That’s all it takes to describe him. Two words. Ron. Paul. Unless you want to throw Doctor in front of it for good measure.

Every time I hear those words I think of a man who is principled, thoughtful, galvanized and consistent. Every time I hear them, I remember that a return to Constitutional principle would be a return to a nation where each individual had the opportunity for greatness based on their own willingness to work toward it. When I hear them, I think of a country where capitalism and free markets decide what the value of my dollar is, and not whichever bank or conglomerate the current batch of political appointees  is most loyal too.

Sadly, when I hear the words, Ron Paul, I also have to think about the people that have, over time, coalesced around and behind him. It takes a few more words to describe them. Granted, I have seen many people who were thoughtful, thorough, and clearheadedly came to the conclusion that Ron Paul was the candidate that they supported for President. They have considered all of the candidates, considered our country’s worsening financial situation, considered the state of international affairs, and considered the threats to our personal liberty that Americans face today, and they made the sound decision that Ron Paul would be the candidate of their choice to take up the helm of the Presidency and lead our nation out of crisis.

Millions of people across the country have gone through the same process and many of those have chosen to support Ron Paul. Many more have chosen to support other candidates though, and despite his positive qualities, Ron Paul has only managed to continually get about 10% of the popular vote among registered Republicans in local elections. Within that 10%, lies the problem.

Along with the thoughtful and careful supporters that Ron Paul deserves, his base seems to have been overwhelmed with delusional fanatics, disrespectful radicals, misguided hate mongers, and even blatant outright liars. What’s worse is that this element of his base seems to have taken over at least the most visible aspects of his grassroots presidential campaign, and they have done their absolute best to repel any chance of acceptance of Ron Paul into the main stream of the Republican Party. They’ve marginalized a good candidate, and relegated him to a permanent third string status, regardless of the qualities that he brings to the table.

A look around the tables that held my own county’s delegation at the Wyoming Republican State Convention gave me a hint as to the type of people that consider themselves Ron Paul supporters. When our junior United States Senator was introduced to the Convention, many of them couldn’t be bothered to rise out of their seats to welcome him. Same for when our senior United States Senator was introduced. Same for when our Congresswoman was introduced. It was especially true when our former Congressman, and former Vice President, Dick Cheney was introduced. The Secretary of State? The State Auditor? The Superintendent of Public Instruction? All were invited. All addressed the convention. All were ignored by these folks who couldn’t be bothered to show even a modicum of respect for their elected representatives and officials, all of which are Republicans, all of which have represented the State of Wyoming with dignity and resolve.  As far as I’m concerned, these “patriotic” Ron Paul supporters were an embarrassment to themselves and to the county that elected them to represent it at the Convention.

A brief look at the forums populated by Ron Paul supporters will give you a look at how many of them feel about their fellow Republicans, the volunteers — who dedicate countless hours and personal resources to make sure that Republicans are successful in the general elections and work to make sure the money necessary to operate the Republican Party is raised — and the elected officials that have dedicated themselves to representing the people who elect them. The forums are a constant barrage of charges of fraud, corruption, sleaziness, dishonesty. Every time Ron Paul loses a vote, the forums light up with stories about how their votes were disenfranchised, how their enemies played dirty, and how the “establishment” tried to shut them out.

I understand the heat of political battle. It is all-consuming, and you are entitled to your own opinions. Sometimes, though, those opinions just make you delusional. This is a perfect example:

It is pretty obvious we are winning. We have the true support. The media in this country is being used to carry out a big lie. Don’t get angry with the supporters of Romney, for they don’t know any better, they are basing their beliefs upon the information they have. Most get that from mainstream sources or Romney Sources.

As far as delegates. It is again obvious with very little research that the GOP is part of the machine, and literally make their own straw vote results. The cuacuses are not so easy, they are having to resort to the most dirty of tricks to win those.

Wyoming is a perfect example…the GOP hero Dick Cheney was at the Wyoming convention and turned it around for Romney. On the initial vote, Paul won, so the GOP leadership allowed Paul supporters to leave then declared the vote unacceptable and held it again. Treachery…by none other the mr. weapons of mass destruction himself, yes, the man without a heart, he who profited many many millions from war, former Halliburto employee….mr. cheney.

Cheney is NOT a hero, he is a criminal. He should be in a prison, not speaking at a political event. But for all of our supporters, we CAN win this. It is lies, deciet and injustice that are preventing it. Hold strong and do not let them railroad us again, so far in all three states to have finished their caucuses, the GOP has managed to railroad the democratic process. Put a stop to it immediately.

-DuaneK36, Daily Paul

First of all, there was no initial vote that Ron Paul won. That is an outright lie. No one “declared the vote unacceptable and held it again.” It simply never happened. It really is not “pretty obvious (they) are winning.” If it were “pretty obvious” that Ron Paul was winning, he would be ahead in the delegate count. I won’t even rehash the comments about Vice President Cheney. They’re idiotic and they are a common thread throughout the Ron Paul forums. The above post is pretty representative of the hate that exists in the Ron Paul support groups for both the Republican Party itself, and the elected officials that are endorsed by it.

During the Wyoming Convention, the Romney Campaign realized that the votes for the sheer number of nominated delegates that were declared for Romney would be watered down and result in the election of the more focused group of non Romney declared nominees, so the Romney Campaign did something that was utterly despicable, dishonest, and sleazy.  They *gasp* distributed a Romney endorsed slate of delegate nominees! Oh, the horror! How could they do something so vile?! Oh. Wait. Doesn’t the Paul campaign use preferred delegate slates? They do? Oh yeah, they just don’t put Ron Paul’s name on them. The candidates run as “undeclared” so all of them silly, corrupt, sleazy establishment Republicans won’t know who they are. Yeah. Great strategy. The use of a preferred slate by any campaign is an honest and acceptable and commonly used tactic, especially when the origin of the slate is clearly labeled, as the Romney endorsed slate was. A slate of “undeclared” candidates developed in a private locked door meeting protected by their ”6’7″ 300+lb bouncer?” Just as acceptable, right?

