By Ryan Ramsey, March 26, 2016

When conservatives or libertarians point out that lowering tax rates increases revenue, liberals scoff. You can show them proof, and they won’t listen because they are too vested in their ideology to slow down and accept that sometimes things work a little different than they seem.

If the policy discussion shifts to the drug war, however, most people on the right develop a case of cognitive dissonance, and it develops quicker than you can trigger a social justice warrior at a Donald Trump rally. We must be very careful not to lower ourselves to the level of the Marxist left wing that murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century. Their goal was equality, but the methods used to achieve it had the opposite effect. Inability to admit they could be wrong about their approach resulted in mass murder across the globe.

I want to see drug use lower, but the current policy is a failure. The war on drugs has cost over a trillion dollars, with lackluster results.  Use rates haven’t seen any significant changes, but the damage to our civil liberties has been catastrophic. Particularly troubling, is the number of gun rights supporters who are against decriminalizing marijuana, even for the sick and injured. Every single gun control act was in response to a post prohibition crime wave. There would be no need for the NRA or Florida Carry Inc. without drug prohibition. It is a bold statement, but I ask that you bear with me, and let the facts, rather than your emotions, determine your response. Below is an article and graphs showing the use of drugs has increased, despite our best efforts.



There is only one western country that has lowered drug use, not just significantly, but dramatically. If is the European nation of Portugal.

Hard drug use down by half.

The rate of overdoses is over 5 times lower than the EU average.,8599,1893946,00.html

The drop in  use rates among young people are even higher than adults.

“Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana”.

“The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.”


This is happening while people regularly overdose in American prisons! Think about that for a minute. What kind of police state would you need to eradicate drugs,if we can’t even keep them out of the prisons we send drug offenders to? Recent arrests of prison guards in Florida highlight the problem. Are we to believe that the solution to the drug problem is to incarcerate them, where they still use drugs?

The illegal immigration crisis is fueled by the rampant corruption, caused by the cartels, and their black market billions. The legalization in some states of medical and recreational marijuana has hurt the Mexican cartels, which the drug war was never able to do. The prices have fallen over half, which means less money for weapons and bribes. It has been a major blow, considering marijuana is about 40% of the cartel’s revenue stream.


Violence has been reduced by a very significant percentage. This is less counter intuitive than the fact that decriminalization lowers use. It makes perfect sense if you think about it. Walgreens and CVS are frequently on opposite corners of the same intersection here in Florida, and sell more narcotics every day than any drug dealer in the city. The legal prescription drugs they dispense kill more people than all illicit narcotics combined.

Despite this, if Walgreens lowers their price on morphine, CVS employees don’t engage in drive by shootings against the rival drug dealers at Walgreens. If someone robs CVS, they can call law enforcement. If a drug dealer is robbed, they are forced to commit violent crimes to recover their stolen property.  Nearly all of the violence centered around the drug trade is related to turf or theft.

Unfortunately, the US drug war has once again rescued the cartels. The hysteria over methamphetamine reached a boiling point and Sudafed, which can be used to make the drug, was restricted. You now have to sign for it at the pharmacy counter. After a short decline, use is now back up and rising. The difference is instead of some knucklehead making it in his garage, the cartels are bringing in a cheaper and 100% pure version known as “ice”, so we have empowered the cartels to regain the ground we took with marijuana decriminalization. Thanks, now the cartels are getting rich creating new waves of tweakers and I have to register my cold pills. Do you feel safer yet?


Recent attempts to curtail the prescription drug epidemic in Florida had a predictable result, as heroin deaths continue to rise. Rather than addicts in Florida using drugs originating in pharmacies, manufactured in regulated labs, the ignorant lawmakers decided it would be better to fund terrorists in the Afghanistan poppy fields. It invokes an ad on TV I remember seeing in the early days of the most recent Iraq war, about how drug users were funding terrorism.  Maybe ISIS will give an award to the misguided prohibitionists in the state house.  Heroin is a perfect example of the ineffective result of drug prohibition, as the graphs below detail.

Heroin Overdoses Spike After Florida
Cracks Down on Prescription Pill Abuse



Portugal, in contrast, was able to turn a never ending criminal problem of 100,000 people into a 40,000 person medical problem. Not only are drug use, overdose death, and HIV infection rates way down, but the treatment programs save the taxpayers a ton of money that can be used for better purposes. Now that people don’t fear the stigma, twice as many people are seeking treatment to overcome addiction. Curing addiction is a better way to reduce drug demand than locking people up in prisons full of drugs. When they get out, the criminal record often prevents them from retaining gainful employment, and this cycle of misery and addiction, born of hopelessness begins again, and their children suffer as a result. Often they end up back in prison, and these children become the new generation of addicts or the thugs keeping them supplied. The cycle will never end, as long as we keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result, something many use to define insanity.

no bullshit

The price we have paid in the loss of civil liberties is even more horrific. I founded Jacksonville Open Carry in 2010, and gun rights issues saw my first major political success. I was forced to reconsider my position on decriminalizing drugs when I realized prohibition is at the root of  gun control. The facts forced me to realize that to support the drug war was to support gun control, and to continue giving the enemies of the Constitution ammunition (pun intended). If you oppose decriminalization, quit fooling yourself and pull the lever for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, or the next round of liberal nut jobs in the next election cycle. Go hand over everything in your safe to the next gun buyback.

Does that sting? Suspend your emotional distress, as we constantly demand the left do, and consider the facts.

-Prohibition of alcohol gave rise to the wave of mob violence that resulted in the Gun Control Act of 1936.

-Drug prohibition laws in the 1960’s gave rise to the street violence that resulted in the  abomination known as the Gun Control Act of 1968.

-In the early 1980’s, the CIA started smuggling cocaine to a man named “Freeway” Ricky Ross, to fund proxy wars against Soviet funded guerrillas in Central America. They sent a US-backed Contra rebel to marketing school, and he taught Ricky Ross how to manufacture and distribute crack cocaine. His network reached into Chicago, Houston, and beyond. Others followed suit and the crack epidemic was born. Most people are familiar with the Iran/Contra affair, and a great documentary called “American Drug War” features many  of the actual players from Ricky Ross, to law enforcement discussing it. “Dark Alliance” by Gary Webb is a great book on the subject. If you believe he shot himself twice in the head with a .38, I have a nice beachfront condo to sell you in Fallujah.

The end result was the Gun Control Act of 1986, and we lost our automatic weapons, and the first steps of registration scheme began. One day it may be used to confiscate our firearms.


The irony of those supporting the drug war while opposing gun control reaches epic proportions, when we consider they espouse, rightly so, that no law will stop criminals who want guns from getting their hands on them. We tell the world that the cat is out of the bag, and since we cannot stop them, we must be able to defend ourselves. How do they not understand the same concept applies to people seeking drugs? It is the same exact concept! Since we know there is a more effective strategy, not a theoretical one, but a proven one, aren’t we then supporting cartels and terrorists by a refusal to admit it? What sort of hypocrite do we become, if we demand everyone accept the facts in the masterpiece of John Lott, “More Guns, Less Crime”, while ignoring the facts surrounding the current drug war policy?

One day, if we fail, when they “pry your cold dead fingers from around your firearm”, as your grandchildren  are loaded into boxcars, and sent to the camps, they will curse you for your ignorance. They will wonder how you sat there with a cold beer, condemning your neighbors to prison for what they put in their cigarettes. They will forever curse those who gave rise to the police state, and saw the Constitution set ablaze, because they refused to see the facts.


-The fact is that you cannot be a fiscal conservative while supporting drug prohibition. It is hypocritical to do so while opposing Obamacare. Prohibition is even less effective and still costs a trillion dollars. In many ways, it is far worse. Every dollar spent on the drug war is wasted, and has collateral damage on millions of families. At least people on Obamacare plans get treatment, albeit substandard. What kind of fiscally conservative policy spends more money to solve a problem than the problem costs, while making it worse?



-The fact is you cannot claim to support smaller government and support prohibition. It is the number one catalyst for the growth of the police state, and the source of the commerce clause perversions that grew to justify federal encroachment in every area of life. We have 25% of all people incarcerated on the planet, right here in the land of the free. Let it sink in that communist China and Russia have far lower incarceration rates per capita. Then tell me how you believe in limited government and personal freedom. Chug another beer and wave that flag, Mr. Freedom.


