“I wish there were more rules”

And this is why we can’t have nice things.

This town may be threatening to impose a lot more property rules on the residents. Seeking to punish anything they subjectively don't want to see. Things like "disrepair", "clutter", and so forth.

I overheard two people talking about this, and one of them- from another town- said about her town, "I wish there were more rules". Then went on to complain about a neighbor who uses his property in a way that she doesn't approve of. She is burdened by what she sees when looking in that direction.

The one from here was practically salivating over all the potential violations she can see around town, saying, "They won't be getting away with this anymore".

This attitude disgusts me.

People have a right to use their property as they see fit- as long as doing so doesn't violate someone else's REAL rights to life, liberty, and property. Being offended by seeing something isn't a violation of your rights. It's a character problem.

"But it brings down property values." Good. Then property taxes will be lower.

There's hardly a house in town that wouldn't be targeted for one thing or another, mine included. And since it's subjective, there's really no way to anticipate what's going to get under the mayor's saddle. We've gone through various enforcement obsessions, where the current rulers get tough on one ridiculous thing or another for a year or so, until they pick something else to be up in arms about, and forget about the previous emergency enforcement situation.

I'm already mad at the town rulers for vandalizing two streets this past week by installing "speed bumps". What's next? Flock spyware?

If the town does go through with it, I will be photographing every "violation" at the mayor's property and putting it online. Yes, I will go to war.

-

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

Supporting your mortal enemy

If someone hasn’t yet figured out that government- all government- is their Ancestral Enemy and will murder them for its own convenience, there’s probably no hope for them.

It's a tragedy to see. 

I just wish there was a way to avoid being collateral damage during their carnival of self-destruction.

-

Thank you for reading.
If you like what I do, subscribe or donate.

Don't participate in violating liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 22, 2026)

Liberty is a big jewel with many facets. All its facets are important, but you can pick favorites. I do. Even then, don't try to dull the shine of the facets which don't affect you as much. To someone, those are the important ones...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

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.

If you have complaints about the local community, don’t wait for government to fix them. See what you can do for yourself, maybe with help from others, with or without government permission.

Government wants you to depend on it for solutions, but its solutions can be worse than the original problem. Plus, it will use your money for any solution it tries. It would be better and more efficient to use your money directly, rather than filtering it through the waste machine of government bureaucracy.

The responsibility is yours. It always has been. Keep in mind, taking responsibility can be dangerous.

If your solution is effective, government will probably try to punish you. Just like the people around the country who've been punished for repairing potholes that local government has ignored for much too long. In some cases, government crews even dug out the repair work and returned the road to its damaged condition.

When I lived in Colorado, residents were prohibited from plowing the snow off the road to their house if local governments insisted that the road not be plowed beyond a certain point. Some defiant souls did so anyway and were punished. Others left their vehicles abandoned at the end of the plowed road all winter and used snowmobiles to cross the distance between their car and house.

You aren't "authorized" to solve problems this way. This is how you can tell that solving problems isn't government's priority.

Government is not on your side. It always has sketchy justifications for what it does.

If you come up with a good solution or improvement, and you aren't punished for it, be aware government may try to take over and claim the credit before ruining it. Then you can start over.

One of the very worst things anyone can do is to take something good and hand it over to government to administer and ultimately squander. If you have something good, whether it's an invention, a solution, or real estate, don't give it to government. Take back your control. Stay silent and don't ask government for anything, and soon you'll realize it has always been an unnecessary evil.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Irresponsibility

Being responsible- accepting your responsibility- is best. No question about it!

However, I believe everyone has the right to be irresponsible... in certain ways. By this I mean, not all irresponsibility automatically violates someone else.

But no one has the right to violate others in an attempt to avoid the personal consequences of their own irresponsibility.

That’s where I see so many go wrong. Including most of those who support, pass, and enforce "laws" designed to punish irresponsibility.