Of all the strategies of the Ron Paul supporters, this is the one I find to be most offensive. Do they really believe that the only way they can win is to trick unknowing state delegates into voting for them? I’ll be completely honest here. I would have voted for at least one of the Ron Paul supporters from my county — he is one of those thorough, thoughtful, and clearheaded Ron Paul supporters, and I would have been proud to know that he was in Tampa not only casting a vote for presidential nomination, but fighting for common sense platforms and resolutions to guide the National Republican Party — except he, along with most of the rest of the Ron Paul crowd, ran as “undeclared.” As far as I’m concerned, if he couldn’t be honest about his intent to vote for Ron Paul at the National Convention, he didn’t deserve my vote. The same goes for the rest of the “undeclared” delegates that were, and are, clearly Ron Paul supporters. The forums are ripe with claims that they won all fourteen alternate delegate seats, but most of those seats went to “undeclared” nominees, not people who declared for Ron Paul. Which begs the question: Were the delegate nominees lying about their declaration of support before the election, or are the Ron Paul supporters lying now about having won the seats? Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. What’s more, the reality is that only reason the Ron Paul supporters were able to claim the fourteen alternate positions is that convention participants could only vote for fourteen delegates, and the overwhelming majority of those votes went to a unified slate of candidates that had declared for Mitt Romney. That allowed the unified minority to claim the leftovers. I’d hardly think of that in terms of “how close we came to taking this state.”

The constant claims on the Ron Paul forums that the Romney Preferred Slate was “treachery”, “underhanded”, and a “dirty trick” makes them sound like four-month olds with full diapers. Same goes for their crying that Wyoming’s national elected representatives were allowed to make speeches, and dared to endorse Romney. Of course, the final betrayal by the Wyoming GOP was to allow Josh Romney to make a speech in support of his father! OH MY GOD! How could they let that happen? Too bad that the Paul campaign didn’t have an official representative at the Wyoming convention. Maybe he or she could have made a supporting speech themselves. Why didn’t this happen? Maybe this comment from a Paul supporter explains it:

The grassroots everywhere have to work so much harder to compensate for the lack of assistance from the national campaign. I understand why the campaign ignores places where they think they cannot win and doesn’t spend money in thoses places. But what does it cost for one of the “professionals” to find each state’s grassroots headquarters, pick up a phone or send someone to advise us novices?

While I find it very frustrating, I am heartened to see grassroots people working to get the job done. This is only giving us more individual and collective strength than perhaps we’d otherwise have.

We are in this for the long haul, with or without them.

Bump for Cheyenne WY State Convention grassroots assistance!

-Nonna, Daily Paul

If there had been an official representative from the Paul campaign at the convention, they would have been allowed to speak. Same for Gingrich. The fact is, as the the person clearly realizes in the above post, they just couldn’t be bothered.

The election had some real problems. In the delegate elections at the Wyoming State Convention, there were three ballots cast (out of an eligible 425) that shouldn’t have been. One each from the State Chairman, the National Committeeman, and the National Committeewoman. The Ron Paul forums are screaming about voter fraud, and they have every right to. Was it voter fraud? I don’t know. I don’t know all the details, but I do believe it was questionable and I intend to make sure it is addressed at the next State Central Committee Meeting. I know each of the people in question personally, and can’t imagine that any of them consciously sought to cast a vote that they weren’t entitled to. I find it more likely that it was done out of confusion in the moment, but I don’t know for sure. I won’t make excuses for them. What I do know is that those three improper ballots did not, in any possible mathematical way, have any effect on the final results of the national delegate election. Of course, the outcome was that the slate of candidates supported by the Romney campaign were overwhelmingly elected by a majority of the eligible voters at the convention to be national delegates.

It doesn’t matter though, because the Ron Paul supporters will hold on to that dark stain on the convention and tell everyone that it was the reason they lost.  That, and the underhanded speeches by elected officials, the sleazy candidate slates put out by the Romney campaign, the monstrous onstage conversation by the evil former Vice President and his daughter, and an underlying fear by the “establishment” of a poorly organized hodgepodge of people who start pretty much every conversation with that very same “establishment” with name calling, accusations, and outright hostility.

That may sum up a great portion of the real reason Ron Paul isn’t winning delegates. It’s not because there is a vast some-kind-of-wing conspiracy against him. It’s not because Ron Paul isn’t a great and gifted statesman, because he is. It’s because while Dr. Paul has been extremely effective at lighting a fire under people who believe in liberty and getting them involved and interested, and he has done an astounding job of educating a new generation about how they have been robbed of those liberties, he has also failed to organize a national campaign that could expound on his Constitutional principles in the national political arena, and has allowed his grassroots campaign mechanisms to be hijacked by a bunch of kooks that have about as much credibility as the free Mumia activists. It’s because the average Republican believes Dr. Paul’s followers when they declare that they won’t support the Republican nominee if it is anyone but Dr. Paul. It’s because the average member of the Republican Party doesn’t believe that the average Ron Paul supporter could care less about the future of the Republican party. It’s because while the rest of the Republican Party has spent the last year raising money for the Republican Party, volunteering for the Republican Party, and promoting the Republican Party, the Ron Paul supporters have spent the last year throwing rocks at them.

Mostly though, it’s because the majority of registered Republicans are voting for someone else.

But, you know, there is always their fall back strategy at the National Convention to get rid of all those pesky Romney delegates and replace them with all of those “undeclared” Paul alternates.

Offer them free coffee full of ex-lax the day of the convention. They will have to try and vote from the bathroom.

-namealreadyinuse, Daily Paul

Wow, I can’t believe these campaign strategies aren’t working.

Wisdom

One thing I do know from my experience as both a blogger, and a frequent commenter on various political forums, is that by publishing this 2500 word essay on this particular subject, I am begging to be flamed and trolled. I’m tempted to turn off the comments for this one, because frankly, I just don’t want to deal with the emotional outbursts that are likely to follow. But, alas, that isn’t my way. The comments are open (if you can get past the spam filters.) Just don’t expect me to come out and play if you insist on turning on the flamethrower. I’ll be busy, doing the real work of the Republican Party. Raising money. Recruiting candidates. Registering voters. Getting Republicans elected.

