Make Custom Gifts at CafePress

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Rand Paul Announces Presidential Candidacy In Style


New store with pro-privacy gear and accessories for your electronics 

See the NSA Spy Cam Blocker in the Fun Stuff section as well as skins for phones, Ipads, laptops and Beats headphones in the Accessories section!

Moving Message from Kelley Paul

Friday, January 11, 2013

Alex Jones Is Not A Fascist

Alex Jones was recently on Piers Morgan's show on CNN and went into a colorful rant against the media and the New World Order establishment over their attempts at disarming the American public and how he believes the American people will not stand for it and use violence if necessary to defend their basic freedoms. If you haven't seen the clip in it's entirety, check it out above.

This appearance elicited responses from commentators everywhere. Maybe not what you'd think, either. Howard Stern and Robin Quivers? Loved it. Glenn Beck? Hated it. Glenn Beck even called Alex Jones a fascist. He gives no reason for his slander, but I've heard similar thoughts from those on the left regarding those who insist that everybody has individual freedom.

So let's address that thought. Are people who insist on their freedom fascists?

To answer that, I have posted another 'rant' that runs a bit contrary to Alex Jones. It represents a well reasoned, calm and logical response to the question of "why does anyone need an assault rifle?" by a Ron Paul Forums poster named Blake Ashley. This is a great read for everybody, left or right, pro gun or anti-gun:

It is popular for certain politicians and others of dubious qualification to ask "Why does anyone need an assault rifle?" In response, let's first get down to fundamentals.

The USA prides itself on being a "free" country. And individual liberty IS our heritage and is the dominant theme in the writings of the Founders and in the founding documents. It is clear that our ancestors had in mind that Americans would enjoy the freedom that has been so often denied to the people of Europe and elsewhere. Indeed, for most of the Founders, protecting individual freedom was the primary purpose of government. Freedom is our political heritage and our cultural identity. As an American, it is not necessary to justify freedom. Freedom is a laudable end in itself. Freedom is its own justification.

It is those who would curtail freedom that must justify their actions. "Why do you need your freedom?" should be an absurd question to any American, to any human being that hasn't had their spirit crushed by oppression. And so the question "why do you need an assault rifle?" is never an appropriate threshold question for this discussion. Although the cause of liberty has suffered much since the US Constitution was ratified, we have not reached the point where the default position for policy discussions is denial of freedom with the enjoyment of freedom to be "granted" by the government only on an "as needed" basis.

So, indeed, "why do you need an assault rifle?" is an absurd and subtly tyrannical question. The proper threshold question goes the other way, from the free man to his government: "what is your compelling reason for denying my freedom?" So let's start by addressing the PROPER question. Since we presumably want to address the question rationally, let's skip over the emotional rhetoric and hysterical pronouncements of the mass media and politicians and go right to the actual facts.

According to FBI statistics, violent crime, including murder, has been FALLING. In fact, it has been falling steadily for over twenty years. It has fallen by more than fifty percent since it peaked in the early 90s. That is an astonishing reduction. Hmmmmm . . . not really a compelling case for infringing on the freedom of innocent people, is it?

But certainly these evil-looking weapons of war are a menace? Well, no. In 2010, for example, there were 12,996 murders in the USA (again citing FBI stats). Of those murders, firearms were used in 8,775. Of those, a whopping 358 of those murders were committed with rifles. And only some unknown fraction of those rifles were of the "evil" military style. And even a smaller fraction of those were aided by large capacity magazines. The plain fact is that military style rifles with high capacity magazines make a negligible contribution to violent crime even though literally millions are in the hands of American civilians. The ONLY reason such rifles are singled out for abuse is because they look menacing and people keep asserting that we must prove why we need one. Clearly, if you want to be rational about it, you need to look elsewhere to place blame for violent crime.

So, having utterly failed to provide a compelling reason to deny people their freedom in this way, the argument should be over. However, since the average media dupe is going to insist that "something must be done" even if it is irrational, let's inquire further.

The Sandy Hook shooter murdered his mother, stole her lawfully owned gun, and killed a bunch of children with it. Exactly what kind of gun law would have prevented this tragedy? Since he didn't purchase the gun, but stole it, no controls on purchasing, no licensing requirement, no background check, would have stopped him. Even a complete ban on future sales of such weapons would not have stopped the killing since he stole an existing weapon rather than buying a new one. So EVERY law being proposed in the wake of the shooting would have failed to prevent the shooting. This is typical for legislation based entirely on emotion.

But suppose you eliminated ALL civilian ownership of such weapons through confiscation? You still would have the possibility of acquisition by theft and diversion from approved holders (such as the police) and, more importantly, through the black market and smuggling. Mexico and other similar countries are awash with firearms in spite of a near total ban on civilian ownership. In the US, a total gun ban can reasonably be anticipated to be no more successful than has been the ban on marijuana, which manages to slip through by the bale on a daily basis in spite of the fact that it can be detected by trained dogs (guns cannot). Additionally, a bale of marijuana goes up in smoke in a matter of weeks and must be replaced. A gun, once smuggled into the country, last essentially forever. While it might be theoretically possible to convince the law-abiding to disarm themselves, only a fool thinks criminals will comply.

But suppose (against all the evidence) you COULD keep guns entirely out of civilian hands. What would stop your homicidal/suicidal maniac from killing people with explosives like the Bath Michigan school bombing that killed 38 children (, or with gasoline like the Happy Land arson fire that killed 87 people ( or with a knife like the recent attack on children in China ( Unarmed human beings are relatively fragile and it is not a difficult task to find ways to harm them, especially if you intend to die yourself in the process. It is simply folly to think you can make the world safe from homicidal maniacs by passing a law.

Indeed, no gun control law has ever been demonstrated to reduce violent crime. In fact, in the USA, the stricter the gun control, the greater the levels of violent crime. It is virtually a perfect correlation. As rational observers, we cannot assume that correlation equals causation and so we must admit the possibility that those jurisdictions have the most gun control BECAUSE they have the most violent crime and not the other way around. But we CAN conclude that gun control has not been effective at curtailing violent crime where it has been enacted. Not in the USA and not in the much vaunted UK, where gun control has not been followed by a reduction in violent crime, but rather by an increase. Australia and New Zealand have had the same result.

Gun control as a tool of crime control does not meet rational scrutiny and has a dismal track record. But since we have come this far, let's go all the way. Why not go ahead with a futile program? It certainly would not be the first. Indeed, government in the USA consists almost entirely of futile, expensive programs that curtail freedom. So why not another one? Why so much hot resistance?

The Founders of this country knew their history. They knew tyranny. They knew that ANY government could become tyrannical. And they desperately wanted the government they were creating to NOT become tyrannical. The Constitution goes to great lengths to try and erect barriers to tyranny by limiting the government to enumerated powers, by spreading its powers around among the people, the states, and various branches of the government, all with powers to check the others. And then on top of that they applied a list of restrictions, in the form of the Bill of Rights, that were based on their experience with the typical operations of tyrants. The Founders knew that government was the ultimate enemy of liberty, that it was, as Washington said, "Like fire, [] a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

And so, when we get right down to the nitty gritty, the somewhat embarrassing answer to the question "why do you need an assault rifle?" is: "we don't trust our government not to try and enslave us." And we have plenty of history to back up the fear.

In the last century, governments around the world have slaughtered at least 100 million of their own people. This has happened under the auspices of many cultures, many races, many forms of government. Anyone who responds to this with the idea that we are somehow immune to murderous tyranny should now be hearing the scoffing laughter of Santayana in their ears. You ignore history at your peril. Gun owners are not going to ignore history. "Oh, but we have democracy!" Yes, and Hitler was elected. Stalin and Mao probably would have been if they had bothered with elections, but they didn't have to because they had all the guns.

The more sophisticated advocate of gun control will not make the foolish assertion that "it can't happen here" but will instead assert that there is nothing the people can do against the might of government anyway should it decide to enslave them. I'm always a little at a loss at this argument since the implication seems to be that since we are no match for the military, we should FURTHER disarm ourselves and not even try to defend freedom should it come under attack. I wish such people happiness in their chains.

Aside from being pathetic and cowardly in their willingness to abandon freedom without even raising a fist, they are also wrong on the facts. The Soviet Union, at the height of its powers, was unable to dislodge the Mujahadeen from Afghanistan. Nor could the might of the US army dislodge the Viet Cong. And we calmed the insurgency in Irag only through bribery (and only temporarily in my opinion). The historical fact is that a determined indigenous resistance, especially if well-armed, is ALWAYS a force to be reckoned with. And that is exactly why the Founders specifically denied the Federal government the power to disarm the people - because an armed population is a bulwark against tyranny. And that, sir, is why I need a rifle suitable for combat.