-The fact is undeniable: if you support prohibition, you support gun control. Shut your mouth about the Constitution, you damage it more than all of Barack Obama and Sarah Brady’s wildest dreams. I’ve had cocktails with many of you, while we had a cigar, shared coffee in Tallahassee with you before hearings and at open carry events. Those are all drugs. Alcohol and nicotine kill more people every year than all the illicit drugs combined. Marijuana has never killed a single person in recorded history. Do you realize you are making the same argument as the anti-gun crowd!! Well these guns are reasonable, but you shouldn’t be able to own that assault rifle! Assault rifles account for a fraction of the gun deaths. You say, well I want my coffee, beer, cigarettes, and prescriptions, but you have to ban that evil marijuana and other drugs, that kill at a tiny fraction of the rate of your preferred intoxicant. Intellectual honesty means something, especially when you promote something unpopular, despite evidence it lowers crime.



-The fact is undeniable, if you support prohibition you support drug use, because the only policy that has lowered drug use is to decriminalize and treat the addicts.


I support reducing the federal government, I support personal liberty, I support the right to keep and bear arms, I want to see less people on drugs. I refuse to sink to the level of the left wing, and cling to falsehood because I am so vested in a position.

Therefore, I support decriminalization. It is the only way to reduce drug use, especially among young people. It is the only policy that will protect our right to keep and bear arms. it is a free country, you can disagree. I hear the Democrat Party is looking for live voters, go register with the other folks who propagate lies despite evidence. You’re promoting drug abuse and the police state, and it’s embarrassing to the rest of us, who love the Constitution.




About the author:

Ryan Ramsey is a US Navy Veteran and  lifelong political activist. He hosts “The Sounds of Rebellion” and “Liberty Tree Radio” on World Integrity News Network. He sits on the National Council of the SDL, is the Director of The Florida Liberty Project, founder of Jacksonville Open Carry, and Bradford County Chairman, for the Libertarian Party of Florida. He also is the singer and guitarist of the “Rock Against Communism” band “Lovecrime”.


Nationalism and Newspeak

In George Orwell’s book, 1984, the language of the future socialist government was known as “Newspeak.” There is an appendix in the novel, titled “Principles of Newspeak,” It was designed as a gradually implemented policy, that was not the sole language of Oceania in 1984. By the deadline of 2050, it was to be the only language spoken, with ‘oldspeak’ retired.

There is a link in the footnotes, and I cannot encourage you enough to read it, and apply it to what you see presented in mass media. Keep it in mind when you listen to the language of the Marxist politicians, and their useful idiots in the left wing “social justice” movements.

Here are some quotes from “Principles of Newspeak {1}”:

“….words which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them. Countless other words such as honour, justice, morality, internationalism, democracy, science, and religion had simply ceased to exist. A few blanket words covered them, and, in covering them, abolished them. All words grouping themselves round the concepts of liberty and equality, for instance, were contained in the single word crimethink, while all words grouping themselves round the concepts of objectivity and rationalism were contained in the single word oldthink. Greater precision would have been dangerous.”

“No word in the B vocabulary was ideologically neutral. A great many were euphemisms. Such words, for instance, as joycamp (forced-labour camp) or Minipax (Ministry of Peace, i.e. Ministry of War) meant almost the exact opposite of what they appeared to mean. Some words, on the other hand, displayed a frank and contemptuous understanding of the real nature of Oceanic society. An example was prolefeed, meaning the rubbishy entertainment and spurious news which the Party handed out to the masses.”

“One could, in fact, only use Newspeak for unorthodox purposes by illegitimately translating some of the words back into Oldspeak. For example, All mans are equal was a possible Newspeak sentence, but only in the same sense in which All men are redhaired is a possible Oldspeak sentence. It did not contain a grammatical error, but it expressed a palpable untruth — i.e. that all men are of equal size, weight, or strength. The concept of political equality no longer existed, and this secondary meaning had accordingly been purged out of the word equal.

In 1984, when Oldspeak was still the normal means of communication, the danger theoretically existed that in using Newspeak words one might remember their original meanings. In practice it was not difficult for any person well grounded in doublethink to avoid doing this, but within a couple of generations even the possibility of such a lapse would have vanished. A person growing up with Newspeak as his sole language would no more know that equal had once had the secondary meaning of “politically equal”, or that free had once meant “intellectually free”, than for instance, a person who had never heard of chess would be aware of the secondary meanings attaching to queen and rook.”

Orwell wrote this book in the 1940’s, when the communist movement in America was still underground. They called themselves progressives at the time, which was in itself, a newspeak subterfuge. We are for progress! Our opponents are holding back progress! Eventually, people started associating progressives with the true Marxist nature of their leadership, and expressed in their policies. In response, they started calling themselves “liberals”. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. In a classic newspeak change, they became liberals, like our founding fathers, hence, they must be the good guys! Today, the word liberal has once again become associated with Marxist based political ideology. The word progressive is now, ironically, being revived. Who is against progress? Only you reactionary right wingers!

We see the application of newspeak everywhere. Any examination of modern leftist movements or policies, will show they all have the mark of newspeak. I will now present a case study of a current political issue. Global warming is a great example of how the left co-opts, or even creates, issues to exploit, in order to further their goals. Often these goals have nothing to do with the issue presented. They almost never solve the issue. In fact, they usually make the problem worse. In this manner, they can point to the opposition as the reason it failed, and continue to fake advocacy, while retaining use of whatever movement arose for their own disingenuous ends.

The modern environmental movement was founded by Marxists. Many felt the best way to attack the United States, and its strength, was to use environmental issues to pass laws that would stifle major industries like mining, manufacturing, and energy. Those of us in the political community who  actually know these activists and groups, often say “green is the new red.” Many of them even jokingly  refer to themselves as “watermelons.” They are green on the outside, but red on the inside.

The first example of newspeak is contained in the names themselves, “environmental movement,” for example. “You aren’t for harming the environment are you?” See how easy that was?

The only way to save ourselves from global warming, according to the self appointed guardians of the planet, was to stop driving, raise the price for electricity, and saddle businesses with costly regulations. This would force people to reduce consumption of energy. In order to convince the public, the first task was to enlist their comrades in education.

One of the 10 points listed in the communist manifesto, is compulsory government education. One path to become a good socialist agitator is becoming an educator. . By this method, the next generation will not have the knowledge required to resist. Newspeak is an important part of this. It is well documented that the vast majority of people in higher education faculty hold these Marxist views. The idea of global warming was born in government funded universities, financed with government grants, to create “models,” that prove the polar ice caps will melt and drown us all.

They achieved their goal of deluding people so well, that former Vice President Al Gore was flying around in a private jet , that burns more fuel in a day than a small town in a year, living in houses that had monthly electric bills higher than most citizens use in a decade, to promote his pseudoscience in a major motion picture! The hypocrisy of this man is hard to fathom.

The trouble for the global warming crowd began around 2000. Annual temperatures started decreasing, and it was not because we used less energy{2}. Global use continued to rise, and the advent of the internet allowed skeptics to bring data to a large audience. Last time I looked, we were at 15 years of straight cooling. How does a Marxist respond when confronted with such facts? Newspeak! “Global Warming” became “Climate Change”. Now if the temperature is up, they are right. If it goes down, they are right.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory, right? Not according to the thousands of e-mails from scientists, proving a conspiracy to falsify data, in a scandal known as climategate. A couple years later thousands more e-mails were released and examined.

“Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.{6}”

The sincerity  of the green movement should never have been taken seriously. It doesn’t take a degree in earth science to figure out that a factory moving to Mexico or China will have less environmental regulations, and creates more pollution. Mandating ethanol to solve a problem that didn’t exist raised the price of corn dramatically.  Hardships swept across the globe, as farmers replaced food crops with special ethanol corn. This corn was marketed by those champions of the environment, Monsanto.

The idea of using environmental issues to promote communism may go all the way back to Karl Marx himself.

