Hard truth

The Left and the Right are the same, they just tell different lies.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Independence Day, 250 years later

I want to celebrate Independence Day, but anymore it feels like a memorial service rather than a real celebration. It's like gathering around an autopsy for a cookout.

The United States government is much, MUCH worse than the British government was in 1776. Worse than that ambitious government ever dreamed of being. With higher taxes, more meddling, and more presence. Greater evil.

Most “patriots” pretend otherwise. 

I get it. People want to celebrate, and they want to ignore unpleasant realities. They resent those who have a realistic understanding of the situation.

And the Declaration of Independence is celebration-worthy. If only they had meant it. The Constitution showed that they didn't. They wanted a State to sit on the world stage more than they valued independence and loved liberty. "Everyone else is doing it!" So that's what they got. That's what they saddled us with. And it has metastasized into this global Empire we see all around us today.

Make a "patriot" comfortable. Forget independence. "Happy Fourth."

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Worse than "gun control" [sic]?

It's quite possible that I hate Flock cameras (and related technology) even more than I hate anti-gun rules. If you know me, you know that's saying something!

You can go here to see how many of those abominations infest your area. And see where they are and where they are aimed. Then use that information as you will.

Someone needs to invent hand-held directed EMP technology that can disable such things from a distance. Or, if they are shielded from EMPs, lasers to burn them out. That's more responsible than using hunting rifles for that sacred task.

Others have said that FOIA requests, public records requests, and/or audits often result in the cameras being removed to prevent disclosure. If you're legally minded, this might be something to try.

On an individual level, I wonder if a small shelf above the slave plate of your vehicle could prevent the numbers from being seen from the height of those spies. Just a thought. Maybe they see it from too far away for this to work. I wonder if there's any spray that would be unnoticeable to the eye, but opaque to the cameras. 

Or, if you just want to avoid being tracked by these things, knowing where they are and where they are aimed can help you. 

It's important to track the trackers, regardless. 

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

The base

Everything in the material world comes down to physics. 

Similarly, everything in the social world comes down to liberty.

Some people like to try to insert woo-woo into the material world, but then they are talking about something other than the material world. Maybe they are speaking of a spiritual world or something else immaterial, but you can't plot an orbit or describe a chemical reaction this way. You have to stay in the realm of physics to do so.

Others like to try to insert their antisocial desires and fetishes into the social world, but then it's no longer a social world they are talking about. They are describing a political world instead. You can't respect the rights of others while pretending there are things you "should" do to violate these rights when they make you uncomfortable.

I suspect there is even a way to merge physics and liberty; a sort of Grand Unified Theory. I can see it and feel it, but I can't articulate it. Yet. It may come to me someday.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Politics is Mr. Hyde without Dr. Jekyll

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 1, 2026)

Politics- and specifically political opinions- can turn people into monsters. It's almost guaranteed. No one is ever a better person because of their political opinions or because they're involved in politics.

In his story, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson was writing a morality tale about the good and evil within each individual and the dangers of drug abuse, but it could apply just as well to politics. Politics is a powerful drug, and it brings the evil within each individual to the surface...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Political winners: Those who don't participate

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 27, 2026)

Every time there's an election- a religious ritual for those who believe in the imaginary authority of the state- the cheers and tears begin as soon as the votes are tallied. The reaction depends on whether the individual voter ends up on the winning or losing side. Either outcome means the state has won at the expense of liberty.

Politics is designed to divide people into winners and losers, and the only way to truly win is to refuse to play.

People who want you trapped will claim that if you don't vote, you're still voting for whatever the majority voted for. Nonsense. You're going to be handed that repulsive load regardless of what you do.

Democracy is mob rule; might (through superior numbers) makes "right". You say America isn't a democracy, but a republic? This only means it's a democracy with extra steps.

The Constitution, which was sold as the safeguard against America becoming a democracy, failed. Now the majority fetishizes democracy and demands government ignore the Constitution when it would prevent something they want. The political criminals are happy to oblige. But demand government obey the Constitution? They'll drag their feet for decades or more, until they can claim they've traditionally exercised this illegal power and it's too late to reverse course now.

