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?

"Tough on crime" criminals

You can’t be "tough on crime" and also pro-government (pro-police, pro-military, etc.) because government is the biggest criminal the world has ever seen.

Yet, so many government supremacists love to position themselves as "tough on crime". It would be funny if it didn't have such disastrous consequences/

The way they get away with this deception and diversion is by misdefining crime as something government forbids, rather than as an act which violates someone's rights. It's dishonest, yet many people fall for it completely.

Owning a machine gun without government permission isn't a real crime. Enforcing a counterfeit "law" against the person who owns a machine gun without government permission is a crime. But it's a crime government loves to commit, with the approval of these lying "tough on crime" types.

You could find myriad examples. If there's not a specific, individual victim, it's not a crime. To treat it as though it is a crime is criminal. "Tough on crime" people need to suck on that for a while.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Penny jury made the right decision

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 15, 2024)

The Daniel Penny trial had me worried. I don't trust juries to do the right thing anymore; too often they simply rubber-stamp whatever the state-- meaning any political government-- wants. Most jurors seem to believe, "If the defendant isn't guilty, why is he on trial?"

The state is usually on the wrong side, especially when self-defense is the issue.

Penny stepped up to protect his fellow subway passengers in New York City from a mentally ill person who was making threats. For his act of compassion, government decided to treat him as a criminal.

The prosecutor tried to make the trial about race. He failed to trick smart observers. Only racists see race as a factor in the unfortunate event. Only racists call for riots and revenge because of the verdict. Penny's heroism helped people of every race.

This isn't a triumph of justice, though. Daniel Penny was harmed by the justice system, even though the harm has been mitigated by the jury coming to the right verdict. The police, prosecutor, and judge owe him restitution, which he'll never see.

Recently, I read about a Clovis woman who was acquitted of a murder charge. She's probably been harmed for the rest of her life by being dragged through the process. Those who charged her need to be held accountable, too.

Compare what Penny did with the actions of the man who shot and killed the CEO of United Healthcare.

In one case, a man saw a dangerous situation and did what was needed to protect his fellow passengers, and many condemned him for his selfless actions. In the other case, a man plotted to murder a specific individual, carried out his plan, then ran and hid, and many of the same people who condemned Daniel Penny laughed off the murder as something the victim deserved.

We've all had our problems with health insurance-- especially since the rise of "ObamaCare". I understand the frustration and helplessness, and the callousness demonstrated by insurers who demand deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket payments, and still refuse to cover some essential expenses. I wouldn't trust anyone who believes that's justification for murder to be on a jury.

When juries do the right thing, they benefit us all. When they go along with what the state wants, they are often worse than useless. I'm glad the Daniel Penny jury didn't hand New York City the verdict it sought.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate your support.

Injustice for Trump… and for Hunter Biden

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 16, 2024)

Last week I pointed out the injustice of Donald Trump's conviction for violating nonsensical, arbitrary legislation. If such legislation even exists. This week it happened to someone else.

Once again someone prominent has been convicted of a victimless "crime" while those in Congress and other government positions continue to victimize Americans with their felonious regime.

Hunter Biden, the President's son, has been convicted of breaking a federal gun rule-- they wish we'd call it a "law"-- which the federal government is explicitly prohibited from making or enforcing. This is tied in with him breaking drug prohibition rules government has no authority to make up or enforce. This is what injustice looks like.

The jury involved in this verdict should be ashamed, as should the jury which convicted Trump. Trump should commit to pardoning Hunter Biden as soon as he's back in office.

I'm no fan of Hunter Biden; I think he is probably a horrible person. Still better than anyone who holds political office, but that's a very low bar. If you can't stand up for the rights of people you dislike, you are worthless in defense of liberty.

I know some people defend government's indefensible gun rules because they don't like guns. Some even try to make the case that these rules must be constitutional because courts have allowed them to stand. Not even close. Government has gotten away with enforcing them for nearly a century now, but they are no more constitutional than drug prohibition or space flight licensing. Less so, since neither drugs nor spacecraft are specifically called out as things government is forbidden to control. Guns are.

"Shall not be infringed" means what it says. Government is not allowed to make up any rule which would interfere with the natural human right to own or carry weapons. Enforcing rules concerning who may or may not purchase weapons, based on self-incrimination on a government form, is a clear violation of rights.

Every one of us, except a few who hold public office, is part of the militia. It's impossible for this militia to be "well regulated"-- practiced until your skill with weapons is effective for the defense of yourself and your community-- when government gets away with making it a crime to do so. Every gun rule is a criminal act by government. Convicting someone of violating one of these counterfeit rules is anti-American. Even if you loathe the person.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Being fine with tyranny

If you’re not willing to defend yourself and your rights from government and its legislation, in whatever ethical way is necessary, you’re saying you’re fine with tyranny.