Which brings to mind one last issue I have with the typical Ron Paul supporter, but didn’t fit into the scope of the essay above. That I know of, there has been one, count ‘em, one, Ron Paul supporter that has been continuously active at the county party level in the last year. (Thumbs up to you YC!) The rest of the crew? The ones that so proudly “took over” the County Convention? Other than a couple of sporadic appearances, they haven’t done a thing in the last year to help the Republican Party in Sweetwater County. They haven’t come to meetings (Thumbs up to you, too, TB). They haven’t helped with the fundraiser. And they didn’t show up at the fundraiser (Except for you RZ and YC, more thumbs up.) Again, there are a couple of exceptions, but very few. There might have even been one or two “undeclared” Paul supporters helping out, I don’t know. I truly hope they will all change your mind and become active, and engaging, and stop looking at the rest of us as their enemy, but honestly? I’m not holding my breath. 

A democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives, and as such, it is the common people who are considered as the primary source of political power. A democracy also assumes the existence and practice of the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Does that accurately describe the country we live in now? Have you ever looked at the people around you at work — who are complaining about overtime and wondering if the boss will figure out that they weren’t really sick on Friday — and told yourself, “These people, together with myself, rule this country,” without laughing at yourself afterword? Have you ever spent a moment at the local saloon — where the “common people” are hanging out, drinking, laughing, groping each other and spilling beer on their shoes — and thought solemnly, “Right here, in this room, is where the primary source of political power in our nation grows from,” and kept a straight face? Have you ever just looked in the mirror and said, “This is my country. I am a respected individual, and this nation recognizes my social equality,” and didn’t fall over on the floor laughing uncontrollably? I didn’t think so.

So, what happened? If the founding fathers were so careful to set up a government that would always represent “We the people,” how did it all go so wrong? Simple. We sold the farm.

Picture this:

Farmer George Augere has been tilling his fields for 50 years. The Augere Farm usually made enough money to support his immediate family, and he also provided jobs for many of his extended family members. On the day of his retirement, the farm supported George, his wife, three of their five children, six of their eleven grandchildren, two siblings, two cousins, three nephews, an uncle, and Mr. Davis, who had worked for George since he was young.

Sure, there had been rough times. The three years of drought back in the late nineties almost bankrupted them, but they survived. Then, when Aunt Irma got sick a few years back, they couldn’t afford a nursing home, but everyone chipped in and made her as comfortable as possible during her last months. Yes, George had been forced to borrow money sometimes to keep the farm going, but when he did he worked tirelessly to pay off the loans.

The days were long, and the work was hard, but like the generations of farmers before him, George was proud of the fact that he has been able to provide a future for his children and grandchildren, and given them the opportunity to build upon his success. He hoped that they would have the same chances to excel in their lives that his father and grandfather had given him.

When George decided to retire, he left it up to the family to decide who would inherit the reins of the Augere Farm. He left each family member an equal share of the farm with the only caveat being that every year a new election would be held to determine who would run the farm for the next 12 months. George’s nephew Barry was a great guy, and everyone liked him. He always knew just what to say, and he always knew just the right time to flash his pearly smile. He had the ability to make almost everyone in the family follow his lead, no matter where he thought to lead them, and it was no surprise when they voted to make him the new leader of the farm.

Right away he went to work making changes. He convinced them that they needed to trade in that old John Deere — it may have been twenty years old, but it had still run just fine — for a brand new Jinma tractor. Yes, it was $30,000 for a smaller tractor, but the new one was better for the environment, and of course Barry was good friends with the sales representative. He talked them into laying off Mr. Davis, who had worked for them for over thirty years, and replaced him with a couple of illegal immigrants, who worked for less money. Later, he switched to a hybrid seed stock. Sure, it was much more expensive, but Barry explained to the family that these new plants were better for the environment, and used less natural resources to grow.

Barry made all kinds of promises to his family as he led the farm into new directions. “We won’t have to work as hard for what we want,” he said. “Everyone who works on the farm should be equal,” he beamed. “Every family member and employee who works for this farm will make as much as he needs to live, but will only have to work as hard they are able,” he boomed!  Over the next few years, he promised and gave them more and more, and every year they re-elected him. Under Barry’s leadership, most of the family got new cars, and built new houses, and were able to go on vacations that they had only dreamed of before. He even convinced them to let the two illegal immigrants participate in future elections and gave them enough money to build new houses and buy new cars of their own. When Uncle Charlie, who was nearly 90 now, fell ill, Barry convinced the family to fund his stay in the best nursing home money could buy. Nothing was too good for a member of the farm. Barry’s family cheered him and told him that they wanted him to be in charge of the farm forever.

Barry’s cousin John, however, wasn’t as enamored with Barry as the rest of the family. John wasn’t as good as Barry at rallying the family behind him as Barry was, but he understood simple math. He eyed the family’s finances warily, and wondered how the family could afford such extravagance with the modest income of the Augere Farm. He asked, “Where is all this money coming from, Barry?”

“Everyone knows that you have to spend money to make money,” Barry answered.

“But where is it all coming from,” John persisted.

“Well, I took out a mortgage on the farm,” Barry told him, “but don’t worry, we won’t have to pay it off for decades.”

John asked fearfully, “How are we going to make payments on it?”

“Easy,” Barry answered, “Uncle Bill, and Cousin Warren both work extra jobs and have a lot more money than the rest of the family. They are just going to have to chip in a little extra to pay the interest on the loan.”

John was beside himself. He went to the rest of the family and explained to them that Barry’s plan would bankrupt the Augere Farm. His protests fell on deaf ears however, and the rest of the family thought John was just a troublemaker. Even Bill and Warren thought that Barry was doing a great job, and wouldn’t hear of replacing him in the next election. “He’s so smart, and so caring,” they said, “we don’t mind paying a little extra.”