Politics is what you use against your fellow humans when you can't convince them to go along with your harebrained schemes, so you cheat. Instead of using logic and persuasion, you default to threats of violence against those who would prefer a different path. Voters accept politicians, politicians make up laws, and laws are threats of violence. Do what politicians say, or government will steal your property, cage you, and escalate the situation to the point of killing you if you refuse to go along at any step of the process. A process weighted to favor the state and its opinions.

If you place your hope in a politician, you'll be disappointed.  A politician will never save you. Politicians are never the answer. Politicians can only ruin you.

Some politicians are a little better than others, and some are a lot worse than most, but none of them has the right to govern even one other person. Doing something you have no right to do, even if others approve, is the only rational definition of "crime". Why place your faith and hope in a criminal?

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Easiest "job" in the world

Being on the Supreme Court ought to be one of the easiest "jobs" in the world. Even if you pretend they have the "authority" they stole for themselves in 1803.

It shouldn't require any training as a lawyer or any political expertise whatsoever; just the ability to read and understand what you're reading. (I know that's asking a lot these days.)

This is how complicated it should be:

Someone brings a government rule, policy, or legislation to you.
You read it.
You observe if it is something the Constitution explicitly allows government to do, based on what is actually written, not on interpretations or political wishes...
And then you rule on it by that standard and none other. 

Easy-peasy.

An AI could easily do it (although crooked political humans would corrupt the programming for their political agendas).

Does the Constitution explicitly allow government to do this? Let it stand.
Does the Constitution not explicitly allow government to do this? Gone immediately. No delay; no scrambling to save it or to find a way around it. Just gone this instant.

Only political criminals would make it harder or more complicated than that. Yes, that means 99% or more of the government would be done for. That's a good first step.

My evaluation of their performance is even easier: If they rule in favor of government power, they got it wrong. Every time.

-

Thank you for reading.
Are you craving the opportunity to subscribe or donate?

Migration or human trafficking?

I'm opposed to government control of migration or "borders".

On the other hand, I'm opposed to whatever appears to be happening in Europe (and, to some extent, in some places in America).

It seems (if the reports are true*) that people are being imported (trafficked)-- which is not the same as "immigration"-- and then allowed to archate, almost to the point of being encouraged to do so, while the "native" population (people who have lived there for multiple generations) is forbidden to defend themselves, prohibited from owning or using proper defensive tools, and punished for doing or saying anything about the current situation.

It's no wonder a movie about a man who decides "enough is enough" is making waves around the world.

This is a government-created problem. Entirely government-created. I don't expect government to solve it, or do anything other than make it worse.

Governments seem to be trafficking in people who don't have many prospects at home, then using them to demoralize the "native" population (to gain more control over them).

No one has the right to archate (by definition), and that includes by forbidding self-defense and defense of property. If you then allow archation to happen by protecting the archators and punishing the victims, you deserve whatever fate befalls you when the chickens come home to roost. And they will. It won't matter that you've made it "illegal".

Anyone who tries to stab or behead a random person in public needs to face a universally armed population, and an eternal dirt nap in the company of worms and maggots. The same goes for any political criminal who tries to punish any defender of such victims. They are just as bad.

-

*I tend to believe the reports are true because of how hard the European governments are trying to suppress them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Suppressors- none of the State's business

Once I discovered that suppressors didn't silence a gunshot, I lost nearly any interest in having them.

I understand the arguments in favor of them (hearing protection, and it's your right). 

I also know the arguments against them (criminals will use them to silently murder) are based on imaginary TV/movie silencers that work like I wish they really worked. The people who want them banned or regulated are coming from a place of supreme ignorance and fear.

I'm just not personally willing to put a big, expensive cylinder on the end of a pistol for so little benefit. I'm completely in favor of you being able to order one online and have it mailed to your door without any paperwork or proof of ID.

I've noticed the politically addled people have two arguments they keep pushing: that "silencers" are "arms", and that they aren't. They each seem to believe this doesn't change government's "authority" to regulate them. it just shifts the direction a little.

If suppressors are "arms", then they believe this gives the illegal ATF the "authority" to regulate them. I believe this makes it a crime for the ATF criminals to do so.

If they aren't "arms", then some people believe this means they aren't protected by the Second Amendment, and thus are subject to regulation by the aforementioned illegal ATF. I believe this puts them outside anything the criminal ATF believes it has the "authority" to do.

Either way, the unconstitutional ATF has no legitimate say over suppressors. Nor does any other government agency or bureau or employee.

And they know it, even if they won't admit it. They are just trying to buy time until they can get a new crew of Supreme Courtjesters to agree with them.

Which leads to another argument in favor of getting a supressor: make them so ubiquitous that it doesn't matter what anyone says about them-- make them as common as flies at a feedlot.

-

Thank you for reading.
Itching to subscribe or donate?

"What about...?"

If it results in more power for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more money for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more data for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more control for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more employees or dependents for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more "responsibilities" for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more reach for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more government, I'm against it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you like to subscribe or donate?

A new way to celebrate Independence?

I'm opposed to vandalism.

I'm also opposed to ubiquitous surveillance. I'm not going to damage some individual's doorbell camera because of this. Nor would I support anyone who does.

Flock cameras and that sort of thing are an entirely different matter. The people who destroy the enemies' spy cameras are heroes to me. They are no more "vandals" than Robin Hood was a "thief". They are fighting back against the nasty modern equivalent of the Sheriff of Nottingham. Or worse. 

Flock cameras are tools of anti-American spies; dangerous invaders, even if they were born here.

I'm not proud to have reached this point. But if you're going to put cameras everywhere to provide information to government, you are a bad guy. A terrorist! I want you to lose your investment. I want it to not be worth the effort and expense to replace them, even though I know the political criminals will keep paying out the stolen money for these things because they are determined to rule us. Even if it kills us. Even if it means the end of America.

It's not about safety for you and me, but only for the political criminals who want to know what you're doing every second of every day.

I hate them, and I hate their spy cameras.

The ONLY good Flock camera is a dead Flock camera. I think Independence Day could have a new tradition beginning this year.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you like to subscribe or donate?

How did theft (and murder) get this popular?

I have no particular love for rich people just because they are rich. Nor do I hate them for being rich.

But, watching the number of people-- including many rich political criminals-- piling on to encourage other rich people be robbed because they are rich, concerns me. Those rich political criminals fanning the flames of hate, greed, and envy from "public office" have the power to actually hurt other rich people they disagree with by imposing legislation. 

I've also seen people advocating rich people be murdered because they are "greedy". Because they aren't willing to waste their money on counterproductive "social programs" that the envious person thinks need the money. Gullible morons listen to them and act.

None of this is OK. It's creating a dangerous situation that risks getting out of control.

So how did theft and murder get so popular? Politics- it makes people stupid and at least a little bit evil, too.

I will continue to speak out against this sort of thing- even while clearly stating that any person who gets rich through the political means isn't innocent. But the solution- the only ethical solution- is to abolish the state, not to steal the money and hand it over to The Ancestral Enemy to be wasted and used against liberty. Giving more money to the state is much worse than letting a greedy, evil person keep their own money.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you like to subscribe or donate?

Rich people are not a problem

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 24, 2026)

The most economically ignorant opinion ever is the call to tax wealth above a certain amount at 100%. The people calling for this don't understand how anything works...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Beware The Blob – its mission is creepy

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 20, 2026)

If you give government an inch, it will take a mile. Or, in most countries, 1.60934 kilometers. Some people refer to this as "mission creep"- government's tendency to keep moving the goal posts and grabbing more power over more things; things government has no business having any involvement with.

Those who originally justified a government with tasks like the armed defense of the territory's population and protecting the residents from criminals soon started believing government should also be involved in more things. Like "public health", education, animal ordinances, travel, property registration, and the economic lives of the people.

The idea of "the general welfare" was a cancer. It has metastasized to include anything the control freaks in government want power over. And, they want to be involved in absolutely everything; those few things they aren't yet meddling with, they'll point to and call "freedom". Until they also take that away.

Government pursues these arbitrary powers to the point where it neglects the things originally used to justify its existence, because, apparently, it's safer and more profitable to interfere with regular people.

As for those antiquated justifications for government? Now, government sends its military around the world, creating enemies out of thin air, ultimately threatening the safety of all Americans. They ignored Thomas Jefferson's advice of trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none, and we're paying the price.

