Sunday, November 13, 2022

Don't care about fake laws, crimes

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 12, 2022)

Being political leads to unfortunate outcomes. Politics never makes people act smart.

I don't think federal agents-- FBI or anyone else-- have any business digging for things over which to prosecute Hunter Biden. I don't find federal agents credible.

When someone is targeted for political reasons, whether Donald Trump or Hunter Biden, it makes those targeting them look unintelligent and corrupt. Maybe because they are unintelligent and corrupt-- as bad as their target, or worse. All politically connected people have done things truly wrong, so why do their opponents choose to be political, too?

Because it's easier.

I don't care about Hunter Biden's so-called tax crimes or gun crimes, no matter how clear the evidence may be. I have no love for the Bidens, but I don't believe there is even one legitimate tax or anti-gun rule. Not one. Accusing someone of breaking one of those fake laws is completely pointless.

The same would go for charging him with drug crimes for the things he was seen doing on video.

People want to see those connected with the other side get what's coming. The Trump-obsessed anti-Trumpers want to see Donald Trump hurt, just like the reactionary anti-Biden faction would love to see Biden hurt by targeting his son. Leave me out of your political circus.

The thing is, I only care about real crimes-- where an individual's life, liberty, or property has been violated. Trump, Biden, and every other former and future politician violates everyone in some way. Yes, even the president you like the best. If you're going to go after them for something, look at these real crimes.

No, having "classified documents" isn't real either, since government shouldn't keep any secrets from its bosses.

I don't care even a little what such laws say. Even if I wouldn't do what someone else does, if the legislation is illegitimate-- as is all gun, drug, and tax legislation-- then I am not in favor of using it against anyone. Not even someone I think is clearly a bad person. If you can't find a real crime with an individual victim, then back off. I'm not interested in using fake laws against anyone.

The root problem is allowing anyone to hold the office of President of the United States, or any political office, and wield its political power. Strike at the root instead of thrashing at the twigs by prosecuting illegitimate "crimes".

Thank you for helping support


  1. In your essay above, you use the phrase "fake law". In previous posts I recall you correctly used the phrase "malum prohibitum". The use of "fake law" is relevant but potentially confusing.

    It would be helpful to the education of your newspaper readers if you kept a clear distinction between the domain of Legislation (statute, ordinance, regulation and all things malum prohibitum) and the domain of Law (damage to life, liberty, property and all things malum in se).

    Law derives from the English and American "Common Law" where actions are called crimes because the are bad by their very nature (as understood in terms of Natural Law).

    Legislation creates a plethora of "false crimes" through the fiction of authority claimed by one group of men over their fellow humans.

    Identification of "false crimes" would be a more useful phrase than "false law", as this would clarify the distinction between Law and Legislation, and highlight the evil of legislation.

    Hans ... in the NC woods

    1. Yes, I probably should have left it to say "malum prohibitum", which is what I had written in my first draft. However, then a few sentences are required to explain that phrase to readers who are unfamiliar with it, in spite of me using it and explaining it several times in those columns over the years..

      This runs up against my 400 word limit-- I always have to leave out stuff that I *really* want to say because of space. So, it's always a compromise and negotiation with myself.

      Worse, I get concerned that the newspaper will get tired of me inserting the same paragraph into multiple columns. On this blog, I don't have that concern, people will read or not, and they will donate/subscribe or not. The paper is a little different and I have to always keep their wishes in mind-- without knowing for certain what those are-- to keep the check coming. It's a tightrope that I try to walk without compromising a single thing. Sometimes I fail.

    2. This was no failure, sir. You were correct in your assessment of what is wrong.

      I merely suggested the phrase fake or false crime so one can speak clearly to the distinction between Law and Legislation. After posting my comment, I anticipated you might turn the analytical knife back on me and critique my phrase "fake crime" in a similar manner ... to indicate one should apply a non-ambiguous term like misdemeanor to a violation of legislative edict.

      I understand the "tightrope" and meant no offense. Have a great day.

      Hans ... in the NC woods

    3. I've written them *several* columns outlining that a real crime requires an individual victim, and that government or society can't be that victim.

      However, I also realize that the chances that a reader of today's column read (or remembers) a previous column is probably zero.

      It's one of the frustrations of writing the newspaper column. I feel like I have to start from square one for each column. I wish I had a solution for that.

      No offense taken, it's just something that has been a problem to me from the first.

  2. With regard to Hunter Biden, it goes deeper than being a hedonist junkie. He's gotten no-show jobs from foreign governments which want something from the American taxpayer. I suspect that Hunter is a bag man and fall guy for his father.

    1. And those are the things that should be looked into. But since those are the things that would implicate his father, those are the things that probably won't be.

  3. Here is something to think about. You probably heard about the uber-corrupt billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried. Get this- Ukraine invested in his company, he donated heavily to Democrats, Democrats in Congress voted to send billions in aid to Ukraine, who then again invested in Bankman-Fried's company, who donated heavily to Democrats see the pattern. If American gets drawn into the Russian-Ukrainian War, this could be a reason why. Shouldn't the law apply here?

    1. Who's going to apply it? The political criminals who benefit are the very ones who would have to apply it to themselves and their cronies.

      I'd rather break the cycle by starving them of the money they were shifting around by getting rid of "taxes". No new "law" is required to do this, just stop enforcing or obeying the current "laws" that create "taxation".

      Even in cases of things like murder, I see no point in making it against the law. No legislation is required for you to have the right to defend yourself from an attacker. Any "law" is likely to protect the attacker from your justified actions. "Laws" are a net negative.