After a while though, as Barry spent more and more money keeping his family happy, and now the families of his immigrant workers, the size of the mortgage against the farm grew. Soon, Bill and Warren were told that they would have to work a little harder at their second jobs and contribute a little bit more to the family’s finances. Cousin Brad and Nephew Mike were also told that they would have to start working a little harder and contributing more. “From each according to their ability, guys,” Barry told them. “You have a responsibility to take care of your family.” Over time, more members of the family were asked to contribute a little bit more the benefit of the others. Brad and Mike were asked to contribute even more, and Bill and Warren were asked to give up almost all of their income from their second jobs to support the farm.

Later that year, hardly anyone noticed when when Uncle Bill stopped showing up for work at the farm. Barry noticed when Bill’s check didn’t get deposited in the bank that month, though, and went looking for him. He found Bill’s house empty and his car gone. After a little investigation he learned that Bill had quit his second job and moved out of the state where he had started his own farm with Mr. Davis as a partner. Then Warren lost his second job due to budget cuts and was no longer able to contribute extra money to the farm every month. Brad broke his leg in an accident and could no longer work at all. Mike was told that he would have to work even harder.

Over time, one by one, several more of the hardest working members of the family resigned and moved away. The Augere Farm began to suffer, and its income began to shrink.

“I told you,” John cried. “You can’t keep spending money like this and expect the farm to survive.”

“Nonsense,” Barry answered, “I’ll just borrow a little more money. We’ll get through this.”

And that’s what he did. He took out another mortgage on the farm, and took out loans against the homes his family had built during the last several years. “Don’t worry,” he told them, “we won’t have to pay these loans off for years to come.”

The next few years were a little tougher. More of the hardest working family members gave up and moved away, and with each one that left the farm produced less and less. The family who remained, though, demanded more and more from Barry. He sold off the harvester to pay the interest on the loans, and then borrowed a little more to buy a new car for his daughter. During the following fall harvest he had to rent a harvester, and sold the tractor in order to pay for it. It became a never ending downward spiral. Realizing that he was in trouble, Barry started looking for a solution.

He found that solution in Mr. Yen, who agreed to take on some of the Augere Farm’s debt in exchange for the land. “You can stay there and work the land,” he told Barry, “nothing will change, other than how the land is titled. Instead of paying all that interest on the loans, you’ll just have to pay rent. Besides, I’ll pay you a little under the table so you’ll have some money in your pocket when all is said and done.”

“But what about my family?” Barry asked.

“I can’t give you enough to pay off all of their debts,” Mr. Yen told him, “and I can’t employ them all. I run a tight ship. But you’ll be taken care of, my friend.”

“Okay,” Barry relented, “let’s do it.”

And just like that, Barry sold the farm.

What happened to George’s farm is exactly what is happening to our country. The votes of our electorate are being bought with promises of extravagant benefits to the “common people.” The problem is of course, that all of these benefits have to be paid for someday, by someone. The crime wasn’t Barry selling the farm to Mr. Yen, the crime was committed when the family sold the farm to Barry for a few material promises and a pretty smile. The crime was selling out the future for a little extra stuff today.

The Obama administration is telling us that only the rich will have to pay more so everyone else can have free health care. Only the rich corporations will have to fund the new environmental revolution. He tells us that all of the common people deserve economic justice and equality. In short, the government is buying the votes of the American people, and it has destroyed our democracy. Our president, our congress, and our supreme court have all thrown their hats into the bidding circle, looking to buy the farm, and then sell it down the river.

These are lies that they tell us for one purpose, and one purpose only. To stay in power. And in order to keep that power, they are willing to buy our votes with our very own souls. In the end, all it will cost us is our freedom.

2010? Maybe we can take back our country, but I’m not optimistic. We still have too much wealth in this country for Obama and his lackeys to buy votes with. They’ll bankrupt us eventually, though. Even Vice President Biden said so. When that happens, maybe real democracy can make a comeback.

Until then, welcome to augereocracy, where control of the government goes to the highest bidder.

augereocracy

au·ger·e·oc·ra·cy [aw-jeer-ee-ok-ruh-see]
-noun, plural -cies.

1. a puppet republic where the members of the supposedly democratically elected government received the majority of the votes by promising the most benefits (ie. kickbacks, bribes) to the voters
2. a government that provides increasingly greater benefits to its electorate in order keep power.
3. a state or society characterized by a formal relinquishing of rights in exchange for perceived financial benefits.
4. political or social inequality resulting from class warfare and wealth redistribution.
5. majority rule, where such majority is purchased through the promise of personal benefit.
6. a system of government in which the power, which used to be vested in the people, who ruled either directly or through free elected representatives, is now solidly controlled by a select few who have purchased that power from the people by promising ever increasing benefits from the treasury.
   

Origin:
2009; [root: augere (Latin, present infinitive) - 1. increase, augment; 2. enlarge, spread; 3. lengthen; 4. exaggerate; 5. honor, enrich; 6. (figuratively) exalt, praise. - rel. auction]

Related words or phrases for : augereocracy
socialism, communism, progressivism, voter auction, bribery, influence peddling

example: “The people in this country have forsaken their democracy and sold their votes and control of our government to the highest bidder in exchange for free healthcare and rent controlled housing. We are now an augereocracy.”

Plastic People

by Jeff Snyder
by Jeff Snyder

‘plas•tic’: . . . 5: capable of being deformed continuously and permanently in any direction without rupture” ~ mirriam.webster.com

Pierre Lemieux, a French Canadian, economist, professor, author, libertarian thorn in the flesh of the Canadian Leviathan, and a friend, has become a felon. Pierre refused to answer one of the questions on his application to renew his firearms license, and the licensing center refused to renew his license. He now faces the prospect of 10 years in prison for keeping firearms without a license.