“Contrary to the depiction of Karl Marx by some environmentalists, social ecologists and fellow socialists as a productivist who favored the domination of nature, eco-socialists have revisited Marx’s writings and believe that he “was a main originator of the ecological world-view”. Eco-socialist authors, like John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett, point to Marx’s discussion of a “metabolic rift” between man and nature, his statement that “private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite absurd as private ownership of one man by another” and his observation that a society must “hand it [the planet] down to succeeding generations in an improved condition”

If you need more proof, look no farther than the founders and visionaries of the modern environmental movement.

In the US, notable author Murray Bookchin authored “Our Synthetic Environment” (1962), “Post-Scarcity Anarchism” (1971) and “The Ecology of Freedom” (1982), and is a leading figure in the foundation of the American environmental movement. According to his Wikipedia:

“Bookchin was born in New York City to Russian Jewish immigrants, Nathan Bookchin and Rose (Kaluskaya) Bookchin. He grew up in the Bronx, where his grandmother, Zeitel, a Socialist Revolutionary, imbued him with Russian populist ideas. After her death in 1930, he joined the Young Pioneers, the Communist youth organization (for children 9 to 14), and the Young Communist League (for older children) in 1935. He attended the Workers School near Union Square, where he studied Marxism. In the late 1930s he broke with Stalinism and gravitated toward Trotskyism, joining the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)”

Barry Commoner arose in the 1970’s, and was another founding father of the US environmental movement. From his wiki:

“Commoner was born in Brooklyn, New York, on May 28, 1917, the son of Jewish immigrants from Russia. He received his bachelor’s degree in zoology from Columbia University in 1937 and his master’s and doctoral degrees from Harvard University in 1938 and 1941, respectively. In his 1971 bestselling book The Closing Circle, Commoner suggested that the American economy should be restructured to conform to the unbending laws of ecology.[8] For example, he argued that polluting products (like detergents or synthetic textiles) should be replaced with natural products (like soap or cotton and wool). This book was one of the first to bring the idea of sustainability to a mass audience. Commoner suggested a LEFT-WING, ECO-SOCIALIST response to the limits to growth thesis, postulating that capitalist technologies were chiefly responsible for environmental degradation, as opposed to population pressures.”

In Germany, a political party “the Greens” was founded by Petra Kelly and Herbert Gruhl.

Prior to founding The Greens, Petra Kelly was educated by Marxist political scientists in Washington DC, and became a high ranking member of the SPD. According to Wikipedia:

“The SPD is a member of the Party of European Socialists and of the Socialist International, and became a founding member of the Progressive Alliance on 22 May 2013. Established in 1863, the SPD is the oldest extant political party represented in the German Parliament and was one of the first Marxist-influenced parties in the world.”
In 1989, she founded “The Federation for Social Defense”, one goal of which was “coexistence of peoples and nations in SOCIAL JUSTICE.”

Herbert Gruhl studied at Humbolt University in Berlin, which became Free University of Berlin. The very name of this institution is classic newspeak. I looked up this “Free University,” and was not surprised to find the following:

“The political struggles of the postwar period were carried into the university and led to a growing communist influence in the university.”

Around the world, you will find the same elements at the roots of these movements. The 1990s saw the socialist feminists Mary Mellor and Ariel Salleh, address environmental issues within an eco-socialist paradigm. With the rising profile of the anti-globalization movement in the Global South, an “environmentalism of the poor”, combining ecological awareness and SOCIAL JUSTICE, has also become prominent.

David Pepper also released his important work, “Ecosocialism: From Deep Ecology to SOCIAL JUSTICE,” in 1994, which critiques the current approach of many within Green politics, particularly deep ecologists.

In 2001, Joel Kovel, a social scientist, psychiatrist and former candidate for the Green Party of the United States (GPUS) Presidential nomination in 2000, and Michael Löwy, an anthropologist and member of the Reunified Fourth International (a principal Trotskyist organisation), released An ecosocialist manifesto, which has been adopted by some organizations and suggests possible routes for the growth of eco-socialist consciousness. Kovel’s 2002 work, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World?, is considered by many to be the most up-to-date exposition of eco-socialist thought.

Environmentalism is just one issue, presented here as an example detailing the enormous  scope of Marxist co-option surrounding social and political issues, and the myriad of ways newspeak is used to promote the leftist agenda. A key element to notice when the left champions an issue, is they cannot actually solve the problem, or they lose the ability to create the dissension they need to retain power over the group they purport to help.

Does anyone think the world has less racism toward black people because of the groups led by leftists like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? If the issues resolved themselves, they would all be out of a job. The American “civil rights” movement was co-opted in the 1920’s by progressives with the help of their front man W.E.B. Duboise. True black leaders of the day hated Duboise, Marcus Garvey dubbing him “The white man’s nigger”

Booker T. Washington described the phenomena in this famous quote:
“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

As you encounter controlled media, listen closer. You will see that those delivering news, who also are almost totally Marxist,  use newspeak to spin stories. As you listen to politicians, even the laws they write are in newspeak.

-The Patriot Act was probably the most unpatriotic law ever written.

-The Affordable Healthcare Act, dramatically raised the cost of insurance, and mandates fines for citizens who cannot afford it.

-The Great Society created a welfare state that ruined society.

-George Zimmerman, who was part Hispanic, becomes a white man in the left wing media. Traavon Martin, a troubled youth who enjoyed street fighting and a cocktail made with codeine called lean, and dubbed himself a “no-limits nigga,” gets shot while he has Zimmerman in full mount, beating his head into the concrete. Media  newspeak transforms Traavon into an innocent little boy with a bag of skittles, shot for no reason. They wont even mention the Arizona watermelon tea as the beverage. That reinforces a stereotype that black people all love watermelon. Hence, it was flushed down the memory hole. {4}

The modern government funded University, is now a full blown indoctrination center. “The Office of Diversity and Inclusion”, which sounds like the name was lifted right out of 1984, at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, recently published a guideline for students on how to be more “inclusive”, and also  calls for students to cease using the completely normal pronouns he or she.{5}

Now that you understand newspeak, it is time to discuss how newspeak has been used to change the word “nationalism” into a dirty word. If we are to believe big brother, nationalism is the philosophy of racists and totalitarians. The reality is far more complex.
Anti-colonial nationalism, Pan-nationalism, territorial nationalism, religious nationalism, ethnic nationalism, civic nationalism, Risorgimento nationalism, and Integral nationalism are all recognized forms of the philosophy.

To understand the leftists, and their social justice “useful idiots”, you must understand something the left does not want you to know. Combinations of Marxism and Nationalism are behind their greatest victories. They know full well how powerful these associations are.

One of Stalin’s first books was titled “Marxism and the National Question” and in his “Socialism in One Country” edict, he espouses the idea of socialist nationalism as a way to build a nation, instead of forming around religious or ethnic ties. There are many examples of left-wing nationalism, all very successful.

-Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement, succeeded in making  Cuba communist to this day.

– In Cornwall, a left wing nationalist party named Mebyon Kernow made great gains in the 2007 elections, and again in 2011. They are the third largest party in the country.

-Ireland’s Sinn Féin is about as red as they get, and received the second largest number of votes and seats in the 2015 elections in Northern Ireland.

– In Wales, a left nationalist party called Plaid Cymru , as of 2012, had 25% of Welsh seats in the European Parliament, 3 of 40 Welsh seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 11 of 60 seats in the National Assembly for Wales, and 206 of 1,264 principal local authority councillors. They also hold membership in the “European Free Alliance.” Free Alliance? Sounds like something we would want to join right? Who would oppose the Free Alliance? Do you hate freedom? This is classic newspeak. What does the EFA promote?

“The EFA broadly stands on the left-wing of the political spectrum. The Brussels declaration emphasises the protection of human rights, sustainable development and SOCIAL JUSTICE.”

-The Awami League in Bangladesh is the current ruling party and is in the top 2 parties. They have four basic stated principles. Democracy, (known as the road to socialism), followed by Socialism, Secularism, and Nationalism. Secularism is important to Marxism. Religious, ethnic, or cultural elements, that people prize above their own lives, have always been the death of Marxist movements. The nationalism they promote is described in Stalin’s book referenced above. You have no God, or race, the nation is organized around mother Russia, or in this case, Bangladesh.

