Avatar
ImYour Huckleberry
fef3efbbdf9176f9382a67b4eeb6bc4bfa8f5b4b1b39d7129fe07d97fc17371c
For the moment, let's leave religion out of this discussion. I will come back to it later. All Humans(people), by nature, have the same rights; not dependent on when, where, how, or what gender they are born. These Rights supersede all national affiliations and national laws. These are natural laws. They existed before there were governments and will remain after. First and foremost, All people own themselves. All people are entitled to the fruits of their own labor. All associations, transactions, contracts, agreements, sales, etc. of Any kind, for Any reason must be voluntary. (Non-Aggression Principle or NAP - Aggression/Coercion should not be used to force anyone to do, say, or agree to Anything. The ONLY time aggression may be used is in the defense of the life and rights of yourself (or others) from another party initiating aggression.) Theft of any kind is wrong. These represent my ETHICAL stance on way human society should be. I understand that this model of society does not exist on any large scale today and may not come to exist in my lifetime, but this is something to strive towards. _________________ So, what does this mean and how did I come to these beliefs? Human beings, by nature, have the right of Self Ownership: Nobody else can decide for you how you should live your life. Only You can decide what's best for you. There is no other person, no human authority, higher than yourself in your life. If you own yourself, then every other human being also has that same Self-Ownership. Therefore, You have No right to act as an authority on someone else's life without their consent. You can not tell someone else how to live their life without their consent. You can not use force or coercion on another person in any way, except in the defense of the life or property of another. THINK HARD HERE IF You have no RIGHT to dictate to the life of another person, THEN you have no ability to convey that right to somebody else (e.g. through an election, etc.) For Example: You have no RIGHT to take something that is mine. Since you don't have the RIGHT to take my stuff, you can not give that right to someone else to use on your behalf. So, you can not bestow the RIGHT (which we have already decided you don't have) on the government and call it a Tax. The concept of governance is that the people being governed confer their rights upon authority figures to act on their behalf VOLUNTARILY. But, you can only give what you already have. You CAN NOT confer to another person a right that you do not already have to use/exercise on your behalf. If you are NOT a voluntary participant in a nation, an agent of the government (tax collector, police officer, etc.) can not legitimately come to your house and have the RIGHT to take your stuff because nobody who voted for this person or put that person in charge had the authority to grant that right to begin with. Voluntary Associations: No person should be forced to participate in anything that they do not want to be a part of. That includes but is not limited to: Governments Religions Marriages Armed Forces Businesses Clubs or ANY OTHER group or activity for any reason. If you agree with these beliefs, if you share this ETHICAL stance then you might be surprised to know that you are an Anarchist/Voluntaryist. _______________ I used to say that I am proud to be an American. You can be proud of the people in your country, proud of the accomplishments and advances her people have made, and at the same time recognize that there are flaws inherent to the system. I think that our country was founded on good principles, but, over the years, these principles have been sidelined by the corporate and political interests of this world. At the time this country was conceived there were a great many difficulties to be overcome but there were fewer rules and laws. We believed in individual liberty and created a nation to protect that liberty. The founders did their best, but just as with all other things in this world, advances have been made and new ways of thinking have emerged. The founders did what they thought necessary at the time, but I highly doubt that they would be pleased at what their creation has become. Now, instead of listing the things we are Not allowed to do, it seems we list the things we Are allowed to do. The laws and regulations in place today are oppressive, tyrannical, and unnecessary. The "taxes" the government steals from us are excessive. The "taxes" collected from us are not put to good or even effective use. The use of our armed forces to promote our ECONOMIC interests is deplorable. Our whole system is CORRUPT. IN SHORT, we have turned into the very monster we fought so hard to escape. This Country is in dire need of a MAJOR shift in the way we do things. It is inevitable. If we don't fix the problem, the whole system is going to burn down on its own. And on its way down we will lose more and more of our liberty until it gets to the point where ANYTHING that the powers-that-be offer us will be better than our current situation. I believe that it is still possible to make a difference from within the system, but that it will not happen, so I prepare for the worst. The average American is blind to the problem. The average person cares less about freedom and more about security. Most people these days won't complain unless there is some major shift from their comfort zone. The average person would rather be told what to do than take control of their own fate, make their own decisions, and live with the consequences. They are Sheep. ___________ I am a Christian, not because my family is Christian or because all the cool people are Christian, but because I made that choice for myself after deep thought and study on the subject. Nobody forced me to make this decision. It is not POSSIBLE to force someone to be Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/etc. It is a belief one has. ________________ Do I think that there should be laws prohibiting behavior that I find immoral? Insofar as it does not involve anyone else or their property then No. 1) Speaking specifically about the United States: There is a very clear doctrine from the very beginning of the country that there shall be no officially sanctioned and endorsed religion in the USA. This creates a problem for the enacting and enforcing of laws that are based on moral principles based upon religious teachings and context. Which religion is to be the model for governmental morality? Christianity? Islam? Buddhism? To base a law on "Morality" is in direct conflict with our founding principles. There are many behaviors that I find morally wrong and think are ultimately damaging to the individual and society at large. But as long as those behaviors, decisions, and actions are confined to oneself and other voluntary participants then I do not think the government should be able to declare them legal or illegal. If you allow the government to base it's laws on a particular religious understanding of morality, then later that same government could later use a different religion as the model. We must base our laws on protection of life, liberty, and property only. Limit the government and attempt to prevent it's overreach. 2) Using laws to force morality: I don't believe in legislating morality. I don't think that someone who doesn't steal, simply because it it against the law, is a moral person. They are surely a pragmatic person, but moral? The moral person would not steal, regardless of the law, because they believe it to be wrong. A person's belief or lack thereof in a higher power is not and should not be dependent upon the laws currently in place in society. In fact, it could be argued that obedience to secular laws could make a person complacent and leave them vulnerable to a false sense of eternal security. I don't need laws to know Right from Wrong. __________________ Render unto Caesar... I pay my taxes. I don't want government thugs breaking down my door and hauling me off to a cage because I didn't want to let them steal the fruits of my labor. As long as the situation remains the same here I will continue to pay my taxes.
Replying to Avatar S2Underground

