Betas: 'Pinochet ONLY Killed 3,000 People!'

"Communism killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. Agosto Pinochet only killed 3,000 people!"  That's the excuse the alt-right and other fascist sympathizers cower behind.  For starters, it's a weak argument.  Let's not forget that between Italy's invasion of Africa as well as Japan's invasion of Manchuria and the end of World War II that fascism killed in 15 years almost as many victims as Communism killed in 75 years!

But alas, closeted white supremacists scream about the red menace while ignoring the others. They're like people who worry about swine flu, bird flu, West Nile virus, etc. while ignoring things like the common flu which kills way more people.  Worse yet, many Libertarians are too spineless to call these fascists what they really are (i.e. socialists hiding behind the colors of nationalism, or the kind of people which Ludwig von Mises trashed decades ago in his writings). 

Let's come up with a hypothetical character... a fictional revolutionary conservative we'll call Victus Romano.  If Victus hooks up with a transsexual prostitute in Orlando before physically removing him/her out of a helicopter, and he finds that he only has 1 wart on his dick whereas the hooker's last client has 100 warts on his dick, it doesn't matter that the other guy's herpes outbreak is way worse than Victus'.

VICTUS STILL HAS HERPES.

At this point, we're ONLY arguing about the number of sores, not the fact that he has a DISEASE.

Government is a disease. All this weak argument of "only 3,000" does is 1) distract from the main issue by making it about quantity versus quality, also distracting from the simple truth that tyranny is tyranny and democide is fucking democide; 2) It encourage confused libertarians to go full retard. Never go full retard!

The problem is these people were largely killed based on hearsay and without a trial. Even if 99% of them were communists, Pinochet still violated the individual rights of the innocent people wrongly killed. Libertarianism is about protecting individuals, not killing communists.

Unfortunately, the Pepe the Frog cult doesn't care about rights. Their idea of free speech includes every private event accommodating Richard Spencer's right to speak, but in their world, free speech doesn't exist for communists.  Communists only exist to be murdered... to somehow protect freedom.

No, the alt-right doesn't care about rights.  They only care about growing their state to protect their private property from the threat of left-wing... statists.  The government must be grown and a little bit of private property seized in order to protect us all from the boogeymen who want to... grow the government and take private property. They're Republicans who discovered the anarchy symbol, much like every 12 year old punk rock kid in the suburbs who discovers Ozzy Osbourne and Iron Maiden.

I'm willing to bet a whole bunch of liberals probably just made your average Kek cyber worshiper feel bad for being white. I'll be here waiting when those people get tired of conforming to the pure raw ANGER radiating from the alt-right.

Also, Victus, Mexico is still not paying for your god-emperor's Wall.

# # #

Pinochet image courtesy of Know Your Meme.  Good Night Left Side and Anti-Antifa insignia courtesy of sexually humiliated angry men.  Full permission is granted to reprint the text of this article as long as the author is credited and a link is provided back to this page.

[Mini-podcast] National Capitalism (Nazism 2.0) is Carp on a Stick

The Nat-Cs are coming to physically remove you in the night! The same people who identify with "national capitalism" are usually the same people who say "It's the Roman salute, not the Nazi salute!" The Helicopter Libertarians strike again, and they want to trick you into growing the Trump state.

National Capitalism is simply Nazism 2.0--and this National Capitalism fairy tale is either the domain of racists and fascists with slightly better economics than the NSDAP, or racists and fascists too spineless to be true to themselves and admit they're Nazi sympathizers.

Stream or download at Soundcloud

Is the Left Really More Evil Than the Right?

The question needs asking: is the Left really more evil than the Right?

Anyone who's slightly right-of-center has likely watched black-clad anarchists with hammer and sickle flags smashing up store fronts, starting bonfires in the streets, and brawling with the cops.  It's probably sent a chill down their spines.  I see an increasing ideological problem arising in libertarian circles: conservatives and libertarians are buying into the us-versus-them mentality to vilify the left, at the expense of giving conservatives a free pass on violent hypocrisy.  

