By Nathan Barton

Good afternoon.

In recent months, many of us have distanced ourselves from Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership, justifiably due to the takeover of that once fine organization by people who do NOT hold liberty as dear as they should.  It has divided us, and there are still some people who seem to honor and defend liberty that still write for JPFO (as hard as I find that to understand, which I am sure both Mama Liberty and Claire also find difficult).  I do still read their regular postings, and was pleased to see this article on the proposed BATFE (Fuehrer Directive) ban on a very common type of ammunition, which cuts to the heart of the matter: bans (or limits) on ammunition are a DIRECT and IMMORAL attack on a G-d-given right to defend ourselves, our families, our communities, and our property.  End of the story.  The JFPO article challenges NSSF and NRA, which are making “technical” arguments and demanding an apology as well as withdrawal of the proposal. 

BUT…  The JPFO article then goes off the wrong way, in at least a few areas, areas that I think that Aaron and Mama Liberty and Claire and others would NOT.  First, the article babbles about “consent of the governed,” and states that the US Constitution contains that consent.  What?  I certainly did not sign that document, nor is there anyone else alive who either (a) signed it, or (b) voted to adopt that document (no, not even people who voted to seek admission of Alaska or Hawaii to the Union).  When I affirmed my intent to “defend and protect” it, I certainly did NOT do so with ANY understanding that doing so affirmed ANY intent to consider it “consent” on my part.

Secondly, the JPFO article at least hints at the idea that this right comes from the Second Amendment, and NOT from G-d.  Just a hint, but not what was once the clear position of the organization.

Thirdly, the article talks about ” Any shot fired at lawful authorities is illegal.”  Again, this is NOT correct, at least NOT “illegal” in any sense that lovers of freedom can support.  Someone may indeed be a “lawful authority” according to whatever sick sense of “law” they want to claim, and STILL be a justified target of a bullet (or arrow or knife or other action) IF WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS IMMORAL OR ILLEGAL.  Being designated (or claiming to be) a “lawful authority” grants NO ONE immunity from someone defending themselves against them if the “lawful authority” is committing an act of aggression, or any other immoral act of tyranny or abuse.  It does not matter whether the thug is in uniform or has a badge or has some letter or certificate: if they are committing an immoral act we – each of us – have the right to defend ourselves against their act, and if that act involves physical aggression, then we have the G-d-given right to defend ourselves with physical force: including the deadly force of a firearm or other weapon.  There can be NO compromise on this, and I am sad to see that JPFO, even if inadvertently, is backing from that position.  The JPFO article is not bylined, and I assume that it was a groupthink/collaboration, so I can’t focus on just one person who might have written this.  But it is clear that JPFO is slipping, just as we figured would happen.

Another article this week also took me by surprise.  I am not a fan of Timothy J Taylor and his blog “Authority,” mostly because he does not understand that there are differences in religions (like many libertarians, sadly, he lumps everything together), and therefore cannot support his position about authority and morality adequately.  But his latest column “Barbarians at the Gate” seems to be a direct contradiction of his stand against aggression, war, and authority.  In it, speaking of ISIS (the Caliphate), he writes: “They will not respond to diplomacy. Their deluded minds are not attuned to reason or logic. They understand and respond only to the logic of force. They’ll continue on their merciless conquest until they’re eradicated like a colony of hornets in their nests. They must be killed every last one of them or they will kill us.”

The breadth of this appeal is astonishing: he calls for a war of extinction.  He is advocating treating humans as insects.  THIS is a libertarian?  THIS is a man who attacks religion for its failure to deal rationally with individuals?  What is going on?  And for the record, I don’t agree with him. Yes, there are no doubt many of the adherents of the Caliphate, and of many OTHER Muslim groups (including the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Salifists, and others) that will have to be killed in self-defense, but that is the point: in self-defense.  Not as a prophylactic measure, not as we would wipe out a pack of rabid dogs or a colony of hornets.  And only as a last measure, failing any success in turning them from their evil ways, or revolting against their leaders.  He is calling for the equivalent of the Allies executing EVERY German, or at least EVERY National Socialist, to end the aggression of WW2. Those people were just as deluded and non-attuned to reason or logic as the warriors and supporters of the Caliphate.  Taylor has demonstrated the weakness of his worldview.