-

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

Misplaced respect

Statists really can't comprehend when someone doesn't fawn along with them over some harmful part of government- such as the police or the military.

It's completely beyond them why anyone would oppose those things. (Some feel the same about the spyware.)

It doesn't matter how clearly you explain. Some say they supposedly "hate government", too.

They have a deep-seated desire to "respect" those who are the greatest danger to their liberty. A much greater threat than anyone in any other country.

In TV and movies, there are good cops and good military pawns. That's called fiction. Many people fall for the propaganda because they can't distinguish between reality and fiction.

I blame govschooling and the media.

Yes, I realize some of those government personnel were fooled into joining. Some were pressured and couldn't resist. Some didn't see another path. Some needed the money. Some thought it would make them respected. They were innocent victims... at first.

Some wanted to do good. They failed. 

Some craved the power they saw coming from such a position- either immediately or down the line. Those are the truly evil ones.

The harsh reality is that they are all hurting, not helping. They are empowering the state by remaining on the "job". That's not an ethical thing to do. It doesn't earn my respect or my thanks. Please quit!

-

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

Modern advancements vs modern annoyances

I really appreciate modern advancements... but on the other hand, I really hate modern annoyances.

I'm not sure how you can get one without the other.

Plus, I realize the things I see as the annoyances are likely to be someone else's wonders of technology.

Because I can be the same way about some things.

For example, I hate manual transmissions in cars, while most "car people" love them. Maybe that's because I'm not a car person, and I just want vehicles to get me where I need to go with the least hassle possible- and I don't need to feel like I am controlling every little function. It's probably why I'm not too opposed to self-driving cars, while being suspicious of the technology making that possible. 

One thing I've never felt this way about is guns. I love everything from iron and wood matchlocks to full autos in polymer and stainless alloys. Each has its place. I wouldn't want to depend on a matchlock for self-defense, even though I might enjoy shooting them for fun. (I've never actually shot anything more "primitive" than a flintlock, though.)

I wouldn't want a "smart gun" with biometrics, just like I wouldn't want a car with the same thing. I have no desire to be vetted by a gun or a car; judged "worthy" or "unworthy" of operating either one. That's one of those modern annoyances I hate, and that those who want to control us are pushing for.

I'm willing to do without any technology that gets too intrusive. In that case, the old things are probably better for me, even if less advanced. Plus, the old things have their own charm, and sometimes, getting acquainted with the less advanced stuff can make you appreciate the modern stuff a little more. Until you've had to make fire under primitive conditions, you won't appreciate Bic lighters- or an electronic lighter- as much. But that's because a lighter is a modern advancement, not a modern annoyance.

Appreciate the differences, and find your own lines between the two. I think it will make you a more well-rounded individual.

Or, that's my take on it.

-

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

Disconnected

I believe that authoritarian "order" is its own kind of chaos.

It removes proper consequences from the actions which earn them.
It makes sensible behavior result in nonsensical punishment.

It is an attempt to disconnect actions from predictable consequences and replace those consequences with toxic substitutes. In other words, it results in chaos- and not the constructive kind.

-

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

The monsters seem to always get what they want, eventually

I’m tired of government and its supporters getting their way. Getting whatever they want. Nearly every time. At the expense of liberty, privacy, and property. If they don't get what they want today, they just keep pushing until they eventually get it. 

No matter how bad it is for the rest of us.

People get tired of fighting, they can't keep watching, and government intends to have its way with us.

I'm not sure what I can do about it, other than change my attitude and accept that this is the way it is at this time, and keep reminding people that there's a better way.

Is the problem internal to me? Or is there a real danger that I need to be aware of? Statists would say- and have- that it's my problem. That this is just how it is, and if I don't get on board, I'm going to be steamrolled.

-

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

"For your own good"

No one ever disarms you for your own good.

But they'll lie and try to brainwash you into believing that's the reason they do it.

No one ever surveils you for your own good.