I will tell you some of his story. At this stage you may be thinking that it’s going to be about gun control but, rest assured, it’s not. Too many see trees, only trees, everywhere they look, and never a forest. Every abuse, every injustice is singular, isolate, one more thing to be addressed, corrected or reformed – unfortunate, deplorable really, but circumscribed, in an arena separate from the rest of life, someone else’s problem, and someone else’s cause.

No, Pierre’s story is about what it means to be ruled, what it means to need permission from the state. And if you stop looking at trees and see the forest, then Pierre’s refusal to follow orders may pose a question for you: How far will you accommodate the state before you resist? Is there some limit to your ability to mold yourself to the state’s designs? At what point will the state cross a line within you, when what you are ordered to do is more than you will accept or bear, when you will say, “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise”?

Or does no such line exist? Are you that final object of all the state’s labors, that Quintessential Being that the state expects, demands and needs you to be: a plastic person?

---

In 1995 Canada passed an “Act Respecting Firearms and Other Weapons,” generally referred to simply as the “Firearms Act” or by its original bill number, C-68. At the time, Canada already had handgun registration. The Firearms Act created a long gun registry and a new firearm licensing authority, and required citizens to possess licenses to own firearms. The licenses are good for five years. Pierre registered his firearms, and submitted his first application for a firearms license in 1996, which was granted, his first application for renewal in 2001, which was granted, and his second request for renewal in 2007, which was denied.

Pierre believes that Canadians have the right to own firearms without government approval. In fact, he has written extensively on the subject to educate his fellow Canadians and to peaceably restore respect for this right. Nevertheless, like most people, Pierre complied with the registration and licensing scheme in order to keep what he loves and to live a “quiet life.” Unfortunately, despite his best efforts to comply, Pierre ran into his own personal limit with an impertinence in the license application that he simply could not abide, viz., question 6(d) of the license application, which asks:

“During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?”

The instructions to the application state that all personal history questions must be answered, and that “[I]f you answer YES to any of the questions . . . you MUST provide details on a second page. . . . If details are not provided, your application cannot be processed. A YES answer does not mean your application will be refused but it may lead to further examination.”

In each of 1996, 2001 and 2007, Pierre, waging what he describes as “a dignity battle” against the law, refused to answer this question, instead responding that “My love affairs are none of your business / Ça ne vous regarde pas.” In 2007, Pierre took the additional step of sending, by registered mail, a copy of his application, a cover letter and three pages of his book, Confessions d’un coureur des bois hors-la-loi, which chronicles his resistance against Canadian gun control laws, to the Prime Minister of Canada.

Two months after his license expired, having heard nothing from the licensing center, Pierre made a freedom of information request to find out the status of his application. Eventually, he received word that his license renewal was denied by reason of his failure to answer question 6(d). Pierre now owns firearms – registered firearms – in violation of the law, a crime punishable by 10 years in prison. On the webpage where he chronicles his resistance to the Canadian license law, Pierre wonders: ” Will I be the first Canadian to be jailed for refusing to tell the state about his love life? Not the last one, I fear.”

---

If an activity is licensed by the state, then it is a privilege conferred and controlled by the state, and not a right. The conditions on which the privilege is conferred are matters of legislative or administrative grace; the person may not lawfully engage in the activity and is not affirmatively protected from state incursion simply by reason of being a person, as would be the case with an “individual right.” The Firearms Act empowered an agency with a mandate to create and administer a licensing program and vested very broad powers in the agency to establish the particulars of the program. The Act clearly establishes that ownership of firearms in Canada is a privilege conferred only upon those deemed worthy by satisfaction of conditions determined by the licensing authority.

Stop and consider for a moment this by method of “legislation.” The founding “law” simply directs a combined legislative/judicial/executive agency to create and enforce a program without bothering to prescribe the contents of the program or even any significant limits on the exercise of that “authority.” Instead, it vests the agency with very broad discretion to define and administer the program. This form of legislation is, historically, a favorite with advocates of gun control, but it is by no means atypical of modern law-making, and is often used to control all sorts of activities. For example, the act establishing the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States is in large part of this nature, being essentially a mandate to the agency to go forth and create clean air and water.

Consider what this type of “legislation” says about how truly, deeply, worried your “representatives” are about your lives. They cannot be troubled to precisely define the contents of the “laws” to which you will be subject, to define or circumscribe the conditions that may ultimately be imposed upon you or resultant burdens upon you and, therefore, do not limit how impertinent, overreaching or arbitrary they may become. Instead, the laws to which you will be subject largely or in significant part are devised by men and women who are not subject even to the minimum accountability of having to be re-elected to maintain office, who are protected from removal from office by civil service laws and who will never, ever be accountable to the innumerable citizens they harm for the harebrained regulations they impose. The legislators don’t have to make any of the difficult decisions, won’t be blamed for agency regulations that outrage the electorate, and it’s just fine with them if you have to incur significant costs in time, money and energy to bring actions in the courts to overturn the agency’s edicts, or to lobby the legislators to bring their administrative dogs to heel. There’s certainly no problem with more lobbying, it means more political contributions! The legislators dodge responsibility and accountability to the electorate, and position themselves as saviors who can remedy the abuses of the administrative agencies. An ideal system, really!

For reasons known only to it, the Canadian licensing bureau decided that it needs to know details about each applicant’s love life, job losses, and bankruptcies in order to determine whether to issue a firearms license. Doubtless many of us are dulled, if not numb, to the presumptions of wisdom and competence, and intrusiveness, of government agencies, but consider the god-like heights that the Canadian firearms licensing bureau claims as its own. The air is indeed rare there! It is going to make decisions whether to grant or deny a firearms license based on its evaluation of your love woes, job loss or bankruptcy!