//The Wire//1800Z February 5, 2025//

//ROUTINE//

//BLUF: TRUMP ANNOUNCES AMERICA WILL SEIZE GAZA STRIP. USA WITHDRAWS FROM UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL.//

-----BEGIN TEARLINE-----

-HomeFront-

Washington D.C. - As part of a press conference conducted in conjunction with PM Netanyahu's visit to the United States, President Trump suddenly announced several startling policy decisions. First, President Trump reiterated multiple times that he supports the forced expulsion of every human soul in Gaza, into other nations such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan (among others). Secondly, President Trump declared that the United States will seize control of Gaza, and be responsible for managing the entire Strip. AC: As most people were rather taken aback by this bold statement, and even though Trump reiterated his words and articulated his thoughts very clearly, no one is really sure what this means in practice.

Also in Washington, President Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Council. AC: It's not clear how this will work out, since this appears to be contradictory to Trump's stated goals in Gaza. For instance, this (and other executive actions) have resulted in a complete defunding of the UNRWA. To many America-first voters, this may seem to be a positive budget cut at face value. However, this agency (and the UN at large) is really the only entity in the region that is corralling the refugees in Gaza. As such, if Trump wants to defund the only civilian groups that can facilitate the mass exodus of Palestinians to wherever they are destined to be, the only other options are to use military logistics to achieve this forced migration.

-----END TEARLINE-----

Analyst Comments: For those that do not understand the sheer magnitude of President Trump's policy decision in Gaza, this is a once-in-a-century policy decision the magnitude of which is impossible to convey. Even if this is a negotiation tactic (for instance, to oversell American involvement, so that the counter-offer of Israeli occupation of Gaza looks reasonable by comparison), this is an unprecedented line of logic altogether. As stated (with much fatigue) many times before, the issue regarding the current war in the Middle East is the most hot-button issue there is, with many states (and the US government) quite literally making certain opinions on this war illegal, to some degree. So right up front, no honest discussion can be had, even by those who have the most innocent and/or neutral intentions. This is one of the most important details to remember moving forward.

Nevertheless, any comments on President Trump's recently announced policy decisions in the Middle East probably will (rather tiresomely) not have much weight at all or be able to change what is about to happen. Pushing aside the literal Merriam-Webster's definition of ethnic cleansing (and the destabilization that brings), if Trump is indeed serious about his aspirations for owning beachfront property in Gaza, he may find that getting there is more challenging than he previously thought. Trump theorizing about invading Greenland or Panama does not ring the same as invading Gaza, one of the most heavily militarized regions on Earth.

