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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

"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.

The government never stops growing

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

Why does government continually grow in size and in power? If you look at a roster of things it meddled with a century ago compared to today, you'll notice today's list is much longer and more comprehensive.

Government is never satisfied; it never has enough control. It won't give up control or take "no" for a final answer. If it loses in court (which it controls), it acts as though it didn't. Often, it doubles down on its illegal activities. This is because there are no immediate, painful consequences for its defiant criminality.

It lies, and many people still believe it.

"This new tax will only apply to billionaires"- until it doesn't. Then it will apply to you. "It's only a 3% tax"- until they increase it. Now they are even plotting to tax money you didn't make, but could have made if you'd sold something you didn't sell. They call it an "unrealized capital gains tax", but it's the theft of your hopes for a better future.

"This law bans the purchase" of an imaginary category of firearms ("assault weapons"), but "it doesn't affect the ones you already own". Until next year, when they decide this wasn't enough, and now you're a "criminal" for things the Constitution says government has no say over.

"It's a crime to drive drunk". Until they change the law and say it's now illegal to drive "impaired". Before you know it, it's a crime to think of something that might be intoxicating when you are within one-hundred feet of a car.

Government is your enemy. It's not the only enemy you have, but it is the worst one.

Other criminals rarely affect your entire life. An embezzler won't usually also blackmail you, steal your car, molest your cousin, say which job you are allowed to work, and demand an annual ransom on your house. Government is the all-encompassing criminal enterprise. There's no part of your life it doesn't claim control over. Go on: name one part of your life which remains unaffected by government. You can't, unless you're being dishonest with yourself.

It will only get worse until enough of us have had enough. I don't know how that day will look or when it will occur, but it will come. It always does. Government contains the seeds of its own demise, because its entire existence is focused on taking more.

Liberty is your birthright. Live like it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Minarchy

Minarchy is the idea that humans need, and can maintain, a minimal State. A "night watchman" state. But it rejects that "minimal" can mean "none". If there's more than zero, that amount can be minimized further, which means it is not "minimal".

Minarchists love to call anarchy "Utopian". That's rich coming from followers of the most Utopian idea ever!

Government will never allow itself to be limited. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

Every attempt to limit government has failed.

The Constitution may have been the final proof of the futility of that desire. It failed, and those who don't want to admit it failed will blame you and me for its failure. As if we could somehow, by some time-traveling magic, stop a failure that occurred well over a hundred years before we were born. It failed almost before the ink was dry.

Don't accept the blame for something that isn't your fault.

Those who advocate for a "night watchman state" seem to be unaware of how states work.

To be an effective night watchman, that state needs to steal. It needs to spy. It needs to determine for you what rights you have, and which rights it is allowed to ignore. It needs the power to punish and to carry out revenge. For this, it demands a monopoly on force. Once it has these powers, there's nothing anyone can do to stop it from growing out of control and seeking more power over more parts of your life.

Minarchy is statism-lite, but it is still statism. Maybe, in very early stages, it is "libertarian-leaning", but it loses this tilt almost immediately, becoming ever more statist as time goes on. Libertarians who then continue to argue in favor of minarchy lose all claims to libertarianism. Anyone pointing this out angers them and makes them lash out at the consistent libertarians- the anarchists.

As someone pointed out to me, "Any society capable of maintaining a minarchy doesn't need one."

What I don't understand in all such cases is, if you believe that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor, why get so angry at having this pointed out?... unless you feel guilty and know you're wrong.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Yes, machine guns, too.

If you're not in favor of getting rid of the government's illegal rules against machine guns, you: 

1. Don't really believe in the plain words of the Second Amendment.
2. Don't believe in the natural human right to own and carry arms, which exists regardless of the Second Amendment.
3. Allow your fears to determine what rights others exercise.
4. Favor letting political criminals determine what rights you have and are allowed to exercise.

It doesn't matter if you think machine guns are scary and don't want "those people" (whoever they may be) to have them. The worst people already have them.

I was disturbed to talk to someone who is generally pro-gun and find out he draws the line at machine guns. His reasoning is that he's scared of criminals having them, and because of this, he doesn't care what the Second Amendment says about the matter.

It's disappointing. 

It's the same when someone believes "felons" lose rights.

-

Thank you for reading.
Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Worse than useless

The latest wanna-be assassin demonstrated a truth I've been preaching all along. 

Metal detectors don't stop evil losers; they encourage them to run through and start shooting immediately. They don't care if the alarm is ringing and the lights are flashing as they start their rampage.

Metal detectors don't stop evil losers from having and using their weapons to harm the innocent; they stop the good people from being armed where their guns are essential.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Liberty and "safety" both have costs

Whenever anyone calls for "common sense gun regulation" to "keep people safe", then whips out the zinger that if you don't agree with them, you "don't care if children die", a thought starts forming in my head. This is my attempt to flesh it out.

