Category Archives: Free Speech

Privacy For Some Gun Owners (State Workers), But Not For Others (The People)

Constitution, Federalism, Free Speech, GUNS, Individual Rights, Journalism, Media, States' Rights

It’s old news that will not be getting old anytime soon. A shitty rag, The Journal News, published “an interactive map containing the names and addresses of pistol-permit holders in New York’s Westchester and Putnam counties.”

In response, there has been a great deal of special pleading from conservative quarters. A lot of the gun owners whose names and addresses were mapped are “first responders,” conservatives have been lamenting. “We can’t expose our [sainted] first responders to any dangers.”

The Bill or Rights was meant to protect individuals against the state. It defends the people from the government; not the obverse. But trust conservatives to elevate the “oink sector,” in the debate over the right of gun owners to privacy.

If anything, “first responders,” and other members of the oink sector—having sold their souls to the state—need to accept the risks that go with exercising ultimate decision-making powers in society, to use Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s term.

Government workers–the special interests—are expected to live with the risk of the job. They accept the perks and the pensions, don’t they?

I’m reminded here of the special pleading the same Fox News folks made in the case of the Transportation Security Administration’s illicit searches at the airports.

On Mr. Hannity’s Great American Panel, Noel Nikpour, a tedious Republican strategists who talks up a storm on that forum, extended her exquisite understanding of individual rights to … people like herself and her co-panelists. You know, important sorts who fly a lot; they ought to be able to acquire a permit that’ll exempt them from being screened afresh [by TSA goons] as they scurry to their important appointments.

This evening, Sean Hannity provided a forum for some very impressive gun owners, all of whom had been “outed” by the The Journal News. These were highly intelligent people, more than capable of articulating the essence of the freedoms they were exercising.

Still, sympathy is all “conservatives” like Mr. Hannity are able to offer to these exposed individuals. Sympathy and an appeal to the decency of the media (laughable, I know).

Republicans have no leg to stand on in objecting to the publication of gun-owner addresses, as they argue from the positive law. And the positive law, defended by all so-called “reasonable” conservatives, compels all law-abiding individuals to register with the state when purchasing a fire arm. (To this registration, libertarians like myself would object.)

Information thus collated and centralized is accessible to all.

An appeal to the sympathy and decency of the liberal establishment: That’s all statist “conservatives” have to offer in the case of The Journal News Vs. the gun owners of Westchester and Putnam counties.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Piers Morgan Preaching Treason From Perch @ CNN (Pinko Pukes Abound Among Foxettes)

Britain, Celebrity, Constitution, Free Speech, GUNS, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Media, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Propaganda

From where I’m perched, Piers Morgan is guilty of preaching treason from his perch @ CNN—and not because he is devoting his time to undermining the US Constitution. For “all vestiges of natural justice in the Constitution lie buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.” Rather, Piers is a traitor for using his perch at CNN to advocate against the people’s natural right to defend their sacred lives.

More crucially, Piers is not guilty of preaching treason for preaching against the government, or the dead-letter Constitution. The more men so preach, be it on the left or the right—the merrier. Treason, in my book, is an act against The People’s natural rights to life, liberty and property (later today I will explain to the perplexed why the right of self-defense is an extension and a prerequisite of the right to life).

What Piers is doing is preaching treason against The People.

But is not the agitation for the violation of individual rights an act of free speech? In libertarian law—the only universally just law—there is no free speech without private property. You can’t deliver a disquisition in my living room without my explicit permission, as owner of the abode. But from your property, you may preach whatever is in your heart: hate, love, violence, etc.

Is Piers preaching treason from private property (CNN)? Probably. Is asking for his deportation, as some Americans are, a use of force, or just an exercise of free speech, to counter Piers’ true hate speech? Is deportation a use of force? Besides being a royal pillock, Piers Morgan is an immigrant from the UK.

You can see why the penalty some of our countrymen seek for Piers may be disputed by libertarains.

Ultimately, what Morgan is doing is reprehensible. The man disgusts me.

On a positive note: I started this blog yesterday, prompted by the site of the pillock Piers’ blockhead on my TV screen, interviewing a retarded PhD from “the crap country of Britain.”