But they'll lie and try to brainwash you into believing that's the reason they do it.

No one ever governs you for your own good.

But they'll lie and try to brainwash you into believing that's the reason they do it.

And far too many people- usually the loudest, most ignorant minority (there's a strong correlation there)- will fall for it and cheer to have it imposed on us all.

-

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

Takes time to build liberty cathedral

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 15, 2026)

There are times you’ll begin, or join already-in-progress, a project and discover it’s bigger, more difficult, and is going to take longer than you expected. Often, much longer. Sometimes you’ll realize it won’t be completed in your lifetime- if ever.

And it's still worth it...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

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.

Fear makes people (and animals) unpredictable and dangerous.

Similarly, I'm not able to do everything myself. I lack the resources and skills for many important tasks. I've never seen this as justification for forcing others to do these things for me. I prefer cooperation over coercion.

If I can't afford to pay others to do things I can't do, I'll do without. Nothing is so important that I feel you need to be forced to help pay for it through taxation. It's no less a mugging if you promise that taking the money is necessary and it will be used for the common good.

If I'm unable to talk people into helping out, without threats or enslaving them, then I'll accept being on my own. Either I'll figure it out, or I won't.

I'm not willing to advocate for a government to help me force you to do things, or to force you to fund things, which I feel would be good for me or for society. Or because I'm scared.

Wouldn't it be nice if people returned the favor?

I have a hard time relating to people on the other side of these issues; the people who believe in government.

It's not a matter of preference. Preferring Pepsi or Coke doesn't harm people who prefer the other, or who prefer Dr Pepper or water. Preferring to govern others, for whatever reason, seems natural to those with this preference, but does hurt everyone else. The excuses used, even in good faith, don't diminish the harm.

If your system won't work unless you force everyone to participate, it's a failed system. If you're afraid of those who want to opt out, and you'd force them to abandon their homes to do so, your system is wrong.

Once upon a time, people couldn't see a way to keep society running without slaves. They figured it out once the option was off the table. It's going to have to happen again, sooner or later, with government. This is the next step in totally eradicating slavery. Even if it's scary.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Why am I not a communist?

If I were dumber and less ethical, I might be a communist.

I might at least fall for the labor theory of value.

I do a lot of hard work for other people. It's something almost daily. 

I do yard work for elderly relatives- sometimes cleaning up after serious neglect. I move furniture and try to repair appliances and equipment. I change light bulbs they can't reach. I sometimes fix non-engine car problems (with the help of YouTube) and have saved people hundreds of dollars that way. I show them how to use their technology. I run errands. 

I also help the community. I've spent hours and hours picking up trash around town. I've helped people by shoveling snow. I've helped strangers when I saw they needed help as I passed.

I've also labored for the enemy. I've wasted huge amounts of my valuable time doing things around my own property that I don't want to do, or even to have done, just to keep armed thugs from showing up to force me to do it or rob me if I haven't. 

That's a lot of labor.

Yet, I only occasionally get paid anything for any of my services. And I'm fine with that- except for the yard work the town forces upon me. I don't do it for the money; I like to help people.

However, if I believed in the labor theory of value, I might believe I am owed something for all that work. 

But where would that money come from? 

If the people I help could afford it, they'd probably pay me for my work. 

Should other local residents be forced to pay me for my "service to society"? 

Ewww. No!

Should the "taxing authorities" of the town pay me out of the tax money they confiscate from us all, since I am increasing the tax value of the property so that they can ultimately steal more from the residents? That's the worst kind of profit they are gaining from my labor, and commies hate profit, right? (I'm sure they'd say that particular money-from-nothing doesn't count as profit.) 

I'll keep helping when I can. I am owed nothing unless there's a prior agreement to pay me, and I do the agreed-upon work satisfactorily.

Believing otherwise would be a red flag. It would show that I am dumb and unethical.