-The African National Congress in South Africa self describes as “disciplined force of the left”. They have ruled since 1994, following a bloody terror campaign. When big brother filtered the story to us “proles” in the west, the terrorist had become the victim. Nelson Mandela, who hung tires filled with gasoline around the necks of his political rivals and their families, is presented the Nobel Peace Prize.

-Here in the United States, Theodore Roosevelt rolled out his self-described “progressive philosophy” of “New Nationalism” in September 1910, and founded the Progressive Party. He finished second in the 1912 Presidential election, but is still revered in left wing circles. Nearly all of the platform planks outlined in his idea of new nationalism have been achieved.

-A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies

-Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled.

-Limited injunctions in strikes.

-A minimum wage law for women.

-An eight hour workday.

-A federal securities commission.

-Farm relief.

-Workers’ compensation for work-related injuries.

-An inheritance tax.

-A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax.

-The political reforms proposed included

-Women’s suffrage.

-Direct election of Senators.

-Primary elections for state and federal nominations{7}

Nationalism in Orwell’s day was so associated with socialist movements, he wrote an essay distinguishing nationalism from patriotism, casting nationalism in a negative light. The only contemporary nationalist movements during that time were socialist in nature. How ironic it is to consider that the major force fighting his enemy in socialism today are nationalists, being subjected to marginalization using the very term he coined, newspeak!

The modern leftist motive to render Nationalist a slur has its roots in WW-2. The rise of Fascism and National Socialism in Europe did not happen in a vacuum. They arose in opposition to a communist or socialist takeover. On November 9, 1918, Emperor Wilhelm II was deposed by socialist revolutionaries. There was some infighting, and the camp of full blown bolshevists made a play in January 1919, in what is known as the Spartacist, or January uprising. They were defeated, and Germany did not create a soviet style system, but a socialist democracy called the Weimar Republic.

The fight between the two Marxist camps continued, in the streets and in the government. The state of Germany after the loss in WW-1, and the constant fight to see whether their nation would become socialist or communist, gave rise to a nationalist movement led by Hitler. He destroyed the communists and socialists in Germany and vowed to destroy Soviet Russia, creating a new frontier for the German people,” Lebensraum.”

In Italy, Benito Mussolini started out his political career as a Socialist. He was expelled from the socialist party, and a radical change of heart, and founded the Fascist party. He wrote of his nationalism, and a new found opposition to class war and other left wing ideologies.

He did what so many nationalist movements had done previously. He destroyed the socialists and communists, and rose to power. He subsequently signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan. It read, in part:
“recognizing that the aim of the Communist International, known as the Comintern, is to disintegrate and subdue existing States by all the means at its command; convinced that the toleration of interference by the Communist International in the internal affairs of the nations, not only endangers their internal peace and social well‑being, but is also a menace to the peace of the world desirous of co‑operating in the defense against Communist subversive activities”

In 1945, Mussolini was captured and executed by communists.

After WW-2 the international communists realized that the one thing that could defeat them was the bonds of blood and nation among a people. While taking advantage of the power of nationalism where they could sell it, as documented above, they began an earnest campaign to associate any non-communist form of nationalism with Nazis and Fascists. The thought police started a vicious campaign to enforce yet another eerily Orwellian term, “political correctness.” Today, anyone who is not a communist, is called a nazi or fascist.

They also began to promote another newspeak word, multiculturalism. It really means mono-culturalism, one culture, devoid of ethnic or national pride. It is the nationalist who preserves cultures, but the post-war Marxist calls them racists. Around the world, if you look behind the scenes at who is promoting mass migration and open borders. You will find a Marxist of one stripe or another behind it. They now realize they must destroy bonds of race and nation if they are to ever secure total control.

This is not abstract theory, the evidence can be seen across the world. The Soviets moved large numbers of ethnic Russians into Estonia, in order to alter the electorate and gain control. This is the moment that Murray Rothbard, the godfather of anarcho-capitalism, reversed his position on open borders and realized immigration can be used as a weapon. China uses weaponized immigration in Tibet. The European socialists have succeeded better than any other, by importing 50 million muslims, making sure no nation in Europe ever arises to oppose them again. To a man, or woman, in the case of Angela Merkl, the architects of Europe’s immigration policies are devoted to various forms of Marxism.

In the United States, the same forces are at work. George Soros, a leading globalist Marxist, funds a group promoting illegal immigration called “welcoming America.”

President Obama, darling of the left, is behind the “Task Force of New Americans,” formed by presidential memorandum in November of last year. It was recently exposed on a popular conservative radio show. Back in February, the Sentinel posted an audio interview with talk show host Susan Payne on the Mark Levin show. They discussed the possible goals of the task force. Ms. Payne had listened in on three phone calls with high level government officials who discussed developing a “country within a country” by repopulating towns and cities with foreigners who will eventually take over the citizen population. They didn’t realize who she was{8}.

One of the US’ top “immigrant’s rights” activists, labor leader and Democratic Socialists of America Marxist, Eliseo Medina, admits that illegal immigrant amnesty has nothing to do with compassion or economics – it’s all about permanent political power for the left.
Speaking of Latino voters, Medina said “when they voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up.”

Medina sees illegal immigrant amnesty and voting rights as the beginnings of a “governing coalition for the long term.”

At the “progressive” America’s Future Now! conference in Washington, D.C. on June 2, 2009, SEIU International Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina addressed attendees on the necessity of comprehensive immigration reform.

“So I think there’s two things that matter for the progressive community. Number one, if we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants, that we’ll expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future…

When you are in the middle of a fight for your life you will remember who was there with you. And immigrants count on progressives to be able to do that.

Number two. “We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters”. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three? If we have eight million new voters who care about …… and will be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle…{9}

Immigration also factors into the strategy known as “Cloward-Piven,” named after former Columbia professors Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. To bring down America and our capitalist system, they taught leftists to overwhelm the system with massive spending, entitlements and debt. That would cause the economy to collapse, wipe out the middle class, and bring Americans to their knees, begging government to save them. What school did Obama go to again?

Since mass immigration burdens the welfare state, it pushes the strategy forward. It also shores up the left wing voter block to prevent any dismantling of socialist progress in the US.

Let us now refer to the definition of nationalism held by actual nationalists.

From Merriam-Webster:
loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

Those who have loyalty and devotion to their nation, and think we should promote our own countries interest, as opposed to the international Marxists, are the only threat that scares the global elite. They work daily to flood our countries with foreigners, destroy our national monuments, besmirch our history, demean our heritage, attack all manifestations of national and ethnic pride, and use newspeak to marginalize the nationalists who oppose them.

Do not believe a word of the left wing propaganda directed at nationalism.

Justin Raimondo wrote an article last month titled “Nationalism versus globalism: Which side are you on?” He paints a far more accurate description in his article of the current nationalist movements around the globe.{10}

“Nationalism in on the rise in every region of the earth. In the face of an increasingly globalized world, the banners of tribe, tradition, and particularism are being unfolded in unabashed defiance. From Paris to Peoria the battle-cry is heard: Preserve our sovereignty!
Nationalism has had a bad reputation ever since the 1930s, when it was associated with colored- shirt-wearing thugs, militarism, and war raging across Europe, it ignited a horrific conflagration. The pan-European idea was created largely in reaction to this bloody history, and yet the result has been a counter-backlash of nationalism, a new sort that has little if anything to do with its historical antecedents.

In the West, this current wave of nationalism, for the most part, is relatively pacific: instead of promoting aggression across borders it is intent on making those borders impenetrable. The old Bismarckian nationalism was statist and super-centralist as well as expansionist; the new nationalism is often (though not always) libertarian, decentralist, and uninterested in foreign adventurism (i.e. “isolationist”).”

This quote from the work of Jeff Odgis describes the basic underpinning of “Libertarian Nationalism.”

“For the Rights of Nations”

Libertarian-Nationalism may be described as a philosophy that advocates “A nation for a every people,” and “All people for their nation.”

“The impetus for this movement is to encourage the political development of a party, or coalition within the two major parties (the preferable solution) in the U.S. that strictly adheres to a program to attend to the National Interest, with respect to the libertarian origins of the basis for this National Interest to be expressed.