Much to my delight, my husband sent me a petition calling for Piers’ deportation on the White House’s publicly supported website. It’s worse than useless, and may be disputed in libertarian law, but it warms the cockles of this heart.

UPDATE (Dec. 24): “Oh, how we suffer for the female suffrage! I once vowed to ‘give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.’”

There is no shortage of pinko pukes on Fox News, especially among the women folk. “Anyone who wants a gun must go through state training and a certification process over a number of months,” writes Elizabeth MacDonald (whom I quite liked), “if not a year, similar to what police officers go through. That process would include a deep-dive background check. All gun sales or exchanges must be registered with states and towns.”

Megyn Kelly and her cretinous colleagues (I guess viewers were meant to focus on Kelly’s stripy bottom. The rest of the segment was senseless):


Lead me to the vomitorium.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Nagging Begot The Nanny State On Steroids

Affirmative Action, Feminism, Free Speech, Gender, Labor, Welfare

At the not-so-new news that “more men in this country are opting out of the workforce and signing onto government entitlements,” Gerri Willis (whom I like) asks: “Where are all the good men?”

Let me attempt to reply.

For the sake of argument, let’s presume that all things are equal between men and women in our state-commanded labor force—also the faulty premise shared by those who comment on the lackluster performance of men in this economy. (“You Go Girl” gloat the pundits, left and right.)

Let us pretend along with the rest that women have not benefited from decades of fem affirmative action in government and big-business bureaucracies.

Notwithstanding legislation that privileges women, the wholesale feminization of American society comes at a price, especially to men.

Ours is a soft society. The women folk have molded men in their image. And what an awful image it is. Too many American men, like their women, don’t shut about their (invariably shallow) feelings, worship Oprah and watch chick flicks with equal zeal, deify and mollycoddle their solipsistic, badly behaved kids, become parasitical social activists (rather than mountaineers or entrepreneurs), cry on cue, and broadcast their (usually barren) inner-lives to the world.

For the purpose of a purchase I was making for him, I described my husband to a more traditional American woman. And she asked: “Where did you find this guy?” Although we were not discussing men qua men, I realized that what I had described was normal to me, but not to her.

“Oh,” I explained, “he isn’t North American. He’s an old-school WASP from South Africa.”

This type was raised (by like-minded parents) to keep a stiffer upper lip, dutifully assume his role as a man (in other words, get things done), and be both individualistic and self-sufficient to a fault. I joke that my husband doesn’t believe in the division of labor; he thinks he should do everyone else’s job. (A nerd’s joke, because to free marketeers like us, the division of labor is sacred.)

Men, however feminized, need moral instruction and manly role models. This a hierarchical, traditional society provides. The collapse of the work ethic among so many of America’s men is no doubt related to the progressive, matriarchal society rising.

American women didn’t like their WASPs (they’re not getting mine), so they molded the men into women, albeit with a preponderance of testosterone.

Nagging begot the Nanny State on Steroids.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

What Do Paris Hilton And A-Jad Have In Common?

Foreign Policy, Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Homosexuality, Iran, Islam, Israel, Judaism & Jews, Left-Liberalism, Media, Political Correctness

The following is from the current column, “What Do Paris Hilton And A-Jad Have In Common?”, now on WND:

“Gay Paree” refers to Paris, the capital of France, after which socialite Paris Hilton must have been named—that is, unless her parents are even more provincial (and pretentious) than they appear, and named their ditz of a daughter for the Texas city, northeast of Dallas–Fort Worth.

A-Jad is American English—and the perfect nickname—for Ahmadinejad, first name: Mahmoud. Residence: Iran. Occupation: Iranian president, alleged dictator, and general fall guy for the West.

What do Paris Hilton and A-Jad have in common?

OMG! Don’t tell me that Paris too has disrespected Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar—a dissing that has hardened into a handy political tool with which to whip any enemy of the neoconservative political faith.

Baying for the blood of Iran, the warbots are now bouncing off the walls. Why? Because the UN—whose moral and intellectual heft is on par with Hillary Clinton’s and that of Hollywood’s Idiocracy—invited A-Jad to speak on a day sacred to 13.4 million (count this writer among them) of the world’s population.

