what the views of the Bane and Joker characters in the films advocate. In other words, for Roger Ebert, Michael Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, Piers Morgan, Frank Lautenberg and other “Progressives” (i.e., authoritarians) the solution to a lone nut using lethal force against the innocent is to disarm them and subject everyone to a universal threat of lethal force so long as it is done “scientifically” and “fairly” by their revered, secular State.

It’s Not Just A Two-Man Presidential Contest
By Glenn Garvin
Miami Herald


You probably don’t give a great deal of thought to Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. Maybe you should. Mitt Romney certainly is.
Romney’s political cronies in Michigan have gotten Johnson kicked off the November ballot there because he was three minutes late in filing some paperwork. With polls indicating the race for Michigan’s 16 votes is a dead heat, Romney’s camp doesn’t want to take any chances that Johnson, a former Republican who served two terms as governor of New Mexico, will siphon off any of his votes.
Romney, however, might not want to start counting his new Libertarian votes yet. Johnson’s lawyers, arguing that one absurd technicality deserves another, say they’ve found a loophole in Michigan law that will keep the Libertarian Party on the ballot if they can just find some other guy named Gary Johnson to take his place.
“And fortunately, I’ve got a pretty common name,” said Johnson, laughing.
There are other good reasons you might want to give Johnson some thought:
•  He’s the only candidate who will be on the ballot in all 50 states and Washington who shows no interest in bombing Iran.
•  He’s the only candidate willing to violate the politicians’ version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and say out loud what they all know – that the war on drugs is a useless waste of money.
•  And he’s the only candidate promising to cut the federal budget – actually cut it, not just slow its growth – in his first year in office.
Not symbolically, either. He plans to cut $1.4 trillion in government spending. And it won’t be as hard as you think. Start with the Pentagon, where Johnson already has made a list of cuts that amount to 43 percent of the budget.
“You know how many years that rolls back our defense spending?” Johnson asked. “All the way to 2003. That’s not the end of the world. I think we can live safely within the military security we had in 2003.”
Johnson confounds political reporters because his mix of positions doesn’t correspond to their bipolar worldview, where everybody is either a free-spending, pro-civil-liberties, dovish liberal Democrat or a skinflint, lock-’em-up, hawkish conservative Republican.
But polls show growing numbers of Americans are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. “I don’t think either major party embraces those values,” said Johnson. “I’m running in the same political category as most people in this country.”
They figured that out in New Mexico, where Johnson was governor from 1995 to 2003. Though the state is overwhelmingly Democratic, Johnson won a solid victory with his platform of cutting taxes and reining in spending. And in spite of facing a legislature that was two-thirds Democratic, he delivered, vetoing 750 bills and thousands of line-item expenditures. He easily won re-election, and when he left office the state had a $1 billion budget surplus.
Jobs in New Mexico grew at a faster clip under Johnson than under any other former governor who ran for president this year – five times faster than they did in Massachusetts when Romney was governor. But Johnson quickly corrects any suggestion that he “created” jobs.
“I didn’t create a single job,” he said. “The private sector did that. But I did create an environment where the private sector could flourish. And that’s what I’ll do as president.”
He might, however, create one job. If you live in Michigan and your name is Gary Johnson, send in a resume.
Glenn Garvin is a columnist for the Miami Herald.

Here are some thoughts on the Century Theater Massacre:

Is Colorado a conceal carry state? Is Aurora an open carry city? One well placed shot to the face (even though he had a gas mask on) and James the Joker does not kill or wound near as many innocent people! Yes, the theater was dark and smoky but with a laser sight on a semi-automatic handgun you should/could have been able to hit the weasel coward between the eyes!

Warner Brothers, please don’t pull the movie from other theaters because of the mass hysteria going on and the 24/7 cable news coverage of this atrocity! James Holmes is a deranged monster who had been planning this onslaught for many months. Your movie (which he had not yet watched) could not have influenced his behavior and even if the previous Dark Night movie did, he is completely responsible for his actions! We as free sovereign human beings are always at all times and circumstances responsible for what we do!

I could also see some sick individuals lighting off firecrackers inside theaters in the next few days as some sort of (humorous in their demented minds) copy cat actions. It is good that other theater chains have decided to beef up security and ban moviegoers from wearing costumes. In a society in which some private property rights still exist, these theater owners have every right to do this!