People on the Right are rightfully concerned about violent neo-Communists, but they're ignoring the neo-Nazis.  Revolutionary and institutional fascism alike are equally willing to end lives and expropriate private property for the sake of the state, and always has, no matter how vehemently conservatives, the alt-right, and the far-right libertarian wannabes (anyone who does the "Roman" salute).  Soviet Socialism was certainly a plague on humanity, especially in the developing world, but so were the CIA and DEA. Remember, when Mises and Hayek fled Europe, it wasn't Communism they were fleeing for their lives.  So concern over militant leftism but not militant rightism is willful blindness.

Besides, the Right will always be the real evil, in my honest opinion. Liberals are all about high taxes and abortion. The radical leftists will take to the streets and break things when they don't get their way.  It was the same in Berkeley in 1968, and it was the same in Petrograd in 1917 and 1905. What else is new?  Republicans seem to have amnesia over the excessive force that was applied to Ron Paul supporters in 2012.

The police colluded with the GOP to assault and arrest Ron Paul supporters after they won the majority of delegates at the Louisiana GOP Convention.  Fingers were broken.

The police were in cahoots with the GOP to arrest Ron Paul supporters at the Missouri GOP Caucus.  When Ron Paul was winning the delegate race, the Missouri GOP revoked their credentials and had them physically removed.

Republicans in Orlando stomped on the feet of a Ron Paul supporter wearing flip flops for the high crime of holding a Ron Paul sign outside the National Convention.  

Ron Paul delegates in Orlando had their credentials stripped in mass.  I also met and spoke with a delegate who was kidnapped on Orlando's infamous Bus to Nowhere that unfortunately didn't arrive at the Convention Center in time for the Paul delegates to vote.  In addition, I've met others who claim marijuana was planted in their hotel rooms--this was back in 2012 when possession in the South was more than a slap on the wrist.

So while the Left breaks windows and blocks on-ramps, and every once in a while beats up a Donald Trump supporter, Republicans and a few libertarians with GOP Stockholm Syndrome play into the partisan game.  Libertarians and Republicans seem to find some common ground in denigrating the Left together, but all the libertarians in this situation do is buy into the statists' us-versus-them game.  

In their growing hatred of the Left, the embers of resentment fanned by hatemongers like Chris "I say cuck way too damn much" Cantwell and wackos like Alex "Cocaine tantrums" Jones.  There is no outcry from these people over the vandalized mosques and synagogues, the statistical increase in attacks against immigrants and minorities in this country,

But conservatives are the ones who were supposed to lower taxes, reign in federal spending, protect unborn life, maintain a humble foreign policy, preserve the rights of states from federal overreach according to the Bill of Rights. And what have we gotten? Boots on the ground in Syria, TrumpCare with the individual mandate intact, an Attorney General who has said on more than one occasion that he plans to prosecute legal recreational marijuana (because, according to Spicer and Sessions, when the Trump campaign said 'states rights', they only meant medical marijuana), and abortion still happens on the daily in Trump's America.

The leaders of the Right betrayed America, and most ordinary conservatives supported them the whole way.  Republicans are still making excuses to support Donald Trump, even though he's doing variations of the same crap the Obama Administration did.  This goes to show that a majority of Trump's supporters aren't really as married to their principles as they think they are.  They're not really as dedicated to the practice of conservative values as they think they are, or else they'd already have tarred and feathered 90% of the Republicans in Washington D.C. (both in the Legislative and Executive Branches).

We know the Left is "bad."  They're too wishy-washy on civil liberties and plain awful on property rights, and that leaves room for huge problems down the road. That's always been obvious.  But the Right are the snakes in the grass, who will talk in your face about 'principles over party' while they raise your taxes, fund abortion clinics, and drop more bombs on brown people (because WWJD don't matter to the "Christian" Right anymore).

So yes. The Right is evil. Perhaps the true evil, more so than the Left.  The Left is at least honest about their big government SJW utopian drivel. I can easily point to 3 books: Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States, and feel comfortable saying these 3 books pretty accurately summarize the Left.  We know exactly what the different Left factions believe and what they want to accomplish.

But the Right... we get volumes of propaganda from the Right about their moral superiority to liberals, even though conservatives are at this very moment giving America more of the same that we already had under Obama.they are the snakes.  The Right is the greater evil.  They're still lying to America.  Mexico's going to pay for that wall, not the American taxpayer, right?!

