Well, you can count at least one common citizen in the list of people "against illegal guns". However, my idea about being "against illegal guns" and the mayors across this nation may be a slight bit different...
It would seem that these 500 mayors who are against illegal guns are actually for the notion of making all guns illegal for certain people who haven't been convicted of any crime. My notion of being "against illegal guns" states that there should be no such thing as an "illegal gun". In Texas, even convicted felons regain their right to self-defense five years after they get "off paper".
A good while back,Rahm Emmanuel is taped saying this:
The ad, in case you haven't looked at the text, gives the following facts:
1) Major Nidal Malik Hasan was suspected of having terrorist links. The FBI
had monitored Hasan, reviewing 10-20 communications between Hasan and
Anwar al Awlaki – an al Qaeda recruiter who acted as a “spiritual advisor” to
two of the 9/11 hijackers.
The last time I checked, it wasn't against the law to speak with clergymen, regardless of what religion you subscribe to. Let's also not forget that the US gov't seems to have serious credibility issues, regarding who was even responsible for hijacking those planes. AT LEAST FOUR of the men our government claims were "suicide 9/11 hijackers" have long-since turned up very much ALIVE, wondering "What the hell are you talking about?".
2) Hasan passed the federal background check that is designed to prevent
criminals and other dangerous persons from obtaining guns.
This article leaves out two very important pieces of information. First and foremost, it doesn't tell WHEN Hasan purchased his handguns. For all we know, he could have done it ten years ago. Second, lest we also forget, some states (including TX) issue concealed handgun permits to active-duty military personnel. Persons with state-issued firearms licenses such as the Texas Concealed Handgun Permit do not undergo a "background check" us "normal people are subjected to, that is run through the BATFE...instead, their permit number is recorded, their photo identification is verified, and the sale is made on the spot. Still, as having only read this advertisement, I don't know if he purchased these handguns long before he ever contacted the alleged "terrorist-linked imam".
3) FBI counterterrorism officials were not notified when Hasan purchased a gun.
This very well may be the case, but I can assure you that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the average American being able to purchase a handgun. If the FBI was watching Hasan, and the BATFE did not notify the FBI, this is merely an example of government incompetence. Either the FBI did not notify the BATFE that they were watching Hasan, or the BATFE knew the FBI was watching him and simply failed to notify them. There is currently no law that prohibits such sharing of information...and with the passage of the completely unconstitutional "USA Patriot Act", such information is shared even more easily. Well, at least it should be, as this was one of the fundamental reasons for having the Patriot Act in the first place.
4) Major Hasan used that gun to kill 13 people and injure more than 30 others.
Well, duh! This fact is presented for sensationalist purposes, and nothing else. It has no bearing on HOW the man was able to purchase his firearms, which firearms were used, why the man was being supposedly "watched" but was allowed to kill so many people, et cetera. It merely states that several people were killed by a madman with a firearm.
Now, I'm going to tell you a few reasons about why I have such a profound distaste for Rahm Emmanuel.
First and foremost, I am on a "watchlist". I found this out in February of 2003, as I attempted to board an airplane to fly home from Illinois. While I am not on the "no-fly list", I know I am on the list of "security selectees". Information as to what put me on this list has never been disclosed to me, supposedly for matters of "national security". That was in 2003. It has been almost 7 years since I found this out. I have never been convicted of a crime more serious than a misdemeanor traffic offense.
Second, what Rahm Emmanuel won't disclose, is that he himself is an army veteran who served during the "Gulf War". The reason he won't disclose this fact publicly is because he is not a veteran of the UNITED STATES ARMY. No, he was serving in the Israeli Defense Forces. Of course, he claims that he was working "as a civilian, changing brake pads". He won't admit to the widely-known fact that he was working on tanks belonging to the government of Israel, as a member of the Israeli army. The Israeli government (not necessarily the people themselves, as I have met my share of Jewish Israeli citizens who are openly Jewish as well as openly TOLERANT) has had a long-standing history of being anti-Islam since before Israel even became a recognized modern nation.
Third, take a good look at the podium Emmanuel is speaking at in the video. It wasn't shot from a government gathering, but before a convention of Brady Campaign supporters who seek to eliminate ALL firearms. Notice that he speaks so strongly against the National Rifle Association. The NRA and the Brady Campaign are "enemies" like professional wrestlers are enemies. People who understand our government's unending quest for disarmament of the populus know those controlling the Republican party side with the NRA, while those controlling the Democratic party side with The Brady Campaign...even though they collaborate to write gun control laws.
If you want to see what people who really oppose gun control have to say about it, I'd check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership or Gun Owners of America.
If this supposed "terror gap" bill were to ever pass into law, I can assure you that I will be making two trips the day I hear about it. The first will be to my local firearms dealer, so that I may be denied the right to purchase a handgun based solely upon my being "suspected". The second will be to my attorney, and I will happily fight this case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Wars, and Rumors of Wars!
Someone has apparently fired up the old rumor mill again, getting all the buzz going about the Blair Holt Act (HR45) that died a quiet death in congress earlier this year. In case you are unaware of what HR45 was, it was the bill that made our democratically-controlled government responsible for more private gun ownership than any other time in the past 150 years.
Among the many requirements of HR45:
1) A man may not possess any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine (all but three of the semi-auto rifles in this house), or ANY handgun (revolver, semi-automatic, or even single-shot) without a license issued by agents working under the authority of the Attorney General of the United States. The licensing requirements aren't much different than the requirements of actually purchasing a firearm from an FFL dealer...other than the fact that you are required to provide a passport photo, a signature, a set of fingerprints, and the license fee. The Attorney General has the authority to set additional requirements of licensing. It must be renewed every five years.
2) Any sale of such a firearm must be recorded and reported to the US Att'y Gen's office. The federal law prohibiting a federal registry of firearm ownership is, by the Blair Holt Act (HR45), annulled. Agents working under the authority of the Attorney General (most likely, the BATFE) would be allowed to inspect any licensee to ensure that you had your guns in a locked cabinet, which effectively renders them useless for their intended purpose of defense of life, liberty, and property. No firearm shall be transferred between two private parties, without going through an FFL dealer with specific exemptions regarding inheritance and the like.