“Provide details,” it commands. Assuming you can get past the monumental presumptuousness that demands that you submit, as a matter of official record, intimate details about your life to be mulled over by some police official, really, how does one respond to that? What level of detail, exactly, are they demanding? Would “My wife and I were divorced six months ago” be sufficient? Or is one required to add some salient, hopefully spicy details? “My God! For a while there, it was almost like “War of the Roses!” I refused to leave the house! She smashed some of my things and in retaliation I uprooted her beloved rose bushes! The tears! The screaming fits of rage! It was a complete nightmare! Now it’s over and, fortunately for all concerned, we live in completely different provinces!” Or does one add page after page of Henry James-like psychological detail of every gesture, facial expression and step of the breakup, the job loss, the bankruptcy?

Assuming one provides sufficient details, the agents who process the applications will then decide what significance these personal facts have for firearms ownership. This is pretty impressive! Consider that state-licensed psychiatrists, actual medical doctors who have specialized in the scientific study of mental health, cannot reliably predict, do not even claim to be able to predict, who is and is not going to commit an act of violence. Yet fear not and be ye amazed! The intrepid agents of the licensing bureau can and will determine who among those recently wounded in love, employment or credit relationships may safely own a firearm, doubtless relying upon gut instincts finely-honed through years of processing applications!

Maybe the licensing bureau isn’t going to use psychological profiling. Maybe, instead, the details it needs are the names and phone numbers of your ex-lover, your ex-boss and the creditors who lost a bundle when you filed for bankruptcy. And maybe the bureau will then contact them and make inquiries. “Hello. This is Officer Smith from the Firearms Licensing Bureau. Your [choose one] [ex-lover], [former employee] [former debtor] is asking us to renew his firearms license so that he can continue to own firearms for the next five years. Are you okay with that? Does that give you any cause for concern?” And then the bureau can decide whether to issue a license based on what these people say about you. Not quite a judicial determination of the existence of a crime, you understand, with an actual crime charged, penalties for perjury, the opportunity to confront and cross-examine your accusers and rules about what is and isn’t admissible evidence, but hey! Good enough for administrative agencies, which make their own rules and act as legislature, judge and enforcer.

Who knows how the licensing bureau will evaluate this information? They want it, and they will act upon it, and that is all the applicant needs to know. The activity for which the supplicant need a license is a privilege conferred by the state and, therefore, at bottom rests on nothing more than meeting their conditions, i.e., on pleasing the authorities, who most assuredly will do as they please.

This is what it is to be ruled, for your activities to be privileges conferred by the state, for the conditions of your life to be determined based on some legislator’s or administrator’s “good ideas” for governance. This is what it is to have your life controlled by another who has the power to fine you and throw you in jail for failing to comply with his conditions.

This is why American gun owners vehemently oppose registration of guns and licensure of firearms ownership. It doesn’t matter what the law says or whether it’s a “good idea” or what its supposed socially-worthwhile, beneficially-motivated “intent” is. It’s how the law’s power is wielded that determines the conditions of your life. This is why, when the NRA and gun owners supported “shall issue” concealed carry licensing laws, currently in place in 37 states, the laws were carefully crafted to specify precisely the procedures to be followed, to enumerate the only conditions that could be imposed, all of which were objectively determinable and none of which depended upon the exercise of agency discretion, and to impose time and cost limits for processing, so that, upon satisfaction of strictly objectively verifiable criteria, the licensing authority was required to issue the permit. This is why American gun owners demanded that state legislatures pass these new laws and repeal the old licensing laws that were enacted in the early 20^th Century, laws like the Sullivan Act, which still governs the residents of New York City. While appearing on the surface to be even-handed, those older statutes simply conferred broad, nebulous discretion on a licensing authority, with the result that they have been and, where still in effect, are, administered in a way to insure that only the “right” sort of people obtain permits. In New York City, this means that men like Donald Trump and Howard Stern get carry permits, but not the multitudes whose lives just aren’t important enough to warrant the privilege of self-protection. (For a more extensive discussion of the arbitrary nature of discretionary licensing statutes, see this policy analysis of “shall issue” concealed carry laws.)

---

While Pierre is now a felon because of his nation’s gun control laws, never forget that this is how he got in trouble with the state: He acted on the basis that there are some details about his life, important to him, that are his affair and his alone.

No one who believes he has the right to control you, who believes, further, that he has the right to engineer a society according to his ideas and plans, will ever accept this. It is an affront to his arrogance, to his arrogation of power to control you as he deems fit. To have “lawful authority” – really, political power – is precisely to have a free hand to use coercion to suit your purpose, without necessity of justification. If you are simply carrying out a prescribed course, if there is no discretionary element to your “authority” that permits you to shape it and use it to your purpose, it is not power but mere processing and ministration: you are a mere servant, a functionary, a minion. In brief, you are you: a servant and whatever government requires you to be, and manifestly not a king, a sovereign, a president, a semi-divine one, a colossus bestriding the earth.

Anyone who believes they have the right to control you ultimately must act ruthlessly, because a person does not control another unless, in the absence of willing consent or consent obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, he will compel the other to act as he commands. Ask yourself why a refusal to answer a single question about your love life is accompanied by a threat of, and merits, 10 years in prison. The failure to answer this question inflicts no actual harm on any citizen. The punishment cannot, therefore, be for harm the refusal has caused any specific victim or “society” at large. No, the injured party here is the state itself. The refusal to answer the state’s question is an affront to the state’s “authority,” and its claims to operate, and manage society, as it sees fit. The real “crime” is that the subject has failed to follow the state’s orders. He has failed to submit to and participate in the state’s project to control or engineer society in accordance with the state’s plans. Possibly, for example, the licensing bureau’s motivation for asking about love woes, job losses and bankruptcies is that it hopes to be able to prevent some future crimes (with guns, at least) based on certain facts that the licensing bureau believes have some degree of predictive value for determining who will and won’t commit crimes. That is, it may be implementing a general policy directive to shape an aggregate outcome (a reduction in crime) based on the fact that a certain small percentage of ex-lovers, ex-employees and bankrupts will commit armed violence against their former lovers, former employers or creditors. In refusing to answer the question, then, the applicant thwarts the state’s plans and rebukes the state’s claim to an authority to control or engineer society in accordance with its purpose. The “crime” is not a personal crime, like murder, robbery or pollution of the air or water, but a political crime. The essence of the crime is lèse majesté. The “criminal” has refused to obey the state’s fiat, and in so doing has committed an intolerable affront to the state’s claim to an absolute “authority.” He has shown his willingness to keep and act upon his own counsel and not follow orders. The state cannot let that stand and continue to be a state. It is the ultimate crime, and that it is why it is dealt with ruthlessly, meriting the same punishment that Solzhenitsyn informed us that Stalin’s political prisoners in the Gulag received for rebukes to authority: a tenner. Evidently, like minds, each claiming a right to control and engineer both man and society, perceive like threats, and respond with a like “solution.”