One tenet of the Jacobin orthodoxy concerns Iranian nuclear installations. These must be hit, and now. The neoconservative faction is unperturbed by the fact that Iran has been crippled economically. Consider, for example, its SWIFT eviction from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. Consequently—and since Barack Obama’s reign of terror abroad began—the Iranian currency had lost 65 percent of its value.

But no. American men and matériel should be allowed to reach all corners of the world, so move in for the kill we must.

Mon ami’ Mahmoud is not. But neither does this (Jewish) writer imagine that the seven billion (minus 13.4 million) people of the planet are obliged to respect Yom Kippur. Such an impossible standard would damn many a Jew to eternal punishment.

Back to the original question. The insufferably pompous Piers Morgan would have no problem answering it. Both Paris and A-Jad have been caught in flagrante delicto. …

Read on. The complete column, “What Do Paris Hilton And A-Jad Have In Common?”, is now on WND.COM.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Bottoms Up,* Kate Middleton

Aesthetics, Britain, Celebrity, Ethics, Etiquette, Free Speech, Private Property

She’s a gorgeous girl. She’s also stabler than her late mother-in-law (which, I guess, is not saying much, considering that the dodo Diana was a manipulative neurotic, given to histrionics).

In any event, Kate Middleton, aka The Duchess of Cambridge, will get over the fact that images of her bare breasts and bum are already in circulation, snapped in order to feed the voyeuristic fetish of the average consumer.

Certainly demand-driven, unethical, ugly and maybe even immoral: Hounding this girl wherever she goes is all of the above. But surely only trespassing on private property renders the action of the offending photographer illicit in natural law?!

The topless images of Kate were snapped from “the side of the road between trees, around half a mile away from a chateau,” in the south of France.

Was the photographer trespassing on private property? No report seems to specify. “Invasion of privacy” laws seem to belong to a broadly defined area of law, one that has little to do with the always unmentionable rights of private property.

(Bottoms up* means “here’s to you.”)


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

‘Bribing Some Countries & Bombing Others’ Equals Big-Time Blowback

America, Drug War, Foreign Policy, Free Speech, Islam, Jihad, Ron Paul

After days of listening to the eminence grise of American opinion makers, it is clear to me that, left and right, Republican and Democrat; all are agreed and united in stupidity: The Arab world has erupted once again because of our pole dancers, our potty-mouthed entertainers, our loud and loutish politicians, those of us who insult Jihad’s muse (Mohammad); you know, the stuff that makes us “free”—to the exclusion, of course, of the IRS that hounds us to the end of the world, the alphabet soup of regulation agencies that prosecutes and regulates our best and brightest to the gills, the War on Drugs that claims our property and freedoms, a welfare state that one analyst likened “not [to] a principality, but [to] a vast empire bigger than the entire budgets of almost every other country in the world,” and a warfare machine that, much to the delight of the same stock characters, who deploy such similar stock phrases, has gobbled up so many of our men and so much of our wealth.

From the War Street Journal to the White House web journal; the empty heads who’ve invested huge egos (and out-of-control Ids) in a false, foolish storyline are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Ron Paul isn’t. “Bribing some countries and bombing others” equals big time blowback:

In Libya we worked with, among others, the rebel Libyan Fighting Group (LIFG) which included foreign elements of al-Qaeda. It has been pointed out that the al-Qaeda affiliated radicals we fought in Iraq were some of the same groups we worked with to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya. Last year in a television interview I predicted that the result of NATO’s bombing of Libya would likely be an increased al-Qaeda presence in the country. I said at the time that we may be delivering al-Qaeda another prize.
Not long after NATO overthrew Gaddafi, the al Qaeda flag was flown over the courthouse in Benghazi. Should we be surprised, then, that less than a year later there would be an attack on our consulate in Benghazi? We have been told for at least the past eleven years that these people are the enemy who seeks to do us harm.

MORE.

“‘Islamikazes’ in Our Midst” put the whole “they hate us because of our liberties” debate thus:

“While it is far from a sufficient one, our adventurous foreign policy is a necessary precondition for Muslim aggression.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint