TRAILBLAZING POLICE CHIEF, MARK KESSLER, TALKS GUNS AND FREEDOM

Article by Mark I Rasskazov.

The video above is the interview I had with Chief Kessler.  Once I got him talking, we ended up speaking on a number of subjects, where he cogently and succinctly explained his views on a number of political and philosophical subjects.

Some of the things we talked about:

c23838d5a26f73db2fd4ff5cb6c0bc2b_mooaObviously, the first thing we talked about was his interpretation of the second amendment, including his interpretation of the «Well regulated militia» clause.

We talked about the proper scope of responsibility of the government, given the constitution.

We talked about what prompted him to become so actively pro-constitutionalist on a national scale.

We talked about Obama and his policies.

We talked about Senator Feinstein and her Facebook page.

We talked about how he got banned from Facebook, and the new social networking site, Awareness Act.

We talked about Sandy Hook, and the parents’ response.

5e39a87359e4263c044f1cfa8dc40225_0h3sWe talked about how in most schools there are no armed guards, and how he was able to get it approved in his local school district.

He talked about his community in Gilberton, PA, and the relationship he has with his local government and his sheriff, as well as his take on Mayor Bloomberg and his ilk.

We talked about the responsibilities and attitudes of elected officials.

We talked about «illegal» guns.

We talked about gun registration and the Dick Act of 1902.

We talked about the Patriot Act.

06eac9103e93fcb297f012dfb200d2c2We talked about Congressional pay, the fact that they play the American people off of each other, and the fact that they vote for unconstitutional laws, as well as what we should do about it.

We talked about the possibility of a confrontation between the people and the government, including where he would stand, how many members of the government who would stand with the people, and how it would compare to the previous civil war.

We talked about the ATF and Waco.

We speculated on the possibility that the ATF’s classification of assault rifles as «machine guns» might represent a move to require a Class III Firearms License to own one.

We talked about the Supreme Court, the Constitution, the Law of the Land, and the legitimacy of the government.

3fc03d92b15b33efc249011d041b9892_o8fsWe talked about the possibility of impeaching president Obama.

We talked about the difference between a police chief and a sheriff, and why police chiefs are much more hesitant to come out publicly for the constitution.

We talked about the Constitutional Security Force, the civilian defense training organization, Fast Tactics, and his pro-freedom intelligence network, Oathbreakers.  We talked about violent crime, and how gun-ownership along with the proper training can help someone come out on top of a violent confrontation, and about how his Constitutional Security Force is partnered with Fast Tactics to provide training for private gun owners.

He closed with a call to action on the part of all liberty lovers to do their part to safeguard their freedoms for themselves, and for their posterity, and strongly reasserted the fact that our second amendment rights are the final safeguard of freedom against tyranny.

Connect with Chief Kessler on his website: [www.ChiefKessler.com].

Реклама

DECLARATION OF NON-COMPLIANCE

meArticle by Tim Wikiriwhi.

Syndicated from Eternal Vigilance.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is a Transegoist sympathizer; not a Transegoist — our syndication of his article does not indicate that he endorses the Transegoist philosophy.

Tim Wikiriwhi
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
0276630331

9-3-13

Dear Census Collector,

Because of my Christian Libertarian principles I refuse to fill out the Census Papers.  Because they are compulsory, I know they are a violation of my right to privacy and a demonstration of the fact that our government seeks to operate via a Master- Slave relationship.

I reject this conception of government.

The Government works for me.  I am not their servant.

Nor do I accept the utilitarian argument that the Census is «helpful» for the Government with respect to social planning and policy.

I utterly condemn their totalitarian manipulation as if we, the citizens of New Zealand, are merely a pawns in their game to be used and controlled as they please.  I reject their Social engineering for the tyrannical failure that it is!  Thus, I want my Taxes and my liberty back!  I have no intention of legitimizing their power-tripping madness!

I also know that the government already has all the information regarding how many people live at this address, how much each individual earns, etc., so this fact also makes a double travesty and lie of the so-called necessity to have a compulsory Census.

Furthermore this compulsory Census is estimated to cost me, my family, friends, and neighbors 70-90 million dollars!  It is a gross misappropriation and waste of our hard earned money which was rapaciously extorted from us via other unjust and tyrannical laws and powers!

I personally have stood for Parliament many times in the Hamilton West electorate, both as a member of the Libertarianz party, and as an Independent Libertarian with the intention of getting into parliament so as to bring such socialist despotisms to a end.  Thus, I cannot in good conscience fill out the census as it represents everything repugnant about oppressive government power which I have dedicated myself to overthrow.

Some people have suggested I fill it out with bogus answers like «Jedi» as my religion, as 56,000 people did in 2001, yet I can not do that in good conscience, either!  It is no secret that am a Christian, yet I reject the state’s assertion that they have a right to demand I disclose such information to them.  History has proven what evils such information can bring at the hands of diabolical governments.  Thus, my refusal to fill out the Census is a far more righteous protest to this intrusion than the thousands of people whom write in lies, yet never are they brought before the courts!