In his letter to the Prime Minister, Pierre notes that he is ashamed that he has not joined the Canadian heroes who are resisting the Firearms Act by refusing to register their guns or apply for licenses. These peaceful, otherwise law-abiding men and women occasionally hold open protests in front of government buildings daring the authorities to arrest them and throw them all in jail for ten years. According to information obtained by Pierre under a freedom of information request, as of February 2009, the Royal Mounted Canadian Police estimate that there were 185,925 owners of long guns alone who are not in compliance with the firearms registration and license laws.

We know now that Pierre need not have been ashamed, for it is clear that he is no less heroic. The state pushes and pushes; too much is never enough. It demands nothing less than absolute, complete control over an avidly obedient populace. To the state, there is no difference between 99% compliance and zero compliance. If there is one thing, one thing alone that it commands that you are unwilling to do for it, you have rebuked its authority and you are a threat, and the state will take you down. Pierre tried to comply for the sake of an undisturbed, peaceful life, but there was one thing the state demanded that he was not willing to do. There is something within him, some inherent dignity, he is not willing to relinquish or alter to suit the bastards. And so he refused to act as he was commanded to act, he refused to be a plastic person, forever conforming himself to the shapes devised for him by men and women with delusions of grandeur and whose tools for creating utopia are tasers, guns, fines and prison. And for that he may get ten years in jail.

So this is how it is. If you can labor “within the system” forever to obtain the reform that will correct this abuse, and that one, and each and every other abuse that arises, now and forever; if you can labor forever to exchange your current masters for better ones, a better Congressperson, a better Senator, a better President; if, in short, your idea of “citizenship” or “activism” is playing whack-a-mole with those lording it over you; if you can wait forever for the permission that you need to live life peaceably as you envision it; if you can march forward uplifted on Hope and Change; if you can find reasons and make excuses forever why Change cannot be achieved fully, just yet; if, in short, nothing can cause you to call into question the fundamental belief that it is good and proper for some people to have a “right” to control your life and the rest of society, using, as their tools, lying, fraud, manipulation, threats, grants of legal monopolies, protection and immunities, payoffs (“subsidies”), confiscation, fines, tasers, guns and jail; and if, when their commands are finally issued directly to you and you are confronted with tasers, guns, fines and jail, everything about you is conformable, malleable; if at no point will you ever openly refuse to comply with their plans when you are ordered to do so; then relax, the state is not coming for you. You are a plastic person, deforming yourself to fit into the shape that the state designs for you. You are no threat and you can be controlled because there is no one there to offer any resistance.

But if there is some peaceful activity you care about deeply, if you invest your life in it and the state should seek to control this in a way that that truly hurts you, then you will collide with the state, and what you love will be used against you. That is how the state operates. That is how it implements its self-described mission of “protecting” and “caring” for you. And if, because of this thing you love, you have some limit, some thing or aspect of yourself you will not give up or alter, then you are a threat, then you are an affront and rebuke to your government’s assumption of complete control. You have demonstrated that you will not dance to the state’s tune, that you are an individual and not a cog in the state’s machine, and Pierre’s story may someday also be your story.

---

Pierre has filed a motion of appeal before the Québec provincial court, asking that the license refusal be quashed and apologies issued. He also argues that the Firearms Act and related criminal code provisions are unconstitutional, and that he does not need any license to exercise his traditional liberty to possess firearms. The court date has been set for May 26 and 27, 2009, in room 207 of the Mont-Laurier Courthouse, Québec, starting at 9:30 a.m. each morning. Richard A. Fritze, an Alberta lawyer and well-known defender of Canadian firearms owners and their rights, is representing Pierre pro bono. In addition, several expert witnesses will testify on behalf of Pierre’s position, including Joyce Malcolm, author of To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origin of an Anglo-American Right, Colin Greenwood, a now retired senior English police officer who authored a landmark work on the history of England’s gun control laws and their failure to reduce violent crime, and Professor Gary Mauser, who co-authored an article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy with Don Kates titled, “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

These experts have generously agreed to assist Pierre for only the cost of their travel and accommodations, but Pierre needs funds to pay for what will most likely be a long and difficult battle. Please consider supporting him. If you wish to assist Pierre’s fight by donating, please contact Paul Rogan, publisher of Canadian Access to Firearms, who is acting as a pro bono fund-raiser. Alternatively, The Canadian Constitution Foundation has established a “Pierre Lemieux Legal Fund.” to provide funds to support Pierre’s case and you may instead donate earmarked funds to the CCF. Mr. Rogan can provide details on how to make your contribution through CCF.

May 6, 2009

Jeff Snyder [send him mail] is an attorney who works in Manhattan. He is the author of Nation of Cowards – Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control, which examines the American character as revealed by the gun control debate. He occasionally blogs at The Shining Wire. Read this interview with him.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Jeff Snyder Archives

During the songs, the clips showed images of former dictators ruling with iron hands, and President George Bush intermingled with them. It said over and over, “Fact: Governments control people with fear,” and it when on to show images of war, 9/11, and a flash by quote reading, “World Trade Center Building 7,” which obviously refers to the conspiracy theory that building 7 was destroyed by the U.S. government to hide a cover up of the “real” 9/11 perpetrators. While the band screamed, “Shout at the Devil,” President Bush’s image flashed on the screens, flipping off the crowd, and morphed into an image of the devil.

