Breathing New Life Into Windows XP and Vista Computers

Normally my blogs are about (l)ibertarian political issues. I have been asked by many friends and acquaintances about their aging computers, some are too far away to do it myself.  So here

On top of being a broadcast engineer I am also a computer tech. I’ve worked with everything from the Commodore Pet, Atari 800 through most of the apple incarnations and most of the PC varients. As a matter of fact my first broadcast digital automation was the now defunct AuDisk, which ran on a 16 bit PC (pre 286/386 days) The entire program and a weeks worth of logs ran on a single density floppy disk and 9 hours worth of audio was stored on a ¼ gig SCSSI disk. The hard drive was carved into individual carts so no defrag was ever needed.

Now that Microsoft has abandoned Windows XP and Vista so have the likes of Google Chrome and more and more customers are having problems even on facebook especially games because of it. While I have always been a fan of Linux it was not user friendly enough for most of my customers, (especially the older ones) While I like the KDE variants such as Kubuntu and Suse as it has a polished windows feel to it. It tends to be a resource hog and tends to be too complicated for most of my customers. My first experience with Macbuntu was when a friend and fellow engineers Mac’s (power PC) motherboard died. He had me attempt to recover his data. I dual booted his wife’s PC with one of my versions of linux in order to mount the drive, He’s never been a fan of PCs or windows and wanted the look and feel of a Mac. Using various themes and modifications I came close. Then in my research I fell upon the MacBuntu theme written by the very people that produce Ubuntu. It is very lightweight (not a resource hog) and simple.

This blog post is being written on MacBook Pro 1,1 with a dual core 32 bit processor and 2 gig of memory. While I recommend the 64 bit version where possible as Chrome also abandoned   the 32 bit versions of linux and OSX but is still fully supported by firefox. I have installed it on dozens of customers computers and everyone of them are pleased with the simplicity and speed of their old computers. First you have to install the Ubuntu operating system (OS)  I normally have several on my thumb drive created with Yumi in windows or Multiboot from linux.  Yumi has the advantage of the option of downloading the software for you.  Here is a good video taking you through the install process.  If you prefer you can just download the ISO file and burn it to DVD.  Here is an excellent video on doing the OS install.

This post is about step by step instructions for installing the Noobslab MacBuntu theme MacBuntu 16.04 Transformation pack

First open a terminal window by holding down ctrl alt and hitting t.

copy and paste the following commands into the terminal one at a time.  Hitting enter after each paste.  Wait for each install to complete before entering the next one.
The first two add the repositories to the software list.

sudo add-apt-repository ppa:noobslab/macbuntu

Hit enter

The first time you enter a sudo you will be prompted for the administrator password for the install.  Software is added under Superuser hence the su.

Cut and paste

sudo apt-get update

Hit enter.

The following will install the theme, icons and cursors.

sudo apt-get install macbuntu-os-icons-lts-v7

Hit enter

sudo apt-get install macbuntu-os-ithemes-lts-v7

Hit Enter.

The following will install slingcold, this brings up a searchable list of all the software on the system.

sudo apt-get install slingscold

Hit Enter

The following will add Albert, a search tool similar to Siri on the Mac or Cortana on windows 10.

sudo apt-get install albert

Hit Enter

The following will install Plank, the taskbar at the bottom of the screen

sudo apt-get install plank

Hit enter

sudo apt-get install macbuntu-os-plank-theme-lts-v7

Hit Enter

The following will make cosmetic changes

cd && wget -O Mac.po

Hit Enter

cd /usr/share/locale/en/LC_MESSAGES; sudo msgfmt -o ~/Mac.po;rm ~/Mac.po;cd

Hit Enter

wget -O launcher_bfb.png

Hit Enter

sudo mv launcher_bfb.png /usr/share/unity/icons/

Hit Enter

sudo apt-get install unity-tweak-tool

Hit Enter

sudo apt-get install gnome-tweak-tool

Optional you can add the Mac Fonts

wget -O

Hit Enter

sudo unzip -d /usr/share/fonts; rm

Hit Enter

sudo fc-cache -f -v

Hit Enter

This completes the installation, now it’s time to configure it.

Setting up Macbuntu

Copy and past into terminal

gnome-tweak-tool &

Press Enter

Change GTK+ Theme to MacBuntu-OS-X

Change Icons to MacBuntu-OS

Change Cursor to Mac-cursors


Click on Startup applications and then +

Add Plank and Albert


Close Tweak and copy and past Unity Tweak into the terminal window.