-

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

A disturbing lack of discernment

One thing I've noticed about cops is that they seem utterly incapable of telling the good guys from the bad guys. Especially when the bad guys control the purse.

If someone is violating life, liberty, or property, they are the bad guys. If they are paying you to help them do any of those things, then you're a bad guy, too.

There's really no wiggle room there.
Or Wiggum room, either.

-

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

Yes, it should

-

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

Only an evil person "plays" this game

A "patriotic" cop on X was scolding people who hate Flock cameras and other spyware.

He pointed out that you and I have no expectation of (or right to) privacy in public spaces. You aren't protected by the 4th Amendment in such cases. He says, "Don't hate the players, hate the game". And, that it's just too bad if this upsets "Flock haters".

I have some thoughts on this.

You need to hate the players, too, because they choose to play the game, knowing it's wrong.

Guys like this are why more and more people are getting smart and hating cops. He is siding with government by excusing what it is doing- saying only the Supreme Court can decide otherwise.

I recognize that I have no expectation of privacy in public. I've noticed people taking photos of me more times than I could ever keep track of. It doesn't bother me. The difference is "regular people" aren't photographing me in order to track and control me; to use against me later. Government and its partners in crime are. 

Only a cop or other vile government supremacist could pretend not to see the difference.

What about his Bill of Rights claim? The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to random strangers, it applies only to government and those working for government. It doesn't bind you and me; it binds government.

If government is looking for a loophole, that is exactly the situation where there can't be a loophole. Government has no right to photograph or track us because government has no rights. None.

This guy would have been making excuses for slave traders- because that essentially what he's doing now. If that's "patriotic", keep that junk away from me.

Just say "no" to spyware.
The only good Flock camera is a dead Flock camera.

-

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

Government: it lies

Government lies. That's obvious. Even a minimal level of awareness will force a person to see it.

It should also be obvious that the lies all skew in one direction: to make government seem less harmful, less evil, more competent, more essential than it is.

It's also obvious, since government still exists, that most people believe most of the lies. They believe the ones they want to be true, while rejecting the ones they don't want to be true. (Politics makes people stupid.)

They might believe that cops are the good guys, that the government military is securing "our freedom", or that anti-gun rules and Flock cameras keep us safe. Maybe they believe environmental laws protect the environment, or that govschools educate children. Some seem to believe that only a government can create a long, smooth surface.

Why would anyone believe these things, against all objective observation? 

Because government told them so. 

And even if they know government lies about the things they don't believe, they'll fall right into the lies that they want to believe. They leap in with their arms wide and their eyes closed.

And they'll hate you if you don't join them.

Hating their fellow humans. Choosing a criminal institution over people. All because government lies.

-

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

Their attempted insults have no power here

Just to give a clue to those out there who got really bothered by me over the past weeks for opposing spy cameras...

Calling me a "Democrat", a "Leftist", a "liberal", a "commie", a meth addict, a "criminal", or anything else doesn't work. It never will. I'm on the correct side on this issue.

Here's a selection of replies I copied and pasted (all these from one guy) to me (and others) for saying I oppose Flock cameras, and saying they aren't worth the cost:

"Looks ghey. Ill pass"

"I'm not reading some liberal garbage trying to turn ppl gay" (Both this and the one above were in response to a link to my newspaper column on the subject)

"Go get you some meth money we know the truth about you people."

"I don't break the law. I'm cool with them"

"Go play in a road transtifa"

"You a scrapper? Lol."

"Go watch an episode of first 48 and see how handy these are and solving crime from thugs"

"N!gga you retarded or a crook. Probably democrat"

It also doesn't make me angry that these clowns expose themselves. They want to believe it does, though. It's what they desperately hope for.

I'm a libertarian- I get called worse daily.

The problem for them is, I know what I'm standing up for. It has nothing to do with what they want it to be about. I also see what THEY'RE standing up for, and it's hideous and evil.

The scary thing is, you know these people v*te!!