This fact proves the State chooses to persecute a tiny minority of principled conscientious objectors like myself, whose non-compliance has such a minuscule effect to the accuracy of the data collected in comparison to all the misinformation gathered from the thousands of kiwi whom also hate the violation of their privacy yet prefer to submit fraudulent papers rather than risk prosecution for absolute refusal.

That so many people fill out the census with lies just goes to prove what a farce the whole thing is! Compulsion does not increase the accuracy of collected data!  The compulsion touters are simply fanatical statisticians who want as large a data set as they can get their greedy hands upon.

I have no beef with the Census personnel.  They don’t write the rules, and most of them are simply trying to earn an honest dollar.  Yet I would ask them how it is that they, in good conscience, participate in such a nasty and intrusive Government program? I ask how, in good conscience, they can parrot the threats of Court action and fines against conscientious objectors like myself?  I can only assume they have not thought through the true oppressive nature of the job they are doing, or that somehow they are of the belief that this intrusion can be justified because of the imaginary «benefits» this compulsion is supposed to deliver.

I have no desire to appear before court, or to be convicted, or fined.  I have a Job to maintain and a family to provide for and the very last thing I need is to hand over more of my money to a state system which is already robbing me blind!  That this is the truth about the census; that it threatens my livelihood and wellbeing of my family is despicable!

With this in mind, I am prepared to make the following compromise: I will fill out my name and address and sign it. That is all.  This was acceptable for the Census people in 2001, and in 2006, and I hope this will be acceptable again in 2013.

That is my final offer.

I have not hassled my wife into refusing to fill out her forms.  She is free to follow her own conscience, and has filled them out as she has seen fit.

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is currently running for mayor of the city of Hamilton, NZ, as the Libertarianz Party candidate.

THE POLITICAL MACHINE DECLARES WAR ON SURVIVALISM

MonsantoArticle by Mark I Rasskazov, Editor in Chief.

Monsanto, the quintessential «evil corporation,» made over $500,000 in local and federal political contributions in 2012.

This is a corporation that sues organic farmers when their genetically modified swill infects their crops; whereas the reality is that these same organic farmers should be suing Monsanto for damages due to their genetically modified crops reducing the value of their organic crops; as organic crops have been demonstrated to have a much more robust market value than the infestation of GMO at the hands of Monsanto crops, which, incidentally, is also responsible for the disaster that has befallen the bee population.

monsanto_bunos_02ALL WHILE OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZES MONSANTO!!!

Now that the consumer has «wised up» to Monsanto’s GMO scam, our government, which, MAKE NO MISTAKE, is acting as a proxy for the Monsanto corporation, has declared war on the American survivalist.

A woman from Tulsa, Oklahoma had her survival garden destroyed by government thugs.

A man from North Carolina is being harassed by government goons for heinous crime of living an all-natural lifestyle, and teaching others to do so — learning to live without Monsanto SWILL.

And just in case you think these are isolated cases, and that the government isn’t out to get survivalists, I present for your consideration a sweet little executive order called «National Defense Resources Preparedness

If you don’t buy GMO, and if you have developed the means to survive without Monsanto, then BE ADVISED: your government is AT WAR WITH YOU.

monsanto31

THE WELFARE STATE: WHY WE NEED IT, AND HOW WE OUGHT TO CHANGE IT

Lincoln-on-welfareAn essay on ethical and political philosophy by Mark I Rasskazov.

There was a time when we did not need the welfare state.  Adults got jobs, got settled, got married, had only as many children as they could support, and, together, raised their children to become responsible adults capable of seeing to their own survival — in that order.  If something unfortunate happened to an individual which made it impossible for that person to survive on his/her own, then the community would come together — usually via the local community church — to make sure that that person had food, water, and shelter.  Once they could no longer work, the elderly were taken care of by their children.

This was not a world devoid of tragedy, but it was world where, by and large, people got by, and did not rely on government assistance (meaning: resources confiscated from innocent individuals by force) to do so.  These people did not need to be saddled with massive taxes and regulations because they accepted responsibility for themselves, and spent the necessary resources voluntarily to make sure that the unfortunate did not starve — and if a man was an uncontrollable drunk, then resources were not wasted to fund his habit.

Fast forward to today.

Most people who engage in substance abuse are on welfare.  People who are responsible for themselves are not having children — because they cannot afford to, due to massive regulatory barriers to entry into self-employment, which limits the creation of new jobs, as well as a massive tax burden upon almost every aspect of their lives — whereas those who cannot or will not make any effort to contribute to their own survival often have several children with multiple partners whom they no longer have any association with.  These children are frequently abandoned, or are raised by a single parent.  With each consecutive generation, more and more are growing up learning to take from the productive by force via government while contributing nothing.  They are not being raised properly, and they have no interest in supporting themselves — much less a family — and much less those members of society who have genuine a disability which would legitimately prevent them from being able to support themselves.  This is a recipe for total social, economic, and cultural collapse.