Clarity comes in understanding that the Libertarian-Nationalist is both libertarian and nationalist; we believe in the sovereignty of individuals from which the sovereignty of nations stems, and by which the individual character of nations is formed.

A proper celebration of Individualism according to the libertarian ideal recognizes of persons only; a Libertarian-Nationalist recognizes it according to persons, and their respective states, in that order, with preference to dealing with the state as a body coherently expressing the will of the people.

“Nations are Individuals”

We look to the state to coherently organize the will of the people, and believe distinct peoples ought to be represented by distinct states.

“Equality in hierarchy”

Libertarian-Nationalists are opposed to the chaotic, interference-principle oriented philosophies of Multiculturalism and Internationalism. These may be described variously as national suicide or Balkanization, and these are undesirable as they oppress the will of all but a few who would pretend to manage a disaster too ill-understood to be an intentional scheme. Balkanization is a policy failure from which the World must be rescued, and our nations secured from the ambiguities, lack of representation and waste attendant to World-government schemes in all their incarnations.”

Jeff gets very close to the way I view it. I believe this philosophy is expressed through our Constitution, and that we should restore it.

In March, 2015, a blogger known as the “Libertarian Realist” summed up the subject of libertarianism and nationalism very succinctly;

“Libertarians need nations. No amount of theorizing about imaginary anarcho-capitalist legal agencies has ever brought down a government. Nobody in power fears being overthrown by anarcho-capitalists. But nationalists have overthrown governments. Nationalists do strike fear into the hearts of the ruling elites of many countries. Nationalism is powerful because it is more than a set of abstract ideas. Nationalism harnesses the power of a population’s identity and concrete interests.
Libertarian nationalism is freedom through power. Without nationalism, libertarianism is little more than the weak pleadings of inefficacious idealists. With nationalism, libertarianism becomes an ideological force with the tangible capability of sustaining itself.

Libertarians need nationalism. Nationalists need libertarianism. And libertarian nationalism needs a biocentric metaphysic. A nationalism based solely on faith or tradition or language or historical borders gives leftists the ability to posture as the champions of science, progress, and a better future. In reality, so-called progressives are the arch enemies of a free and open society.”

This is no longer philosophy, but science.

Time magazine published a recent article that tears down the foundations of the social justice movement{11}. It proves there is a biological basis for nations based around similar ethnicities, and furthermore proves distinct nations within a race are encoded in our DNA. Our culture is in our genetic code. The article states:

“New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional. Biologists scanning the genome for evidence of natural selection have detected signals of many genes that have been favored by natural selection in the recent evolutionary past. No less than 14% of the human genome, according to one estimate, has changed under this recent evolutionary pressure.

Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations.”

“Human evolution has not only been recent and extensive, it has also been regional. The period of 30,000 to 5,000 years ago, from which signals of recent natural selection can be detected, occurred after the splitting of the three major races, so represents selection that has occurred largely independently within each race.”

“What might be the role of these brain genes favored by natural selection? Edward O. Wilson was pilloried for saying in his 1975 book Sociobiology that humans have many social instincts. But subsequent research has confirmed the idea that we are inherently sociable. From our earliest years we want to belong to a group, conform to its rules and punish those who violate them. Later, our instincts prompt us to make moral judgments and to defend our group, even at the sacrifice of one’s own life.
Anything that has a genetic basis, such as these social instincts, can be varied by natural selection.”

“Conventionally, these social differences are attributed solely to culture. But if that’s so, why is it apparently so hard for tribal societies like Iraq or Afghanistan to change their culture and operate like modern states? The explanation could be that tribal behavior has a genetic basis. It’s already known that a genetic system, based on the hormone oxytocin, seems to modulate the degree of in-group trust, and this is one way that natural selection could ratchet the degree of tribal behavior up or down.

Human social structures change so slowly and with such difficulty as to suggest an evolutionary influence at work. Modern humans lived for 185,000 years as hunters and gatherers before settling down in fixed communities. Putting a roof over one’s head and being able to own more than one could carry might seem an obvious move. The fact that it took so long suggests that a genetic change in human social behavior was required and took many generations to evolve.

Tribalism seems to be the default mode of human political organization. It can be highly effective: The world’s largest land empire, that of the Mongols, was a tribal organization. But tribalism is hard to abandon, again suggesting that an evolutionary change may be required.

The various races have evolved along substantially parallel paths, but because they have done so independently, it’s not surprising that they have made these two pivotal transitions in social structure at somewhat different times. Caucasians were the first to establish settled communities, some 15,000 years ago, followed by East Asians and Africans. China, which developed the first modern state, shed tribalism two millennia ago, Europe did so only a thousand years ago, and populations in the Middle East and Africa are in the throes of the process.”

In his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, the economic historian David Landes examines every possible factor for explaining the rise of the West and the stagnation of China and concludes, in essence, that the answer lies in the nature of the people. Landes attributes the decisive factor to culture.

We now have undeniable proof that culture is expressed in DNA.

The only conclusion we can now make, is those promoting multi-culturalism, and working to attack nationalism, are involved in a global genocide campaign. Using newspeak to call those resisting their machinations “ Nazis”, is irony of epic proportions. When they destroy our nations, and the cultures they sprang from, they obliterate everything that makes us unique. When globalist social engineers create artificial demographic shifts, like what we are seeing in Europe, the only result can be chaos. A chaos they will gladly offer to save you from, if you’ll just surrender the last of your liberty.

We also have undeniable proof the way we organize society evolved with us. We must retire the idea of forcing our ideas on other countries. We cannot force evolution, nor should we. The more you examine the implications the more you will realize the scope of the insanity wrought on the planet by the left.

The attitudes among some libertarians that we should have open borders fall apart when the light of truth is shined on them, and furthermore in a libertarian world it is a non-issue. People will generally stay with their own people, that is, once we stop offering generous welfare benefits and offer free plane rides from Syria to section 8 housing in the US. Immigration enforcement they find so morally reprehensible becomes a victimless crime, there won’t be a bunch of people who even want to come here.

We must not allow nationalism to fall by the sword of international Marxism. It is under attack, and subject to newspeak, because it is a grave threat to those who want a one world Marxist government. The resurgence of nationalism has nothing to do with racism or fascism. Quite the contrary, it is bringing people together from across the globe. There are people in every country on earth who are fighting to preserve their culture from the globalist onslaught, that seeks to create a world of milky brown debt slaves, devoid of any pride or the motivation to resist. If they achieve their goal, the gulags and mass graves will be our homes, and our children will not even speak the oldthink language of our philosophers and heroes.

I offer my hand in friendship, and my heart in solidarity, to nationalists around the globe. I want all of us to keep our land, fly our flags, and continue the work handed down by our fathers, and their fathers before, on back through time. We each, in our own lands, form the latest link in the chain of our history. We will not be the weak link that allows millennia of advancement to be destroyed by this murderous rabble. We must destroy the Marxist institutions that plague our planet, and their PC thought police. The greatest threat to freedom on the earth is the philosophies of Karl Marx. Over 100 million were killed last century. It stops here. Newspeak is a foreign language to me. The truth is simple when delivered in English:

I love freedom, so I am a Libertarian.

I love my country, so I am a Nationalist.

About the author:

Ryan Ramsey is a lifelong political activist, and hosts “The Sounds of Rebellion” and “Liberty Tree Radio” on World Integrity News Network. He sits on the National Council of the SDL, is the Director of The Florida Liberty Project, founder of Jacksonville Open Carry, and Bradford County Chairman, for the Libertarian Party of Florida. He also is the singer and guitarist of the band “Lovecrime”












The SDL Free County Initiative

“The Free County Initiative”

By: Ryan Ramsey

Basic Philosophy

Washington DC is 700 miles from Florida. The average citizen has very little ability to impact federal policy. The bulk of the laws that govern your daily life come from the city, county, or state. Too much focus is put on the presidential race and not enough on the elections that really matter, like the County Sheriff, the State Representative, or the City Council. Most people know that there are problems in this country, and we see more passion and conviction among the body politic as the information age brings news of government power grabs to our smartphones. Despite this, most people feel shut out from the process and just don’t know what to do. The Free County Initiative is designed to empower the community to get involved, by providing a program to work from the bottom up to help restore liberty, rather than waiting for a savior from Washington D.C.
The idea starts with inspiring families to take a little time to better the community. The founders of the SDL have gathered a core of experienced activists, current and former elected officials, active duty and veteran military personnel, educators, businessmen, and more, to help and mentor our fellow Americans. We are setting up county chapters, using social media to find like minded people from coast to coast. The initiative is designed for you to immediately get to work, and learn as you progress.