To all you gun control advocates, there is no way that this tragedy could have been prevented, so taking away everyone’s guns after the fact will not fix a bloody single thing! My only question is, how could Holmes have propped a back door open without sounding an alarm? At every theater that I have visited, the back doors are generally fire escape doors and they sound a very loud alarm when opened! I can already see the writing on the wall, ambulance chasing lawyers are already contacting the victim’s families and advising them to sue the theater owners for failing to secure the back door. And please excuse me for being a little insensitive but all the king’s horses, the entire king’s men and all the theater chains money will never bring back your loved ones again!

My last thought is a quote from Robert Heinlein and it is, “an armed society is a polite society” and I could also add that “a peaceful society is an armed society”! My sincerest sympathy goes out to the victim’s families and friends as well as the family and friends of James Holmes as they are all having deal with this horrible tragedy and great loss of loved ones. May we try to live out a more peaceful existence both at home and abroad as a country in the future.

Christians Can Be Libertarians Too!

Religion and Libertarianism

by Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Won’t You Come Back, Alan Greenspan? Won’t You Come Back?

This column is a response to an over the transom letter I received (you young people, if you don’t know what that is, look it up). First appears my response and then the letter that so outraged me.
My response:
I'm a devout atheist. A very devout one. You make some very good points against religion.
To many atheists, the claim for the existence of God is roughly on a par with the existence of the Easter Bunny, or witches, ghouls, werewolves, leprechauns, Santa Claus, whatever.
But, can theists be libertarians? Of course they can. All they need do is respect the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). What are religious people guilty of, precisely, that makes you think they can't be libertarians? At worst, in the view of most atheists, mumble some silly words (prayers). They sing some silly songs. They read some silly fairy tale books (the Bible.) How any of this violates the NAP is totally beyond me. I don't care if they are devil worshippers; stick pins in dolls, etc. That still would not violate the NAP. You say "when God does far, far worse." Come on, give me a break. As you and I believe, there is no such entity, so how can He be guilty of this, let alone of anything?
There are many other present day libertarians, besides Tom Woods and Ron Paul who you mention, who have also made magnificent contributions to our cause and are devout believers in religion: William Anderson, Professor of Economics, Frostburg State University, Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, William Barnett II, Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans; Gerard Casey of University College Dublin, Fr. Hank Hilton, S.J., Professor of Economics at Loyola University Maryland; Jeff Herbener, Professor of Economics at Grove City College, Norman Horn of LibertarianChristians.com, Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation, Guido Hulsmann, Professor of Economics at University of Angers, Jason Jewell of Faulkner University, Peter Klein, Professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Andrew Napolitano of Fox News, Gary North of the Institute for Christian Economics, Professor of Economics at Loyola University Shawn Ritenour, Professor of Economics at Grove City College, Fr. James Sadowsky, S.J., Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Fordham University, Joseph Salerno, Professor of Economics at Pace University, Fr. Robert Sirico, Director of the Acton Institute, Lew Rockwell, Director of the Mises Institute, Timothy Terrell, Professor of Economics, Wofford College, David Theroux of the Independent Institute, Jeff Tucker of Laissez Faire Books, Laurence Vance, Director of the Francis Wayland Institute.. These names come to me with very little research. I'm sure there are many, many more (if you qualify, please e mail me at wblock@loyno.edu, and I’ll add you to this list when I next revise it). I'm not enough of a historian to give you an equally impressive list of figures from the past who would also qualify, but I have no doubt that there are many, many of them, too.
To say that a religious person can't be a libertarian, I think, has about the same truth value as the claim that if you like chess, baroque music, handball, swimming, running, karate, movies, chocolate, Austrian economics (to mention just a few of my own favorite things) then you cannot be a libertarian. To repeat, all that is required of a libertarian is adherence to the NAP, and none of these things I mention, or religion, should disqualify anyone.
Second to Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, even though she didn't call herself a libertarian, even though she explicitly rejected libertarianism and was venomous toward libertarians, probably created more of us than anyone else. However, many of them, you included?, come to our movement with some Randian baggage: very strong views on aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology, and an unalterable and abiding hate for religion. I single out the latter for particular condemnation, not only because it is inaccurate to conflate this with libertarianism, but for strategic reasons given below. These perspectives may all be part of Objectivism – she imposed many of her personal tastes on this philosophy of hers – but have nothing to do with libertarianism, an entirely different kettle of fish.