Here at home, you're now more likely to have your life, liberty, or property violated by a government employee enforcing a rule or "law" than by a freelance criminal. Government has become the very threat it promised to protect you from.

Those who work for government now believe they need to watch everything we do, make sure they approve of all our activities, and verify our age and identity before we are allowed to do those things. You'll do nothing without government oversight, and possibly even a license.

Government keeps getting worse; its mission creeping like The Blob over more of our lives. This will continue until it collapses from its fatal arrogance. Some nabob will then wring their hands and say they need to try again, but they'll do it right this time. They won't. They'll make the same old mistake of not trusting liberty enough, and their new government will grow beyond any limits set for it. Any government mission will always creep because the lust to govern others is creepy.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

The witch doctors' lies

Once upon a time, people believed that without a sacrifice, the rains wouldn't come, the herds would never show up, the winter would never end, and the Sun wouldn't come back after an eclipse.

They believed these things because the witch doctors told them so. These beliefs were useful to the witch doctors. This was how they protected their power.

It was all a pack of lies.

Now, most people believe that without sacrificing to government through taxation, kids will not get educated, roads will crumble, property couldn't exist, planes wouldn't fly, and criminals would run rampant.

They believe these things because modern witch doctors- government "teachers", pundits, politicians, bureaucrats, and generic statists- tell them so. These beliefs are useful to the modern witch doctors. It's how they protect their power.

It is all a pack of lies. No more true than the lies told by the ancient witch doctors and priests to the gullible tribespeople.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you like to subscribe or donate?

Envy and greed don't create the right to Gangtax

And then it blocked me.

I see every call to tax "the rich" the same way I would see a lowlife trying to justify raping someone who doesn't agree to have sex with them. I guess consent isn't important to this faction after all.

These people already hate Elon Musk because he left their reservation. This hatred feeds their envy and greed for his money. His becoming a trillionaire has sent them over the edge into insanity.

So, they want to see him gangtaxed. Some want to see him murdered.

Elon Musk isn't an angel. I don't idolize him. I do admire some of his accomplishments, but I know he's still a statist. But he has never oppressed me in the slightest; government has. So who is admiring their oppressors? That's right: it's the tax fans.

Musk has gotten government contracts and handouts. He partners with government- partly because if he didn't, they would shut him down and murder him if he didn't cooperate. Rockets are too dangerous to the State for it to allow them to be beyond its control. And you know it! His partnership with government has helped him get richer. I have an issue with that as well.

The foundational problem is government, not his wealth. I would shut down the State to remove that crutch so that neither he nor others can ever use it to their advantage again. I wouldn't suggest stealing a percentage of his money and giving it to the State to use against me. That would be stupid, counterproductive, and evil.

Which is why the people justifying a gangtaxing of Musk and other rich people are all for it. Envy and hatred have made them embrace evil- as it usually does

Remember, the point of taxation isn't to fund the state (it's unnecessary for that purpose since government can counterfeit all the money it needs through the Federal Reserve scam), but to DEFUND YOU. To punish you for succeeding, for buying things, or for making smart financial decisions. To manipulate your behavior. The worst thing about taxation, other than that, is that the stolen money still goes to the state, anyway. I don't want the state to have a cent, so I don't want my worst enemy taxed. It's worse than a freelance robber getting your money.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

"Brandishing"

The claim that a cupholder can't "legally" qualify as a holster (didn't say it's a good holster), brings up another nonsense "gun offense" that I've seen used against people more than once: "brandishing".

Simply being seen to be armed can't reasonably be the "crime" of brandishing.
Holding a weapon in your hand, ready in case it's needed, can't reasonably be the "crime" of brandishing.

To be a real crime, brandishing must mean pointing a weapon at an innocent person (someone who isn't violating anyone's life, liberty, or property at present). 

Pointing a firearm at a violator is what you should be doing in some cases, and it's not "brandishing" as a crime.
Letting a bad guy know you're armed by showing your weapon is a peaceable attempt to discourage the bad guy and convince him you're not an easy target, not a crime. Only a criminal would treat such an act as a crime.