3) It is a crime to allow access to a firearm by a child...even your 17 year old son for the purposes of hunting a deer, and that child is involved in a COMPLETELY ACCIDENTAL shooting of another person.
Now here are the reasons why this is a bad idea, in general. First and foremost, there's the SECOND AMENDMENT. It says the RIGHT (read: RIGHT, NOT PRIVILEGE) to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. "The People" are not "the militia", the army, the national guard, the coast guard, the air force, the marine corps, or the local police department. No, "The People" are EVERYONE NOT USING A FIREARM IN THE COURSE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT, STUPID. If I have to pay a tax in order to possess a firearm, that "right" just became a "privilege". When it becomes a crime to possess a firearm without paying a tax, I have lost my RIGHT to possess a firearm.
Then we have left the regulatory authority in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, we have essentially handed over our rights. There is nothing in this bill that will prevent (in the name of "public safety" or "the children", of course) these unelected bureaucrats from telling us we need to have six separate gov't-issued photo ID cards, the name of our employer, the name of our ex-wife, any campaign donations, et cetera as part of our licensing requirements. There's nothing stating that they're prohibited from allowing only those who pass a $4,000 "safety class" and paying a $300 tax stamp from owning an "assault weapon" designated solely upon the basis of its cosmetics. Lest we forget, even before the Clinton-era "Assault Weapons Ban", the assault weapons listed in the law were responsible for only 2% of all firearm-related homicides.
Third, it places actual criminal liability upon people for not adequately preventing crimes against themselves. I currently keep a loaded pistol in the console of my locked vehicle (in accordance with the law, of course), for the purposes of self-defense when I am on the road. Anyone who has ever driven through Houston's 3rd Ward (or for that matter...Freeport, TX) at night understands the importance of being armed. Should someone break the windows out of my vehicle and steal everything I own inside it, including my pistol, I am facing a five-year prison term if the thief was under the age of 18 and shoots someone with it.
Thankfully, this bill died a quiet death on the floor many months ago, as it rightfully should have. Again, thankfully, people keep firing up rumors of its imminent passage. I say "thankful", because it is these same fearmongering people who spread false rumors that keep the rest of the world thinking about what Uncle Sam is trying to do to every chance they get.
Disarmament is, and has historically been, a precursor to slavery. This has been true of every tyrant nation in the history of mankind, even the United States of America when we prohibited slaves from possessing weapons out of fear of insurrection. Whilst armed, we are a nation of citizens. If we are disarmed, we become a nation of subjects to the government, regardless of whatever title our leader chooses to utilize.
Lest we forget, the Jews of Nazi-controlled Germany did not have their firearms registered by the Nazi government. It was the previous Weimar government that ordered registration of firearms, and that list was merely inherited by the Nazi government when Adolf Hitler rose to power. He then picked and chose who he wanted to remain armed, and confiscated the remaining weapons from all other "unreliable persons" who chose to follow the law.
Under the previous eight years of George W. Bush, this nation saw a rape of its constitutional rights unseen under the administration of any other American president. Everyone thought surveillance of emails, phone calls, et cetera was all good and fine if it was done by our government for the purposes of "national security", to protect us from "terrorism", et cetera.
Well, now we have Barrack Obama in office. Under the legal precedent set forth by Bush, Obama now has a ridiculous amount of power of the average American citizen...and there's nothing we can do about that now. It became legal precedent because no one stood up to stop it when it started.
What we can do now, as a nation, is to prevent further usurpation of our rights by insisting that our governmental leaders currently in power reject the notion of further intrusion of our rights under the guise of "protecting America". We can elect leaders who will repeal the legislative damage that has been done, as well as appoint judges who will not stand for unconstitutional abuses of our rights.
Get involved. Support local candidates who will raise holy hell about the abuses of our rights at ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, whether they be from President Obama or from a lowly police chief in Clute, TX. Make your voice heard. Don't allow your voice to remain silent, as silence does not equal vigilance. Only YOU are able to allow yourself to remain free, you can count on no one else to do it for you.
Never cave in to a "slippery slope" of allowing certain freedoms to be done away with, for ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR ANYONE, in the name of "safety", "security", "patriotism", or anything else of that sort. Remember the old saying..."Give 'em an inch, they'll think they are rulers!".
Among the many requirements of HR45:
1) A man may not possess any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine (all but three of the semi-auto rifles in this house), or ANY handgun (revolver, semi-automatic, or even single-shot) without a license issued by agents working under the authority of the Attorney General of the United States. The licensing requirements aren't much different than the requirements of actually purchasing a firearm from an FFL dealer...other than the fact that you are required to provide a passport photo, a signature, a set of fingerprints, and the license fee. The Attorney General has the authority to set additional requirements of licensing. It must be renewed every five years.
2) Any sale of such a firearm must be recorded and reported to the US Att'y Gen's office. The federal law prohibiting a federal registry of firearm ownership is, by the Blair Holt Act (HR45), annulled. Agents working under the authority of the Attorney General (most likely, the BATFE) would be allowed to inspect any licensee to ensure that you had your guns in a locked cabinet, which effectively renders them useless for their intended purpose of defense of life, liberty, and property. No firearm shall be transferred between two private parties, without going through an FFL dealer with specific exemptions regarding inheritance and the like.
3) It is a crime to allow access to a firearm by a child...even your 17 year old son for the purposes of hunting a deer, and that child is involved in a COMPLETELY ACCIDENTAL shooting of another person.
Now here are the reasons why this is a bad idea, in general. First and foremost, there's the SECOND AMENDMENT. It says the RIGHT (read: RIGHT, NOT PRIVILEGE) to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. "The People" are not "the militia", the army, the national guard, the coast guard, the air force, the marine corps, or the local police department. No, "The People" are EVERYONE NOT USING A FIREARM IN THE COURSE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT, STUPID. If I have to pay a tax in order to possess a firearm, that "right" just became a "privilege". When it becomes a crime to possess a firearm without paying a tax, I have lost my RIGHT to possess a firearm.