If you are reading this and are interested, find us at, and find out if we are operating in your county yet. If we are, you will be put in touch with your County Representative. If not, YOU will be your county representative. Either way, we want help. Many hands make light work. So think about family and friends who are interested in politics and have similar beliefs as we do. We all know the people on our social media pages that always post about politics. Reach out and ask if they would like to do more than post memes and complain. Don’t spend too much time convincing, the person you want is going to be waiting for you. They won’t say maybe, they will say “yes, how can i help? ”. Explain that you can make a difference and you do not need to have any experience..

Your families and friends form the local group. These local groups can then combine to effect changes at the county level, so the SDL organizes in each county. These county chapters will eventually combine to influence state policy. The end result is a general revival in local politics, which grows into a state, then national movement. Again, you only need one person in a county to form an SDL chapter and start the initiative, but most can find a friend or two to help get it moving.

For government to remain accessible and efficient, things should be decentralized and handled at the smallest level possible. We should consult our local businesses and neighbors to solve problems in our counties, not wait for those in our state capitol or Washington DC to come to the rescue. Rather than allow our lives to be regulated by laws crafted by lobbyists, paid for by special interests, crafted in far off places, let’s just get together and see what we can do.
In keeping with the spirit of the project, there is no specific platform or set agenda, each county has its own issues. The only thing everyone supporting the initiative must agree on is that our founding principles are individual liberty and personal responsibility. Restoration of the Bill of Rights, and opposition to anything that advances Marxism. We should remove laws or regulations, or scale them back towards that end. We should praise public officials who take their oaths seriously, and encourage innovation. This is the Firestarter. Each local and county group will have different things to work on, and hopefully good ideas spread throughout the nation. Do not allow fringes to create division. If you
disagree with something, don’t go to that activity. Agree to disagree and work on common ground rather than argue about your differences.
You are going to a meeting! Hopefully you can build a rotation and make sure someone from the SDL is at every meeting, forever. If we do not remain vigilant, we will be back in the same position we are now. Many men fought and died to gain our freedom. The SDL exists to regain it and ensure we never lose it again.
You will start with the city council, hopefully each city in a county can eventually have members to cover. You may have to go to all; I will be going to 3 in my county. Why do you think state legislatures, county commissions, and city councils have public comment time? It’s because our system was designed to be participated in! If you read the writings of the founders, it is an integral part of the plan. How can we be a well informed electorate if nobody participates in these meetings?
Even in bigger towns and large metropolitan areas, there is hardly anybody there. Those who are there are generally the same paid lobbyists who show up whenever their employer’s issue is involved. When a citizen takes time out of their life and shows up, they listen. When they deliver a passionate speech, they REALLY listen. I am frequently complimented by the paid lobbyists from opposing sides of bills in State House or Senate hearings.
Of those who show up, it is often a few kooks that people roll their eyes at; rarely do I see a well put together presentation by a citizen. It isn’t any harder than a middle school book report. I simply show up, dress decent (slacks and a sport coat, for example), respect the traditions, follow the custom, show a little respect to their house, and have class. There has been multiple people who expressed a desire to help, but worried that their tattoos would prevent participation. I have head, hand, and neck tattoos. It has actually been a source of interest, and if anything was mentioned, it was positive. It makes you more interesting and memorable. So do not be discouraged, we want all walks of life to participate.
Keep your testimony on topic. Practice a couple times in front of your spouse or friends. Bring documentation of facts and figures if the issue is controversial. Often, a hostile legislator will attempt to trip me up with technical questions. I would have documentation right there. There is nothing better than a quick and well documented answer that makes them eat their snark. Most, however, are very friendly. Remember, it’s a job to them, so they will be way more interested in you than some paid lobbyist they see all the time, who are just paid to say whatever the client asks. When good people speak from the heart, it is likely the highlight of the day. Many times I have had one seek me out to compliment me. That is why you are reading this. I am telling you that you matter, you can do it! Remember, even if you push for something and lose the vote…you set the agenda, rather than read about what happened the following week. You took part. You learned more about the process, you got to know the legislators.
When you go to a new legislative body, be observant. You need to assess who is powerful and friendly, as well as who may be powerful opposition. You want to make these determinations early, so that as you advance you will have the information necessary to craft an effective strategy. Keep an eye out for hostility toward the initiative, and you may find the corrupt individual, who may worry about new people going through the books. Do a little background research afterwards. If possible, have one person observe and take notes. There is always a hierarchy, obviously you should focus outreach on those higher up . It is important to record any SDL member speaking. Even cell phone video is good.
When other citizens see that anyone can do it and make a change, they will be inspired. Video puts them in the room and is far better than a write up afterwards. Take some photographs as well for outreach efforts and social media later, especially with newsworthy individuals or elected officials.
The most important thing is to be nice, never insult or threaten a legislator or opposing speaker. This is not a game, we want to be successful. If we build a reputation as well-intentioned and passionate people, and treat them with respect, we can accomplish more.
Be aware of common tactics the left uses to neutralize people and groups. There were times media would come to my open carry events, and had I been on camera with a fresh shave on my head, the opposition could use that film and pictures against me to reinforce the “angry white male” negative gun owner stereotype the media wants to perpetuate. My partner at the time was a middle aged business owner, so I had him do it. In other words, outsmart them. They cannot win with facts, so stay one step ahead of them; they will “go there”. That is all they have to work with.
Let’s say we want to oppose a sanctuary citizen ordinance.
I know plenty of Hispanics against illegal immigration, I am sure you do too. Send one of them to speak, the opposition wants to ignore the actual issues and say it is racism…what can they say when a legal immigrant is complaining that she had to wait much longer, because so many come illegally, and that her rights as a law abiding immigrant are not being respected?
You could send your buddy to tell about how they ”took over drywall”, but it wouldn’t be as effective, use your head.
My involvement with the Libertarian Party taught me some things to avoid. The LP members often focus on ideology, arguing about who is not a libertarian, or who is more libertarian, and refuse to tailor their message to be effective. They were loud about legalizing drugs when America was shouting “just say no”. Donald Trump is beating the establishment as I write this by saying he will build a wall on the border with Mexico. Most in the party believe in borders, but a small and vocal minority flood their groups and pages with anarchist open border rhetoric that scares people off. People who otherwise agree on everything in the platform, which also calls for reasonable border protections. Welcome people who agree on enough of your agenda to win broad support, and avoid things that cause division. The military looks for weak spots in the enemy defenses, not attack them at the strongest point with your weakest force. That is why the Libertarian Party is such a distant third, despite being correct on almost everything. Conservatives are often libertarians who don’t know it, they don’t want to let the left wing win, so they keep pulling the lever for the Republicans. We could easily turn the tables on the big two parties, if some effort was paid to tactics. So make a concession to move the game piece in our direction. Half of what we want is better than what we have now, which is zero. Go back again later for the other half.
Since there is plenty to do that lies on common ground, get to work on that. Then you can convince him on the other couple issues. 30% of republicans are unsatisfied, 20-40% independent or NPA in some states. The apple is ripe for the picking and the SDL is heading over in a truck. We intend to mobilize them all.
Here are step by step instructions to implement the Free County Initiative.
1. You need one person to start. This person should be sociable and have some basic political knowledge, and not afraid of public speaking.

2. Start a county SDL Facebook page to publicize your efforts and successes, and network through the community. Send out invites, perhaps call or text particularly politically active people in your area. Post articles, especially of local interest, in order to begin identifying areas of concern. We don’t want each page to mirror the others in the state. Since we’re starting local, keep a large share of the posts referencing local events and issues. It is very important to post pictures and ESPECIALLY video of SDL members speaking in these meetings. To see citizens like you speaking truth to power will inspire others to do the same. Create interest, set those brushfires of liberty in the hearts and minds of men. Post any articles about the initiative.