The gun control advocates may reject the idea that an armed population acts as a defense against tyranny or scoff that such is needed. That's fine. In a sense it doesn't matter whether they believe it or not. What matters, and it is critical that they understand this, is that millions of gun owners DO believe it. So when government aspires to take their guns, they see it as a direct attack on the most important of all restraints on tyranny. They see it as a direct attack on the most fundamental of ALL freedoms, the freedom that PROTECTS all the rest. To the advocate, gun control seems to merely be restricting a silly hobby. But to millions of gun owners, the very future of freedom, the future of their children, depends on them NOT allowing themselves to be disarmed. They see every attempt at licensing, registration, magazine bans, etc. as government eating away at the keystone of liberty. That civilian disarmament is the act of a tyrant has been demonstrated time and time again with catastrophic results. Whether Mr. Gun Control Advocate believes it or not does not matter in the end because gun owners do and they will not be convinced otherwise.

Most scholars agree that one of the reasons the American Civil War happened was because both sides underestimated the will of the other side to fight and die for the cause. Advocates of gun control think that passing a law banning guns will be a victory. They are wrong. It will, instead, be the beginning of a war in which people will fight and die. The gun control advocate's refusal to understand that only makes the tragic outcome more likely. Let's not go there.

-Blake Ashley (

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Rand Paul 2016: Republicans Join or Die

Truth: If the Republican Party fails move towards a liberty oriented political platform then they will no longer be relevant in national politics. The liberty message is what young people embrace, it is what draws them towards conservatism and it is the future of the Republican Party. That is, if the Republican Party expects to survive. If they want to win another Presidential election, ever, the party must focus on limited and constitutional government at the national level.

Rand Paul is the candidate who can bring the most excitement, cast the net furthest and embrace the most diverse audience. Rand Paul's father started the movement that began the Tea Party. Yet Rand Paul already has a senate record of protecting our constitutional civil liberties that could even get a few on the left excited after a far from fantastic record from President Obama.

Use the next four years to educate yourself, your friends and your family about personal liberty, Austrian Economics, monetary policy, the Constitution and foreign policy.

2016 can be the year for liberty. No, it must be.,_or_Die

"Join, or Die" is a well-known political cartoon, created by Benjamin Franklin and first published in his Pennsylvania Gazette on May 9, 1754.[1] The original publication by the Gazette is the earliest known pictorial representation of colonial union produced by a British colonist in America.[2] It is a woodcut showing a snake severed into eighths, with each segment labeled with the initials of a British American colony or region. New England was represented as one segment, rather than the four colonies it was at that time. In addition, Delaware and Georgia were omitted completely. Thus, it has 8 segments of snake rather than the traditional 13 colonies.[3] The cartoon appeared along with Franklin's editorial about the "disunited state" of the colonies, and helped make his point about the importance of colonial unity. During that era, there was a superstition that a snake which had been cut into pieces would come back to life if the pieces were put together before sunset.[citation needed]
The cartoon became a symbol of colonial freedom during the American Revolutionary War

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

RNC Spokesperson Says Election Fraud is "Frivolous"

The lawsuit filed by over 100 Ron Paul supporting delegates against the Republican National Committee alleges violations of party rules, threats of violence, ballot tampering at state conventions and "intimidating demands" that delegates sign affidavits promising to vote for Mitt Romney.

RNC calls 'frivolous' lawsuit by Ron Paul supporters

Posted by CNN Political Reporter Peter Hamby 6/19/12

Washington (CNN) - The Republican National Committee is brushing off a lawsuit against the party by Ron Paul supporters as "frivolous" but it is nonetheless coordinating a "joint defense" effort to fight the legal challenge, according to an internal RNC memorandum obtained by CNN Tuesday.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in California last Tuesday by over 100 self-described delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, alleges that the RNC and its chairman, Reince Priebus, quietly and improperly aided Mitt Romney throughout the GOP nomination fight.


According to the complaint, however, the RNC and affiliated state GOP leaders systematically "engaged in a scheme to intimidate and harass" delegates supporting candidates other than Romney during the nomination process.

This "harassment," the suit alleges, included numerous violations of party rules, threats of violence, ballot tampering at state conventions and "intimidating demands" that delegates sign affidavits promising to vote for Romney.

Friday, September 30, 2011

Maddow and Olbermann Are Wrong About Senator Rand Paul

Recently on MSNBC Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann each did segments on Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and the new gas pipeline "safety" bill that the Senator recently held up in congress. Both of these characters claim that Senator Rand Paul doesn't care about gas pipeline safety and held up the bill purely on philosophical grounds with the "notion" that government regulations are bad. In fact Olbermann went so far as to give Rand Paul a nomination for "Worst Person in the World".

