By Nathan Barton

Mama Liberty notes that “Of course there is not one word proposing to eliminate all the taxes and other government barriers in place preventing people who wish to do so from taking any real responsibility for themselves.” She is commenting on the Fox News story that Los Angeles officials propose to declare state of emergency over homelessness. Mayor Eric Garcetti and several other elected officials stood outside City Hall — a few feet from several homeless people dozing on a lawn — to announce they plan to declare a state of emergency on homelessness and spend $100 million to eradicate it.

Mama adds: Most of the things people would need to do to prosper on their own are “illegal.” And enabling those who choose to be parasites is, naturally, not helpful either.  Even true compassion that is funded with stolen goods is an evil with serious unintended consequences. The “property tax” and various total restrictions on use of private property probably accounts for much, if not most of the homelessness. Poverty and hopelessness is a direct byproduct of non-voluntary government.

At the same time, Hawaii declares state of emergency for homelessness crisis, also as reported by Fox News The state has identified $1.3 million to expand services to homeless individuals and families, Morishige said. In addition to a new shelter, the money also would go to the state’s Housing First program, which provides homes and services to chronically homeless individuals without requiring them to get sober or treat mental illness first, and programs that help families pay deposits and rent.

Nathan: In other words, the government causes the problems, creates the parasites, and then uses them as an excuse to have more control and spend more money withOUT solving the basic problem. For centuries, “voluntary government” (as in churches and civic organizations) have provided for the mentally-ill and mentally-handicapped, providing them homes when families could not or would not. Now, however, the vast majority of churches are the first to push their members to suck on the government teat, and the civic organizations have become willing cronies of government, specialized into a few major areas, and are the home of con-artists and “slickers.” “Bad money” (government money obtained by theft) has driven out “good money” (money donated voluntarily, usually for a specific need and often a specified recipient). Not only are poverty and hopelessness products of involuntary government, it is in the “best interests” of those in those governments to magnify those problems: not just publicize them but actually make them increase.

We’ll talk more about “refugees” and other migrants and border jumpers in a minute, but first look at some technology and self-defense issues, and how government loves panic and banning things.

My oh my, more things for government to panic people about AND ban: a new steel-aluminum alloy from South Korea, reported by The Firearm Blog [http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/10/13/korean-scientists-develop-lightweight-steel-stronger-cheaper-than-titanium/], which is stronger than, AND cheaper than titanium alloys and suitable not just for airframes and prosthetics, but for WEAPONS: yes, firearms: half the weight for a 9-mm or .40-cal automatic, or 25-40% less weight for a long arm. But also crossbows and blade weapons. No indication yet if this alloy is suitable for 3-D printing, but the potential is awesome! Anytime we can reduce the weight and bulkiness of personal weapons, we improve our ability to defend ourselves.

Mama’s Note: I’m not sure that lighter side arms is all good. Light weight and small guns are readily available, but they are generally harder to shoot accurately, especially more than once. And they are seldom a favorite to practice with. That’s because the weight of a gun helps to absorb the recoil and increase the control the shooter has. I wouldn’t consider carrying such a light gun myself, except maybe for back up. But I’d sure love to see one of these and get a chance to shoot it.

Clearly most hoploclastic politicos are not paying much attention to just banning a new alloy: they want to ban and ban and ban some more. Fox News tells us something that really isn’t news: Clinton seriously promotes both a UK/Aussie-style national ban on firearms, and the associated repeal of the Federal 2nd Amendment. She conveniently forgets that virtually EVERY one of the Fifty States has a similar provision in their constitution and Bill of Rights, to say nothing of the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT GRANTED by the Second Amendment (or any other constitutional provision) – those provisions only PROTECT our natural right of self-defense.

Mama’s Note: Unfortunately, while protecting the right was the intent of the amendment, no words written on paper has any power and the constitution is no exception. The real problem is that far too many think people like Hillary actually have some sort of authority over others. The fact that she is a liar, cheat and shrill harpy doesn’t seem to matter.

Back to migrants. Everyone – not just Americans – has and NEEDS this right to defend ourselves, and to use whatever tools are useful to do so. Consider the poor Assyrian christians who have fled Mesopotamia to Sweden, as reported by Freedom Outpost, only to find themselves threatened even in Sweden by agents of the Caliph (the Islamic State) and told to “convert or die.” I have no problem with immigrants, to the Fifty States or elsewhere: I’ve been a migrant – most recently to South Dakota from Colorado. Doing it honestly, openly, peacefully is one thing: part of it is becoming acculturated: adopting the language and culture of your new homeland. That is the difference between “migration” and “invasion.” Texicans who migrated from the States to Texas between 1810 and 1830 or so adopted to the culture and society of Mexico – indeed, some went so far as to convert to Catholicism (I do not think that religious conversion is necessary or even desirable). Mexicans who migrated into Texas from 1836 to about 1960 or so were also people who adopted to the culture and society – of Texas. That is not the case with the Muslim immigrants into Europe today, and not for the last forty years or so. They supposedly flee from the tyranny and evil of their homelands, the lack of opportunity and ability to raise families safely – and bring those evils with them. The Assyrian christians, or so I am told, HAVE acclimated to, adjusted to, their new homeland, but many (not all, I’m sure) of the Muslims do not. And will not. The people of Sweden (and other nations of Europe) need to be able to defend themselves, their families, and their communities

The same applies to a small German city. Freedom Outpost tells us that the district administration president has told the people of a small town of 4,000, ordered to accept 3,000 migrants, that if they don’t like “hosting” the “refugees,” then THEY can leave the country. This is near Kassel, in Hesse, but apparently the governor of Minnesota has told people in his state the same thing (according to Alpha News Minnesota).

Why is 3,000 people being dumped on 4,000 people a serious problem? Consider this: In Germany: facing a migrant crime wave, the police capitulate, as headlined by the Gatestone Institute MamaLiberty writes: Everyone but the immigrants looking to the state or “someone else” for safety. Not a single word about people arming and taking responsibility for their own safety. But, of course, we’re not hearing from everyone there… sad, but it will be interesting to watch what happens.

Nathan’s note: But the immigrants are lawless: not in the sense of providing for their own safety and not depending on CriPo or courts, but in the sense of constantly aggressive actions; rapes, robberies, and the like. The original German people of the area ARE depending on the polizei for their safety, and you are right that they are wrong to do so.  They think that as long as they are not aggressing against someone, that they will be protected. And they are finding out how wrong they are.

Accepting migrants voluntarily and with open arms (as the people of Iceland are doing), even in large numbers, is one thing; being forced to do it, and told that if you do NOT accept the demands of government, you yourself must become persona non grata, is immoral. Imagine a typical small American city of 4,000 or so (for instance, Buffalo, Wheatland, or Newcastle) that is told you WILL accept 3,000 foreign refugees who do not speak your language, do not share your culture or religion, and have a lot of unattached young men, with somewhere between 1% and 5% (30 to 150) criminals, thieves, murderers, rapists. And if you don’t like it, you can move to Nebraska or Idaho or someplace else, out of Wyoming. Is not protest and self-defense a reasonable response, both against the politicians who are jamming this down your throat, AND against the criminals coming (who are NOT satisfied with just preying on their fellow migrants)?

Mama’s Note: Ah, but the people of Wyoming ARE armed, and have been for a very long time. This isn’t Sweden! That little difference of culture and habit make a big difference. The settlement of those migrants against our will would not likely take place, and I’m quite sure the migrants and their handlers know this very well.