I don't buy the lies that these cameras are an essential tool for solving crime; I'm not afraid of criminals. Even if they were used that way occasionally, it's not worth the loss of privacy and liberty. Not even close.

But some people are not only OK with them; they crave having them watch you and me 24/7.

That's disturbing. And not very smart.

-

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

Yankee Doodle stuck a feather in his cap and the State called it a felony

Yankee Doodle went to town
A-ridin' on a pony.
Stuck a feather in his hat
And called it 'macaroni'.

Then a Blue Line Mafia goon, commonly called a "police officer", alerted to a possible "sovereign citizen" [sic] by the Flock cameras he was watching his ex with, rushed to the scene to cause trouble.

Cop: "License, registration, and the animal's health certificate and vaccination records."

Yankee Doodle: "What?"

Cop: "You heard me. Are you resisting?"

Yankee Doodle: "...?"

Cop: "Where are you going, what is your business there, and where are you coming from?"

Yankee Doodle: "Why?"

Cop: "I need your identification."

Yankee Doodle: "My name is Yankee Doodle."

Cop: "That's obviously an alias, and that gives me reasonable suspicion to arrest you."

Yankee Doodle: "What's going on?"

Cop: "Do you have anything on you that I need to know about?"

Yankee Doodle: "No."

Cop: "I smell marijuana- possibly alcohol, too, and is that a gun?"

Yankee Doodle: "I don't understand the questions. This is America."

Cop: "Hey, that looks like an eagle feather in your cap. You're going to prison, boy!"

Yankee Doodle: "I found this feather on the ground, but I don't know what kind it is. I call it my 'macaroni'." 

Cop: "So, you are on drugs... "

Yankee Doodle: "What? No, 'macaroni' means..."

Cop: "Stop resisting! DON'T MOVE! PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR AND HAND ME YOUR PAPERS!!"

In the scuffle, while attacking an innocent traveler and dragging him from his horse, the cop manages to shoot himself in the foot because of the extraordinarily dangerous situation he created. 

Cop: "SHOTS FIRED! Officer down! Send backup NOW!!!!!!"

FOX News reports that a probable Antifa-affiliated Democratic Socialist commie attacked and injured a heroic officer who was just trying to keep us all safe. "He should have complied faster." Fortunately for the sake of "lawn odor", he was neutralized by the responding thugscrum. Two officers were injured in the firefight, but it isn't clear who fired those shots. The department promises to "thoroughly investigate" itself before finding that none of its officers did anything wrong.

CNN reports that another "white nationalist" has committed "gun violence", which shows again that only government employees can be trusted to have guns.

MSNBC, or whatever it calls itself now, sat and drooled while eating crayons and paste.

-

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

But at least my 1987 F-150 is back on the road

I need to ask for donations again. It's still a strain, but I'm slowly but surely chipping away at the medical bills and am seeing some progress. That's not what this is about- thank goodness!

Over the past few years, I've lost most of my subscribers; I still have a few (and you are deeply appreciated!). I know the economy has truly sucked, and keeps getting worse, so it's understandable. Plus, the nature of my chosen topic means I am going to write something to anger everyone eventually. I've never let the fear of losing subscribers dictate what I write (although it does sometimes cross my mind as I hit "publish"). It has happened a few times, but less than you might think. Less than I supposed it would happen.

Anyway, I had to pay for a vehicle repair that turned out to be more expensive than I was expecting- there were problems that weren't obvious. This means I am running a big financial deficit right now. 

But my pickup is drivable (and safe) again, which is nice.

If you aren't already a subscriber and/or a regular supporter, and only if you can afford it and want to, maybe you could send a few fiat "dollars" my way. I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. 

.

LPR (Flock) cameras are watching you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 8, 2026)

One of the most important fights in our lifetime, a fight for the future of America, is shaping up right over our heads. It's the fight against license plate reader cameras and the related spyware that is already being used against you and your liberty...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

The 'rich' aren't the problem

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 3, 2026)

There's a lot of hostility toward "the rich". Especially billionaires. The hostility is misplaced.