Then we have left the regulatory authority in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, we have essentially handed over our rights. There is nothing in this bill that will prevent (in the name of "public safety" or "the children", of course) these unelected bureaucrats from telling us we need to have six separate gov't-issued photo ID cards, the name of our employer, the name of our ex-wife, any campaign donations, et cetera as part of our licensing requirements. There's nothing stating that they're prohibited from allowing only those who pass a $4,000 "safety class" and paying a $300 tax stamp from owning an "assault weapon" designated solely upon the basis of its cosmetics. Lest we forget, even before the Clinton-era "Assault Weapons Ban", the assault weapons listed in the law were responsible for only 2% of all firearm-related homicides.
Third, it places actual criminal liability upon people for not adequately preventing crimes against themselves. I currently keep a loaded pistol in the console of my locked vehicle (in accordance with the law, of course), for the purposes of self-defense when I am on the road. Anyone who has ever driven through Houston's 3rd Ward (or for that matter...Freeport, TX) at night understands the importance of being armed. Should someone break the windows out of my vehicle and steal everything I own inside it, including my pistol, I am facing a five-year prison term if the thief was under the age of 18 and shoots someone with it.
Thankfully, this bill died a quiet death on the floor many months ago, as it rightfully should have. Again, thankfully, people keep firing up rumors of its imminent passage. I say "thankful", because it is these same fearmongering people who spread false rumors that keep the rest of the world thinking about what Uncle Sam is trying to do to every chance they get.
Disarmament is, and has historically been, a precursor to slavery. This has been true of every tyrant nation in the history of mankind, even the United States of America when we prohibited slaves from possessing weapons out of fear of insurrection. Whilst armed, we are a nation of citizens. If we are disarmed, we become a nation of subjects to the government, regardless of whatever title our leader chooses to utilize.
Lest we forget, the Jews of Nazi-controlled Germany did not have their firearms registered by the Nazi government. It was the previous Weimar government that ordered registration of firearms, and that list was merely inherited by the Nazi government when Adolf Hitler rose to power. He then picked and chose who he wanted to remain armed, and confiscated the remaining weapons from all other "unreliable persons" who chose to follow the law.
Under the previous eight years of George W. Bush, this nation saw a rape of its constitutional rights unseen under the administration of any other American president. Everyone thought surveillance of emails, phone calls, et cetera was all good and fine if it was done by our government for the purposes of "national security", to protect us from "terrorism", et cetera.
Well, now we have Barrack Obama in office. Under the legal precedent set forth by Bush, Obama now has a ridiculous amount of power of the average American citizen...and there's nothing we can do about that now. It became legal precedent because no one stood up to stop it when it started.
What we can do now, as a nation, is to prevent further usurpation of our rights by insisting that our governmental leaders currently in power reject the notion of further intrusion of our rights under the guise of "protecting America". We can elect leaders who will repeal the legislative damage that has been done, as well as appoint judges who will not stand for unconstitutional abuses of our rights.
Get involved. Support local candidates who will raise holy hell about the abuses of our rights at ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, whether they be from President Obama or from a lowly police chief in Clute, TX. Make your voice heard. Don't allow your voice to remain silent, as silence does not equal vigilance. Only YOU are able to allow yourself to remain free, you can count on no one else to do it for you.
Never cave in to a "slippery slope" of allowing certain freedoms to be done away with, for ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR ANYONE, in the name of "safety", "security", "patriotism", or anything else of that sort. Remember the old saying..."Give 'em an inch, they'll think they are rulers!".
Friday, November 13, 2009
How "gangsta rap" made me even more of a Libertarian...
Okay, if you STILL haven't figured it out yet, Libertarianism is that radical notion that you don't actually own another human being. Under this philosophy, you still have the right to own personal property, make decisions for your own children while they are still minors, et cetera. You don't, however, have the right to tell another human adult how to run his or her life...with a few minor caveats. These are pretty basic, really. The first exception to this rule is if you are the paying employer of someone who willfully enters into employment for you. The second would be when another person, by virtue of his actions, directly prevents you from exercising your own natural rights. Other than that, you have to grin and bear it...just like they have to do, when you live your own life the way you want.
One of the biggest parts of the libertarian philosophy involves the role of business in our lives. We, as citizens of these United States, have the opportunity to work hard and make our lives better because of this hard work. Government (the "G-word" so hated by Libertarians) has long-since had its dirty little hands in business, and the two dominant parties have seemingly opposing (yet strikingly similar) views of what is good and bad when business and government intermingle.
The republican party has long-since touted itself as the "free market" party, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Democrats, on the other hand, have also mislead Americans by claiming that they represent "the common man".
While I have a tendency to harp on the US War on (some) Drugs a bit more than I probably should at times, I'm going to use it tonight for the reason that it provides an all-encompassing scenario in which the Libertarian ideal may be explained. Just for kicks, I'm going to use some old-school gangsta rap to get that message across!
For those unfamiliar with the recordings of Ice-T, you may know him as Odafin 'Fin' Tutuola from the television series "Law & Order: SVU". Pardon the language, and pay close attention to the message.
Now, let's get back to the Libertarian ideal of self-ownership. In the video, we see that there's a seedy underworld of drugs, machine guns, pimping, prostitution, violent assaults, and just about every other thing unlawful and unwanted you can think of.
Moving right along, let's look at other places where personal freedom is valued and respected.
In Amsterdam, where authorities turn a blind eye to drug abuse, we don't have rampant drug-related gang violence. You can go to any decent cafe and buy your reefer...in 31 flavors, if you choose. In Houston, TX (60 miles away from where I'll sleep tonight, and drugs are outlawed), it is highly likely that there will be at least one homicide involving drugs because tonight is a Friday night. If you're shooting smack on a crowded Amsterdam streetcorner, you're likely to go to jail...but you aren't likely to see a news report about a heroin dealer's dope house getting raided by the Amsterdam SWAT team after a year-long investigation.
In Nevada, some lonely truck driver will be getting his rocks off in a whorehouse, and he'll be paying his hard-earned money to do so. A lawful and licensed prostitute will perform sexual favors for this truck driver, and may even be interviewed for an HBO reality TV series afterward. Again in Houston, TX, we will likely hear within the next month about how an underground prostitution ring (most likely involving minors or illegal immigrant "sex slaves"), and the cops will likely have driven past at least a dozen of these whorehouses on their way to the one they are busting.