Just to wargame the significance of this for a moment, in 1990, the U.S. military invaded Panama as part of Operation Just Cause, with the goal of ousting General Manuel Noriega from power. The United States achieved this goal in 41 days after very little effort on the part of the Panamanian forces. Greenland, being an arctic nation largely centered around one or two main (but still very small) cities would not really be much of a military challenge either. Gaza, on the other hand, presents one of the most significant military challenges possible in warfare...an entrenched adversary, who is strongly dug in throughout an urban area. Even Israel, largely cratering the entire Strip, has not been able to have nearly the military success that they wanted. Bottom line: If the U.S. Military can't even build a single bridge in Gaza there's very little chance of a military campaign going as intended. No one who has seen true war wishes that experience on anyone else, and certainly not for the end result to be a five star hotel on a beach, as has been publicly conveyed already, before any of this gets started.

As stated previously, peace can come about in two ways, through a negotiated end to arms, or by killing/removing every living soul on one side of the conflict. With Trump's highly-detailed comments, no one, not even the most staunch and die-hard Trump supporter, can deny that he has made his aspirations very publicly known. Once again, this may seem like a fickle detail, but it really does matter...the United States is looking to invade another nation not because they flew planes into our buildings, or because of a general idea of "freedom".....Trump has directly stated this is purely for real estate purposes, publicly pontificating the Gaza skyline and musing on the commercial ventures that the highly-lucrative beachfront access offers in Gaza. It's hard enough to get a population to send their sons to die halfway around the world for some other country's "freedom", but it's another thing entirely to get people to die for a Burger King parking lot.

Once again, if this whole thing is a grand game of bluff, and even if it never comes to fruition, the damage has already been done in the form of long-standing international norms being fractured. Even just a few years ago, diplomats would exert the most extreme care when speaking about the Middle East, and now, this radical policy shift will probably have unintended consequences...such as heightening the terrorism risk here at home.

Speaking more broadly regarding the current threat environment in the United States, of course the entire Arab/Islamic world probably will be rather upset by this policy shift, and thus not entirely friendly to the United States (especially those currently living in the United States). Considering the current shake-ups in government, it was probably an unwise decision to piss off all of the FBI agents (who now have the perfect motivation to let a terror attack slip through, just to spite Trump) at the same moment the risk of Islamic retaliatory terror attacks is extraordinarily high. Anytime a people are quite literally pressed up against a wall, and know with 100% certainty that they will be forcibly removed from their homes, never to return again, they will fight to the death. Even Israel was smart enough to gaslight the Palestinians into thinking that the millions of refugees would someday be allowed to go back to what was left of their homes, as the Israeli government knew the power of an enemy that has no hope for a peaceful existence one day. Now, President Trump has removed the illusion altogether, not just for the Palestinians, but for the whole world. The United States has zero moral ground to stand on by opposing Russia's invasion of Ukraine at this point, as even Russia is not really interested in exiling every single human being in their new "occupied territories" to a completely different nation.

On the exact same day President Trump announced this shocking policy shift, the White House also announced that he would be attending the Super Bowl this weekend in New Orleans. As a reminder, this exact same city was host to a complex Islamic-based terror attack a mere 32 days ago. It was also probably a rather poor judgement call for President Trump to state that if Iran were to assassinate him, Iran would be annihilated.....because this creates the conditions for a third party to carry out some malign act...and blame it on the Iranians. Trump has told the world that his demise would result in a total destruction of Iran...which is what Israel wants more than anything else. Netanyahu even gifted President Trump a golden pager during his state visit yesterday...a very clear, bold, and morbid message indeed.

All in all, the conditions are nearly perfect for the situation to get out of hand; even if this is a grand game of bluff, the escalation of risk is exceptionally great when it comes to the terrorism risks this game brings to the table. Bullying Canada (and to some extent, the Mexican government) is nothing compared to inflaming tensions with the Muslim world...and this could not have come at a worse time.

Most federal law enforcement agencies are angry at Trump for personal reasons (many of which are about to be fired, and thus have nothing to lose by doing their jobs poorly). Most people of Islamic faith or more generally supporters of the Palestine movement now have more motive than ever to conduct some sort of attack, and quite literally none of the personal threats to Trump (from the campaign) have really been addressed at all. Even the two attempts on Trump's life during the campaign just fizzled out of the news cycle and no real answers ever came from the counterterrorism world on what actually happened in each case.

Even Trump's own supporters have to be conducting some sort of retrospective analysis at this point. Americans have to assess their future based on the words AND actions of their nation's leadership; for better or worse, this is a huge planning factor with variable importance. Granted, in the long run, all of this is is largely unimportant as people will eventually forget the things a person does. They'll forget the remarks, they'll forget the documents that were signed...but they won't forget how a person made them feel. And right now, it's become patently obvious that President Trump has kinder words for the people of Israel, than for the citizens of his own nation.

If Trump's actions/policies are 99% good for the country, but that last 1% involves occupying yet another hostile desert country in the Middle East, what was the net gain? To be sure, there's always the "this is just 5d chess" crowd, who will take any negative action by President Trump and try to turn it somehow into a positive action. Even as this report is written, scores of heavy-hitting pro-Trump influencers are heavily perpetuating the Sunk Cost Fallacy, gaslighting their fans into thinking that an American occupation of Gaza really is the best option. Or that this is some masterful "Art of the Deal" negotiating tactic. At this point, rejecting the words that have come directly out of Trump's mouth, verbatim, is a rejection of reality itself. At some point the American people are going to have to understand that the end result is what matters most, not what the initial intentions were. Somewhat ironically, the love of Trump from the political right, and the hatred of Trump from the political left, are equally illogical and ignorant of the reality of the situation. This alone makes any sort of semi-neutral perspective despised by both sides. But this also means that this is all the more reason for the average citizen to step up, try to do the right thing, and contribute the best they can in steering the ship through the tough times ahead.

Analyst: S2A1

Research: https://publish.obsidian.md/s2underground

//END REPORT//

If you have been reading my posts of quotes about Liberty, then you might be interested in the rest of my site as well. You can find all the quotes I have posted along with where I stand on political and ethical issues, thoughts about my faith, and other assorted things I find important.

https://sites.google.com/view/voluntaryist-patriot/home/liberty-quotes

-

-

#QuoteOfTheDay #LibertyQuote #Quote #Quotes #Liberty #Voluntaryist #Voluntarist #Patriot #Faith #Politics #Ethics #Morality #Anarchy #Anarchist #NAP #NonAggressionPrinciple #Statism

The #TRUMP plan to relocate residents of #Gaza is interesting to say the least.

I bet I know where he wants to send them. I know a place that was recently depopulated and in need of good wholesome people. There are lots of resources in need of harvesting and infrastructure in need of repairing in #Ukraine.

What do you think??

How long has this been planned?

#Israel #Palestinian #Refugee #Russia #War #Putin #Hamas #Zelenskyy

168) "...some might piously say, "Violence is no way to resolve conflict!" The heck it isn't. The decision of who had the right to use most of the Earth's surface was settled through violence (wars). Who has the right to the income I earn is partially settled through the threats of violence. In fact, violence is such an effective means of resolving conflict that most governments want a monopoly on its use..."

-Walter Edward Williams (31 March 1936 - 2 December 2020) American economist, commentator, and academic.

"Economics for the Citizen" (1978)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

-

-

#QuoteOfTheDay #LibertyQuote #Quote #Quotes #Liberty

167) "There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another. If that person is too resolute in his refusal to do so, what is the case for imposing fines, imprisonment or death? You say, "Death! Aren't you exaggerating, Williams?" Say he tells the agents of Congress that he'll pay his share of the constitutionally mandated functions of government but refuse to pay the health costs of a sick obese person or a cyclist who becomes a vegetable, what do you think the likely course of events will be? First, he'd be threatened with fines, imprisonment or property confiscation. Refusal to give in to these government sanctions would ultimately lead to his being shot by the agents of Congress."

-Walter Edward Williams (31 March 1936 - 2 December 2020) American economist, commentator, and academic.

"Liberty vs Socialism"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

-

-

#QuoteOfTheDay #LibertyQuote #Quote #Quotes #Liberty

166) "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

-Edward Paul Abbey (29 January 1927 – 14 March 1989) American writer noted for his advocacy of environmental issues and criticism of public land policies.

A Voice Crying in the Wilderness (Vox Clamantis in Deserto) (1990)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Abbey

-

-

#QuoteOfTheDay #LibertyQuote #Quote #Quotes #Liberty

165) "The moment the slave resolves that he will no longer be a slave, his fetters fall. He frees himself and shows the way to others. Freedom and slavery are mental states. Therefore, the first thing to say to yourself: 'I shall no longer accept the role of a slave. I shall not obey orders as such but shall disobey them when they are in conflict with my conscience."

-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948), Indian lawyer, anti-colonial nationalist and political ethicist.

Harijan (24 February 1946). As quoted in The Politics Of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharp, Porter Sargent Publishers (1973), p. 59

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

-

-

#QuoteOfTheDay #LibertyQuote #Quote #Quotes #Liberty

164) "Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right."

-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948), Indian lawyer, anti-colonial nationalist and political ethicist.

Young India (12 March 1931)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

-

-

#QuoteOfTheDay #LibertyQuote #Quote #Quotes #Liberty

163) "The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them."

-John Calvin Coolidge Jr. (4 July 1872 – 5 January 1933) 30th POTUS (1923–29)

"Speech on the Occasion of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence" (5 July 1926)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge

-

-

#QuoteOfTheDay #LibertyQuote #Quote #Quotes #Liberty

162) "It needs to be remembered that it has to be secured not through the action of others, but through our own actions. Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty."

-John Calvin Coolidge Jr. (4 July 1872 – 5 January 1933) 30th POTUS (1923–29)

Address before the Holy Name Society, Washington, D.C., (21 September 1924)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge

-

-

#QuoteOfTheDay #LibertyQuote #Quote #Quotes #Liberty

161) "While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government."

-John Adams (30 October 1735 - 4 July 1826), American lawyer, author, statesman, and diplomat, 2nd POTUS (1797–1801)

Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798, in Revolutionary Services and Civil Life of General William Hull (New York, 1848), pp 265-6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams

-

-

#QuoteOfTheDay #LibertyQuote #Quote #Quotes #Liberty

160) "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

-John Locke (29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704) English philosopher and social contract theorist.

Second Treatise of Government, Ch. II, sec. 4, Two Treatises of Government, 1689

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

-

-

#QuoteOfTheDay #LibertyQuote #Quote #Quotes #Liberty

"Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” Isaiah 6:8

Isaiah is sent by God to proclaim the doom of Israel. He is told to tell them to repent but is also told that they will not do so. Yet, there will be a remnant and from them hope would emerge...

Full context:

"6 In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. 2 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called out to another and said,

“Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts,

The whole earth is full of His glory.”

4 And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. 5 Then I said,

“Woe is me, for I am ruined!

Because I am a man of unclean lips,

And I live among a people of unclean lips;

For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.”

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. 7 He touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven.”

Isaiah’s Commission

8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” 9 He said, “Go, and tell this people:

‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;

Keep on looking, but do not understand.’

10 “Render the hearts of this people insensitive,

Their ears dull,

And their eyes dim,

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

Hear with their ears,

Understand with their hearts,

And return and be healed.”

11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered,

“Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant,

Houses are without people

And the land is utterly desolate,

12 “The Lord has removed men far away,

And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.

13 “Yet there will be a tenth portion in it,

And it will again be subject to burning,

Like a terebinth or an oak

Whose stump remains when it is felled.

The holy seed is its stump.” Isaiah 6 (NASB)

Check for the tell tale signs of fake CAT tourniquets. These photos indicate a real CAT tourniquet. If they are missing, chuck it in the trash. It could save a life...

#CAT #CombatApplicationTourniquet #Fake #Counterfeit #StopTheBleed #MassiveHemorrhage #FirstResponder #IFAK #FirstAid

https://youtu.be/H1dIGNSV9Ho?si=vXvg1IQ8CO0VDRsP

One of the best definitions of WOKE that I have heard. The rest of the video is on point also.

#Woke #NickFreitas #MentisWave #PostModernism #ObjectiveTruth #ObjectiveMorality #Equity #Equality

https://youtu.be/Y811Cw2_hZI?si=JsQp8UhOmsDqOlap&t=469

What is your favorite #hashtag (excluding all #bitcoin / #shitcoin references & #GrowNOSTR)?

I like the capability of following hashtags like they are people. I am looking to broaden my horizons...

Emasculated young men will revolt. The current paradigm must change. Will that process be radical? Will it be safe? Will it be beneficial? For who?

#NickFreitas #Masculinity #Revolt #Politics #GrowNOSTR

https://youtu.be/XWSPS0_BYWw?si=h1hJrpnHOPEeFI5s