I hate the way the anti-gun bigots of government use this word to mean whatever they want it to mean to excuse their crimes against self-responsible, prepared people. 

Just so they can shoot their friendly labradoodles, probably.

And, of course, the armed goons who work for the state never get punished for ACTUALLY brandishing in a dangerous manner* when they point their weapons at- or shoot at- innocent people. That's how you can tell it's a nonsense "offense" made up by copsuckers and other government supremacists.

-

*There's a specific case I'm thinking of, and I remember at least one photo showing a family in a car, the man who was driving holding his hands up, and a cop pointing a rifle in his face. It seems the image has been scrubbed from the internet; flushed down the memory hole. Unless I'm imagining the whole thing. I don't think I am.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

I don't think Texas knows what the word means

Any state that allows its armed goons to molest, rob, kidnap, or murder anyone for a "gun offense" is NOT a Constitutional carry state. It's a criminal organization. Its "law enforcers" are the criminals.

A Constitutional carry state would fire (and probably arrest) any law enforcer who attempted to enforce any such illegal rule. 

It wouldn't then compound its crime by illegally prohibiting its victim from being armed while the case is active- there would be no case. This is yet another violation of the Second Amendment. Two strikes, at least!

The Constitution doesn't allow government to dictate how a weapon "may" be carried. Shall NOT be infringed! 
Ethics don't allow a government to have any say in how a weapon may be carried.

Even if it did (it doesn't), who do they think they are to even make the spurious claim that a cupholder can't be a holster? If it is being used to contain a gun, it is a holster.

I don't know the basketball player, James Harden, or anything else about him. It's irrelevant. I don't care why he is being mistreated this way, or who is being mistreated this way; I only care that he is being mistreated by a supposedly "Constitutional carry" state that is showing what it really is.

Do the right thing. Drop the charges, fire the cop and any prosecutor or judge that allowed this case to be brought against him, give him their personal property as restitution, and stop being a criminal gang committing criminal acts!

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

Aliens, government, and "disclosure"

There is most likely life on other planets. Intelligent life and civilizations are probably widespread throughout the Universe.

I consider it a remote possibility that maybe some of them have visited Earth for some reason.

But, if governments ever confirm it through "disclosure", I'm going to change my mind on the visitation part. 

That is more likely to be propaganda than reality. I'll then assume government hasn't got a clue, but is saying it to manipulate the public to fit some agenda that empowers government.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

It's "Random Acts of Anarchy Day"

What will you do?

Find better solutions without government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 17, 2026)

I hear a lot of people saying the local community should have this or that. Or pointing out things they believe should be improved. But they always seem to want government, or at least someone else, to provide what they want or to fix their problems...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

No good reason to reject liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 13, 2026)

People find many reasons to reject liberty. Fear. Envy. Ignorance. Tradition. In fact, there are probably as many reasons to reject liberty as there are people on this planet.

Those whose careers depend on violating liberty will use any excuse they are handed.

If they use envy, they can impose socialism and raise taxes on the rich. They can make people believe they have a "right" to things which others must work to provide them. It can never be your right to enslave others!

Using ignorance, political criminals lie and hope that too few notice to do anything about it. It's how we get things like "assault weapon" rules, carbon credits, and the War on (some) Drugs.

They also combine ignorance with envy, so those cheated in the brain department will demand to be coddled to dumb down society so that no one feels stupid. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge; stupidity is a dedicated effort to remain ignorant.

Tradition, when applied to historical evils, is a particularly dangerous justification for rejecting liberty. Just because "it's always been done this way" doesn't mean it should continue to be done this way. When certain rights have been sacrificed in the past, it was wrong. It's wrong to violate rights now, even when ceasing to violate them is unthinkable. Slavery has been around for thousands of years, in every society all over the world. It was traditional everywhere. That's no reason to keep enslaving people.

Of all the reasons to reject liberty, fear may be the most common excuse, used even by some people who generally support liberty. Fear is the one thing politicians count on the most. They feed it, fan the flames, and lie about how much danger you'll be in if other people don't have their liberty crushed under the heel of The State. They'll construct nightmare outcomes they hope will scare you, so you'll beg for someone's liberty to be limited in some way. Liberty restricted is liberty violated. Nearly everyone has one fear a politician can use. You need principles to say "No".