Unity-tweak-tool &

Press enter

Under Unity click on launcher and turn on Auto-Hide


Click on Overview at the top. Then under Windows Manager click on General

Make sure Animations is turned on.

Change Minimize to Magic Lamp and UnMinimize to Magic lamp.


Close Unity Tweak Tool

Copy and paste Plank into the terminal window

plank &

 hit enter

Hold the Crtl key and right click on Plank bar across bottom. Change theme to MB-OSXLion turn on Icon Zoom and adjust to taste.


Click on Behavior an turn on Hide Dock

Click on Docklets and add Trash and any others you like.

Close Plank Settings

Cut and paste the following into the Terminal.

nautilus /usr/share/applications &

Press enter.

Drag and Drop desired applications to plank. I highly recommend Files and Slingcold. Slingcold will bring up all applications and is searchable. For some of my older customers who are less tech savy I also dragged down the shutdown app so they shut the machine down properly.

Copy and past reboot into terminal and hit enter.

 Sudo reboot

Hit Enter

Your system will now reboot into your new MacBuntu.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rise of the Modern Brownshirts

Those who have a clue know that fascism belongs to the political left, nothing could make that more clear then by looking at the news and their tactics.

Gang of Four Who Brutally Beat ‘White Boy’ Trump Supporter on Video

Activists And Anarchists Plan ‘Non-Peaceful’ Action At Trump’s Inauguration

VP-Elect Pence Get Hostile Reception From ‘Hamilton’ Audience

VIDEO: Leftists Chant ‘F*** White Supremacy’ in Front of Children to Protest YAF, Shapiro

Vicki McKenna and Protesters: ‘Your Whiteness Scares Me’

Last night, Vicki McKenna admitted to being frightened by the big guy threatening her at the Ben Shapiro speech at UW-Madison.

What does all of the headlines show?  Tactics of course and these were the tactics of the Nazi brownshirts,  need a history lesson?  From Wiki.

“It was by now well recognized as an appropriate, even necessary, function or organ of the party. The future SA developed by organizing and formalizing the groups of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers who were to protect gatherings of the Nazi Party from disruptions from Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD) and to disrupt meetings of the other political parties. By September 1921 the name Sturmabteilung was being used informally for the group.”

From Britanica

SA, abbreviation of Sturmabteilung (German: “Assault Division”), byname Storm Troopers or Brownshirts, German Sturmtruppen or Braunhemden, in the German Nazi Party, a paramilitary organization whose methods of violent intimidation played a key role in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. . . .

During the early days of the Nazi regime, the SA carried out unchecked street violence against Jews and Nazi opponents. . . . Temporarily in disarray after the failure of Hitler’s Munich Putsch in 1923, the SA was reorganized in 1925 and soon resumed its violent ways, intimidating voters in national and local elections. From January 1931 it was headed by Ernst Röhm, who harboured radical anticapitalist notions and dreamed of building the SA into Germany’s main military force.”

Need proof of voter intimidation?

While these same people love to hurl the label “fascist” it is they that employ the fascist tactics, when was the last time you saw a TEA party activist disrupting a leftist event, or try to intimidate attendees.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Truth Justice and the American Way?

The leftist media including the leftist at politifact miss the mark yet again!

Does it matter what the source?  Nixon a champion of progressives was run out on a rail based on an anonymous source named after a porno movie. “Deep Throat”  Remember that Nixon was drummed out of office for covering up a break in that he had no knowledge of at the time, he found out about it after the fact and covered up for his so called allies.  He deleted less then 20 minutes of tape and covered for his friends as opposed to 30K plus emails, and the left wing media pounced on it with a feeding frenzy with out looking into the source.  Jump ahead about 50 years and they now commit ad hominem and attack the source without looking into the facts.  Politifact’s headlines read:

Hillary Clinton blames high-up Russians for WikiLeaks releases

Our ruling

Clinton said, “We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.”

We don’t know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails. The statement sourced the attacks to the highest levels of the Russian government and said they are designed to interfere with the current election.

We rate Clinton’s statement True.