I may or may not have consumed my fair share of Mexican horticulture in my younger days, but I can assure you that it wasn't a D.A.R.E. program or a threat of going to jail that kept me from smoking crack for all of my almost 31 years. No, rather, it was common sense. While I may have dated some women that even my own mother probably wouldn't approve of, I can honestly say that I've never paid for sexual favors...but if I wanted to, everyone knows where Clinton Drive is at. Government regulation has not lessened the demand, nor has it lessened the supply, for drugs and hookers. All government interference in the problem has accomplished is an increase in price.
Is prostitution good for the mental and physical health of anyone involved? Of course not. Everyone from your shrink to your priest will tell you that being a hooker OR buying a hooker is bad for your head...and that doesn't even cover the STD aspect. Drugs? Same issues. It's bad for your mental state on so many levels, and it ravishes your body.
This leads us to two interesting issues we, as a supposedly free society, must deal with. First and foremost, what right does any person have to tell another adult what to do with his or her body? Second, what effects are government intervention REALLY having on the situation?
CAPITALISM. It's been a "dirty word" for so long that it's not even funny...but it's what makes America keep on rolling. It's also ingrained into the human psyche. We want better for ourselves, and this is just human nature.
When you outlaw something on the basis of "morality" (as is the case with the republican party) or "for the common good" (as is the case with the democratic party), and yet the people still demand it, you have opened up the doors for true capitalism in its most raw and unrefined form. It stops being a system according to the laws of free civilized men, and becomes the law of the jungle.
I do not "support" or "advocate" drug abuse or prostitution. What I am advocating is the removal of government prohibition of the sale of drugs and sexual favors. I understand if this isn't making sense to you, because I run into that quite a bit...but take a second look.
In the video presented above, you see the Original Gangsta glamorizing the "pimpin, hustlin', gangsta lifestyle". The "get in my way, and I'll beat you down or just shoot you with my illegally-obtained weapons" mentality is prevalent, as are the products purchased by his ill-gotten gains.
When you outlaw something the people demand, the demand is NOT going to stop. Crack addicts aren't going to stop craving crack, just because you said they will get locked up for being in possession of crack. When you make it something that costs $80 a day because of prohibition, as opposed to $8 a day it would cost if there were no criminals willing to overcharge for the privilege of smoking a substance your government says you aren't allowed to have.
Prostitution, likewise, isn't going anywhere. There's a reason why it's called "The World's Oldest Profession". In Nevada, where licensed prostitution is legal, you have women who fill out applications and take physicals to ensure that they aren't spreading disease. They are vying for openings at brothels, who have no trouble in attracting women who want the job. In Texas, where prostitution is illegal, we have abusive pimps who make outlandish amounts of money selling the services of "sex slaves" who are often underage illegal immigrants.
So the real question comes down to this...even if you don't support the notion of smoking crack or boning hookers...has government involvement really "helped" the situation? No, not really...
Every morning, I look at the Houston Chronicle's website. We continuously see drug-related shootings, and illegal immigrants being forced into the sex trade.
Obviously, smoking crack and selling your cooter are both bad for your health, physical and mental. But ask yourself this...if you had to take your pick, would you ABSOLUTELY HAD to have someone selling crack to someone in your neighborhood, would you want it to be Hajji at the Kwik-E-Mart up the street, who wouldn't hesitate to call the cops if it got out of hand, or would you want unlicensed and unregulated gangbangers selling crack behind the Kwik-E-Mart who wouldn't hesitate to shoot you if you got in the way of a sale?
If you ABSOLUTELY HAD to have someone pimping a whore in your neighborhood, would you want it to be a heavily-armed member of MS-13 renting out a 12 year old El Salvadorian girl forced into the business to pay off her smuggling debts, or would you want it to be a scumbag former used car salesman who now rents adult hookers in a zoned portion of town after they've been properly inspected and licensed?
You obviously aren't going to stop drugs and prostitution. Drugs and prostitution will always be run by unsavory characters. You have your choice...would you rather that drugs and hookers be regulated and licensed by the state, or would you rather they be regulated and licensed by whoever has enough stroke to control that corner tonight?
The choice is yours. Hopefully, you will see the folly in our flawed system of prohibiting personal freedoms, and will begin to vote Libertarian.
A wise man once said, "Popular speech doesn't need to be defended...but all speech must remain free." Actions, like speech, must remain free, even if we don't agree with them. If you think certain actions are wrong or immoral, make it your mission in life to teach others that such actions shouldn't be a part of someone's life. I didn't need a D.A.R.E. program to keep me from shooting smack...the Alice In Chains album "Dirt" did enough for me. I didn't need a law against prostitution to tell me that I shouldn't bang a hooker...the "consequence education" slide show did that for me.
Government intervention in the form of DEA, vice cops, et cetera has done irreparable damage to so many innocent people that its effects cannot be quantified. We haven't even begun to attempt to tabulate the damage done to people by willful criminals who see an opportunity to engage in unlawful activities, because society and our legislature has deemed something to be "immoral".
If a liquor store sells a gallon of Vodka to a person, and that person drinks it in one sitting and dies, that person is responsible for his own actions. Under the laws of many states, doing the same thing with cocaine can literally end in a death sentence for the seller. Merely selling a particular quantity of a drug can literally give a person a life sentence in all states.
If a person is willing to risk 25 years in prison for the sale of a controlled substance, what makes you think he gives a damn about your kids? On the other hand, liquor store clerks can make a legal paycheck every week...but may be fined or arrested if they sell to an underage person, which makes them check ID before selling a gallon of Vodka to someone.
In Nevada, if you lack the necessary paperwork, you go to jail for pimping or whoring. If you have the necessary paperwork, you become a part of the lawful workforce. In Texas, there is no paperwork for legal prostitution, which makes everyone involved a "criminal"...so if a person is willing to risk jail for pimping an adult, what makes you think he's unwilling to risk jail for pimping a child?
Again, I direct you to the video...and this time, pay close attention to the lyrics.
"Lock me up, a genocidal catastrophe...there will be another one after me. A HUSTLER."
One of the biggest parts of the libertarian philosophy involves the role of business in our lives. We, as citizens of these United States, have the opportunity to work hard and make our lives better because of this hard work. Government (the "G-word" so hated by Libertarians) has long-since had its dirty little hands in business, and the two dominant parties have seemingly opposing (yet strikingly similar) views of what is good and bad when business and government intermingle.