The problem is, no matter what facet of liberty you want to consider, someone is deathly afraid of it. If your rights depended on not scaring anyone, you would have no rights. You would have no liberty to exercise.

Don't fall for any reason to reject liberty. Instead of rejecting liberty, reject the excuses used to justify violating it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Hitting a nerve

I saw a discussion online lamenting the low v*ter turnout for a local election. They were trying to figure out why so few people cared.

I helpfully pointed out that the reason might be that people are tired of playing a rigged game.

I was immediately told to mind my own business and stay out of the conversation, because it didn't concern me.

Seems like I hit a nerve.

One person did ask why I say it was rigged, and I explained my reasons: you are only allowed to choose from pre-approved candidates, no real change is ever permitted, and "None of the above/abolish the position" is not the top, default choice on every ballot. I doubt that was appreciated.

Statism is a religion, and unless you believe with all your heart, they don't want to hear from you. Even when they ask questions, they don't want honest answers.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Vigilantism vs Government

Say what you will, but vigilantism, with all its flaws, is still better than government. 

That’s why government tries so hard to demonize it; to use it as a boogeyman to scare you into the "safe" and "loving" arms of government.

It doesn't work with me.

Yeah, there are real problems with vigilantism. But to deny that there are just as many (or more) problems with government is to be delusional. Don't be a useful fool for the state.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Unethical laws that prevent help

Someone was posting on a local social media site about an injured hawk they'd found, and lamenting that there are no local resources to help.

They made calls to several agencies; no one would help, but everyone reminded them it was illegal to keep the hawk.

Government is garbage.

Back when I did a lot of wildlife rescue, I didn't ask permission. I didn't talk about what I was doing. I knew it was "illegal", but I didn't care. I even had state wildlife officials bring me an injured bird of prey once. And he recovered and went free about a month later.

Yes, it was more common for "authorities" to look the other way back then. They are much worse now.

I didn't volunteer to help this person, since their social media post has made the situation public- even more public than calling around asking for help had already done. Plus, they said they had done as they were told and released the hawk to its fate.

When the laws are wrong, good people ignore the laws and bad people enforce the laws.

I did reply to the post, suggesting they keep "authorities" out of the loop and not post about such things in the future, but just do what they can to help. I know the group's resident copsucker will tell me to stay out of it because it's none of my business (she's done it before).

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Choose the right tribe

Many people are terribly tribal and horrible to anyone they consider "other". I'm seeing a lot of this online. Fortunately, even though I know it happens, I don't encounter it much in real life. Yeah, I live in an out-of-the-way place (which many locals and unwilling residents consider the armpit of New Mexico), and I generally avoid neighborhoods known for crime. Other than the occasional (obviously mentally ill) beggar with a chip on his shoulder, I don't see much open hostility.

A tribe can be a good thing. It means someone has your back, even if they don't necessarily know you personally. I've seen it in sportsball fans, people in a particular career, fans of certain entertainment types, and based on other irrelevant things.

I even feel a tribal kinship with people who wear hats (as opposed to caps). We sometimes give each other a knowing look when we pass. I know it's odd. It still feels nice.
And if I see someone displaying something Firefly related, I almost get giddy.

Where tribalism goes wrong is when people from a tribe gang up on someone for no reason other than they perceive them as being from a different tribe. I don't respect that kind of tribalism.

Yesterday I stopped at a fast food place to grab a drink, and there was a young girl of another "race" coloring at a table. She had dropped a crayon on the floor. I picked it up and handed it to her, and she said, "Thank you". I told her she was welcome and turned back to my business, and she excitedly told her mom that she had dropped a crayon, and I gave it to her. It made me happy to know I had made her happy, even in such a small matter.

I didn't think more of it until later, when I got online and saw people of different "races" and tribes hurling hatred at each other. For no reason but that they believed they belonged to different tribes based on skin color. I don't want to live that way!

I know any encounter with another person can go bad. It's my responsibility to not start the trouble- to treat everyone with courtesy until they give me a reason not to. In which case, I'll try to put distance between us. It's also my responsibility to be ready to defend myself and others. From anyone, of any tribe. If I see a guy wearing a hat attacking an innocent person, I instantly switch tribes. I stand with the person who didn't start the trouble. Any other tribe affiliation loses importance at that point.