While it may be true that the Russians were behind the so called leaks, but given the fact that the intelligence agencies are under the control of the democrat party and Barack Obama we may never know the truth.  The real question is why has not the leftist media ruled on the leaks themselves.  The leaks show massive corruption on the part of the Clinton’s and the democrat party.  Instead of an ad hominem attack on the source, should they not look into the allegations themselves and rule on those facts?  Or does the left wing media only look into the facts when it suits their agenda?  I along with most honest American’s want to know if that which was leaked by Wikileaks was true, we don’t care where the leak came from, but we do care if the allegations are true, for if they are they show a threat to our country that far exceeds that of a foreign country (even Russia) that is a greater threat to our country and our freedom.  She would be the leader of our country and not an outside influence leaking the truth.  So come on “Politifact”  Check the facts, are the allegations made by  Wikileaks true or not?  Your lack of reporting one that speaks volumes.  Far louder then the claims made by Wikileaks,  Remember it was those same agencies that claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  You have lost all credibility when you bash those agencies in that instance and deny it in another.  So man up and give us the real facts!



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fact Checking the Last Presidential Debate (a Libertarian Perspective)

The liberal bias of the so called fact checkers is blatant and obvious and time for people to do a little fact checking of their own.

On the second amendment.  Donald Trump.

“We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments. But the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege. I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a second amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now.”


Hillary Clinton.

Chris Wallace said

“Secretary Clinton, you said last year — and let me quote, The Supreme Court is wrong on the second amendment. And now in fact, in the 2008 Heller case, the court ruled that there is a constitutional right to bear arms but a right that is reasonably limited. Those were the words of the judge Antonin Scalia who wrote the decision. What’s wrong with that?

Hillary Clinton said.

“You mentioned the Heller decision and what I was saying that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. And so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many others. So I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment. “


No Heller had nothing to do with children, nothing!  Washington DC had a total ban on handguns unless you had a permit and refused to issue permits, and even if you could obtain one it would have to be kept in a non functioning state rendering it useless for self defense purposes.

“District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. ”

Townhall did an excellent piece on the subject.

On the Supreme court.



“Secretary Clinton, Mr. Trump, welcome. Let’s get right to it. The first topic is the Supreme Court. We — you both talk briefly about the court in the last debate, but I want to drill down on this because the next president will almost certainly have at least one appointment and likely — or possibly – two or three appointments which means that you will in effect determine the balance of the court for what could be the next quarter century. First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country? And secondly, what’s your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted? Is — do the founders words mean what they say, or is it a living document to be applied flexibly according to changing circumstances? In this segment, Secretary Clinton, you go first. You have two minutes. ”

“Thank you very much, Chris. And thank you UNLV for hosting us. You know, at the goings on about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election. Namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system. I have major disagreements with my opponent about these issues and others that will be before the Supreme Court. But I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United — we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace. That we stand up and basically say — the Supreme Court should represent all of us. ” 

“We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments. But the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege. I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a second amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now. But I feel that it’s absolutely important that we uphold because of the fact that it is under such trauma. I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint– and I’ve named 20 of them. The justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment. They are great scholars in all cases, and they are people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted. And I believe that’s very, very important. I don’t think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear It’s all about the Constitution of — and so important — the Constitution, the way it was meant to be. And those are the people that I will appoint. ”


Hillary avoided the question all together, she engaged in the appeal to emotion fallacy. But her words were telling.  She said “But I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United — we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace. That we stand up and basically say — the Supreme Court should represent all of us. “.  It is not the role of the supreme court to represent anybody, nor is it the role of the supreme court to inflict one groups morals or to pick winners or losers.  It is the role of the court to ensure all “FEDERAL LAWS” conform to the constitution.  PERIOD!  Where Trump got it right, ““We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments.“, and that’s where he should have stopped.  It is not the role of the courts to decide national morals or dictate what the states must or can’t allow unless it’s specified by the constitution per the 10th amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That is a fact that was even admitted to by then Senator Obama.

To advocate anything else is in and of itself a violation of the Constitution.  Hillary implying that the courts got it wrong in “Citizens United”  Is flat out wrong, I wrote about it on another blog.   If anything a politician promising to do anything “for you or give you anything” should be considered a bribe.


This is a fact that is ignored by the modern left, who promises more and more free stuff at the expense of the economy and the national debt and of course a class of people that the modern left demonizes.  Again Hillary’s words not mine.

“And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy.”