3. Find a volunteer to make a logo and make stickers similar to what the Chamber of Commerce makes for member businesses. These will be put in doors and windows of businesses to show support. This will help weave you into the fabric of the community. Just include the county name and the words “free county”. Mine says “Bradford”, over a representation of the outline of the county, and, “Free County, Florida”. Make it unique to your local culture.

4. Begin at the city councils in your county. Outside of major metropolitan areas it should be easy to find support. Have a resolution introduced supporting the project. A sample resolution will be provided below. It is deliberately vague so as not to generate opposition and get a foot in the door.

5. Examine local regulations for outdated laws. There are a surprising number of these on the books. The next meeting, move to repeal them or bring them up to date. Things like married people cannot cohabitate, or horses cannot be hitched overnight at taverns. They may argue that they no longer enforce that statute, the answer is, “exactly!”. Why would we keep stupid outdated laws on the books? These will be no brainers and will teach you about the process and the different personalities of the governing body. You will get to know each other a little, and hopefully you will find an ally or two or three. Watch enemies and observe who are power brokers, and who are not getting their way.

6. Solicit support from local business and ask them to put a sticker up. Have them read the resolution and if they agree, they are a supporter. Find any pro-liberty groups in town who may already have issues to air, and combine your efforts and promote mutual support. Charities, churches, and civic organizations should all be approached. You’ll just have to figure out who is interested in freedom. This is a fun part of it.

7. After you have gone around and met some local business people and generated some interest, hold a town hall meeting. Have local business owners, activists, and any other interested parties air any grievances or suggestions for improvement. Identify which city departments are efficient, and which are run badly. Use this input to create a list of ideas, then bring to the city council. Perhaps not all ideas will be implemented right away. It will at least open up conversation on these issues that may lead to ideas that surface later. Make a facebook event page and promote it. Be on the lookout for owners of bars or restaurants, or pastors of churches. These people have space for events. Seek to enlist support from them early. Meeting face to face is a big part of this, we have to get out and meet people and work together. If you have a good size city get a group of owners and you can form a coalition, at this point everyone knows you now speak for a decent size group of the tows business…you have their ear.

8. Repeat the same for the County Commission. Meet and talk to them, have a resolution introduced, and by now you should have some allies from other towns supporting you. See if the city could more efficiently handle something the county does currently. At each level, think decentralize. See if the various cities, or businesses, or community organizations have complaints about the counties and develop a plan.

9. At this stage you should have some new energy in local politics, and it will be up to local leaders to step up and keep the pressure towards freedom. Get some local guys elected to the state House or Senate. Keep a presence at city council, school board, and county commission meetings. There always seems constant pressure towards more regulation, more taxes, more government. We need to put the pressure back or we will see our freedoms slowly eroding. This republic was designed for a well-informed and active electorate; nobody will do it for you. Our biggest enemy has been apathy. If we can usher in a trend toward civic involvement, and take care of things at home rather than sub it out to the state capitol or Washington D.C., we can start inching steadily towards liberty.

10. During this time, build your tribe. You will find that many of your neighbors also believe the same things. Make it a point to build relationships with other like-minded families. Look to create self-sufficiency in your family and in the community. Perhaps one member has land with water, another a secure place out of the way, think about what you will need to survive without power or in case of a fight with government or an invader. You don’t want to end up at the superdome. In this manner, every city could have local groups not only helping to reform government, but prepared for disaster. Our country will be stronger, and we will start participating in government and pushing back. People will see that they do have a voice, and we can change things if we are willing to put in a little time. The rewards are well worth it.


View any law with the following lens: Does the action respect the Bill of rights, and is it hostile to any of the ten points of the communist manifesto? That is something to promote. If not, fight it! Both are printed below for reference, with some notes on the ten points.
If other legislation comes up, apply an originalist view to it, and that is where you stand. Part of the power of this is the local presence. You will have to see where there is corruption, inefficiency, and attack the easiest targets, and the lowest hanging fruit to get established. After that, it will generally unfold for you. Oppose what the local left wing and social justice warrior crowd support. However, you must offer solutions and force them to oppose you as well. You do not want to react all the time, make them react to you. Seize the narrative.
There are people all over the US doing the same things, so ideas or advice should be in abundance. Good ideas will spread, bad ideas will die. This is where you forge brotherhood and sisterhood. This is when we become much stronger.
No more talk. Your nation is once again calling for her Sons and Daughters of Liberty. Get to work.




Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II 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.

Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X 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.

The Ten Points of Marx and Engles


Although Marx advocated the use of any means, especially including violent revolution, to bring about socialist dictatorship, he advocated instituting Democracy. This nation was designed as a republic, but Marxist progressives in the early 20th century turned it into a democracy. suggested ten political goals that would help usher in socialism for developed countries such as the United States. The following are Marx’s ten planks from his Communist Manifesto, with some commentary pointing out examples of Marxist policy or agencies related to each point. Each county will face different issues, that is why we leave it to each county to find the loose bricks and start tearing them out.

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868) to give the government far more “eminent domain” power than was originally intended, there is various zoning regulations, land use regulations by the Bureau of Land Management, property taxes, private property rights have become very diluted. Private property in the form of land, vehicles, and other forms are seized almost every day in this country under the “forfeiture” provisions of the RICO statutes and the so-called War on Drugs..

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

This is any tax that raises the rate as income goes up. It is designed to punish success. that is not what America is about.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Federal & State estate taxes and other inheritance taxes are totally communist

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

We call it government seizures, tax liens, asset forfeiture, the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. The Patriot Act, NDAA
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a “national bank” and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on the currency of the United States. Every dollar in circulation was borrowed from this private bank with interest owed. This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Department of Transportation, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Aviation Administration, The federal postal monopoly, AMTRAK and CONRAIL — outright socialist (government-owned) enterprises. Undermine wherever possible.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan

We have a significant degree of government involvement in agriculture in the form of price support subsidies, acreage allotments, and land-use controls. The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture, as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS. The socialist plan is very advanced in this arena, and has recently sparked violent protest.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

The Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor, The National debt and inflation caused by the international banks essentially obligates all of us to an annual debt, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, assorted Socialist Unions (Marx called unions…industrial armies), affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program, are all part of this plank. Equal obligation is now being extended to women, who they now want to draft. This is all communist.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization Act of 1949 , and many other ways people are being herded into or out of cities, and government attempts to control where we can and cannot live.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc. Government schools, which are designed to suppress critical thinking in order to create subservient wage slaves, must be reformed. Zero tolerance policies should be opposed. Self-defense must not be punished or we will raise a nation of cowards. Teachers unions must be broken. Promote home schooling and vouchers. Eventually we should eliminate the Department of Education.


Sample resolution:
The (insert city or county here, City Council of Mayberry, etc.) hereby adopts a resolution of support for the “Free County Initiative”, promoting individual rights and economic freedom. We support a review of our statutes and policies to remove any outdated laws, and promote a conversation in the community about how we can make our community better.

To those who read and act,

I will never be able to adequately express my admiration and love for those of you who would stand up in our national hour of need, and join in what the SDL is doing.

See you in the trenches brothers and sisters!
About the author:
Ryan Ramsey is a US Navy veteran, and lifelong grassroots political activist and organizer. He is the founder of Jacksonville Open Carry, and sings songs of freedom with his band Lovecrime. He currently serves as a National Councilman for The Sons and Daughters of Liberty, Director of The Florida Liberty Project, and Chairman of the Bradford County Affiliate for the Libertarian Party of Florida.

Why the Constitution?


Why the Constitution?


Febuary, 1, 2016

As I go about my daily  adventures in liberty, I sometimes run across a vein of anti-constitutionalism, and some have questioned why the SDL chose a basic platform based on the US Constitution.  The quote below is often referenced, or made into memes. In an effort to save time by answering each instance, I decided to explain why the Constitution is so important and why Spooner is wrong, and why every conservative, libertarian, and even anarchist should rally around this founding document.