Yeah yeah yeah, the Left is "bad."  The Right is "worse."  Let's just break the Left-Right paradigm and focus on minimum versus maximum state presence, and maximum versus minimum individual liberty.

# # #

Images courtesy of Old American Century.

Frankenstein (1931): A Libertarian Film Review

Last night I had the wonderful opportunity to take my nephew to see Universal’s timeless classic, Frankenstein, on the big screen.  It was a great time and we both enjoyed the movie.  I felt privileged by the fact that both of us were seeing it for the first time in theaters, and that it was the boy’s first time seeing an eighty-three year old masterpiece.

Seeing Boris Karloff as Frankenstein’s “monster” for the first time in years had a powerful effect on me.  With the limited audiovisual and special effects capabilities of the time (1931), this movie is entirely driven by individual performance.  Even Karloff’s almost-comical simplicity in portraying the monster is driven by emotion and strong character acting.  I could sense desperation both in the monster and the humans who hate him.  Beyond that, the movie touched on my values, especially the sanctity of human life.

In Henry Frankenstein’s obsession with creating life from dead tissue, he likens himself to God for giving life.  This is the ultimate arrogance in a human being, and such arrogance wreaks deadly consequences on the community once the “monster” escapes.  At first Frankenstein is committed to preserving and cultivating the life he has artificially brought into the world.  Over a short amount of time, Frankenstein’s monster proves to be beyond control, killing at least four people in the creation’s short existence.

This image terrifies us deep down, knowing that people’s final resting places were disturbed, their corpses violated and mutilated without their consent.  Even the dead have rights; this is something we recognize in people’s final will and testament, by which their exact instructions for their persons and property are enforceable by law.  Living life in a world where people’s rights are violated every day, it’s disturbing to think of our civil liberties and property rights being violated after we pass on.  Even worse is the idea of your own corpse being used—without your consent—to create something that will brutally kill innocent people.

Quite honestly, it was also very uncomfortable to see the monster in its moments of despair and anguish.  It’s known that the creature possesses an abnormal (developmentally stunted and homicidal) brain and warrants his own destruction by his deadly actions.  At the same time, the viewer knows this new life—while possessing some form of memory in its formerly dead, damaged brain—knows next to nothing but torture.  While it should never have been created—Frankenstein had no right to do so—the creature is alive and awake.  This new life enters the world and is kept in shackles and darkness, a scene directly from Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.  When the angry mob comes to destroy the creature, this child-like life form will know fear, pain, agony, and true suffering.

The way Dr. Frankenstein degrades human life to the subject of a science experiment reminds me of the ways governments are run by men who play God with their citizens.  The history of the world reveals numerous episodes wherein lives, liberty and property were taken away, wherein people suffered and died, because governments made grand experiments.  These episodes are filled with lives and fortunes destroyed via public policy.

Furthermore, nation-states like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Red Cambodia are symbolic of monsters—created on lofty ideals and mad delusions—out of control and causing untold death and destruction.  Moreover, the illusion painted by governments, in which there is a monster lurking in the bushes, countless times served as the justification for keeping citizens in a political state of bondage.  The recent NSA mass-surveillance scandal is a painful indicator that our American Constitutional republic can also slip into something decent people regard as evil.

Films like the 1931 adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein serve to entertain audiences, in no small part through prompting an emotional response (hence the inspiration for this review). Scary tales like this one serve as powerful metaphors, ever reminding us of the sanctity of human life. They also remind us to teach our children the value of life, and to respect that which does not belong to us nor is ours to violate.

* * *

Universal Studios' photo of Boris Karloff as Frankenstein's monster is in the public domain and was obtained from Wikipedia.

FURY film review

Anyone who’s seen Harsh Times, End of Watch or U-571 knows there are certain films that stay with the viewer after being seen.  Fury (2014) is a film of the same caliber, and director David Ayer took no shortcuts in making what may be the best World War II movie since Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan.

The performances are convincing, the action gut-wrenching, and the down-time thought-provoking.  Brad Pitt gives an excellent performance as a jaded tank commander turned into a cold realist by three years of brutal combat.  Shia LaBeouf, Michael Peña, John Bernthal, and Logan Lerman provide solid supporting acting that brings out the best in every other performer’s character.