No Mrs Clinton, the supreme court needs to stand on the Constitution, and stand for the rights of the individual, not a class, gender or race.  Period!



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

First Presidential Debate, What the Fact Checkers aren’t checking.

As a (l)ibertarian I have no love for either candidate but the so called fact checkers aren’t checking anything, they are just showing their leftist bias.  I think the funniest shot was on the so called equal pay scheme.

Really Hillary?  No one deserves equal pay unless they do equal work.  Why is that such a hard concept to understand?  Of course equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land since 1963.  So this is just more of the modern left’s victim class warfare. And the myth that women are payed less has been debunked more times then I care to mention.

Give Women Unfair Advantages, Or Else

But is equal pay for equal work fair enough for the feminist? Of course not. Many would go further and claim that society as a whole should financially reward women’s personal preferences just as much as men’s by giving equal pay for unequal work. Maybe women are inclined to make different choices than men, but that just means our culture must be re-engineered so women can follow their inclinations without any financial sacrifice. To do any less would be to undervalue women’s choices in comparison to men’s.

The second one is the Trickle down lie that the left has been perpetrating for decades. Except there never was such a thing as “Trickle Down Economics”  Never!

Real economist like Steven Horwitz and Thomas Sowell totally debunked the myth.

Steven Horwitz writes.

“The problem with this term is that, as far as I know, no economist has ever used that term to describe their own views. Critics of the market should take up the challenge of finding an economist who argues something like “giving things to group A is a good idea because they will then trickle down to group B.” I submit they will fail in finding one because such a person does not exist. Plus, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the whole argument is silly: why not just give whatever the things are to group B directly and eliminate the middleman? . . .

General Prosperity

Government doesn’t “give” us tax refunds; it simply refrains from taking more of what we created.What the critics will find, if they choose to look, is many economists who argue that allowing everyone to pursue all the opportunities they can in the marketplace, with the minimal level of taxation and regulation, will create generalized prosperity. The value of cutting taxes is not just cutting them for higher income groups, but for everyone. Letting everyone keep more of the value they create through exchange means that everyone has more incentive to create such value in the first place, whether it’s through the ownership of capital or finding new uses for one’s labor.”

And Thomas Sowell writes,

“While there have been all too many lies told in politics, most have some little, tiny fraction of truth in them, to make them seem plausible. But the “trickle-down” lie is 100 percent lie. It should win the contest both because of its purity — no contaminating speck of truth — and because of how many people have repeated it over the years, without any evidence being asked for or given. . . . Let’s do something completely unexpected: Let’s stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we “give” something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place. . . .One of the things that provoke the Left into bringing out the “trickle-down” bogeyman is any suggestion that there are limits to how high they can push tax rates on people with high incomes, without causing repercussions that hurt the economy as a whole.”

What you see is the typical leftist “victim class” mentality.  Create groups of victims and promise them free stuff at someone else’s expense.  So how’s that trickle down government working out for you?  The government eats a lager and larger piece of the pie and what do we have for it?  Again I’m no fan of Trumps but he is right about one thing.  We are twenty trillion dollars in debt and have nothing to show for it.  Nothing!  Our infrastructure is crumbling and the best the left can do is attempt to bribe voters with the promise of yet more free stuff?

Would anyone here call JFK a “Trickle down nut?”  From his speech in 1962.

Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The Government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances–two essential parts of our first step in tax revision which amounted to a 10 percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth $2.5 billion. . . . In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

And taxes are only part of the equation. When Kennedy made that speech most of the regulatory agencies that exist today did not exist then, and the few that did, did not have the power and scope that they have today.  The cost of the regulations on American business is higher then all of the economies of the world save nine.  From CEI.

After years of rapid growth during the Obama administration, the cost of federal regulations is now bigger than the entire economies of all but nine countries in the world. . . . Compiling reports of compliance costs from various government agencies and outside sources, author Clyde Wayne Crews found that the “regulation tax” imposed on the economy now tops $1.86 trillion.
By comparison, Canada’s entire GDP is $1.82 trillion. India’s is $1.84 trillion.

The problem, Crews notes, is that the combined cost of this “tax” never shows up anywhere in the federal budget — or any other official report — even though it is now bigger than individual and corporate income taxes combined.”

Far more people see the real problem “Big Government” then support either Clinton or Trump yet neither want’s to attack the real problem.

“WASHINGTON, D.C. — When asked to choose among big government, big labor and big business, Americans overwhelmingly name big government as the biggest threat to the country in the future. The 69% choosing big government is down slightly from a high of 72% in 2013, the last time Gallup asked the question, but is still one of the highest percentages choosing big government in Gallup’s 50-year trend.”

It’s time we take our country back and quit listening to the promise of all the free stuff in exchange for votes.  They use to call that a bribe!

Posted in Libertarian, Nanny State, Presidential Debate | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Progressive Libertarian aka a Liberal Pretending Not to be.

I make no excuses for my fight in the name of liberty, I am and always have been a Goldwater (l)ibertarian.

Freedom is not a form of populism (democracy) where the majority gets to impose it’s will on the minority.  It is the right of the individual to “pursue their happiness” without government interference. Even the right to be a total asshole. But more on that latter. Everyone who knows me knows I am very active in the freedom movement, trying to restore the “Constitutional Republic” we once were.  So in one of facebooks political forms  (Free For All Partisan Brawl) I posted the following Democrats push Obamacare ‘public option’ after two thirds of health co-ops fail, with the comment that the modern left was doubling down on stupid. Of course I was bombarded with the typical leftist crap about how I hated minorities and poor people blah blah blah.  I was shocked when a so called libertarian chimed in saying I was indoctrinated and didn’t have a clue.  He was pushing “medicare for all” of course I assumed he was one of those “Libertarian Socialist” To which he said absolutely not, he was not a socialist.  He also believes in the welfare state, but he believes that it should be run by the private sector through “government grants”. His words:

This is why I’ve identified myself as a “progressive libertarian”. I believe in free markets, free and open government, and free society. Social welfare should be provided through a free market, and government should secure access to that market through direct subsidy. Programs like food stamps, tuition vouchers, Medicare and even Section 8 housing aren’t “socialism”, they’re simply good ideas (in principle)

A Progressive Libertarian believes that, in order to preserve and secure individual rights, government has an obligation to assist people directly–to respond to disasters, to minimize pollution, to prevent starvation and homelessness, to guarantee our health, education and general welfare.”

On his personal web page he writes:

I am not an anarchist, and I most certainly believe that democratic government is better than serfdom.

 In this sense, I am also a progressive.  In order for markets to be truly “free”, they must be secured.  Civil protection, infrastructure and social welfare are primary considerations of government spending.
To finance government, a debt-free currency controlled by Congress alone would free our nation from the current plutocracy.  And while I support a “tax shift” away from labor and toward land, pollution and severance taxes, I would demand that any income tax be Simple and Fair.
We don’t need less government, we need better government!

I pointed out the fallacies of his arguments. that the only way to achieve those goals was in fact limited government found in the founders “constitutional republic” and asked who these angels were that were going to create this imaginary “better government”. I pointed to Milton Friedman taking down Donahue with his “greed comments”

He immediately dismissed Milton as an extreamist “neoliberal who promoted state capitalism”  Ignoring the fact that we got to where we are because of  “crony capitalism” and that subsidizing private welfare would end up the same corruption as the so called subsidies would go to political allies just as the corporate subsidies and regulations do.  In a sense in one of his writings he admits as much.

“Let’s get real here. There are powerful, political forces that run our government. These can be viewed as pro-Corporation and pro-Bureaucracy. The final result of right-wing discourse is to support state capitalism. The final result of left-wing discourse is to support state bureaucracy. We need a third option, and it’s not going to come from “conservatism”.

To the common television viewer, the word “progressive” implies policies that would help average, everyday people… that a good government is one that “cares” about you. The final result, however, is to garner public support and acceptance of more bureaucracy.

But there’s a downside to bureaucracy, in both form and function. How many regulators go off to private jobs in the industries they were supposed to regulate? MMS? Dept. of Interior? We’ve all heard the stories. We call it “corruption”. And this corruption is implicit. State bureaucracy and state capitalism are two sides of the same coin. They both claim to care about you, but in the end they only care about themselves.

Well thank you Vernon L. Etzel for proving Milton’s point.

But again you are wrong. The limited government crafted by the founders forbade the government from creating a “state capitalist” society (fascism) and as usual you are wrong.  That was the progressive “third way” crafted by socialist.