The republican party has long-since touted itself as the "free market" party, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Democrats, on the other hand, have also mislead Americans by claiming that they represent "the common man".
While I have a tendency to harp on the US War on (some) Drugs a bit more than I probably should at times, I'm going to use it tonight for the reason that it provides an all-encompassing scenario in which the Libertarian ideal may be explained. Just for kicks, I'm going to use some old-school gangsta rap to get that message across!
For those unfamiliar with the recordings of Ice-T, you may know him as Odafin 'Fin' Tutuola from the television series "Law & Order: SVU". Pardon the language, and pay close attention to the message.
Now, let's get back to the Libertarian ideal of self-ownership. In the video, we see that there's a seedy underworld of drugs, machine guns, pimping, prostitution, violent assaults, and just about every other thing unlawful and unwanted you can think of.
Moving right along, let's look at other places where personal freedom is valued and respected.
In Amsterdam, where authorities turn a blind eye to drug abuse, we don't have rampant drug-related gang violence. You can go to any decent cafe and buy your reefer...in 31 flavors, if you choose. In Houston, TX (60 miles away from where I'll sleep tonight, and drugs are outlawed), it is highly likely that there will be at least one homicide involving drugs because tonight is a Friday night. If you're shooting smack on a crowded Amsterdam streetcorner, you're likely to go to jail...but you aren't likely to see a news report about a heroin dealer's dope house getting raided by the Amsterdam SWAT team after a year-long investigation.
In Nevada, some lonely truck driver will be getting his rocks off in a whorehouse, and he'll be paying his hard-earned money to do so. A lawful and licensed prostitute will perform sexual favors for this truck driver, and may even be interviewed for an HBO reality TV series afterward. Again in Houston, TX, we will likely hear within the next month about how an underground prostitution ring (most likely involving minors or illegal immigrant "sex slaves"), and the cops will likely have driven past at least a dozen of these whorehouses on their way to the one they are busting.
I may or may not have consumed my fair share of Mexican horticulture in my younger days, but I can assure you that it wasn't a D.A.R.E. program or a threat of going to jail that kept me from smoking crack for all of my almost 31 years. No, rather, it was common sense. While I may have dated some women that even my own mother probably wouldn't approve of, I can honestly say that I've never paid for sexual favors...but if I wanted to, everyone knows where Clinton Drive is at. Government regulation has not lessened the demand, nor has it lessened the supply, for drugs and hookers. All government interference in the problem has accomplished is an increase in price.
Is prostitution good for the mental and physical health of anyone involved? Of course not. Everyone from your shrink to your priest will tell you that being a hooker OR buying a hooker is bad for your head...and that doesn't even cover the STD aspect. Drugs? Same issues. It's bad for your mental state on so many levels, and it ravishes your body.
This leads us to two interesting issues we, as a supposedly free society, must deal with. First and foremost, what right does any person have to tell another adult what to do with his or her body? Second, what effects are government intervention REALLY having on the situation?
CAPITALISM. It's been a "dirty word" for so long that it's not even funny...but it's what makes America keep on rolling. It's also ingrained into the human psyche. We want better for ourselves, and this is just human nature.
When you outlaw something on the basis of "morality" (as is the case with the republican party) or "for the common good" (as is the case with the democratic party), and yet the people still demand it, you have opened up the doors for true capitalism in its most raw and unrefined form. It stops being a system according to the laws of free civilized men, and becomes the law of the jungle.
I do not "support" or "advocate" drug abuse or prostitution. What I am advocating is the removal of government prohibition of the sale of drugs and sexual favors. I understand if this isn't making sense to you, because I run into that quite a bit...but take a second look.
In the video presented above, you see the Original Gangsta glamorizing the "pimpin, hustlin', gangsta lifestyle". The "get in my way, and I'll beat you down or just shoot you with my illegally-obtained weapons" mentality is prevalent, as are the products purchased by his ill-gotten gains.
When you outlaw something the people demand, the demand is NOT going to stop. Crack addicts aren't going to stop craving crack, just because you said they will get locked up for being in possession of crack. When you make it something that costs $80 a day because of prohibition, as opposed to $8 a day it would cost if there were no criminals willing to overcharge for the privilege of smoking a substance your government says you aren't allowed to have.
Prostitution, likewise, isn't going anywhere. There's a reason why it's called "The World's Oldest Profession". In Nevada, where licensed prostitution is legal, you have women who fill out applications and take physicals to ensure that they aren't spreading disease. They are vying for openings at brothels, who have no trouble in attracting women who want the job. In Texas, where prostitution is illegal, we have abusive pimps who make outlandish amounts of money selling the services of "sex slaves" who are often underage illegal immigrants.
So the real question comes down to this...even if you don't support the notion of smoking crack or boning hookers...has government involvement really "helped" the situation? No, not really...
Every morning, I look at the Houston Chronicle's website. We continuously see drug-related shootings, and illegal immigrants being forced into the sex trade.
Obviously, smoking crack and selling your cooter are both bad for your health, physical and mental. But ask yourself this...if you had to take your pick, would you ABSOLUTELY HAD to have someone selling crack to someone in your neighborhood, would you want it to be Hajji at the Kwik-E-Mart up the street, who wouldn't hesitate to call the cops if it got out of hand, or would you want unlicensed and unregulated gangbangers selling crack behind the Kwik-E-Mart who wouldn't hesitate to shoot you if you got in the way of a sale?
If you ABSOLUTELY HAD to have someone pimping a whore in your neighborhood, would you want it to be a heavily-armed member of MS-13 renting out a 12 year old El Salvadorian girl forced into the business to pay off her smuggling debts, or would you want it to be a scumbag former used car salesman who now rents adult hookers in a zoned portion of town after they've been properly inspected and licensed?
You obviously aren't going to stop drugs and prostitution. Drugs and prostitution will always be run by unsavory characters. You have your choice...would you rather that drugs and hookers be regulated and licensed by the state, or would you rather they be regulated and licensed by whoever has enough stroke to control that corner tonight?
The choice is yours. Hopefully, you will see the folly in our flawed system of prohibiting personal freedoms, and will begin to vote Libertarian.