California legislators are moving to try and control (or destroy) the Roman Catholic school system in their state, claiming that the power of the State overrides the church’s power to decide what can be and should be taught in its school system.  This perversion of liberty is yet another example of how government today has demonstrated that government – human government – can NOT be reformed successfully, as it will ALWAYS seek more power and more control, leading sooner or later to tyranny, even when the very nature of the actions are in direct violation of that government’s founding documents.  Political Outcast discusses this situation well. Like them, I do NOT believe that what the RC Church teaches is true, but I believe that they have every bit as much right to teach what they will as do you or I.  These legislators may object to what the RC Church does, and that is also their right: but when they use the State to attempt to dictate or intimidate a religious community to “toe the line,” they are evil and immoral.

South Korea doesn’t often come up in the news these days, but this week, the US Ambassador to Seoul was attacked by a knifeman when giving a speech, giving me an opportunity to comment on the Republic of Korea, just a few hours after explaining to a young friend about the Korean War, which “ended” more than sixty years ago. Mark Lippert’s injuries are not life-threatening, after an attack by a man who shouted that North and South Korea should be reunified.  That is a sentiment that many people share, although exactly how trying to kill the US Ambassador would help that is beyond me.  North Korea (the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea) is a constant reminder that even though all statists and governments are evil, some are MUCH more evil than others: a regime which claims to be Communist but which has a royal family in all but name (and little different from the Clan-Gang that runs Saudi Arabia or the various emirates), which as a matter of policy starves its own people to death, which constantly flaunts its irrational and provocative behavior to get the world to pay blackmail, and which has perhaps the worst median standard of living in the Solar System.

The best way to describe it is to look at a nighttime photo from orbit (you can see many great ones HERE): North Korea is a black blot on the globe, while the Republic of Korea is a modern, First-World nation – if not as free as we would all wish, certainly with much more liberty than average on this planet, and in some ways more than the Fifty States.  And, unlike many American allies, the ROK has always seen the alliance as a partnership into which they contributed a lot – and still do.  Actually one of the greatest fears that the ROK has today, I think, is that the catastrophic collapse of the regime and society and everything else in the North will leave them holding the bag at a time which is bad due to world economics, and they will find themselves in a far worse situation than Germany was at Reunification: trillions of dollars of economic rebuilding AND fighting the rumps of a dozen different warlords in the North, plus dealing with nukes and the horrors of environmental damage and more from 70+ years of “Communism.”  Compare it to what things might be like if Texas suddenly had to integrate Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila after the Mexican Federal Government collapsed, but much much worse.

Serving the “Republic” or herself? Hillary Clinton’s email server traced to Internet service registered to NY home. Fox News reports:”The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Clinton’s emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an Internet service registered to her family’s home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press. The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives. It also would distinguish Clinton’s secretive email practices as far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were caught conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.” This raises many interesting questions, including an obvious one: that since she left office, there has been more than enough time for her operatives to have reviewed and deleted anything which might be negative, much less a smoking gun, about her message traffic.  Pretty smart for an attorney, I have to admit.  And an indication that she could be an even MORE effective dictator than the Fuehrer, if she is able to steal her way into the Oval Office after him.

Mama’s Note: See the new headline: QUID PRO NO
Ousted ambassador ripped for using personal email, Clinton gets a pass
There really is no such thing as a “scandal” in politics anymore, unless you’ve stepped on toes of your “betters” in some way.

Does this seem as stupid and wasteful to you as to me? “The National Transportation Safety Board reportedly is considering re-opening its investigation into the 1959 plane crash that killed rock and roll stars Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and J.P. ‘The Big Bopper’ Richardson. The Des Moines Register reports that a New England man named L.J. Coon, who claims to be a retired pilot and aircraft dispatcher, petitioned the NTSB to take a second look at the case. … Coon told the Register via email that he wants investigators to consider whether problems with the plane’s rudder pedals caused 21-year-old pilot Roger Peterson to lose control of the plane.” If people want to do something like that, why don’t they have bake sales and raise funds to pay for such a thing?  Assuming it is even government’s business to investigate why planes crash, doing this for an accident (or even murder) 55+ years ago seems adding insult to injury when stealing taxpayer money.