It's strange to me that this isn't the default.

My most important tribe will always be comprised of those who respect the life, liberty, and property of others. The rest is just costuming.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Accepting my ignorance

The “news” is trying to manipulate you and me.

To keep from being manipulated, I constantly remind myself that I wasn’t there, I didn’t see it happen with my own unbiased eyes, and thus I shouldn’t push my ignorant opinions of such events on others.

With the Karmelo Anthony case, my initial feeling was that it was clearly murder, not self defense.

But, my dangerous curiosity drove me to look into reports and witness accounts of the event. Now I’m less sure. Yet, again, I wasn’t there and I don’t know what really happened.

I’m still inclined to say Anthony overreacted. I don’t believe his life was in danger, and there was nothing happening that necessitated a lethal response. He should have left.

I am also inclined to say that someone seeking shelter from a storm in your team’s tent is not a good reason to insist he leave and to use force to evict him. It doesn’t sound like he was a credible threat until others chose to escalate the situation.

Unless he was acting aggressive from the moment he arrived.  I wasn’t there and I don’t really know what happened. I don’t trust reports.

It’s also a fact that Austin Metcalf, in the photos of him I’ve seen, looks like the smug jock bullies I endured during my govschool years. That doesn’t mean anything, but it might bias me against him. Anthony also has a similar look, so that may cancel it out. I get the feeling I wouldn’t have liked either one of them.

It sounds to me like a case of toxic tribalism and teenage bravado on both sides. Two people who couldn’t tolerate “disrespect” running against each other, and both lives being destroyed.

It’s unfortunate. 

You may have heard or read different versions of the events. If so, you probably have your own opinion. I’m not cemented to my opinion of the case- my ego has no horse in the race. Different information could easily change my opinion, but even in that case, I’ll admit that I don’t know anything for certain. I wasn’t there and I wasn’t an eyewitness. I don’t automatically trust video, either.

While on the topic, my opinion of the attack in North Belfast was that it was clearly a case of attempted murder. Facilitated by regional political criminals who insist on disarming the population, giving evil losers an advantage. I don’t feel the same lack of confidence in expressing my opinion about that event. But I could still be wrong. Always.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

The fear of liberty is irrational

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 10, 2026)

I've never considered myself a particularly brave person, but I've never been afraid enough to feel like I needed to be governed or to have you governed on my behalf. I've never been so afraid that I was willing to give up essential liberty for a false feeling of safety. I can't comprehend this level of irrational fear...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Liberty not subject to majority rule

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 6, 2026)

My experience, gained from years of talking with many people, suggests that when most people talk about freedom, they mean "the freedom to do as I please, and the freedom to prevent others from doing the same".

That’s one way to express your freedom, but it's not good enough for me.

It’s why I prefer to talk about liberty- freedom tempered with the responsibility to not violate others' equal and identical rights. It's how liberty works, and it's awesome!

The problem some people have is that those rights include things they wouldn't choose to do, and would prefer others didn't choose to do, either. This doesn't change the fact they have a right to do those things. No legislation or rule can change this reality. Your natural human rights aren't subject to majority opinion or political edict, even if you've been trained to believe otherwise.

We are all free to make mistakes; we don't have the right to violate others to prevent them from doing something we believe would be a mistake. Or something we find offensive.

In exercising their liberty, some people will do things which offend you. Many people want you to believe if they've been offended, they've been violated somehow. They haven't. Being offended isn't the same as having your life, liberty, or property violated, even though weak people who want to control others often use this ploy. Don't play along.

If I try to stop others from doing what they have a right to do because I don't like their choices, how can I complain when they do the same to me? I would be a hypocrite of the worst sort. No matter what you do, someone is going to be offended by it. Guaranteed.

The majority of people don’t like this constraint of respecting others' rights. They want to be reassured that they have the imaginary right to control others. Telling them they have no such right angers them. It’s probably why they continue to vote for politicians who encourage them to deny their responsibility and who feed their lust for control.