A wise man once said, "Popular speech doesn't need to be defended...but all speech must remain free." Actions, like speech, must remain free, even if we don't agree with them. If you think certain actions are wrong or immoral, make it your mission in life to teach others that such actions shouldn't be a part of someone's life. I didn't need a D.A.R.E. program to keep me from shooting smack...the Alice In Chains album "Dirt" did enough for me. I didn't need a law against prostitution to tell me that I shouldn't bang a hooker...the "consequence education" slide show did that for me.
Government intervention in the form of DEA, vice cops, et cetera has done irreparable damage to so many innocent people that its effects cannot be quantified. We haven't even begun to attempt to tabulate the damage done to people by willful criminals who see an opportunity to engage in unlawful activities, because society and our legislature has deemed something to be "immoral".
If a liquor store sells a gallon of Vodka to a person, and that person drinks it in one sitting and dies, that person is responsible for his own actions. Under the laws of many states, doing the same thing with cocaine can literally end in a death sentence for the seller. Merely selling a particular quantity of a drug can literally give a person a life sentence in all states.
If a person is willing to risk 25 years in prison for the sale of a controlled substance, what makes you think he gives a damn about your kids? On the other hand, liquor store clerks can make a legal paycheck every week...but may be fined or arrested if they sell to an underage person, which makes them check ID before selling a gallon of Vodka to someone.
In Nevada, if you lack the necessary paperwork, you go to jail for pimping or whoring. If you have the necessary paperwork, you become a part of the lawful workforce. In Texas, there is no paperwork for legal prostitution, which makes everyone involved a "criminal"...so if a person is willing to risk jail for pimping an adult, what makes you think he's unwilling to risk jail for pimping a child?
Again, I direct you to the video...and this time, pay close attention to the lyrics.
"Lock me up, a genocidal catastrophe...there will be another one after me. A HUSTLER."
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
A bit of objectivity in the wake of Ft. Hood.
Today, we as a nation watched on television, while the second-largest US military installation in the world held a memorial service for more than a dozen people gunned down by a Major in the US Army a few days ago.
Many have called this an act of "terrorism". Maybe it is. If the shooting was done with the purpose of creating terror in the hearts and minds of his fellow Americans for the purpose of advancing a political agenda, it is terrorism. If not, it's a mass homicide that does not, by definition, meet the criteria of "terrorism".
Some have called him an "enemy combatant". So long as it is truly known that he is being labeled an "enemy combatant" strictly because he was actively engaging military targets for the purposes of aiding the war effort of the enemy or for the purposes of waging war against the United States and her people, he is an "enemy combatant". If not, he's a mass murderer that does not, by definition, meet the criteria of "terrorism".
Furthermore, the interwebs have been lit up by claiming that the entire religion of Islam is comprised solely of "enemies of the United States". To that, I call bullshit. Unless, of course, someone has re-written the Koran since a year or so ago when I read it.
Why do we have more instances of "terrorism" committed by self-proclaimed Muslims, as opposed to self-proclaimed Christians? Don't be stupid. How many predominantly-Christian nations has the US invaded lately?
This guy was a nutcase, plain and simple. He just happened to be a nutcase who also happened to be affiliated with radically violent people who chose to associate themselves with Islam. Does this happen quite a bit with people who associate themselves with Islam? You're damned right, it does. It also happens quite a bit with any other group of people who are living in or share a kinship with those who live in places where an occupying force has taken over their homeland.
For instance, the idea of "suicide bombings" weren't started by Muslims, but rather by a group known as the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. While they are a secular organization, they were oppressed by the majority...and pioneered the use of a "suicide vest" for military action against the oppressing force.
In Northern Ireland, "The Troubles" between the Irish Republican Army and the British army date back for more than eight centuries. Yes, that's right, EIGHT CENTURIES. While the real issue is regarding the power struggle between British empire and Irishmen who want to be free, both sides frequently bring religion into the equation, as most Englishmen who subscribe to religious belief are Anglican protestants (the "Church of England"), while their Northern Ireland counterparts are Roman Catholic. Both claim Christianity as their religion, and they fight each other while denouncing their opponents' particular views on religion.
In Mexico, the Chiapas natives have been persecuted and oppressed for so long by the Mexican gov't that songs have been written about them. Much like in Ireland, the Middle East, and damned near everywhere else a war has been fought, the plight of the Chiapas does not center around religion, race, or culture. It's about control of the land, and control of the people...which eventually traces back to MONEY.
Before digressing further, I'll say this...prove that he was an actual affiliate of a "foreign terrorist organization", and not just a sympathizer, and I'll call this a "terrorist action".
I sympathize with any group of people wanting to be free from tyranny and willing to fight for that freedom, including the IRA. The Irish Republican Army has been labeled a "terrorist organization"...not just by the British gov't they've been fighting for 800 years, but also by my own government. I happen to be of partial Irish descent. If I were to go on a shooting spree, would you call me a "terrorist", even if it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything whatsoever related to that issue, and was just because I was a bit nuts and got pissed off at traffic in downtown Houston that morning?
Some call him an "enemy combatant" because he knew a guy who knew a guy who's third cousin married the stepsister of a guy who went to junior high with a guy who once met one of the 9/11 hijackers...and he also had skewed political views. Prove to me that this was an actual military action, and not just the work of a deranged man with a gun who shot a bunch of people and also happened to pray to God while calling him "Allah", and I'll agree that it was the work of an actual enemy combatant. The way I see it, it was the work of an American citizen with mental issues, a different religious upbringing, and a pair of handguns. It doesn't mean the guy who sold me a sixpack tonight is secretly plotting to kill me because I bought a sixpack, and Allah doesn't approve of light beer with a hint of lime flavor.
While we're on the subject of "militant Islam", I'll be right up front with you. Islam, like Judaism and UNLIKE Christianity, is severely lacking in the whole "turn the other cheek" area. Jesus tells me to love my enemies. The Prophet Mohammed tells Muslims to, well, basically fuck up their enemies in the most brutal manner possible.
That being said, what constitutes an "enemy" of Islam? According to the Koran (you know, the ACTUAL teachings of the Islamic religion, not the words of some "radical Islamist cleric"), you aren't deserving of death until you invade the homeland of a Muslim. Hmmmm, where does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, that's right. I knew I had seen that somewhere. It's that Gadsen flag hanging on my wall. According to the Koran, a Muslim is PROHIBITED from doing harm to anyone, including "infidels" like us, unless the homeland is invaded for the purposes of taking over.