When I told him that I was and am a Goldwater (l)ibertarian he immediately started with the racism comments, as Goldwater opposed the “public accommodations” portion of the civil rights act on constitutional grounds.  Goldwater was right and those who passed it were wrong.  The Jim Crow laws violated the same constitution that the public accommodations portion of the civil rights act.  Namely freedom of association (first amendment). And regulatory taking of private property for public use (fifth amendment). Further I stated that forcing anyone to work for someone else against their will was and is involuntary servitude (slavery). I don’t think in today’s America that there would be very many people who would patronize a business that was blatantly racist. And that’s not the point.  The point is that the whole idea of the constitutional republic was to protect the minority faction from the tyranny of the majority.  The bill of rights was not written to protect a populist view.  It was to protect the minority from the majority.  It protects individual rights, even the right to be a total asshole. Case and point. I defend this total POS’s right to freedom of speech and would defend it to the death. But if he were a businessman in the restaurant business I would not step foot nor give him any of my business.

So why would any rational black person demand David Duke prepare them a meal knowing he hates their guts?  Why do gays demand christian bakers or photographers demand the government force them to work for them. The founders fought for freedom from government force.  It’s as simple as that.  From the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Read those words, pursuit of Happiness, free from government force.  Not forced acceptance,  you’re free to pursue happiness.  That’s no guarantee you will achieve it or that it will be accepted by society. That’s up to the individual to decide, not the government, at least not in a free society.  Not to mention that the whole concept of “protected class” flies in the face of equal protection and smacks of Orwellianism, from animal farm:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

In the case above King Samir Shabazz called on blacks to kill some crackers. He is obviously a racist. But if he was a white racist intimidating voters with a club, he would have been jailed. Either you believe in equal protection under the law.  Or you don’t believe in equality. Protected class is not equality. It grants the protected group more rights. Not to mention we have seen the regulatory taking lifted to a new level in the modern progressive era. We see smokers treated with the same Jim Crow type laws and progressive Eric Holder boasting about how the same tactics ought to be used against gun owners.

Is that freedom?

Now the same fascist/progressives call on jailing “global warming deniers”

I could go on for hours on how the modern left and especially the “progressives” of all stripes are anti-freedom. But the final straw with pseudo-libertarian Vernon L. Etzel was when he made the claim that the founders were “progressive libertarians” who believed in democracy. I of course laughed. and said there was nothing progressive about them and cited Benjamin Franklin’s take down of the welfare state. With which he shot back then why did Jefferson and Madison call their party the Democrat Republican party. I quickly pointed out that Jefferson would be abhorred by the progressive taxes and the sin taxes in the name of social engineering. He also was ardently against any form of double taxation. And no where in either the Declaration of Independence or the constitution were the words democracy even uttered.  As a matter of fact most of the founders including Madison were against democracy as it was the “tyranny of the majority” and stated the only cure against such tyranny was in republicanism as he wrote in federalist 10. 

I was immediately blocked.  How tolerant of him and how typical for a progressive.

Posted in Libertarian | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Modern Left, an Attack on Freedom

Today a fellow Patriot posted on her facebook wall.

Sent to me FROM A BLOGGER FRIEND. I told him to publish it:

Irish Rogue’s take on 2A:

Gun ownersAnother shooting has happened in Orlando, and with that the gun control debate has re-ignited. I’ve heard many debates for and against gun control and it has compelled me to give my little weigh-in on the subject.

Today I’m going to fixate on what I call the “context” debate. The context debate tends to focus on the guns of the time, the single shot, undependable, difficult-to-aim musket. For starters, the musket of 1789 was considered just as deadly by the people of the time as the AR-15 is considered today. The men who wrote the Bill of Rights wrote the 2nd Amendment thinking about the deadliest weapon in the world. Considering the fact that there will always be “The deadliest weapon in the world”, then technically the 2nd Amendment is timeless.

But those are the technicalities. That debate is exhausting and futile, it’s a rabbit’s hole. We can argue about the number of rounds in a magazine, automatic, semi-automatic, and caliber until the end of days. We can ban all guns, and a lunatic with murder on his mind will still figure out how to get a gun and murder.
Music comes from musicians, the instrument is just that, an instrument. Murder comes from murderers, the gun is simply the instrument. The debate must be focused on the murderer, not the instrument, the murderer will always find a way to murder, especially if we continue focusing on the instruments.

