That divisive trial

I'm torn.

Yes, I believe that woman murdered her children. 

I'm also aware that government lies to get the verdict it wants. My belief that she did it, based on hearing that she confessed and that there's plenty of evidence, is only that: a belief. I wasn't there, so I can't know for certain- and I never will.

I still believe she did it, for what that's worth.

Yes, I believe she is/was insane. Insane, but guilty. I don't believe insanity or hormonal issues absolve a person of responsibility for their archation. 

If that were the case, a lot of convicted and admitted rapists should get a new trial since testosterone is sometimes called the violence hormone.

I'm in favor of jury nullification. I think it applies when you believe the person did what they are accused of, but "laws" prohibiting the action are illegitimately prohibiting something every individual has a natural right to do. I don't believe that fits in this case because no one has a right to kill their defenseless offspring.

I also believe a government court is the least credible place to seek justice. They are designed to punish, not to provide justice. Those children will never receive justice by caging ot killing the woman who killed them. Justice is out of reach; it's not an option here.

I wouldn't mind too much if every jury trial resulted in a mistrial to demonstrate the absurdity of the ritual. Of course, if government can't get the outcome it seeks through a jury trial, I expect they'll dispense with that in the small percentage of cases that still go that route. They'll skip right to the punishment phase. Maybe a jury trial complicates this.

As always, I'm against imprisonment, partly because it is funded by theft, thus leaving the victim victimized twice. Also, because it is Crime University. Third, because it is too easy to use for political purposes. Plus, it doesn't provide restitution, but punishment.

I would much rather leave bad guys out among the general population, who are completely aware of what they did. Don't attack them to punish them, but watch them (not with government spyware, though, since that isn't public), and if they try to violate anyone else, they (like the others who do the same) would likely be Darwinized from a free society. That's usually the best outcome, even if some think it's harsh. Otherwise, as long as they never archate again, leave them alone. 

As always, there's a possibility that I'm completely wrong in my views on this case and everything else.

-

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

What's left of the Bill of Rights?

I have objections to the Constitution, seeing it as a betrayal of everything America could have been.

However, IF each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights had been followed to the letter by the fe(de)ral government, and enforced by each individual whom that government sought to violate by ignoring the Bill of Rights, then things today would be a lot better than they are. Not perfect, but objectively better. (Except for the poor government-supremacists, who would suffer from hurt feelings.)

As it is, every amendment in the Bill of Rights- with the possible exception of the 3rd Amendment*- has been torn to shreds by the authoritarian maneuverings of the feds; endlessly justified by government-supremacist citizens who don't care about rights or liberty, but only about giving government illegitimate power.

I say the possible exception of the 3rd Amendment* because I consider being taxed to support (house, clothe, and feed) illegal standing armed forces in perpetuity to be a clear violation of the spirit of that amendment, if not the letter of it. Some would disagree (but they're wrong, of course).

If we never have "peacetime" because the criminal government keeps starting armed conflicts, that shouldn't be my problem.

So, as I've said before, the Constitution is effectively dead, and its only utility at this point is to show how deeply criminal the US government has become.
And, the Constitution was a mistake in the first place- the result of an unethical conspiracy to establish a nation-state in place of a free America.

The founders didn't trust liberty, but wanted to be governed- or more likely, to be the governers. We are paying the price.

-

*Third Amendment-
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

-

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

"Great Reset"? I'll go one better

Fellow frogs, the pot is boiling.

To avoid an open-air prison ("open-air" until the Rulers decide to close us in), the whole thing is going to have to be turned off. Unplug it, count to 10 years, then plug it back in- see if it works.

Claire Wolfe Time has come and gone, and nothing was done. 

We acted like the push for "safety" was a mere difference of opinion.
We let political criminals impose anti-defense "laws", place cameras everywhere to spy on us and track us, and install shut-off switches in our essential utilities so we can easily be punished for wrongthink.

I like the benefits of technology, but the control freaks are making this reset necessary. It has to be done if there's to be any shred of liberty left. The benefits of allowing government access to technology no longer outweigh the costs.

It would be great if we could just cut off government's access. Either by making it impossible for government to use technology beyond wooden sticks and twisted grass strings, or by eliminating government altogether. Then, the people would still have the benefits of technology. But that's not in the cards.

So, as rough as it would be, we need a Mother of All Solar Flares to fry all the electronics. If that's what it takes to blind and neuter the creepy Watchers, then that's what is now essential if humanity is to have any future worth living.

Bring on the Greatest Reset.

-

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

A negative "cult of personality"

A "cult of personality" has a flip side; a negative. Currently, this is seen most clearly in TDS sufferers.

Look, I hate a LOT of the things Trump does. A lot of them, and I hate them intensely.

Those in the negative iteration of the Trump cult of personality don't seem to hate what he does, especially; They just hate him. 

If their favored political criminal was doing the exact same thing, they'd be defending it.
Just like those in the Trump cult of personality would hate the crap he does if it were a different politician doing it.

You know this is true.

If the person matters more than the action, it's probably not rational. I've fallen into this trap, too.

I'm not saying it's good or bad. But it is political, and as we all know, politics makes people stupid.

I looked online, and while Grok admits this "negative cult of personality" is a real phenomenon, it says it doesn't have a specific name. It should.

-

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

There's only one word...

This is my 20-year blogiversary! That’s 7,305 days, and 8,101 blog posts.

I feel this should be significant in some way, but in what way? I don't know.

The world- and America, specifically- is so much more authoritarian now than when I started writing here. Hopefully, that's a coincidence, or inertia; a correlation and not causation.

-

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

Services can be provided sans government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 2, 2026)

I don't want or need to be governed, but I still want a few of the things people claim government does or provides. 

The difference is, I want these things provided voluntarily, without taxation or other forms of coercion. If something isn't essential enough for people to chip in and fund, it needs to go away. Forever, or until enough people decide to pay for it without being forced...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Good rule of thumb: Mind your business

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 29, 2026)

People who believe they have a right to not see or hear something they don't like are one of the biggest roadblocks to liberty. They imagine they have a right to not be offended. This nonexistent right is more important to them than letting others use their own property as they wish.

Offense is subjective. What offends you doesn't offend others. Something about you offends someone. It sets a dangerous precedent to attack others based on what offends you.

Being offended is a personal character problem, not a condition which creates a right to control someone else. The obligation is on each of us to respect the right of others to do what they want as long as they aren't harming anyone.

If you're offended by the sight of someone's tattoos, piercings, opposite-sex cosplay, or by the words they use, you need to mind your own business unless they violate your life, liberty, or property in some way.

Some people are offended if you don't have a uniformly short, green monoculture called a "lawn" surrounding your house. I prefer seeing a healthy, diverse system of native grasses and other plants which don't require a dangerous waste of water to sustain.

If you're offended by someone's private property, remember it isn't yours to control. As long as it isn't breeding swarms of rats, flies, or other vermin to cause you actual harm, you have no claim against the owner. If it is causing you harm, you are owed restitution, but not control of their property. No one loses their rights because of how you feel about what they are doing.

Those who lust for the power to control others don't like this fact. They want to do what they want while preventing or punishing others for doing what they want. When this hypocrisy is pointed out, they'll lie about how this "offensive" view or "offensive" speech actually violates them in some way. It doesn't.

This applies doubly if you represent government interests and believe it gives you the right to control others and their property or their speech.

Remember, government doesn't legitimately own anything or have any rights. Everything it possesses is either stolen from the rightful owners or purchased with stolen or counterfeited money. If you want to be bothered by something, be bothered by that. Don't use this illegitimate gang as a tool to violate others. That's uncivilized and should offend everyone.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Is it necessary?

The recent water crisis we've gone through locally made me realize something about myself. Often, before I do something, I ask myself if it's necessary.

Every time I turned on a faucet for the past few weeks, that question crossed my mind. Along with, just how much water do I need for this? Right now?

It made me realize I do that to myself all the time, with other issues.

Is it necessary to spend this dollar?
Is it necessary to go? Is it necessary to drive there?
Is it necessary to do this?
Is this argument necessary?

If it is necessary, I do it with open eyes and (usually) a clear conscience.

Often, I realize something I was about to do isn't necessary, and I don't do it. 

If it's not necessary, that doesn't mean I won't do it. Some unnecessary things are important enough- to me- to do anyway, but it's good to do them with that understanding; not mindlessly on autopilot.

I also know there are things I see as unnecessary that others feel are very necessary. Government, for example. Too bad they can't have their "necessity", but keep it off my property and out of my life. Because liberty is necessary for me, and their government fetish prevents it.

-

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