Regardless, I'll come right out and say it. I support our troops, who owe an allegiance only to the Constitution of these United States. I do not, however, support our government's actions overseas. Our invasion of Iraq was complete bullshit...not to mention, completely illegal under every applicable domestic and international law you can think of.
Our mission in AfPak is a completely different fuckup. First and foremost, our "mission" stopped being morally justified the moment we decided to limit our assault to only those who attacked us, and began including all who "engage in acts of terror"...namely, because we as a nation continue to support those who engage in acts of terror, even to this day. Second, we never really dedicated the necessary resources to truly "get" Al Qaeda and the Taliban, we simply keep feeding money to corporations who build "drones" that drop bombs on wedding ceremonies. Third, we really don't have a definable enemy, and keep fucking up whoever our "enemy of the week" happens to be. Let's just say there's a reason cliches become cliches...and tonight, I'm gonna party like it's 1984.
If the United States wants to hold any moral high ground WHATSOEVER, it will do the following things:
1) Withdraw troops from Iraq IMMEDIATELY, and apologize to the Iraqi people for invading their sovereign nation. Seriously. We had no cause to be there, and we turned it into a giant fuckup. I know Saddam was a bad guy. Is Iraq really any better off today, than it was ten years ago?
2) Start showing some testicular fortitude, Barrack. Seriously. Grow a pair. Stop worrying about elections in random 3rd World nations, and focus on the task at hand. We, as a nation, know who the enemy is. It is Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Not some guy who used to date a chick who knew a guy who went to high school with a dude who drove a cab for the Taliban's third in command, but Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Stop worrying about the political implications, and focus on the 6'6" Arab with the dialysis machine strapped to one hand and the microphone in the other. You remember him, right? Osama Bin Laden? He's half-dead from nature, let's get the job done.
3) Start implementing the necessary actions to make the first two a reality. Those in Iraq due for leave in the coming months need to be sent home. Fresh arrivals to, and those destined for, Iraq need to be redirected to Afghanistan. Gen. McChrystal says we need more boots on the ground. Go hard, or go home. Anything less than the best shows me that my government is more concerned with prolonging the war than it is with actually winning it.
If we are to accomplish our mission of bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice, we must focus on that...and ONLY that. If we extend our mission to ANYTHING ELSE, our mission fails. End of story. In addition to failing that mission, we will also manage to piss on an ant pile that will come back to bite us, as it has repeatedly done. When we expand the scope of our mission to include anyone who sympathizes with those who hold ill will toward this nation, we've expanded our mission to include 80% of this planet. Our military is the greatest on Earth...but we ain't that good. When we piss off that many people, we're going to have idiots like this jackass in Ft. Hood thinking they have an actual reason to go on a shooting spree.
Then again, had we not been shitting in the sandbox to begin with, 9/11 likely wouldn't have happened. I'm not saying it was right to kill several thousand innocents. At the same time, I'm saying I understand where the hatred comes from, and our elected leaders are the cause of it.
I'm not saying it's right for your neighbor to shoot your kid...but if you continuously usurp him for your own gain, insult him because you can, attempt to run his life for him, and bitchslap him when he doesn't do what you tell him to, you should reasonably expect him to hit you where he's most able to do the most damage. It's what I would do if I were him, and had no other means of fighting at my disposal. Right and wrong take on a whole new meaning when you put it into that perspective, do they not?
Above and beyond all, I'm not saying I'm supportive of the mass murder at Ft. Hood, nor am I saying I understand the motivations behind it. I do, however, say that this nation has placed itself in a considerable amount of danger when it decided to start picking on every "little man" in the neighborhood. One on one, the little guy doesn't stand a chance...but he might just slash your tires in the middle of the night, regardless of whether you kick his ass in the morning. He's also going to have the support of all the other little guys you've picked on.
My prayers go out to the families of those who have lost their loved ones...not just at Ft. Hood, but in all of our warzones abroad and all of our criminal episodes at home. We need to take serious stock of our actions, and ask ourselves this: Is this what Jesus would want me to do?
Many have called this an act of "terrorism". Maybe it is. If the shooting was done with the purpose of creating terror in the hearts and minds of his fellow Americans for the purpose of advancing a political agenda, it is terrorism. If not, it's a mass homicide that does not, by definition, meet the criteria of "terrorism".
Some have called him an "enemy combatant". So long as it is truly known that he is being labeled an "enemy combatant" strictly because he was actively engaging military targets for the purposes of aiding the war effort of the enemy or for the purposes of waging war against the United States and her people, he is an "enemy combatant". If not, he's a mass murderer that does not, by definition, meet the criteria of "terrorism".
Furthermore, the interwebs have been lit up by claiming that the entire religion of Islam is comprised solely of "enemies of the United States". To that, I call bullshit. Unless, of course, someone has re-written the Koran since a year or so ago when I read it.
Why do we have more instances of "terrorism" committed by self-proclaimed Muslims, as opposed to self-proclaimed Christians? Don't be stupid. How many predominantly-Christian nations has the US invaded lately?
This guy was a nutcase, plain and simple. He just happened to be a nutcase who also happened to be affiliated with radically violent people who chose to associate themselves with Islam. Does this happen quite a bit with people who associate themselves with Islam? You're damned right, it does. It also happens quite a bit with any other group of people who are living in or share a kinship with those who live in places where an occupying force has taken over their homeland.
For instance, the idea of "suicide bombings" weren't started by Muslims, but rather by a group known as the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. While they are a secular organization, they were oppressed by the majority...and pioneered the use of a "suicide vest" for military action against the oppressing force.
In Northern Ireland, "The Troubles" between the Irish Republican Army and the British army date back for more than eight centuries. Yes, that's right, EIGHT CENTURIES. While the real issue is regarding the power struggle between British empire and Irishmen who want to be free, both sides frequently bring religion into the equation, as most Englishmen who subscribe to religious belief are Anglican protestants (the "Church of England"), while their Northern Ireland counterparts are Roman Catholic. Both claim Christianity as their religion, and they fight each other while denouncing their opponents' particular views on religion.