When my daughter Cheyenne was killed by a drug-impaired driver, I was devastated. But I didn't start being in favor of prohibition, checkpoints, or vehicle kill-switches to make sure no one is allowed to drive impaired. Those measures also kill people, destroy individual liberty, and violate individual rights. The trade-off isn't worth it. (Plus, none of the liberty-killing measures that are already imposed saved her anyway.)

Weak, unethical people advocate violating the rights of others because tragedy has touched them personally. They disgust me more than I can express. It's personal.

I am sad that my daughter was killed, but life in a police state isn't worth living. Liberty is dangerous. The dangers of liberty are obvious. The dangers of "safety" are often hidden from you until it's too late.

There are those who respect your liberty and your rights, and there are those who want you controlled. They may say it's for your own good, for the good of society, for the safety of children, or for the good of the nation. It's not.

There is no "good" in those excuses, and any "safety" is counterbalanced by the dangers and deaths they'll pretend don't happen. Or, that the victim "deserved" for not surrendering their autonomy to the State.

Yes, if you respect people's rights, some innocent people will die. Imposing "safety" on society just shifts the deaths somewhat; it doesn't prevent them. Some different people will die as a result. But you won't be guilty of violating everyone's rights in a misguided attempt to "save" some while sacrificing others.

It's easier to find (and lie about) the actual deaths which have occurred; it's harder to come up with realistic numbers of how many will die in the future from your "safety" rules. 

It's also easy for them to ignore those who have died in the past through the enforcement of that type of rule.

Liberty is worth the costs; slavery... not so much.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Self-destruction by ambition

I suspect that every new "law" and every new form of surveillance crammed in our faces and under our beds ratchets us one step closer to the collapse of the current government. They are dooming their own scam and don't realize it.

Their own ambition is killing them.

They think they are gaining more control. They think they are making us more controllable. And, in the short term, they probably are. I don't think it can last as long as they imagine.

"Forever" stamps are unrealistically optimistic.

I would like to think enough people have matured beyond the infantile need to be governed and to want others governed on their behalf that the species can stop making this same old stupid mistake, but chances are, we'll have to go a few more rounds, sacrificing a few more generations to this false god, before enough people catch up and catch on.

Whatever comes, I still see every new surveillance tool and every added "law" as another nail in the coffin of the State.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

More evil losers making news

An evil loser in Louisiana decided to murder his kids. Eight of them. 

The usual idiots are blaming "guns!"

Smarter people blame the evil loser who chose to murder 8 kids.

People who've been made stupid by politics are calling this a "mass shooting" so they can pad their anti-gun narrative with whatever they can find and twist to fit. Just like gang-on-gang killings.

A few decades ago, there was a guy in Arkansas who decided the Christmas holiday was the ideal time to kill his entire family. I don't remember ever hearing his horrible crime called a "mass shooting", even though this evil loser also used a gun in many of the murders. I guess people are getting dumber or more dishonest- or more political.

This is mere days after an outspoken anti-gun bigot shot and murdered his wife and then removed himself from the roster of the living. I'm no longer surprised when an anti-gun bigot does something like this. It's completely on-brand.

Yet, I'm seeing the usual idiots screaming to ban guns because of the acts of these recent evil losers. It's predictable, pathetic, and counterproductive. Not to mention, banning (and regulating) guns is a criminal act.

It's not the guns. It has never been the guns. It's the evil losers who decide to murder others. They use whatever tools are available. If the anti-gun bigots managed to get guns banned, and all the guns magically disappeared so evil losers had no access to them, the murders would continue. They might even increase since guns do more to protect the innocent than to empower bad guys who often have a lifetime's training in hurting people.

No one calling to ban or restrict guns is doing this for your benefit. They are your mortal enemy, functionally the same as an evil loser who is coming to shoot you and your children.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Governments only differ in unimportant ways

It's somewhat simple-minded to distinguish between various flavors of government. All of them are the same in all the ways that really matter- some are just worse than others.

All governments violate natural human rights and therefore forfeit their privilege to exist.

All governments are communist.
All are fascist.
All are authoritarian tyrannies. 
All governments are criminal operations.

Including the one you believe in.

The only distinguishing factor is how much power they each have.

The more powerful they are, the more they violate rights.
The more criminality they can get away with.
The more important it is to eradicate them from the fabric of the Universe.

A "limited government" would be the same, but would have a bit less power until it escaped its limits. Which it would. Government can not be limited. It will not allow us mere peasants, pointing to founding documents, to limit it. It knows what's best for us. And it means to govern us with whatever cruelty it takes to make us understand this.

Walk away. Stop complying. And then, when it insists we aren't "allowed" to do that, bring out the torches, pitchforks, and tar and feathers. Liberty is ours to claim... or reclaim. No government can change that fact.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.