The scenes where bloody-handed tank crew members discuss God—and what His plans could be in such a hellish environment—seem hokey at first, but as the characters persist with the topic, the discussions force the viewer to ponder.  This movie forces the reader to view the fragility of life and death and to confront the ever-blurring line between right and wrong.  I also appreciate how the film shows there was still some humanity in Germany by the war's end [but no spoilers].

I won’t spoil anything, but people quickly find out that what seems like the right thing to do is wrong and gets people killed.  At other times they’ll find out that what seems like the wrong thing may be right.

The main battle in the movie involves the tanker crew defending a crossroads so the enemy can’t pass and slow the Allied advance. [This isn’t a spoiler; it’s in the movie trailer!]  In this case the enemy isn’t the Wehrmacht–German government army—but rather the SS—the Nazi Party’s fanatical private army.  The American tankers have seen the SS force children to fight (as cannon fodder) and what the SS does to civilians who refuse to support the war effort any longer.  They’re not letting this SS main force get away.

The main characters in this movie are at the tail end of the war in Europe, but the SS wasn’t ready to cry uncle.  The SS was still killing people, soldiers and civilian noncombatants alike.  Furthermore, the vast majority of SS troopers weren’t surrendering like their Wehrmacht counterparts who knew the game was over.  These were the most fanatical supporters of National Socialism, of white supremacy, genocide, and a global German empire.

Now the battle begins.

As libertarians, it’s important for us to reflect and take something away after a heavy book or movie like this one.  We can cling to libertarian talking points about non-intervention in foreign wars.  We can talk about how this war wasn’t our war, about how FDR was looking for a fight and in 1941 he got one.  We can say those things until we’re blue in the face, but we’re past that.  Far past that.  These individuals were there, and people were trying to kill them.  Full stop.

In my opinion, any libertarian in the situation depicted in the movie must first ask, What can I do to keep myself alive?  Next, What can I do to keep my friends alive?  Finally, What course of action will keep more people alive?  What will the SS deliberately do to civilians in the next town?

The hell with them.  Let the murderers of the SS continue to rot in hell with all the rest of the people who deliberately murder civilians.  Yes, according to libertarian non-intervention theory, the U.S. military shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but that factoid is too little, too late when one is facing off against a battalion of fanatics with machine guns and rocket launchers.

In today’s world, non-intervention is the best foreign policy.  There’s nothing we can do to change the past, but I’m still glad that the Germans lost that war.  It was horrible that the Soviets were among the winners in World War II, but the Soviet Union no longer exists.  I still have nothing but respect for all the men and women who beat back the Wehrmacht, destroyed the SS, and shut down Hitler’s totalitarian state, death camps and all.

In the meantime, we libertarians must maintain a self-defensive mindset, for ourselves as individuals, for our families, our communities, and our country.  Remember, just because we as individuals are non-interventionist DOES NOT mean that foreign armies are as well.

Go see Fury, it’s worth it.

* * *

Fury movie poster is the property of Columbia Pictures and used according to Fair Use law.  Image obtained from Wikipedia.

Five Libertarian Ideas #18 - Nazis in Ukraine and UFOs in Afghanistan

Russia on Nazis in Ukraine

The Russian army secretly invaded Ukraine and annexed whole chunks in order to "protect Russian speakers." Russian militias and mobs are dragging people out of their homes, severely beating them, and arresting them on the sole basis of disagreeing with "the revolution." It's funny how the Russians call Ukrainians "Nazis" and "fascists" yet themselves are doing exactly what the Nazis did in the 1930s. -5/6

Russian Soviet socialism… again

In the so-called "Donetsk People's Republic," the Russian separatists are shutting down entire banks to punish specific Ukrainian government officials who have holdings at those banks. What the separatists will undoubtedly cause is a bank run and fleeing business capital, both of which will cause economic depression in the area... just like the Soviet days. -5/6

Gay and straight Eagle Scouts

[Regarding the new twin Eagle Scouts, one gay and one straight:] I'm an Eagle Scout and it's none of my damn business what orientation a fellow scout is (nor your business either), as long as he keeps his hands to himself. End of story.  -5/7