In Mexico, the Chiapas natives have been persecuted and oppressed for so long by the Mexican gov't that songs have been written about them. Much like in Ireland, the Middle East, and damned near everywhere else a war has been fought, the plight of the Chiapas does not center around religion, race, or culture. It's about control of the land, and control of the people...which eventually traces back to MONEY.
Before digressing further, I'll say this...prove that he was an actual affiliate of a "foreign terrorist organization", and not just a sympathizer, and I'll call this a "terrorist action".
I sympathize with any group of people wanting to be free from tyranny and willing to fight for that freedom, including the IRA. The Irish Republican Army has been labeled a "terrorist organization"...not just by the British gov't they've been fighting for 800 years, but also by my own government. I happen to be of partial Irish descent. If I were to go on a shooting spree, would you call me a "terrorist", even if it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything whatsoever related to that issue, and was just because I was a bit nuts and got pissed off at traffic in downtown Houston that morning?
Some call him an "enemy combatant" because he knew a guy who knew a guy who's third cousin married the stepsister of a guy who went to junior high with a guy who once met one of the 9/11 hijackers...and he also had skewed political views. Prove to me that this was an actual military action, and not just the work of a deranged man with a gun who shot a bunch of people and also happened to pray to God while calling him "Allah", and I'll agree that it was the work of an actual enemy combatant. The way I see it, it was the work of an American citizen with mental issues, a different religious upbringing, and a pair of handguns. It doesn't mean the guy who sold me a sixpack tonight is secretly plotting to kill me because I bought a sixpack, and Allah doesn't approve of light beer with a hint of lime flavor.
While we're on the subject of "militant Islam", I'll be right up front with you. Islam, like Judaism and UNLIKE Christianity, is severely lacking in the whole "turn the other cheek" area. Jesus tells me to love my enemies. The Prophet Mohammed tells Muslims to, well, basically fuck up their enemies in the most brutal manner possible.
That being said, what constitutes an "enemy" of Islam? According to the Koran (you know, the ACTUAL teachings of the Islamic religion, not the words of some "radical Islamist cleric"), you aren't deserving of death until you invade the homeland of a Muslim. Hmmmm, where does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, that's right. I knew I had seen that somewhere. It's that Gadsen flag hanging on my wall. According to the Koran, a Muslim is PROHIBITED from doing harm to anyone, including "infidels" like us, unless the homeland is invaded for the purposes of taking over.
Regardless, I'll come right out and say it. I support our troops, who owe an allegiance only to the Constitution of these United States. I do not, however, support our government's actions overseas. Our invasion of Iraq was complete bullshit...not to mention, completely illegal under every applicable domestic and international law you can think of.
Our mission in AfPak is a completely different fuckup. First and foremost, our "mission" stopped being morally justified the moment we decided to limit our assault to only those who attacked us, and began including all who "engage in acts of terror"...namely, because we as a nation continue to support those who engage in acts of terror, even to this day. Second, we never really dedicated the necessary resources to truly "get" Al Qaeda and the Taliban, we simply keep feeding money to corporations who build "drones" that drop bombs on wedding ceremonies. Third, we really don't have a definable enemy, and keep fucking up whoever our "enemy of the week" happens to be. Let's just say there's a reason cliches become cliches...and tonight, I'm gonna party like it's 1984.
If the United States wants to hold any moral high ground WHATSOEVER, it will do the following things:
1) Withdraw troops from Iraq IMMEDIATELY, and apologize to the Iraqi people for invading their sovereign nation. Seriously. We had no cause to be there, and we turned it into a giant fuckup. I know Saddam was a bad guy. Is Iraq really any better off today, than it was ten years ago?
2) Start showing some testicular fortitude, Barrack. Seriously. Grow a pair. Stop worrying about elections in random 3rd World nations, and focus on the task at hand. We, as a nation, know who the enemy is. It is Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Not some guy who used to date a chick who knew a guy who went to high school with a dude who drove a cab for the Taliban's third in command, but Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Stop worrying about the political implications, and focus on the 6'6" Arab with the dialysis machine strapped to one hand and the microphone in the other. You remember him, right? Osama Bin Laden? He's half-dead from nature, let's get the job done.
3) Start implementing the necessary actions to make the first two a reality. Those in Iraq due for leave in the coming months need to be sent home. Fresh arrivals to, and those destined for, Iraq need to be redirected to Afghanistan. Gen. McChrystal says we need more boots on the ground. Go hard, or go home. Anything less than the best shows me that my government is more concerned with prolonging the war than it is with actually winning it.
If we are to accomplish our mission of bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice, we must focus on that...and ONLY that. If we extend our mission to ANYTHING ELSE, our mission fails. End of story. In addition to failing that mission, we will also manage to piss on an ant pile that will come back to bite us, as it has repeatedly done. When we expand the scope of our mission to include anyone who sympathizes with those who hold ill will toward this nation, we've expanded our mission to include 80% of this planet. Our military is the greatest on Earth...but we ain't that good. When we piss off that many people, we're going to have idiots like this jackass in Ft. Hood thinking they have an actual reason to go on a shooting spree.
Then again, had we not been shitting in the sandbox to begin with, 9/11 likely wouldn't have happened. I'm not saying it was right to kill several thousand innocents. At the same time, I'm saying I understand where the hatred comes from, and our elected leaders are the cause of it.
I'm not saying it's right for your neighbor to shoot your kid...but if you continuously usurp him for your own gain, insult him because you can, attempt to run his life for him, and bitchslap him when he doesn't do what you tell him to, you should reasonably expect him to hit you where he's most able to do the most damage. It's what I would do if I were him, and had no other means of fighting at my disposal. Right and wrong take on a whole new meaning when you put it into that perspective, do they not?
Above and beyond all, I'm not saying I'm supportive of the mass murder at Ft. Hood, nor am I saying I understand the motivations behind it. I do, however, say that this nation has placed itself in a considerable amount of danger when it decided to start picking on every "little man" in the neighborhood. One on one, the little guy doesn't stand a chance...but he might just slash your tires in the middle of the night, regardless of whether you kick his ass in the morning. He's also going to have the support of all the other little guys you've picked on.
My prayers go out to the families of those who have lost their loved ones...not just at Ft. Hood, but in all of our warzones abroad and all of our criminal episodes at home. We need to take serious stock of our actions, and ask ourselves this: Is this what Jesus would want me to do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