The real divide is not "the rich" versus "everyone else". It is those who seek to rule, versus everyone they seek to rule.

Some of your enemies who seek to rule you are also rich; most of them are not. Even with the rich, it isn't the wealth itself causing the problem; it's how the wealth was amassed and how it is used.

If someone becomes rich by providing products and services people want and are willing to pay for, they are a benefit to us all. They are not your enemy, even if you don't like them as an individual. You are free to trade elsewhere.

Even as a child, I didn't understand the anger toward rich people. I hoped to join their ranks one day, but it didn't happen. It's not Jeff Bezos's or Elon Musk's fault I'm not a millionaire. It's weird how many people seem to imagine it is, like the economy is a pie and the size of someone else's slice means my slice has to be smaller. It doesn't work that way- the pie can keep growing exponentially. In a truly free market, there's enough pie for everyone.

Unfortunately, instead of a free market, we have governments.

Riches gained through politics are different. Political deals where your life, liberty, property, or data are the assets being traded harm you. You are violated by every one of these deals, even if you don't notice. Getting wealthy through the political means is cheating. The only real monopolies are maintained by government. You can't refuse to do "business" with those controlling the political realm.

It's not "the rich", but government, that makes you poorer.

It would be easier to build a successful business without government's roadblocks. Especially the taxes it extracts at every step of building a business, doing business, or trading. Honest businesses are forced to fund their adversary with the taxes extorted from their accounts.

Honest businesses don't use government to stifle competition, force people to do business with them, or chase government contracts. They don't help government control you.

I understand envy. It's possible to feel envy without wanting to hurt those you envy- those you wish you could join. Unless you're a "the grapes are probably sour, anyway" kind of person who thinks more money couldn't possibly do anything to improve your life- against all available evidence.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

When did the "American Experiment" end?

I see people arguing all the time over when, exactly, "the American experiment" ended. It seems to be on many people's minds, especially with the recent 250th commemoration of the Declaration of Independence ("Independence Day").

I think most of them believe it lasted much longer than it did.

The American experiment lasted only from the signing of the Declaration of Independence until the ratification of the Constitution. That was the end of that.

Shays' Rebellion was a clear sign that the founders had made a critical mistake by creating a government, but once they established an actual State with the Constitution, it was done. The experiment had failed, and everything since then hasn't been "American", but something less; a cheaper version designated by the letters "USA".

-

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

The Call of the Wild

I've been feeling a stronger pull back into primitive survival. If I lived in a place that didn't make it nearly impossible to practice it, I'd probably be doing more of it. 

As it is, about the most I could do around here is sit in my yard, near the intersection, and stare at the dirt. Or I could go into someone's cotton field and stare at the dirt. Less fulfilling than you might imagine.

What triggered this?

Seeing the things that "normal people" say about how government treats us and our rights makes me feel sick. Seeing how they'll excuse any violation, saying "if you don't like it, change the law" is disappointing. Any spirit has been drained from these people. 

I know it's frowned upon to say so, but they are sheeple. Less than sheep- sheep still have some spark of survival instinct, even if it is weak. There's no animal as ethically weak and empty as a government supremacist bootlicker.

These people will tolerate anything if government tells them it's necessary. I honestly doubt anything could ever cross the line and make them stand up. Their love for legislative rules is too overpowering for them to resist. Oh, they'll protest a little when their puppetmasters tell them to hate a president, but that's about it. And half the time, they'll get that wrong.

The modern world has worn thin for me. Again. I'll probably get over it. Again. At least for a while.

Until then, I'll be the weird neighbor throwing knives and tomahawks in my nonexistent backyard, practicing firemaking in the living room, thinking of things I wish I could order (but don't need), and watching lots of mountainman videos.

-

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

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?