We must as libertarians accept the best of Ayn Rand – her adherence for laissez faire capitalism, private property rights and economic freedom, most important the moral case she made in this regard – but jettison the rest of the package.
Yes, yes, religion has done great harm in the past, and even in the present. There were the Crusades, and the Inquisition. Nowadays, people are murdering each other quite enthusiastically over religious belief. Horrid. But, compared to that great evil, the state, the number of deaths from this quarter is relatively small. Did you know that the best estimate for the number of innocents killed during the Inquisition was only something like 3,000 – 10,000? In very sharp contrast, the number of people killed by the government (mainly atheist communists) is estimated at some 173 million, in the 20th century alone. And this is just the number of its own citizens murdered by statist leaders. It ignores all the wars promulgated by government. It also fails to take into account the number of people killed due to socialized medicine, and on our government roads. See here on the latter.
My strategic view on all this is that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." So who is my main enemy, qua libertarian? The government in general, of course, and in particular, Stalin, one of the most brutal of all statists. And what pray tell was Stalin’s outlook on religion? It was particularly vicious. He attempted to undermine religion (along with the family by getting children to tattle on their parents for great rewards). So, I am, somewhat paradoxically, an atheist who is friendly toward religion. Since virtually every human in virtually every time has been religious, and since libertarianism is a political philosophy that says nothing about God, for libertarians to be offensive about religion is just plain stupid. It is far worse than linking our philosophy with practically any other adventitious calling. Are we next going to come out against motherhood and apple pie?
Long live religion, say I, and on libertarian grounds! Yes, these people believe in unproven things, but we are in a battle for the hearts and minds of the people. Ranged on one side is the government; on the other, religion. The choice between them ought not be too difficult for those of us intent upon bringing about freedom. The one is diametrically opposed to liberty. The other is per se entirely orthogonal to our movement. By "per se" I am including only a belief in God. The desire to impose this belief on others is of course antagonistic to libertarianism; it is itself a version of statism.
For more writings on this subject, all of which I think are quite sensible on this question, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Here is a previous publication of mine on this subject.
So, please reconsider your enmity toward religion. It is not per se incompatible with the freedom philosophy. Some of our very best libertarians were and are believers in religion. Let us instead focus on our real enemy, statism.
The letter:
For some time now, I've pondered how libertarians (especially anarchists) can be religious without contradicting their libertarian philosophy. I've sent a note to Tom Woods about it, too. The reason I ask is that it seems that quite a few libertarians are very religious, something that LRC.com makes very evident. And Ron Paul, I think, is religious to the point of doubting evolution. Considering how the Christian/Jewish god is described in their own scripture, every libertarian and certainly anarchist should be a raging anti-theist.
What I mean by that is that those who do believe in the Christian or Jewish version of God, and in the Bible, believe in an all powerful and all controlling deity. They view heaven as paradise, even though Christopher Hitchens was spot on when he described heaven as a celestial North Korea. Because that is exactly how it is described; a place ruled by one person and the purpose of everyone in their (sic) is to spend eternity praising this person. Isn't that a rather good approximation of the lives of the North Koreans? Except for the starvation of course.
It should be undeniable that if God was a person and did even a fraction of all the things his followers believe he did and does, and even praise him for it, he'd be light years worse than all human dictators put together. Libertarians oppose the state and praise individual freedom, which is logical for people who oppose the use of violence. But at the same time religious libertarians believe in and praise a God, who condemns people to death and damnation for the thought crime of doubting his existence. If it is wrong for people to use violence against people, why is it praiseworthy when God does far, far worse?
Why, for instance, isn't the story of Noah appalling to libertarians? God committed mass genocide just because people weren't worshipping him enough. Or the story of Job? God killed his family, deprived him of everything, made him sick and endure unimaginable hardships. Why? To prove a point to Satan of all things. The whole Old Testament is a litany of genocide and fantastical violence and atrocities, mostly because God didn't like what people, his own creations, were doing. How's that for "free will"?
And again, it doesn't matter if these stories are true or not. I of course don't think they are, but I can't understand for the life of me how person can be any sort of libertarian at the same time he not only believes, but praises, someone (God) like that. That God doesn't exist actually makes it worse, because that means the believers at least hope these stories are true. I'm rather interested in understanding how the same person can abhor human violence and tyranny while praising godly violence and tyranny.