Rock rebellion? Of course! But it does beg the question, how much influence should a bunch of former drug addicts have on America’s political climate? And it’s not just Motley Crue! Rock bands and other performers all over the country are using their concerts and albums as a soapbox to spew their political rhetoric. Green Day, Audioslave, Antiflag, the Dixie Chicks, Ludacris, and more, use their music and their shows to indoctrinate our nations youth into a anti-nationalist fervor.

We have a whole new generation of idiots who think Che Gueverra is a hero and that Fidel Castro is misunderstood. They think that Hugo Chavez is a modern day Don Quixote and that socialism is just the cutest thing to come our way since Hello Kitty! It’s a budding electorate that doesn’t know or understand that our nation spent the better part of half a century in a cold war fighting exactly the kind of “Economic Justice” in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that they are begging Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid to institute here in the United States. They think that socialism is cool because it will be “sticking it to the man,” but they don’t realize that in a socialist state, “the man” isn’t the guy with the money, he’s the guy who will tell them how to spend theirs. He will tell them where to work. He will tell them how much they will make. He will tell them what doctor they can see and what kind of car they can drive. He will tell them that in the name of “Economic Justice” they will have to sacrifice “Economic Opportunity” and “Economic Freedom!”

They were right, governments use fear to control you, but don’t forget, would be despots use fear of the government to control you. Fidel and Che used fear of the government to take control of Cuba. They then killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people for no more than to make examples out of them. Hugo used fear of the government to take control of Venezuela. He then nationalized billions of dollars of private industries, including oil and energy companies, communications companies, and news agencies. Now, he controls Venezuela’s press, and of course they only report the good things about him.

Barrack is also using fear of the government to take control of America. He talks about socializing medicine and housing, raising capital gains taxes, and re-imposing the “Fairness Doctrine” that requires that radio stations give equal air time to the socialists if they give air time to conservatives. It also would require those radio stations to re-staff their management with democrats and liberals. It doesn’t, however, make the same requirement of the already left leaning network television stations, nor does it make the same requirement of the already left leaning newspaper industry. In short, once he seizes control, he plans on making sure he keeps it. The democrat controlled congress will rush take away our right to bear arms, as Castro did. They will act quickly to redistribute the wealth of hard working Americans to those that will give the democrats an iron voting block in the future, and ensure their long iron fisted rule.

America is going to hell in a hand basket and it is going fast! And do you know what? America’s youth is going to follow along smiling, because Motley Crue puts on one hell of a show.

Stay involved! Sign those petitions! Write your leaders! Call your leaders! Choose your leaders! Vote!

Love your country, and fight to keep it the country you love.

Enjoy!

Wisdom

With scotch and soda and a twist of lemon in hand I watched anxiously as Florida was declared Gore country by the network news affiliates. In that moment, when you are handed defeat, as anyone who dedicates themselves to a cause knows, the world feels as it has come crashing down. I put down my drink, bowed my head, and tasted defeat. When I looked up though, I noticed that something was wrong with the networks projection. There on MSNBC’s little rotating table at the bottom of the screen were numbers that just didn’t support their call. They had made their determination with only 1% reporting, there was still polls open in Florida, and what’s more, Bush was leading in the early returns!

“What the Hell is that,” I fumed, drawing an evil stare from my wife, who obviously just doesn’t take politics as seriously as I do. Over the next hour, I pounded my fist on the table and pointed out to anyone who would listen that the networks were screwing up big time. Some laughed, some took me seriously, and my wife just told me to knock it off. As the returns came in, 3%, 7%, 14%, 26%, 48%, Bush held and even expanded his lead, then, finally, justification! The networks pulled Florida out of the Gore column and put it back up for grabs. “Yes, I knew it, see, I told you,” I declared to everyone within earshot.

That’s when I started to think about the consequences of the networks actions. With polls open across the country, Republicans were told they had already lost the election. Every Republican activist knew that we had to have Florida to win the election, so when they gave it to Gore, we were devastated. Across the country Republican volunteers, who were calling registered Republicans and urging them to get out and vote, put down their phones and went home. Across the country Republicans who were just getting off work checked the news before they headed to the polls and were told that their candidate had already lost the election. They were told that their vote no longer counted, and instead of going to the polls, they stayed home.

Upwards of ten thousand voters in heavily Republican counties in the panhandle of Florida didn’t bother to vote, because they had been told Florida had already decided. In California, possibly a hundred thousand people didn’t vote because they had been told that it was already decided, and their candidate had lost. If the networks had not prematurely called Florida, what would the election look like today?

Right now, after the original count in Florida declared George W. Bush the winner, after the recount of every ballot in Florida declared George W. Bush the winner, we still don’t officially have a winner. Now they are holding a third count of the ballots, and this time they are hand counting them, but only in heavily Democratic counties.

It is obvious that Al gore will ask for recount after recount until one finally calls him the winner, then he hopes to declare victory. He also hopes to use the highly contentious “butterfly ballot” as a reason to force a new election in a single county. Get real! The fact is, two separate counts have given George W. Bush the vicotry, and the fact is, fourth graders were able to use the “butterfly ballot” with complete accuracy. If Al Gore really wants to determine the “true intent” of the voters, he should assume they voted correctly when they went into the voting booth the first time. How condescending is it of him to claim that people who support him are too stupid to correctly use a voting machine?

If he is really interested in determining the “true intent” of the voters, why isn’t he asking for the people in the panhandle of Florida, and across the nation for that matter, who were told their votes no longer counted, to be given another chance to speak their peace and cast a vote.

As far as I am concerned, the “true intent” of the voters has already been found. As far as I’m concerned, the votes have already been counted twice, with the same result. As far as I’m concerned, barring any change that may come from the count of overseas absentee ballots on the 17th, our President Elect has already been declared. Victory!

Congratulations, President Elect George W. Bush and Vice President Elect Dick Cheney! I wish you well in the next four years.

Now I can finish that scotch and soda.

Later for now,

Wisdom