How did we get here?

welfareFirst, we relieved children of their duty to see to the well being of their parents once they’d reached the age at which they could no longer work by instituting the Social Security System. Upon the infrastructure of Social Security, we then built a system whereby we relieved society of its duty to see to the disabled.  Once we accepted that, we decided that it must be the government’s responsibility to take care of everyone — regardless of what their problem might  be.  And so now we have more forms of welfare and personal subsidy than can be counted.  To name a few: food stamps, housing projects, housing subsidies, free phones, childcare subsidies, college grants…the list goes on.  This government (extorted) system of welfare was  (and is) distinct from individual charity in that, while private charity was a system of voluntary help based on assisting the unfortunate to deal with such things that would normally be their own responsibility, government welfare is seen as something to which the «unfortunate» (which is a term which has now been broadened in meaning to indicate anyone who sees themselves as a «have not») are morally entitled to.  Thus, there is a strong incentive on the part of the irresponsible and unenlightened to plunder as much from responsible, productive, self-sustaining people via the government as they possibly can.  This new system of institutionalized parasitism has severely undermined the very fabric and sustainability of our society, and (and this is critical) it is getting consecutively worse due to the fact that new births now tend to be to families that will not teach them to be responsible for themselves and help keep the system afloat.  While productive families generally tend to have one or two children, women on welfare frequently have five or six, from multiple male partners who are absent from their children’s lives.  This ensures that, over time, the population will strongly tend to increase in the number of those who demand welfare, while decreasing in the number of those providing it.  This, of course, can ultimately lead nowhere other than total economic collapse.

This brings me to the first key question of this essay: why do we need the welfare state?

WelfareSpendingChart

We need the welfare state for two reasons: firstly, getting rid of the welfare state at this point will cause human suffering and chaos on a scale which is unimaginable to the modern mind.  Once the «government cheese» stops flowing, those who have come to rely on it — those who do not have a job, and have never bothered to learn any skill which might enable them to survive — will take to the streets committing acts of theft, violence, and destruction.  Eventually they will all die out, whether at the hands of the police, at the hands of private individuals defending themselves and their property, or of exposure, disease, dehydration, or starvation. In the meantime, the amount of destruction that will be wrought upon society and the economy will be catastrophic, and will take at least an entire generation to rectify.  Secondly, at this point in time, we have reached the point that a vast swathe have had so much handed to them, that they take the means of their survival for granted, and they no longer understand even the most basic concepts of long term self-interest.  These people will continue to reproduce and have multiple children with multiple partners — even in the face of starvation — thus perpetuating the destructive cycle of institutionalized helplessness, depravity, and destitution for generations to come.

The bottom line is that the main problem, over the long term, is the birth rate of that section of society which relies on theft via government assistance for survival; yet abolishing the welfare state will, at least in the short and mid terms, make things much, much worse before things start to get better.

There is a simple way to mitigate both of these factors if we act soon — which brings me to the second key question: what do we need to do to «fix» the welfare system?

The answer is simple:

Keep welfare in place, but make vasectomies or tubal ligations mandatory for anyone who wants to receive it.

Let’s talk about this for a moment.

The individual is the rightful owner of his/her person and property, and the state has no right to  compromise this right in any way.  It is not within the government’s proper purview to dispose of the person or property of a human being except as punishment when that person violates the person or property of another individual.  However, no one has a right to government assistance — in fact, if a person accepts government assistance — except as part of a contractual agreement for public service — then that person is committing an act of theft against every person who is forced to pay taxes into the system which supports him.  Thus, by rights, the welfare system should not exits, as it is an institution based on mass theft.

However, as discussed before, welfare does exist, and we can’t get rid of it without experiencing serious short and mid term consequences.

iphone-welfareSo we need to acknowledge that if a person accepts government assistance then that person becomes a ward of the state.  This means that, unlike the person and possessions of a person that deals with others on the basis of voluntary interactions, that person’s body, mind, and property now exist at the whim of the state.  Once we’ve acknowledged this, the solution is very simple, and is as I have already stated.  You stop the welfare crowd from perpetuating itself. You give them enough to have shelter, food and water, but you take away their right and ability to have more children — and the children they already have must be properly accounted for in terms of how they are treated, and in terms of receiving some form of basic education with opportunities for vocational school or college preparation.  If the children are being mistreated or neglected, then the state will exercise the right to confiscate them and give them to foster parents.  At present, the government exercises this legal philosophy toward self-sustaining people as well.  This must stop immediately.  The government has no right, and should have no privilege, to make decisions as to the fate or future of a child who is born to parents who do not receive government assistance.  Yet it does have that responsibility to the children of those parents that do, and the government should exercise that responsibility.

From then on, receiving government assistance will be tantamount to removing oneself from the gene pool — which is just; the law of nature is such that if you cannot survive, then you are not fit, and should not reproduce — and this is more humane than the wild, because we are not letting these people die of starvation, thirst, or exposure to the elements.

Over time, this will correct our current culture which values parasitism over progress, ignorance over intelligence, and weakness over strength, and our country will be preserved from the complete collapse that is otherwise inevitable.