July 7, 2012

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

I Hereby Secede

by Roger Young

Previously by Roger Young: Sgt. Thomas Is a Hypocrite

Secession is a topic that seems to increasingly pop up in conversation, discussion, and written opinion. I believe that more people every day are seeing state secession as a viable and even necessary action to counteract increasing personal oppression, stolen liberties, and monetary incompetence and thievery by the United States Government. According to the Declaration of Independence, when such conditions become intolerable for the people, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


But why wait for your state to secede? In the meantime, why not make a personal declaration of secession? Below is my idea of what a personal declaration would look like. I encourage others to make this same declaration and add or subtract any statements you deem relevant. Or write your own. Make copies and distribute to friends and relatives, encouraging them to do likewise. By all means, send copies to your Congress critters and other ruling tyrants. Convey the message that you no longer willingly submit to their arbitrary rules, and the theft and violence committed against you personally and against others in your name.


Some will dismiss such a declaration as merely symbolic, lacking any legitimate authority. By how does it contain any less authority than a state and constitution created by others a couple centuries before you were born? Here is my declaration:


I, Roger Young, a sovereign, free-born individual, and a child of God/Nature, do hereby declare my personal secession from the political entity known as the "United States of America." Though reason tells me that this entity has no inherent legitimacy toward ruling my life (as this arrangement was not created by me, nor obtained my consent), I find it necessary to declare such a separation.


By this act of secession, I hereby withdraw any present and future consent toward being ruled by this authoritarian organization. Any laws, edicts, regulations, executive orders, or demands issued by this organization will be ignored as so much verbal static emanating from tyrants lacking any legitimate authority.


By this act of secession, I declare I will no longer consent to being described as a willing citizen or subject, collectively enslaved under the rule of the "United States Government," nor its permanently ensconced ruling class. I hereby refuse to be labeled a participant of, nor a collaborator with, the criminal actions executed by those individuals declaring to be representatives, employees, or agents of the "United States Government." Such actions include waging war and stealing the property and wealth of other individuals. Any such actions declared to "be in my name" or "for my benefit or protection" will be considered blatantly fraudulent. I will hereby consider myself only as a sovereign individual residing on the North American continent, responsible only for the actions I commit as an individual.


By this act of secession, I will no longer be a party to the collectivist "we" used to describe those residing within the geographical boundaries claimed by some as the "United States of America." I will no longer be subject to the responsibilities, agreements, debts, or liabilities, claimed by that institution and "shared" by its subjects


By this act of secession, I will no longer consider my body subject to the rules and regulations of that entity known as the "United States Government." Any attempt to restrict my consumption of any food or drug will be branded as illegitimate and ignored Any attempt to actively apply such restrictions by this entity will be considered an act of violence and dealt with accordingly in a peaceful, though effective and persuasive, manner.


By this act of secession, I will no longer consider my physical, property (tangible or intangible) subject to any "laws" or regulations put forth by the entity known as the "United States Government." Any taking or taxing of such property will be considered theft and will be dealt with accordingly in a peaceful, though effective and persuasive, manner.


By this act of secession, I will no longer deem any restrictions, regulations, or limits on the use of my labor as legitimate, nor the taking or taxing of the fruits of such activity. The interference in the voluntary, contractual associations and agreements that involve my personal labor will not be tolerated. Such agreements and contracts will be considered sacrosanct and immune to the dictates and interventions from that entity known as the "United States Government."


By this act of secession, I will no longer maintain any allegiance or loyalty to the political abstraction named "The United States of America." I will not recognize its "boundaries" as legitimate nor use their existence as a regulator or hindrance toward interacting with those individuals who reside outside said "boundaries." I will also declare no aggressive intentions toward destruction or take-over of this entity. I will also by this act declare no immediate allegiance or loyalty to any other present or future political abstraction.


By this act of secession, I hereby declare absolutely no reverence or respect for that political entity known as the "United States of America" nor its self-declared ruling body known as the "United States Government." I will from this time forward view both with suspicion and as dangerous predators, preying on the lives, fortunes, and liberties of free individuals.


By this act of secession, I will not automatically obey any illegitimate "laws" or orders, not previously mentioned, put forth by that entity known as the "United States Government." Any perceived obedience by me will be the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.


Any state agents sent forth by the "United States Government" to contact me will be dealt the equivalent respect and kindness that is shown toward me by such agents. Any perceived obedience by me will be the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity and its agents exhibiting superior firepower.


By this act of secession, I will not tolerate, as a free-living, free-thinking, peaceful individual, any violent, unjustified attacks on other such individuals and private organizations or their property by this entity known as the "United States Government." I will utilize all available time, talents, and resources available to me to expose and ridicule those agents of the "United States Government" that initiate such attacks. I will also help and support any active, peaceful countermeasures to help prevent or overturn any such violent, aggressive actions against sovereign lives and property.




By this act of secession, I will no longer listen to any speeches, comments, or information communicated by that entity known as the "United States Government." All such information will be instantly declared not credible and subject to verification and confirmation by reliable, non-state sources. Any verbal or written communication emanating from this entity will automatically be considered a lie until proven otherwise.


By this act of secession I remain open to the idea of being ruled by similar such entities, but such an action will occur only with unequivocal consent by me and legitimized by mutual contractual agreement.


By this act of secession, I do not make the arrogant assumption of speaking for other sovereign, free-born individuals. This declaration is relevant only to me and not to any other sovereign individuals known personally to me or related by birth. However, I encourage other like minded individuals to do the same. I encourage and even implore them to stand up for their lives, liberties and property. I passionately advise they throw off the yoke of bondage that inhibits, strangles, and even kills them, destroys and steals their wealth and property, and poisons the futures of all who seek to live unchained. No shedding of blood or violent extremism is necessary. Just take the time to officially declare withdrawal of your consent.


"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed."

December 30, 2011

Roger Young [send him mail] is a freelance photographer in US-occupied Texas and has a blog.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Would you sign the Declaration of Independence?

Editor’s note: I have taken great artistic license and borrowed heavily from an e-mail sent  to me today July 4, 2012 by The Advocates for Self Government’s Sharon Harris. The main idea and many paragraphs within this piece (in italics, to give proper credit) are entirely of her creation. Her article inspired me to expand on her idea and write this post. I want to make it very clear that she does not necessarily endorse my ideas. Dear friend of liberty, As we celebrate the 236th anniversary of the birth of a new nation, I have a question for you: Would YOU sign the Declaration of Independence? Would you sign the Declaration of Independence – knowing, as the Founding Fathers did, that doing so would brand you as a traitor and put your life at risk? Would you pledge – in the words of the Declaration – your life, your fortune and your sacred honor to the cause of liberty? I’m betting that very few of you would! Before you get angry and quit reading this post, please let me explain….. If you are a Republican and/or a Conservative and not of the Ron Paul Wing, I bet that you would NOT sign the original Declaration if you could because you love militarism more than you love liberty! You see America’s military-industrial complex as something to be proud of and that we should be going abroad in search of monsters to destroy. You believe that it is our “national greatness” that should be the defining force in the world today; we should be policing the world and “keeping it safe for democracy”. Did you know Mr. and Mrs. GOP that the signers of the original declaration greatly mistrusted a standing army and saw it as a threat to liberty and the way to empire? Why do you think that the U.S. Constitution only calls for a navy to be permanently established? For further research I would suggest that you read the works of scholars Thomas E. Woods, Judge Andrew Napolitano and Thomas Di Lorenzo. If you are a Democrat and/or a Liberal I bet you would NOT sign the original Declaration if you could because you are in love with the welfare-nanny state and believe that the Federal government (actually the taxpayers) should be providing each citizen with cradle to grave handouts. You are also fully in favor of the U.S. going abroad as humanitarians with a guillotine and helping each destitute nation whether they want it or not! Do you realize that a lot of our international policies actually make the world much more poor and destitute? Do you really believe that our foreign aid makes it to the hungry and naked people of those nations and NOT the Swiss bank accounts of dictators, government officials and their families? Oh how Thomas Jefferson would be turning over in his grave if he knew that the political party that he founded had gotten so hopelessly lost and strayed away from the principles of liberty that he held so dearly all of his life! As for the rest of you……the remnant as we are called…… As libertarians and Ron Paulians, you and I are today’s representatives of the brave freedom lovers who risked life and limb to sign the original Declaration of Independence. The work you and I are doing for liberty is every bit as vital now as their work was then. We are keeping their dream of liberty alive, but that dream is quickly fading. Who else will defend our cherished liberties today when those liberties are all in jeopardy? Who will once again proclaim the universal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit (but not necessarily the attainment) of happiness? I urge each and every one of you to shake off the tired old “lesser of two evils” argument this November and DO NOT vote for any candidate of the two “major” political parties. Always remember that you are STILL voting for evil! Please change your voter registration tomorrow from Democrat, Republican or Independent to LIBERTARIAN! We can bring back peace, prosperity and liberty to our country! We can once again be that shining city upon on a hill, a promoter of liberty around the globe but a guarantor of none by force of arms! Vote Libertarian. It is our last best hope! Live free or die! Remember the principles 1776!

**Is it time to alter or abolish our present form of government?**

By Perry Willis and James Wilson
(767 words)
*Quotes of the Day:*

" . . . when governments become destructive of these ends, it is the right
of the people to alter or abolish . . . "
-- the Declaration of Independence

"If you're a successful business in America, you either quickly open a
lobbying office in Washington, or Washington makes you regret that you
didn't." -- [LINK:
http://www.theagitator.com/2012/06/26/why-dont-you-need-us/] Radley Balko

"If you want to get involved in business, you should get involved in
politics." - [LINK:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/carney-how-hatch-forced-microsoft-to-play-k-street s-game/article/2500453]
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

As we prepare to celebrate the 4th of July, and to launch our new strategy
to Deny Consent, we need to start asking ourselves fundamental questions .
. .

· Is it time to "alter or abolish" our present form of "government?"
· Does it still serve the ends defined in the Declaration of Independence?
· Or has it become the enemy of our life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness?

To further your thinking, please consider another example of the wanton
criminality of the Federal State . . .

[LINK:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/carney-how-hatch-forced-microsoft-to-play-k-street s-game/article/2500453]
Timothy Carney reveals how Orrin Hatch bullied Bill Gates into becoming a
part of the problem.

Microsoft gave only $50,000 to political campaigns in 1996, but $2.3
million in 2010, including maximum donations to Orrin Hatch. Why the big
change?

Senator Hatch constantly used his Judiciary Committee to harass Microsoft.

He even warned the company that they would need to play the Washington game
or suffer the consequences.

That's exactly how a gangland protection racket works. And it's how your
so-called "government" works too. 

Hatch's strong arm tactics motivated Microsoft to spend more than $100
million on protection payments. Much of this money was used to hire former
members of Congress and Capitol Hill staffers -- the "made men" of the
statist mob.

As Carney explains it, "Wal-Mart underwent this same shakedown last decade.
Then the hedge funds caught the eye of Washington. Next on the menu is
Apple. This is how Washington increases its power and its wealth."

Our political gangsters like to blame things on "corporate greed," but the
politician's greed is the real problem. They're the part of the 1% that the
Occupy Movement needs to focus on most.

No executive from Microsoft or Wal-Mart or Apple ever threatened anyone
with violence for failing to buy their products. But the politicians do
this constantly.

The comparison between the peaceful Voluntary Sector and the violent
Statist Sector is stark. The supposedly evil corporations . . .

· Provide you with products and services that improve your life
· Give you employment
· Pay dividends that help fund your retirement

And what do the statist politicians give you?

They take your money with threats of violence and use it to fund things
that you often don't want, or that you actively hate. But you have no
choice. You must submit, or the politicians will hurt you.

Equally bad, the political gangsters corrupt peaceful companies like
Microsoft. They make them join the Mob. 

If your business was at stake you might do exactly what Bill Gates did.
Join the criminals. Become part of the problem.

Business owners feel compelled to fund DC lobbying operations to protect
themselves from the politicians!

And then the rot sets in. It's an easy next step to use those lobbying
operations to seek legal advantages over competitors. Especially if you
fear your competitors will do the same thing to you.

This is politics and statism -- a war of all against all.

We must end this criminality.

In the weeks and months ahead we will argue that this system is inherently
broken. It cannot be fixed. It can only be replaced. But not with another
Leviathan Monopoly subject to different controls. All such controls are
fantasies. Instead, we need DE-centralized forms of government obedient to
consumer sovereignty.

We need to create new forms, just as the Declaration of Independence said.
We need institutions that will serve rather than rule: Organizations that
can be instantly fired and replaced. No more politics! No more initiation
of aggression against unwilling "citizens!" No more war of all against all!
No more legalized crime!

Doing this will require a mental revolution: A casting off of old
prejudices, assumptions, manipulations, and mythologies.

Each of us must do the work of causing this revolution in our own minds.
Then we must proclaim it to the politicians, the media, our friends, our
families, and our neighbors.

We hope that you will journey with us, to explore what is needed, and to
cause the change.

Perry Willis and James Wilson
for Downsize DC