UFO in Afghanistan conspiracy

Conspiratarians, don't get excited about the UFO in Afghanistan video that's going viral. It's definitely a drone in the video, and drones that can hover while shooting have been around at the latest since 2009. Sorry to burst your bubble but our intergalactic neighbors aren't interesting in picking sides in a tiny civil war. -5/9

Navy SEALs and libertarian foreign policy

The more I read Richard Marcinko's Rogue Warrior series (he founded SEAL Team Six), the more I realize it is, and has been for years, quite possible to deal with terrorism in a manner that neither violates the nonaggression principle nor requires the US government to start multiple wars and occupations abroad. -5/12

* * *

Crimean militia photo by Voice of America and in the public domain. Rogue Warrior cover art is the property of Pocket Books, used via  tommytoy dot typepad dot com according to Fair Use Law.

Tyrannical Government: The Hitler and Stalin Argument

I’m quite disappointed to realize I never fully tackled the Alex Jones guest appearance on Piers Morgan’s television program at the beginning of this year, so I’m taking this opportunity to discuss something important.  Whether they’re in favor of gun control or not, everyone who watched that interview can clearly remember Alex Jones’ outburst and what he said:

“Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Hugo Chavez took the guns … 1776 will commence again if you try to take the guns from the American people!!!”

While Jones’ point held an incredibly valid argument, he unfortunately stated some tiredly overused rhetoric that conservatives and libertarians use as an ideological defense of their Second Amendment rights.  To this very day, leftists take the totalitarian argument completely out of context, and they’re able to do so because conservatives and libertarians rarely ever add the proper context to this valid argument.

Let me attempt to give a logical and easy to understand explanation of what Jones meant.  It’s overstated that the reason the Second Amendment exists is for the American people to be able to protect themselves from “tyrannical government.”  That statement in and of itself is incredibly vague and unclear in its meaning.  What does “tyrannical government” exactly mean?

This is what it boils down to: the purpose of the Second Amendment is for the American civilian population to be armed to be able to fight a war against the federal government.  Plain and simple.

Battle of Lexington

Bear in mind that the Constitution and its appendage, the Bill of Rights, were written and ratified less than a decade after the American Revolutionary War had been won by the United States government (formerly the confederated Continental governments).  This war for independence began precisely as an armed faction of the British citizenry in North America went to war against the British government.  The war began at Lexington when a British Army battalion fired on the local militia, blatantly violating what we understand today to be the rules of engagement.

The government fired on the citizenry and the citizenry sure as hell shot back.

Many people on the left like to say that the circumstances of the American Revolution were unique, and that the federal government is not being tyrannical today the way the Crown was being.  Not so!  Anyone can take a look at the Declaration of Independence and see how many of the grievances—especially those in the second half of the list of outrages—written by the bipartisan Continental Congress in 1776 have been repeatedly committed against the American people by the federal government, under both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Some on the left may indeed agree that the federal government is behaving the way the Royal Government behaved in the 1770s, but that our country’s government will never become as tyrannical as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin.  But how can they really be sure?

Let’s first look at the rise of the Nazi regime in Germany.  The infamous fire that broke out in the Reichstag in February 1932 was the basis upon which German President Paul von Hindenberg—a supporter of Adolf Hitler’s—issues the Reichstag Fire Decree which was the “legal” basis for the German federal government to nullify many key civil rights, including a protection against warrantless arrests, indefinite detention, and seizures of personal property.

Adolf Hitler was elected in the spring of 1933.  Within one year of the seizure of state power by the Nazi regime—by democratic means, no less—all Jewish-owned businesses in Nazi Germany were marked with a yellow star or the word “Juden.”  In 1935—two years into the Nazi regime’s tenure—the passage of the Nuremburg laws stripped Germany’s Jews of their citizenship (as well as various political targets and other undesirables).  In 1936, special prison camps were built for political prisoners.  These prisons would later be known as “concentration camps.”   By 1938, the regime began enforcing stringent gun control laws, confiscating as many firearms as possible, and also began the mass incarceration of Jews into the newly built camps.

The terror and horror was in full swing within only five years.  What amazes me is how the majority of civil servants and elected officials in the German government in 1932 were ordinary people, hardly different from those serving in American government today.  Is it still completely implausible that tyranny could occur in America, creeping subtly to the surface, within just five years?