Here are the video segments:


Olbermann (follows the segment on Dick Morris):

Rachel Maddow claims that all the bill essentially does is require new safety devices to be installed, upgrades to be performed sooner and increase government inspections.

The biggest irony I found in these pieces were that both mentioned the following, although I will quote Keith Olbermann on this one:

"This legislation is supported by...the owners of the industry the new legislation would affect."
 In fact, the way both of these two put it, the industry was practically BEGGING for this legislation to get passed in order to get started on implementing all of these new regulatory safety measures.

I guess the questions everyone is failing to ask...

Why do the gas companies need to have regulations passed in order to install new safety devices and make needed upgrades?

Why might industry want the government to perform more safety inspections? Don't the gas companies do their own safety inspections?

Isn't the idea that the government regulators are supposed to be a back-up for when industry fails to adequately protect itself? Or are the gas companies trying to save money by having this type of legislation passed to shift the burden of costly safety inspections onto the government, aka the taxpayer?

Isn't this then also a direct subsidy for gas companies? Do Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann support government subsidies for gas companies?

Don't gas companies have a stake in this? In other words, are gas companies responsible for the damages that their equipment causes, or are their federal regulations that help shield them from full indemnity?

Apparently nobody is asking these questions. If the press did their job and asked these questions, I could draw tighter conclusions.

So what is the conclusion?

It seems to me that the gas industry supports the legislation for one or both of the following reasons:

1) Current regulations are not only inadequate, but are actively PREVENTING gas companies from enacting the safety measures in the new legislation. Often times regulations are so specific that they don't allow for newer safer technology to be implemented until a regulatory bill goes through Washington D.C. Of course this requires expensive lobbyists. This can severely hamper innovation within the industry being regulated and it is very common. This is one reason why I oppose federal regulations, they just aren't agile enough to allow industries to innovate and provide the greatest possible safety measures. They are, however, a great way for big corporations to increase their monopoly powers and ensure that their technology is entrenched into the system.

So if this is actually true, then what happens in 10 years when new safety devices exist which cannot be implemented due to the current legislation being passed? Does the government really need to keep up rules and regulations for every industry and constantly adapt to the new technology coming out? Is science and engineering really a strong suit of Washington D.C.? I certainly don't think so.

2) The gas industry wants the legislation passed because it is a subsidy from the taxpayers in the form of costly pipeline inspections.

Maybe Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann need to consider the reasons why Senator Rand Paul is against the "notion" of government regulations before they put together these type of hit pieces.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Obama Prefers Foreign Intervention to Keeping Grandma Alive

"This is not just a matter of Social Security checks," Obama also told CBS News. "These are veterans' checks; these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out."

When CBS anchor Scott Pelley followed up by asking, "can you guarantee as president those checks will go out on August the 3rd?," Obama said: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd, if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."

Who would have thought, back in 2007, that if elected Obama would have us involved in wars in 6 different countries while simultaneously threatening to take away benefits from seniors and the disabled? I was one of his harshest critiques back in 2007, going so far as to call Obama a "neocon", yet I don't think I imagined this sort of blatant disregard for the people of this country.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Ron Paul Crushes in New Hampshire Debate

Here is a video summary of Ron Paul's responses during the debate:

In the very beginning Ron Paul came out strong against the Federal Reserve. This helped to really separate himself from the rest of the pack of conservatives who, unlike four years ago, are starting to sound a lot more like small government constitutional conservatives and less like pandering, seething war hawks. Not that there wasn't a bit too much anti-Muslim rhetoric for my tastes coming from some of the other candidates, but there were certainly less scaremongering references to 9/11, Al Qaeda and WMD capabilities of various Middle Eastern countries this time around.

He then gave the crowd a huge dose of reality with his facts and positions on Medicare while also calmly discussing workable transitions that include a curtailment of our over reaching foreign policy. His foreign policy rants were all-time and reminiscent of the speeches he first gave the Republican establishment on this subject during the '08 primaries.

Ron Paul then hit one out of the ballpark with his stance on eminent domain which no doubt brought up his relative standing with the local New Hampshire populace.

At the end of the debate they asked him about who on stage he might pick to be in his cabinet. Ron Paul looked around carefully and replied that he would have to do some more interviewing of the candidates as none of them have given him any indication how they feel about the Federal Reserve and he didn't know how they all felt about a non-interventionist foreign policy.