by: Milo Nickels
It’s not hard to understand why you are so upset about the results of the election. Let’s be honest--your candidate, Mitt Romney, lost to a man who is arguably the worst president in the history of the nation. Although your astonishment that the man who lost to McCain in 2008 and who your whole party tried desperately to avoid in the primaries lost the election is a bit surprising, your reaction since the election has been quite refreshing. Many of you seem to realize that the Republican Party is on the verge of irrelevancy, and you’re scrambling for answers. You are asking if it’s time to loosen your stance on issues like the drug war, gay marriage, abortion, immigration, national
defense offense, etc. Of course the answer to that question is “yes”, but you seem reluctant because you don’t want to “sacrifice your principles”.
This is the wrong way to look at it. You are using the word “principles” incorrectly and sem to be confused of how principles are meant to be applied. The first thing you have to do is understand the definition of the word “principles.” Then you have to further understand that there is a difference between personal principles and political party principles.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, principles are “[rules or beliefs] for governing one’s personal behavior.” Therefore, if you are opposed to gay marriage and decide to marry a person of the opposite sex, then you have remained true to your principles—regardless of what you are allowed to do within the scope of the law. It doesn’t matter what anyone else does, or even what your party's principles are, because principles are personal.
Now that you understand that principles are individual beliefs, you have to acknowledge the difference between personal principles and political principles. Political principles (arguably defined as “the rules or beliefs for governing the policies of a political party”) must be far broader in scope than one’s personal principles. This is because a political party is made up of a wide range of individual people—each with their own subset of personal principles. If the principles of a political party are too narrow in scope (defined by specific policies rather than general philosophies), they simply limit access to the point of irrelevancy. This is what’s happening to you.
So, what are the principles claimed by the Republican Party? Although the personal principles of many Republicans may include strong beliefs about gay marriage, abortion, drug laws, and a wide range of other specific topics, the party principles are far broader than that (as they must be for the sake of inclusivity). The commonly stated principles of the GOP are beliefs in strict adherence to the constitution, minimal taxation, fiscal responsibility, and small/un-intrusive government.
This is where you run into trouble, and why you simply must loosen your party stance on policies that are based on personal principles. You have to realize that, the more you push your personal principles to the front and center of your party’s philosophy the more you limit access to your party. Compounding this problem is the fact that your personal principles often stand in stark contradiction with the expressed principles of your political party—making you appear to be hypocrites. How can you honestly say your party stands for small/un-intrusive government, and then say your government should intrude into who you can marry or what you can put into your own body? How can you honestly say your party stands for small taxes and fiscal responsibility, and then advocate for astoundingly expensive drug wars and foreign occupations? How can you honestly say your party wishes to remain true to the constitution, while supporting the Patriot Act and undeclared wars?
You are not in jeopardy of abandoning your party’s principles by putting your own personal principles on the backburner. You’ve already abandoned them by pushing your personal and contradictory principles to the forefront. The only way to keep your personal principles and your party principles alive and intact at the same time is to live your own life according to your personal principles, and stop expecting a big, tax-funded, overly intrusive government to prevent others from doing the same.
by: Milo Nickels
February 2, 2009 the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) released it’s
now infamous report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement.”
This report, commonly referred to as “The MIAC Report”, attempted to
demonize a wide range of ordinary Americans as being potential “terrorist
threats”. Suddenly, the word
terrorist was being redefined right before our eyes.
Under the new definitions, law enforcement was supposed to be on the
lookout for “conspiracy theorists”, “right wing extremists”,
“militias”, gun owners, “constitutionalists”, people who fear economic
collapse, Christians, “anti-abortionists”, “tax resistors”,
“Libertarians”, supporters of third party candidates, or even people who
cite the constitution.
the police began learning the new “warning signs”, the main stream media
began educating the public that the real threat in America was gun owners,
returning veterans, and people who question the government.
The term “radical Islam” was completely replaced in the main stream
media by the term “right wing extremist” seemingly overnight. It was a constant drum beat of fear and
misinformation—propaganda at its finest.
the propaganda hasn’t stopped. Since
that time we’ve been virtually bombarded with an endless stream of similar
publications. Now the TSA is
molesting our children, Janet Napolitano is trying to convince us all to spy and
tattle on each other, and it’s even considered “suspicious” if you pay for
something in cash, try to use your cell phone privately, or wear blue jeans.
learned the answer to that question in 2010.