That's a valid choice. For many reasons. Just be honest about it, and don't criticize those who choose differently.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Let's make them all convicted felons

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 9, 2024)

The precedent is set. As of May 30, 2024, every presidential administration can expect to be convicted of felonies by the next administration from the other party. Congressional members of the opposition party could be convicted, as well. They all commit felonies, most far more real and serious than the ones Donald Trump was convicted of.

Democratic former presidents and members of Congress should be convicted of felonies as soon as there's a Republican administration. Nor should the Democratic Party stop with Trump and those who represented him; there's low-hanging fruit in Congressional Republicans. This presents an opportunity to bring the federal government to a grinding halt.

Why do I say "convicted" rather than simply "charged"?

As has been pointed out by author Harvey A. Silverglate, we all commit an average of three felonies per day. This isn't because we're bad people, it's because legislation is out of control-- Congress and the President are to blame.

If an ambitious prosecutor decides to get you, you'll be gotten. As the Soviets said, "Show me the man and I'll find the crime." A carefully chosen venue, judge, hostile jury pool, and instructions from the judge to find the defendant guilty, however you have to do it, and a conviction is in the bag.

It's up to juries to put a stop to this, but most are unaware of their duty to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. If the defendant is accused of violating a law which has no victim (other than government), it is the responsibility of the jury to return a "not guilty" verdict even if they believe the defendant did what he or she was charged with. Even if Hunter Biden lied on the form when he bought a gun. This is called jury nullification. Judges used to inform juries of this duty but stopped doing so when they began acting as agents of the state rather than of justice.

No one has a right to govern another, nor to impose a politician on anyone else. I think there should be consequences for attempting to govern other people, but I think those consequences should be based on real crimes where an individual's life, liberty, or property was harmed, not a victimless "crime" where the only thing harmed is something which can't be victimized: government.

If this precedent makes it too risky to enter politics, it would be a good change.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

More potential fake "felony" convictions

Hunter Biden’s gun “crime” trial is exactly as bogus as Trump's hush money trial, and if Hunter is convicted, it will be as illegitimate as Trump's conviction.

I'm no fan or supporter of Hunter Biden, either. But wrong is wrong. And this is wrong.

Smart, ethical people would toss the case, void the rule, abolish the ATF, scold the prosecutors, and remove them from their positions of power. They shouldn't be allowed to victimize anyone ever again.

Government has no legitimate "authority" to punish drug use or abuse.
Government is specifically prohibited from restricting firearms and all other weapons in any way. Form 4473 is therefore forbidden by the Constitution, and lying on an illegal, illegitimate form can't be wrong.
He's not even accused of using his gun to violate anyone's life, liberty, or property. There is no crime alleged, only counterfeit "crime". So Hunter Biden, in this case, did nothing wrong. 

Those who are prosecuting him are the criminals. The same as those who prosecuted Outlaw Trump in his "34 felonies" trial. The "justice system" delivers the opposite and needs to be abolished forever.

Consistency, people. No specific individual victim; no crime. Prosecuting or convicting anyone under such circumstances, no matter who it is or how you feel about them, is the real crime.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Trump, the outlaw candidate?

Here's an uncomfortable admission: The Trump convictions don't sit well with me.

I've always been in favor of jury nullification, saying I would have a hard time convicting even in the case of archation, just because it feels like handing government a win. Doing what The Ancestral Enemy wants is the wrong thing to do, except in extraordinary circumstances. This isn't that.

When it's a counterfeit "law" I wouldn't convict my worst enemy. Liberty is more important than personal feelings.

And this seems to be the case in this trial.

It's not even about Trump. I liked Donald Trump when he used to appear on David Letterman's show. That ended when he entered politics. Politics makes people stupid and usually a bit evil, too. Although I never supported him, I never suffered from TDS, and never thought he was a unique danger like so many others seem to be hallucinating he is. I think this allows me to think more clearly where he is concerned.

I don't need or want a president and I don't need or want to be governed. By anyone. Particularly not by an anti-gun bigot (like all presidents turn out to be).

Part of me thinks "The shoe's on the other foot now", but part of me sees this as a bogus trial, politically arranged and rigged to take out an apparent enemy of the current party in power. (Even though he used to belong to their party and still follows their dogma on many important issues.)  If they imprison him, it will make him a political prisoner, and I am completely against governments and the holding of political prisoners. Even if I disagree with the prisoners on everything of importance. I oppose all political prosecutions.

This has caused me to have some sympathy for Trump-- not support, but sympathy for someone I don't generally find to be a very sympathetic character. I don't like it, but there it is. That was an amazing accomplishment, Democratic Party. Congrats. 

If they had gone after him for his actual crimes-- the bump stock ban, continuing the Stupid and Evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, not pardoning Snowden, Ulbricht, and Assange (and others), supporting police, and other evil things he did-- similar to the evil things every other president does-- then I wouldn't care. Get him. But to go after him on the things they chose? Things they'd ignore if he wasn't Donald Trump? Nope. Not gonna buy it. It was a sham.

Trump is now an outlaw. Not a Liberty Outlaw, but the other kind. Yet definitely no worse than the kriminals-- the serial archators-- who are out to get him. 