Be big enough to support liberty. Do as you please, as long as you aren't harming others, and let them have the same freedom. Don't seek to violate their rights just because the system currently allows it. Any system which allows rights to be violated is wrong. Once upon a time, the system allowed slavery, too.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Liberty is fun

Liberty should be fun. Liberty is fun!

My BBQ Gun post is a reminder of that. A reminder to have fun. It appears a few of you also thought it was fun.

If liberty were as miserable as statism, what would be the point? Statism is easier than liberty, so why make the effort if there's no benefit? If liberty doesn't make you happy?

"A revolution without dancing is not a revolution worth having." - V

"Fun" is subjective. Most things I find fun don't seem to resonate with many people, and things others think are fun are often things I can't see myself making it through for more than a few minutes before I'm itching to escape. 

A few times, though, I've managed to survive situations long enough that I actually started having fun at things I never imagined I would enjoy. An art show populated by faeries and nights at karaoke are a couple of examples I can think of right off the top of my head. You never know until you try. Embrace discomfort and see what happens.

If your fun isn't something I'm interested in, that's my problem, not yours. You go have fun. You're always invited to join my fun if you're interested.

You'll regret the things you didn't do more than the things you did- or so I've been told. Take the chance and have fun with it.

I'm all for people doing what they enjoy, as long as they don't enjoy controlling or violating others. If they do, I hope they encounter someone whose idea of fun is watering the tree of liberty. It's best if it never gets to that point, but that line in the sand is important to keep clear.

It's easy to get discouraged by all the statism and Statanism surrounding us. Don't give them a win they didn't earn. Carve out your own fun. Have fun in spite of them. Have fun, in their faces, to spite them. 

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

BBQ Guns

I occasionally see videos where the topic is "BBQ Guns"- a gun you would wear, openly, to a gun-owner-friendly BBQ where that was the dress code- or even kind of the whole point.

I want to go to a BBQ like that! I've never been to one, but it sounds like a lot of fun. 

Anyway, the point is that you wear a really nice, or at least unusual/interesting, gun to show off a little.

I don't have any highly polished, gold-plated guns. I tend to find those boring, even if they look nice. But I do have a couple of ideas of what I'd wear in such a case.

My DL-15, shown above, is probably my top choice. It might not be anyone else's idea of a BBQ gun, but I really like it. And, judging by the reactions I get at the shooting range, it's interesting and unusual.

If I had to choose a backup, or if the invitation demanded a BBQ revolver, I'd wear my "Man With No Name" 1851 Navy.

If you were to pick a BBQ gun for yourself- either from your collection or from your want list- what would you choose?

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Fear and aggression

Fearful people (and animals) are unpredictable and dangerous. They are prone to aggression. That's part of what makes statism so dangerous.

You can pretend there's no problem, but that doesn't change it.

You can try to protect the feelings of the fearful by avoiding the issue. Their dangerous fear is still there. Quiet, behind the curtains, influencing their every move.

You can try to calm their fears, but fearful people aren't likely to be rational enough to listen or watch. Even when the truth is a lot less frightening than what they imagine. Everything they experience is filtered through the lens of fear. They see and hear only what they want to see and hear.

They'll often want you to lie to protect their feelings and make them less afraid. They'll still sense you're lying, so don't bother.

You can try to show them how to handle what they fear- or just be an example. Teach them how to handle situations that they've been afraid of, if they are open to learning. This works on a few.

If you give in to your fear of what dangerous people might do, you're in danger of becoming afraid enough that you advocate for the same sort of things they are advocating for, to "protect" you from them. You've seen it happen in politics.

It's a twisted cycle. Don't participate.

Be dangerous only in that you will defend yourself when they force you to do so. Not by using the aggressive methods of statism and calling it "defense".

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

I don't trust these experts either

Every time Bitcoin starts tumbling and the “experts” go back to predicting its demise, I graciously offer a Bitcoin Disposal Service, so that they can anonymously rid themselves of the doomed crypto.

Funny thing is that no one ever takes advantage of the offer.

That tells me that either they don’t believe what they say, or they don’t have any Bitcoin anyway, so why would I listen to them reassuring themselves they didn't miss the boat? 

It’s kind of funny.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.