After using the scary word “revolution” on facebook (in context of a
revolution of political thought toward Libertarianism), and having two
“anti-government” bumper stickers on his car (an anarchy symbol and a Ron
Paul sticker), a friend of mine was essentially fired from a civil service job
based on nothing but “concern” over his mental status.
He was lucky, though. The
NDAA hadn’t been written into law yet and he was able to take his case to
arbitration. After a long court
battle (which lasted well over a year) he was reinstated to his job only after
it was revealed through testimony that his employer paid a psychologist to write
a fraudulent report, the psychologist failed to test positive for any mental
illnesses (and still deemed him unable to work), and the psychologist testified
that the sole basis for releasing him was his “political beliefs.”
Raub hasn’t been so lucky. Just
in case you haven’t heard of Brandon Raub, let me give you a quick rundown of
his situation. Last Thursday
police, accompanied by the FBI and secret service, showed up at Raub’s house
and took him into custody against his will—not because he broke any laws, but
because he posted some controversial opinions on facebook.
Raub, a former marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was not
lawfully arrested and taken to jail. Instead,
he was unlawfully kidnapped and placed in a mental institution where he remains
people respond to news like this with the same reaction.
They immediately and instinctively ask, “well, what did Brandon
Raub’s facebook posts say?” Although
I will answer this question, and do recognize that Raub’s facebook posts are
relevant, I want to point something out to you.
If your very first instinct was to question the content of Raub’s posts
instead of questioning the government’s actions, what does that say about you?
How effective has MIAC-style propaganda been in shaping your perception?
To instantaneously question what Raub said is to instantaneously question
his right to say it—an unconscious declaration that you blindly and
instinctively trust the government and that their actions must
be justified. A far better reaction
would be “why was the government reading Raub’s facebook posts in the first
it stand to reason that, if Raub was really
having a meltdown or there was really
reason to be concerned about Raub’s mental health, his family and friends
would have tried to intervene, tried to get him help, and contacted the
authorities as a last resort? From
all available information on this case, Raub’s family and friends have no
concern whatsoever about his mental status.
It appears that the government simply took it upon themselves to spy on
his facebook posts, pretend that his facebook posts are evidence of mental
illness (based on their own propaganda), and kidnap him.
If the people who knew him best, and interacted with him daily, weren’t
concerned about his mental health, how can the government be justified in taking
these actions based on a handful of facebook posts?
He must have made some very serious threats to cause all kinds of
harm…right? Let’s look at a few
of those posts and see what makes Raub so scary.
(Note: I’m going to select a few posts that seem to be the most likely
candidates to cause “concern”)
Sharpen up my axe; I’m here to sever heads.
to make excuses for the guy, but these are song lyrics from the song “Bring Me
Down” by Swollen Member. It’s
very common for people to quote song lyrics on facebook.
Trust me, if I quote L.L. Cool J this does not mean that I actually want
to “bomb a town…get down”. There
are numerous song lyrics out there with violent content and some of them are
Do you know why the American people will win the civil war that is coming?
Because we are Americans.
this post is scary because Raub thinks there is a civil war of some sort looming
in the future—which will pit the citizens against the government.
But wait. Isn’t Janet
Napolitano’s DHS buying millions of rounds of small arms ammo, training the
military for domestic operations, purchasing all kinds of riot gear, training
the military to operate “re-education centers”, putting drones in the skies,
lining our streets with video cameras, encouraging citizens to spy on each
other, and snooping on facebook pages (like Raub’s) to be prepared for civil
unrest? How is Raub’s concern
that the government may fight the people in a “civil war” any different from
Janet Napolitano’s concern that the government may fight the people because of
“civil unrest”? I wonder if
they will be knocking on Bib Sis’ door anytime soon…
I’m starting the revolution. I’m
word “revolution” terrifies these people in government.
My friend used it before they went after him and Raub used it too.
In fact, there is a whole list of words that DHS scans facebook for, and
I’m guessing “revolution” is right near the top.
The implication is that Raub is going to do something violent, but he
never says he’s going to be violent. Our
nation was founded by a revolution, the Beatle’s sang about Revolution,
we’ve affectionately labeled positive era’s in history as “revolutions”
(such as the industrial revolution), and Ron Paul’s peaceful campaign for
liberty is often called the “Ron Paul Revolution”.
Sure, saying you want to start the revolution, may be a bit
controversial, but the first amendment wasn’t written to protect tame or
This is the part where I tell the
Federal Government to go f*** itself. This is the part where I tell Generals,
training our young men to fight Americans, I am coming for you. The Veterans
will be with me.
a former marine, he probably has some insight as to the training they receive.
If our military is being trained to fight us—instead of defend our constitutional
rights—he has every right to be angry. Raub
is not a threat because he wants the military to play the proper constitutional
If you are unaware of the great amount of evil perpetrated by the American
Government I suggest you take you take your head out of the sand. The day of
reckoning is almost at hand.
So, Raub thinks our government is evil.
Is that not his right? I,
personally, think all governments are evil.
Governments exist for the sole purpose of controlling, restricting, and
manipulating people. It’s not
“crazy”. It’s a valid
If you are my friend, you deserve to know the truth. This world is secretly run
by a shadow organization of people who among other things enjoy raping children.
Some of leaders were involved with the bombing of the twin towers. It was a
sacrifice and a complete inside job. Also the Bush's are very sick twisted
problems. I believe they have a secret Castle in Colorado where they have been
raping and sacrificing children for many years. Think I'm crazy? Think again.
This is by far the “kookiest” of Raub’s posts, but is it
threatening? Is it cause for
concern about his mental health? Is
it cause to lock him up against his will? This
post is nothing but an expression of Raub’s own beliefs.
He’s entitled to his beliefs and, simply because they may sound a bit
kooky to you, doesn’t mean he has no right to hold them.
Let’s be honest. Christians find the beliefs of Muslims to be “kooky”,
Republicans find the beliefs of Democrats to be “kooky”, and the people who
drink Bud Light because it “tastes great” think the people who drink Bud
Light because it has “less filling” are a bit kooky.
It’s not illegal to have
kooky beliefs. My kids believe that
a fat man lives at the North Pole with toy making elves, flies all around the
world stopping at every single house in one night, makes this journey in a magic
sleigh pulled by magical flying reindeer, enters and exits everyone’s houses
through the chimney, and gives them toys for simply being good—which he knows
because he can see them at all times. This
is far kookier than believing the Bushes own a secret castle and rape children,
but I’m not quite ready for the FBI to round up my children and send them to
the loony bin.
So there you have it; no direct threats, no suicidal talk, no loss of
function, no inability to perform his daily routine, none of that pesky criteria
that traditionally indicates mental illness. It would seem that the government is less concerned about
real evidence of mental illness and more concerned with anti-government
sentiment (which they consider to be one in the same).
It’s important to pay attention to cases like this because it shows
exactly what the government is trying to do, and how they plan to do it—and it
all goes back to the MIAC Report.
The truth is that our government has wanted to erode our free speech for
a long time. In particular, they
absolutely do not want us questioning or speaking out against them.
But this was a tricky situation because the people would never give up
their first amendment rights. They
were faced with a dilemma: how to punish speech they don’t like without it
appearing to the general public that they are attacking our first amendment
rights. The solution was to
convince the people that anti-government speech is evidence of mental illness.
So they rolled out the propaganda, and used the main stream media to
scare and condition us all. Now
they shroud free speech in a cloak of mental illness, and pretend they are
fighting a monster.
The decision to use “mental health concerns” as their straw man was
no accident. There are several
advantages to this approach. First,
they can bypass the legal justice system where the burden of proof rests on
them. Second, they can force
you to take mind numbing drugs and subject you forced therapy (i.e. re-education)
sessions in mental institutions that they can’t do in jail. Third, and most important, no label is more misunderstood,
damaging, pervasive, stigmatizing, vague, or irrefutable than that of mental
illness. It’s easy to convince
the public that someone is crazy, all you have to do is make the accusation.
The second someone is accused of being “mentally ill”, their right to
be innocent until proven guilty goes right out the window.
The mere accusation is enough to alter opinions, influence public
perception, and spark excessive scrutinization.
As my friend told me after he was fired and trying to save his
reputation, “there is nothing worse than being labeled ‘crazy’.
The more you try to prove your sanity, the crazier you look.”
writing this article as a call to action—not to take up arms, but to merely
pay attention. The MIAC Report, the
media indoctrinations, the Patriot Act, and the NDAA were all created for a
reason and this is it. Do not
believe any propaganda that tells you that some speech is more dangerous than
other speech. Do not let them
convince you that, it’s for the greater good to lock up anyone who disagrees
with the government. As long as
people like Brandon Raub can be locked away in a mental institution, our ability
to speak freely is right there with them.
by: Milo Nickels
It’s Independence Day in America—that day where we fly
our flags, picnic with our loved ones, marvel at fireworks, and celebrate our
freedom. But do we really have anything to celebrate?
Let’s find out.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary online defines independence
“the quality or state of being independent”
This definition isn’t all that helpful without defining
the word independent. Once again we
return to the Merriam-Webster dictionary online and find these definitions for
the word independent:
“not subject to control by
2) “not looking to others for
one’s opinions or for guidance in conduct”
requiring or relying on others”
Therefore, a complete definition of the word independence
the quality or state of not being subject to the control of others, not
looking to others for guidance in conduct, and not relying on others.
Now ask yourself, according to this definition, are you
independent? Anyone who answers
that question affirmatively is either delusional, dishonest, or reading this
article from the safety of a padded room in their local mental institution.
Of course you’re not independent!
Can you really say you are “not subject to control by
others”? Try driving down the
street without having to obey countless traffic laws.
Try filming a cop as he beats up a fellow “free” citizen.
Try flying to your family’s fourth of July picnic without having your
genitals groped by the TSA. Everything
you do is regulated, everything you say is monitored and censored, and every
transaction you make is taxed. Even
the “free” choices you make are restricted and controlled by the government. When you choose between a limited set of options, you don’t
actually make a real choice at all. Make
no mistake: you are under complete control.
Although you may
not be “looking to others for…opinions or for guidance” from the
government, the government will relentlessly bombard you with their unsolicited
opinions—constantly letting you know
what is best for you. And, even
worse, they don’t just offer their opinions, they force you to adhere to them
through laws, violence, coercion, and taxation.
The government seeks to control your opinions about every topic the same
way a rapist seeks to control your opinions about who you should have sex with.
They hold a gun to your head and say, “you know you want it.”
Do you require or rely on others? Hopefully not. Of
the three components of independence, this one is the most vital.
If you don’t rely on the government, then they lose most of their power
to control your actions or guide your opinions.
This is precisely why the government perpetually seeks ways of making us
rely on them. By removing our
ability to take responsibility for our own actions and be held accountable for
the results, they gain control. This
is also why, every time the government “helps” us acquire a service, the
cost of that service goes through the roof—that way, it makes others have to
turn to the government for that same service.
We’ve reached a point where people can’t even imagine privately
funding education, saving for their own retirements, paying their own doctors,
or deciding what to put into their own bodies—a point where people expect the
government to censor the TV so they don’t have to take responsibility for what
they watch, where people expect the government to outlaw drugs and prostitution
so they don’t have to take responsibility for their own poor decisions, and
where people expect the government to ban everything that they don’t
personally agree with (denying others the opportunity to make their own
decisions). Of the three components of independence, this is the one we
can use to take the power back, by simply taking responsibility of our own
lives. Sadly, however, taking
responsibility is a lot more work than sitting idly by and letting the
government run your life for you, and most people are content to do just that.
Like dogs on leashes, they forget about the leash as long as they get an
easy meal once in a while.
Please wake up to this fact: we are not free and we do not
have independence. We have drones
in our skies, troops on our streets, the TSA in our pants, the IRS in our
wallets, the police in our faces, and the NSA in our business. On this 4th of July, instead of blindly
celebrating false independence, let’s try to remember how we gained real
independence in the first place. It
didn’t come easy, but nothing worth having ever does.
I hope that each and every person that reads this will privately issue
their own Declaration of Independence—make a personal vow to live freely, take
responsibility, let other’s live their own lives as they see fit, speak out
against tyranny, and refuse to blindly follow the masses.
In living this way, we will hopefully make large strides back toward
independence, and once again have a reason to celebrate in the future.
As for this year, however, let’s remember the words of Johann Wolfgang
“none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
by: Milo Nickels
Like many of you, I sat in disbelief as I watched Rand Paul publically endorse a gun-grabbing, healthcare-socializing, flip-flopping, border-opening, war-mongering, banker-controlled statist puppet. I immediately felt like I’d been simultaneously kicked in the gut, stabbed in the back, and sold down the river. Yes, the endorsement made me angry. The realization that Ron Paul, himself, must have given his blessing to the endorsement made me feel ill.
I scoured the internet looking for answers to some burning questions. Why did Rand Paul endorse Romney? Have they made some shady backroom deal? Was Ron Paul in on it? Had I been played for a fool? Have I been wrong all along?
Although I haven’t found the answers to those specific questions, I’ve found something far more valuable. I’ve found that the liberty movement is still going strong. I am not alone and neither are you. The blogosphere is ablaze with negative talk of Rand Paul and Ron Paul—calling them “sell-outs”, “traitors”, and “con-men”. And, like it or not, this is a very good thing.
At first, I’ll admit, it broke my heart to see widespread negativity about the Pauls—who I had come to view as champions of liberty. But I’ve gained a new perspective. As far as “champions of liberty go”, the champions aren’t nearly as important as the liberty!
Where I may have lost some respect for the Pauls, I’ve gained immeasurable respect for everyone in the liberty movement. We are not anti-war protesters who stayed home when Obama expanded the wars. We are not advocates of small government who turned a blind eye to Bush’s patriot act. No. We refuse to partake in the hypocrisy and flip-flopping of the two-party system—where we follow our “leaders” like sheep. We are consistent even when our representatives are not. Our beliefs do not shift, or bend, or change depending on the political climate. We do not place the messenger above the message.
Yes, we may feel betrayed, but we must never forget the lessons we’ve learned from Ron Paul about individual liberty, personal responsibility, sound money, cooperation, property rights, charity, and voluntarism. We don’t believe in these concepts because Ron Paul believes in them, but because they are true. Ron Paul will always be a hero in the freedom movement for shining a light on these issues.
So I don’t care if Rand Paul endorses Mitt Romney. I will continue to endorse liberty. I don’t care if Ron Paul concedes defeat. I will continue fighting for victory. The Ron Paul revolution is NOT about Ron Paul. The revolution is about liberty. Ron Paul is only one man. You are the revolution.
by: Milo Nickels
I woke up today and, as I do every morning, I paused to reflect about how
great it was to be a completely free man living in the United States of
America--the last bastion for true individual liberty in the world. It's a
wondrous and exhilarating feeling to know that I am a sovereign, completely
independent, individual. No man, woman, child, or government can interfere
with my unalienable rights of life, liberty, or my pursuit of happiness.
I'm almost overwhelmed that I can do ANYTHING I WANT (as long as I don't screw
with anyone else's rights).
So I roll over and I give my wife a good morning kiss on the cheek. I
married her several years ago after I paid the state for a marriage license and
had a state representative preside over the ceremony to make it
"legal". It's wonderful that I can choose to spend my life with
whoever I want. (I'm just glad I'm not gay. Poor bastards.)
My first stop of the day is the bathroom, as it is every day. I brush
my teeth with governmentally regulated fluoridated water and my FDA approved
toothpaste. Then I take a whiz into my governmentally regulated low-flow
toilette. I also decided to shave my face with my electric razor.
It's a little frustrating how high energy costs have gotten, and how much of
that money goes to taxes, but at least I'm free to shave my face--unlike those
other schmucks--in those not-free countries!
I didn't have much planned today--just had to run a few errands and mow my
yard. So I had a quick breakfast (all FDA approved just like my
toothpaste), headed out the door, jumped into my car, and off I went. As I
drove around town I was subjected to dozens upon dozens of traffic laws--any of
which could result in me being fined, imprisoned, having my government-issued
permission to drive revoked, or (at the very least) have my day interrupted by a
public servant. As I was driving from errand to errand, I was closely
monitoring my gas mileage because fuel costs (and the fuel-taxes we pay to the
government) are out of control.
No worries, though, I can forget how intrusive the government really is by
just turning on some music and jamming out--as long as I don't do it too loud (I
don't want to be in violation of the city noise ordinance). The music
really did the trick. I was driving around, not a care in the world,
living as a completely free man!!! I just wish I could hear some songs on
the radio that haven't been censored by the FCC. After I finish all my
errands (which all involve paying sales tax to the government--from the money I
already paid income tax on) I return to my house to mow the lawn.
My lawn--you know, the one I pay property taxes for so the government won't
take it away--doesn't really need to be mowed quite yet. But I decided to
mow it today anyhow, because they are forecasting rain for the next few
days. I just don't want to risk having my lawn get too long. If it
does, I'll be in violation of the city ordinance and have to pay a fine to the
So...after I finish the lawn, the rest of the day is pretty uneventful.
I eat another FDA approved meal, watch some FCC-regulated TV with my
state-licensed wife and my two tax-dependents (children), and then we will all
go to bed again...
I'm not sure what time I'm going to go to bed, though. I'm a free man
and I can make that choice for myself!!!
Isn't freedom amazing?
View All Articles
Be my friend on Facebook!
Follow my RSS feed!