“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

-Lysander Spooner


The answer sir, is very simple.

The constitution does not authorize such a government.

It gives us all the tools to prevent such a government.

It is WE as a people who are the problem. We did not participate. We allowed our republic to become a democracy. We did not hold our status, as an educated and participatory electorate, near and dear.

We did not use the check and balance of the  second amendment to water the tree of Liberty, with the blood of patriots and tyrants, in a number of cases where we should have, since the last time ending in 1865.

The Constitution is the greatest existing national charter mankind ever achieved. It isn’t perfect, but it is in opposition to nearly every complaint we have.

A piece of paper wont ever prevent anything. People do that. The piece of paper is the authorization. We are nationally the freedom police…… with a search and arrest warrant on tyrants, that we essentially refuse to exercise, for reasons that can only be cowardice or laziness. No nation finds virtue in either.

Furthermore, it is the law of the land that most people understand, and you can build large coalitions around its restoration, in a way you will never get broad understanding of, say,…anarcho-capitalism.

Last week I addressed the Florida House Judiciary Committee on a bill to allow open carry for Florida CCW permit holders. In my testimony, I appealed to their basic American identity, to support the rights of those we may disagree with, or not understand. I was questioned on this very principle by a female Democrat lawmaker afterwards. Below is a link to the hearing, my testimony regarding the constitution and the questioning can be heard at 1 hour, 33 min, 10 seconds- 1:38:20.

Further comments at 2 hours, 8 minutes, and 37 seconds-2:09:40.


I can assume open carry is not very popular among female Democrats. I do not know if she was already inclined to do so, or if my arguments appealed to her and changed her mind, but I do know she gave me a nice compliment in the hallway afterwards, and regardless, she spoke the language, Even if we had a different take on interpretation, the Constitution is the field we all play on. It is that common ground. It is the point on which I argued with Rep. Kerner. We may disagree on whether the US or Florida Constitutions allow regulation of firearms carry, but I know I can win on the truth among the body politic, and he will have to eventually accept that.

So from a tactical standpoint it is the rallying point. The drug war and prison industrial complex, interventionist foreign policy, gun control, excessive taxation and the welfare state, the surveillance state, the biggest issues of the day all fall under a perversion or violation of the Constitution. Therefore, it is the best justification to use when tackling these issues.

Spooner should have spent more time on legislation and litigation and he would have seen that HE is the problem. Just like all the modern internet blowhards on politics who have never even been to a city council meeting or county commission meeting. Let alone the state capitol.

Another common argument is that the Articles of Confederation or even the Constitution of Liberland, a European micronation, are superior. Perhaps so. The Constitution is what we have. There is room for discussion about the future but in the meantime we must stop the advance of tyranny. We have enormous room within its confines to effect massive change that could renew America.

The Constitution is not the problem. The people who condemn paper for not protecting their rights,  when they have done nothing, are the ones to blame.

We were given a nice healthy tree of Liberty. We sit underneath it and watch the leaves fall off one by one, as the sun begins to burn. The ignorant and weak among us start to complain about the tree.

The patriot realizes it’s a great tree, but you have to water and fertilize it regularly, or it will not be healthy. He recognizes his obligation to care for this tree, if he wants to enjoy its shade.

The Sons and Daughters of Liberty have plenty of opportunities to help take back our rights, and restore the Constitution. Quit talking, start acting, Contact us, start a chapter. Implement the Free County Initiative in your local community. Water the tree.


Ryan Ramsey

National Councilman, The Sons and Daughters of Liberty


About the author:

A lifelong political activist, he sits on the National Council of the SDL. He is also the Director of the Florida Liberty Project, founder of Jacksonville Open Carry, and Bradford County, Florida, Chairman for the Libertarian Party of Florida.

The reality of 2nd Amendment infringements

Let me break down what the latest executive actions on guns really mean. I know a lot of you already know, but there are still tons of people who are confused as to what is going on, or are taking what the president and his supporters say at face value. Also, understand this is not really a partisan issue. If Bush had done the same thing he would get the same response from people who are smart enough to analyze the situation and be honest. Trump had to do a 180 on some of his previous gun-related comments and if he had not he would not be where he is right now. True American patriots will NEVER take a chance on being disarmed. The reason for this is that it always goes down the same path and usually ends badly. For those who haven’t studied the history on the subject, the government has to get the guns all registered before they can efficiently confiscate, and tyrants have to confiscate the weapons before they can totally oppress a people.

Today the president basically attempted to crack down on private sales between individuals by asking for background checks and stricter regulations on non-licensed and non-dealer transactions. Seems harmless enough right?

Not really.

He did all this while crying about victims of mass shootings and even mentioning the daily shootings in his hometown of Chicago (apparently he forgot that guns are basically banned in that entire city and mentioning it completely negates all of his points). When i say that the new restrictions are not really harmless the first reason i give is that he is lying about his motives. NONE of the shootings that he mentioned would have been prevented by his measures. NONE of the shooters in those instances benefited from the loopholes he is closing. So why do it? Is he dumb? Is he posturing and putting his presidential reputation on the line for impotent, meaningless legislation? Is this Constitutional scholar not able to see that his new executive actions won’t really curb any of the crime he is crying about here?

Hell no. Of course not.

We may not like the President but he is a smart man. Most likely a bit streetwise, even. He knows that none of this will stop criminals or the mentally ill. He knows that even an outright ban wont stop them. We all know it. These laws only affect the law-abiding. The people who will most likely never shoot anyone in their life. If you are not streetwise or if you think gun laws will affect shootings in any way just find the most criminal person you know and ask them. I lived my late teenage years as a criminal. I went to a notorious inner city high school where my life was in danger and we went to school at 16 yrs old with a 50 dollar “throw away” pistol tucked in our pants, or in our school bags, most of the time. The risk of punishment was worth it to survive. Some people live their whole lives like this. they don’t care what the law says. The other side of the gun problem is “crazy” people or the mentally ill. They don’t usually get in trouble until they snap, so they can follow every rule and obtain guns legally until it’s too late and none of your laws will stop them. If they do stop them, they can get guns on the street just like criminals or just steal them. Every crazy person or criminal knows of at least a few law-abiding citizens that have several legally owned weapons in their home and in an emergency, or perceived emergency, they will go take them. THERE IS NO LAW THAT CAN BE MADE THAT WILL STOP MENTALLY ILL OR CRIMINALLY MINDED PEOPLE FROM HURTING OTHER PEOPLE. CRIME IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. MURDER IS ALREADY ILLEGAL.

So what is he trying to do then? What is a possible outcome of documenting all private sales? I’ll tell you what. It leads to registration. If we implement these laws… and crimes and killings continue. Which we all know they will because we have established that these laws do nothing. Well then the president or some tyrannical politician will come back and say that guns are still slipping through the cracks and we need registration. A national database of all guns in this country. So we know exactly where each gun is, and who has it. Sounds reasonable right?


This still wont prevent any crimes. You still wont know where the criminals guns are until they use them and the crazy people play by the rules until its too late to stop them. Crime wont go down. Killings won’t stop. but the federal govt will now have a handy list of exactly what guns each law-abiding gun owner in this country has, and now they can do a much more thorough confiscation and arrest anyone who cant or wont account for all of the guns registered to them. They just have to wait for an incident big enough to warrant confiscation. If you dont think this can happen look up what happened in Louisiana during Katrina. After gun confiscation things generally go very badly. They can murder us outright like what happened in :

1911, Turkey — 1.5 million exterminated
1929, Soviet Union — 2 million exterminated
1935, China — 20 million exterminated
1938, Germany — 3-7 million exterminated
1956, Cambodia (delayed enforcement 20 yrs) 1-2 million exterminated
1964, Guatemala — 100,000 exterminated
1970 Uganda. — 2-3 million exterminated

Or they can just bring in Migrants to rob, rape, and murder our unarmed countrymen in the streets like what is going on in France, England, and Germany.

You see what was done today does zero to curb crime. No logical argument could ever be made that it would. However, it is a solid step towards registration, and registration is the first step to confiscation.

Stand your ground. You are not alone.

Brien James

Libertarianism, Tribalism, and Nationalism