Let’s look back even further at the genesis of the Soviet Union.  The Bolsheviks occupied the Winter Palace in November 1917.  Within a few months Lenin had dissolved the Constituent Assembly (their at-the-time equivalent of a Congress or Parliament) and outlawed the other political parties.  Within two years of the October Revolution, Lenin organized the Cheka (secret police) that was sixteen times as large as the Tsar’s secret police.  He ordered the arrest and execution of at least 80,000 “enemies of the state” from the Social Democratic and Socialist Revolutionary parties.

Many people assumed this madness was simply part of the birth pangs of a new nation and part of the horrors of war (Russia was in a civil war from 1918-22).  However, it continued and progressively intensified.  Lenin’s regime did not only arrest the kulaks—landowners—but executed tens of thousands of them.  These figures do not reflect the people that were forcibly deported from the young Soviet Union.

In 1924 Lenin passed away and Stalin was selected by the Party to succeed him as Secretary.  Within five years Stalin began his “Second Revolution” to correct deviations from Marxist-Leninist doctrine which had occurred during the Civil War and New Economic Policy (NEP), to eliminate the new kulaks of the rising middle class which emerged during the first Five Year Plan under the NEP, and to purge impure elements from the Communist Party.  Though the Bolsheviks confiscated as many civilian-owned firearms as possible during the Civil War, the Second Revolution saw gun control officially implemented in 1929, immediately followed by a nationwide campaign of firearms seizure by the government.

NKVD (precursor to the KGB) records testify to 681,692 people executed during Stalin’s terror of 1936-39, though experts put the number of people murdered by their government during this time at over one million.  Let it be understood that when a government begins murdering its unarmed population, such a program is called genocide.  When a government begins murdering its armed population, such is usually the initiation of a civil war and likely government overthrow.  Nonetheless, in Russia during the end of the Tsar’s reign and early months of Bolshevik rule, just as in Germany, the majority of those serving in government were ordinary people, hardly different from American government employees and public servants.  When the regime began committing acts of tyranny, these same civil servants probably believed they were doing the right thing, entirely for the public good, just as the majority of the American Congress felt when they passed the PATRIOT Act and the various versions of NDAA.

We’ve demonstrated that atrocities in Germany began within five years of a change in government.  The long list of atrocities in the Soviet Union began within one year of the Bolsheviks taking power.  Let’s ask ourselves, is it completely implausible that a government could become tyrannical within one year?  Even after the cases of Germany and Russia—ancient lands steeped with rich histories and sophisticated culture—is it still impossible to consider that the American government could inflict tyranny on its own citizens?

It is indeed possible, though I pray it never happens.  I love my country and I consider my experiences so far in public service to have been an honor, but I also realize that I—like all of you—must remain vigilant and protest whenever the government oversteps its authority.  I fully understand that I’m 100 times more likely to be attacked by a fellow citizen than by my own government, but as long as I practice my Second Amendment right I can at least have a fighting chance to successfully defend myself.  I’m defenseless if the government disarms me.

Returning to the Alex Jones shout-a-thon on Piers Morgan’s show, it’s quite obvious that Piers set Alex up for that one.  There was no table, after all, bringing the two talking heads intimately close and thus making it more personal.  As far as setting Jones up, Morgan succeeded as Jones walked straight into the trap and began shouting.  Once Jones commenced his tantrum, he’d already lost and this victory for gun control advocates was broadcast internationally.  Because of that, it’s my hope that shedding some light on the tyrannical government argument will help my compatriots in the liberty movement present the argument accurately and in context so as to make our pro-Second Amendment position understood, not reviled.

Keep in mind and never forget that the same brilliant statesmen who brought you the rights to free speech, due process, and freedom from unlawful search and seizure are the same thinkers who brought you the right to own firearms.  They did so in consideration of the U.S. government overstepping its authority and attacking citizens, just as their government did in 1775.

* * *

YouTube video contains footage that is the property of CNN but is used here in accordance with Fair Use Law and via Standard YouTube license.  Alex Jones image used courtesy of "911conspiracy" and Piers Morgan image courtesy of Ian Lively.  Both images hosted on Flickr, were obtained from Wikimedia Commons, and are used here via CC BY 2.0 license.  The First Blow For Liberty, Battle of Lexington by A.H. Ritchie is in the public domain.