Now…back to the context debate. Let’s go back to 1789. The United States is still incredibly young, it still has that “New Country” smell, which is a mixture of blood, sweat, tears and gunpowder. The United States was born out of revolution, and guns were the contractions of the labor that resulted in that birth.
The founders were smartly aware of the dangers of an oppressive government, they were smartly aware of what can happen when a government becomes too oppressive, they understood that simply promising to not be oppressive was not enough for anyone, especially for a people who were still licking their wounds and building their new lives, so the Founders backed up that promise with an agreement known as the 2nd Amendment.

When I read the 2nd Amendment, this is what I am reading, “We revolted against an oppressive government, guns were required for this revolution. Now you are trusting us to form a government that will not oppress, that will respect your newly found freedom, and to respect it until the end of time. We promise to never take away your guns. We promise we will never take away your ability to overthrow us, to have another revolution if that’s what we deserve.”

The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate show of respect for our fellow citizens and our country. For that reason, I will always oppose anyone who threatens to weaken the 2nd Amendment, or any of our first ten Amendments for that matter.

“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”

-Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to James Madison, 1787

It’s sad that this blogger is afraid to speak his or her mind because they live in the “People’s Republic of Madison”  The blogger is correct though, in fact it probably should be the first amendment as it is the amendment that protects the constitution and all of the other amendments. But let’s put the second amendment in proper perspective.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For that we need a little historical perspective.

From the debates on the ratification of the Constitution.

Guns founding fathers“Mr. George Mason. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member [Volume 4, Page 567] has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. “

Indeed that was the case. During the Revolutionary War it was local militia’s that kept the enemies at bay until the Regulars (Army) could get there.  They were armed citizens (armed with their own weapons and ammunition).

Here’s George Washington speaking on how the over use of militias was effecting the food supplies.

“The frequent calls upon the militia have interrupted the cultivation of the Land, and of course have lessened the quantity of its produce, occasioned a scarcity, and enhanced the prices. In an army so unstable as ours, order and economy have been impracticable. No person, who has been a close observer of the progress of our affairs, can doubt that our currency has depreciated without comparison more rapidly from the system of short enlistments, than it would have done otherwise.”

Again militia’s were armed local people as can be seen by this extensive list of militias who fought in the Revolutionary war.  If the leftist were correct in saying that they meant the National Guard there would have only been 13 militias.  That was not the case. As a matter of fact throughout history our people have always been responsible for their own defense. Even local law enforcement relied on Posses to help keep the peace.

Posse Comitatus

[Latin, Power of the county.] Referred at Common Law to all males over the age of fifteen on whom a sheriff could call for assistance in preventing any type of civil disorder.

This can be clearly shown by when the James Gang tried to rob a bank in Northfield, Minnesota.

“The citizens of Northfield ran to surround the bank and mercilessly shot down the robbers as they tried to escape. A 19-year-old medical student killed one gang member, Clell Miller, while the owner of the Northfield hardware store mortally wounded Bill Chadwell, peppering his body with bullets from a rapid-firing Remington repeater rifle. Jesse’s brother, Frank, was hit in the leg, while their criminal partners–Jim, Cole, and Bob Younger–were also badly wounded.”

It was not until the progressive era that the government should take care of us and that they and only they had the wisdom how to do it best.  But what’s even funnier is the fact that at every turn the so called liberals bash the police force and depict them as racist murders out of one side of their mouth while out of the other they make the claim that only the police should be armed.  But this hypocrisy shows up in all of their policies but I digress.

CorporationsThe real problem with the police forces is not that they are incapable. It is the fact that they are no longer there to “Protect and Serve” as apparent by the removal of that slogan from most police cars.  They are the collection arm of state and local governments and at the mercy of their handlers.  As was apparent during the “Black Lies Matters” protest where massive burning and looting took place and the police were told to stand down as the Politicians (the polices handlers) were afraid of the political fallout.  Of course Milton Friedman was talking about monetary greed in this piece but the concept still holds.


Any one that has followed me or read my blogs knows  that I’m no fan of Donald Trump and will not vote for him, but his supporters were attacked by a leftist mob while the government police force stood by and did nothing.

But this just reinforces the immoral words of Ronald Reagan.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Thankfully there are those in law enforcement who are willing to speak the truth.  And the truth is that in spite of leftist rhetoric, your defense is not only your responsibility, it is your right.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment