Thursday, July 23, 2015


I think Guns are part of culture.  You grow up with them or you don't.  If you don't, you don't perceive a need or purpose for them.  If you do, you almost feel naked without one.  If you never had one, you tend to fear them.  If you always had one, you fear being without one.

I am not a member of the NRA...yet I don't understand governments that want to ban personal ownership of guns.  I don't think my government should have something that they don't allow me to have...including Cadillac health plans and offshore bank accounts.

I understand the difference between "rights" and "privileges".  I understand our society putting up limits to "rights" if an individual cannot responsibly handle the freedom of their "rights".  Tommy may be able to responsibly handle guns, alcohol, and driving at the age of 14.  Jerry may not be able to handle any of them at the age of 40.  The law for everyone should not be based on the 40 year old.

In much the same light, if John can vote and die for our country in the military or police force at age 18...he should be free to do anything I can do including drink alcohol, gamble, or serve in various government positions local or national.  In addition, if he can carry a weapon to serve and defend our country...he should damn well have the right to carry a weapon to defend himself or his family.

Guns are not violent.  People are.  If we are going to outlaw anything, let's outlaw violent people.  That includes people who suffer from "temporary insanity".  If I harm another person, I should not escape punishment or incarceration just because I was "high" or suffering some mental or physical illness.  Pedophiles are mentally sick people...but they should not get away with their crimes just because of their "condition". Our liberal judicial system is out of whack when it comes to criminal cases.  This is helping feed the violence and aggression in our streets. will never make sense to a "gun person" when, if danger from violence is growing within his community, some government asks him to give up his guns.  I think that goes against the grain of common reasoning in human nature for self preservation.  After all, governments are the principle buyers of most firearms. The purpose of government is to protect freedoms...not take them away.  

Thursday, June 18, 2015

So You Think I am Unpatriotic?

This blog by Simon Black bears repeating today.  I have had similar comments or feedback from people who say my views about my government are "Un-American".  In response, I could not state the issues any better than here is a repost of his blog from today.

June 18, 2015
Kathmandu, Nepal
I’ll never forget the Oath of Office I took when I was commissioned as an Army Intelligence Officer all those years ago. The most important part is where you swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.” That was the part that kept ringing in my head as George W. Bush went on TV in the run-up to the Iraq war talking about weapons of mass destruction. We had been on the ground in Kuwait since late 2002, months before the invasion of Iraq kicked off. And every time Bush told that lie, I thought about my oath.
I’m disappointed to admit that, back then, I didn’t have the courage to go up against the big Army machine… to march into my Battalion Commander’s office and say, “Sir, we must defend the Constitution against the President of the United States.” I knew I would get crushed.
When I left the military, I started noticing all the other ways in which the government turned the Constitution into a punchline. And that practice has only accelerated. I came up with a different solution. Instead of fighting some faceless machine, I voted with my feet and left the country.
That, coupled with my drastically reduced tax bill thanks to being an overseas expat, has prompted a lot of use of the word ‘unpatriotic’ since I started writing this letter six years ago. I find this appallingly ignorant. The American Revolution itself was predicated on the inequity of taxation without representation.
Are your interests represented when they buy bombs and body scanners? Mine certainly aren’t. Yet people who define patriotism by the frequency and rapidity of their flag-waving think that we all have some collective duty to ignorantly believe whatever we’re told by the government. I disagree. So does the New Oxford American Dictionary, which defines ‘patriot’ as “a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.” There’s that phrase again– ‘defending against enemies.’
Who exactly are these ‘enemies’, by the way? Are they men in caves who hate us for our freedom? Arab teenagers with intense sexual angst and a collection of firearms? No. The real enemies are not foreign… but domestic. It is the apparatus of government itself that has collapsed upon the founding document of the nation.
It’s not unpatriotic to lament how far a government’s practices have diverged from its Constitution. It’s not unpatriotic to want to be free. And it’s not unpatriotic to take steps to make that happen. In fact, people who think it’s everyone’s patriotic duty to pay taxes are only feeding the beast that makes them less free. And it’s entirely delusional to think that all of this can change by going to a voting booth. There’s no politician that’s going to change this. Nobody is going to stand on stage and say, “My plan is to eliminate entire departments of government, fire half of all government workers, terminate social security, and default on the debt.”
Elections are pointless charades. But rather than vote for new people, we can simply vote to restrict the resources they have available. Yes, there are legal obligations to pay tax. And everyone should abide those obligations or risk pointless imprisonment. But with proper planning, tax obligations can be minimized.
In my case, I left the country. This provides up to $100,800 in tax-free income based on the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, and that’s before taking into account additional deductions, allowances, and exclusions. Recently I used my tax savings to finance a new prosthetic leg for an amputee war veteran that had been abandoned by the US government, and to buy food for earthquake victims here in Nepal. Had I not taken steps to reduce my tax bill, a big chunk of my income would have paid for more soldiers to get their legs blown off, and more bombs to be dropped by remote control on brown people. Instead, now I get to decide how my income and savings can best have an impact on the interests that I believe in. Let’s call it “representation without taxation”. And it’s completely legal as long as you follow the rules.
Sure, not everyone has the ability to leave the country. But there are options to fit any lifestyle and circumstance. In addition to taxes, for example, it’s important to consider moving a portion of your savings abroad where it can’t be confiscated or frozen by capital controls. Safeguarding your wealth is a huge part of this strategy, in fact.
The larger point is that taking steps to preserve your wealth and freedom is not unpatriotic. And for anyone who truly cares to defend your country from its domestic enemies, starving the beast is one of the most powerful tools you have available. 
Our goal is simple: To help you achieve personal liberty and financial prosperity no matter what happens.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

The Politics of Liberty

Republican, Democrat, independent...LIBERTARIAN! Since when did we need to have a political brand for Americans who love liberty?

While I count myself as having no political affiliation...I find it intriguing and mildly irritating being called a "Libertarian".  Yes, I understand that most of my views line up well with the Libertarian party and I have voted for Libertarian candidates here and there...but do I really need to be a Libertarian to believe in freedom, independence, capitalism and individualism? Do I really have to line up with some form of political movement before people or governments will recognize my views on the issues?

Obviously the people that get heard in our world today in the media are mostly people who have identified and labelled themselves with one party or another. When you begin expressing your views in a public forum, people in general begin labeling you "tea bagger", independent, liberal, conservative, Christian, Muslim, Zionist, etc etc...yet at the same time I would argue most of those labels have so many different meanings to so many people as to make most of them a dirty word to somebody and relatively meaningless.

To be political these days is to be full of intrigue, ambiguity and dishonesty.  Most politicians do not lead...they only reflect...their party's position, in some rare cases their constituent's positions, and most often those positions that will get them re-elected or put into a position of power. Those who aren't willing to compromise, flip flop their positions or otherwise kowtow to the powers that be are almost un-electable. Strong individuals will not get the money or support within organizations to lead with integrity.  People want to hear what they want to hear, not what you have to say or think. Conformity and "team playing" are the rules of the day.

I guess I am very strange in today's world.  I am for liberty and justice FOR ALL.  Not just MY party, religion or sexual persuasion.  I want everyone to be least to the borders of another person's freedom.  I don't want to have to join a party of government in order to guarantee my freedom.  I don't want to be forced to join causes I don't believe in just to guarantee my "freedom". I don't need religion or a political party to tell me how to live. I just want to be part of the brotherhood of man and be free to associate with anyone I choose, where I choose.  I want to be free to come and go in the world without people frisking and x-raying me.  I don't want to ask permission of any institutions to work, own a home or car, marry, or compete in the marketplace. I don't want to sign pledges to any government or political party in order to qualify for citizenship.  I kinda like the concept of "global citizen".  I don't want any institution demanding that I bear arms against other people deemed "the enemy".  I will choose my own enemies thank you very much.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.  I hope someday you will join us...and the world will be as one" (Lennon)...

I suppose some people view my attitudes as "anarchistic".  If that is what it takes to truly live in liberty, then so be it.  I actually still believe we need limited forms of representative and constitutional governments throughout the world...but I currently do not know of any.