So, my feelings are definitely mixed.

Will it backfire? I wouldn't mind seeing it happen. And I don't really mind seeing Leviathan eating itself. Anything that shatters government's illusion of legitimacy is a good thing. 

Just like having Biden as a president has shown how utterly inconsequential having a president is. If he can do the "job", anything could. The "job" could be abolished without problems, as long as you didn't change the rules and eliminate the requirement that the president sign bills that the congressvermin pass to make them enforceable "laws". No signature; no new legislation, which would be a good start.

Having a president is a terrible idea, as is having any kind of political government... which can decide to "get" its enemies. Maybe even you or me.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Legislation only creates more crime

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 16, 2022)

Legislation, which many people incorrectly call "law", doesn't reduce crime. It can't. In fact, each new bit of legislation creates at least one more crime-- often several more-- and many more criminals as a result. People who weren't criminals before are now, for doing things which weren't crimes yesterday, but which are now arbitrarily declared to be.

Every time anything is criminalized it creates new criminals. That's really the only thing it does. Anyone who doesn't understand this correlation shouldn't be in a position of power over the lives of others.

Murder doesn't need to be illegal for it to be a real crime. You would still have the right and the obligation to defend against murderers. The only thing accomplished by making murder illegal is to allow government to punish it at your expense; an unnecessary complication.

To seek to address crime with more legislation is actually going backward if your goal is to reduce crime. If the goal is to give the state more ways to punish people who don't do what the politicians wish they'd do, then I suppose it works. It's not productive, though.

If you want to fight crime you need to stop pretending something can be a crime even though it has no specific individual victim-- someone whose life, liberty, or property has been harmed intentionally by someone else. Mutually consensual acts don't create a victim and the state can't be a victim.

If there's such a thing as a drug crime, it involves someone misrepresenting their product. Maybe the weight or the purity are not as advertised, or it's stolen property. For that matter, drug prohibition enforcement is the biggest drug crime, since it attempts to punish mutually consensual trade.

There are plenty of other examples which show, again, that government legislation is the source of most crime.

If you're serious about reducing crime, abolish or simply ignore all the legislation responsible for creating it. Leave the people alone to live as they see fit as long as they violate no one else's rights. Let people defend themselves and their property without the risk of being victimized afterward by the state's legislation enforcement and prosecution gangs.

Crime is a problem. Making it a bigger problem than it naturally has to be is not smart but is counterproductive and antisocial. It's long past time to scale it back and start heading in the right direction for a change.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Self-defense isn't a crime

If Kyle Rittenhouse had been a "black", trans, communist Biden fan who showed up to support Antifa, I would still see what he did as self-defense. The person and his beliefs are irrelevant to me in such a case. Those who try to make this about the person are trying to mislead you down a deadly path to right where they want you.

He was where he had a right to be, doing what he had a right to do. He was armed, as was his natural human right. He was being pursued by people who were a credible threat to his life. He did just enough to end that threat-- he didn't keep firing into the aggressors once the threat was ended (which would have been understandable under the circumstances, with stress and all).

Do I agree with his opinions? Nope. He's a copsucker and apparently a Trump fan. I probably wouldn't like him in person. It doesn't matter. Do I think it's smart to go to a riot, even in defense of strangers' property? Probably not, but I would hope strangers would help me if it were my property in danger, so I'm not too set on that. Either way, it was still self-defense each time he pulled the trigger. 

If I were on the jury I would refuse to find him guilty of anything, no matter how trivial. Just because they were arrogant enough to put him on trial. And I wouldn't budge. This is a line in the sand.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

"Not guilty" should be the default

Someone in my family got a jury duty notice again, but the trial was canceled before they met. But this is a good time for a reminder.

If you were a juror and had a bad feeling about the accused, but the government didn't prove its case against him, what would you do?

You should render a verdict of "not guilty" anyway.

"Not guilty" should always be the default. It's the government's "job" to prove their case to move you away from that position, but you aren't obligated to move an inch.

"Not guilty" doesn't mean you're sure he didn't do it. It doesn't mean you think he's a great guy. It doesn't mean you don't believe he's ever done anything else wrong. It just means the government didn't prove its case to your satisfaction-- or that the legislation he's accused of violating in this instance is counterfeit.

I could be on a jury and say "not guilty" but still feel the accused isn't trustworthy. I might still warn people to stay away from him because I think he's a slimeball. But I'm not going to hand the government a "win" based on my feelings and suspicions. Especially if they don't prove their case or are trying to enforce counterfeit "laws". It's your responsibility to hold them to a higher standard when you have the power to do so.

Besides, court isn't real life. It's just a ritual. Your life decisions shouldn't hinge on what happens in a court. If you don't trust someone, don't take a court verdict into account when considering whether you might be wrong about them.

There are people on death row (often for killing home-invading cops) I would gladly hang out with and there are people who have been acquitted that I would only be in the same room with if I were pointing a gun at them.

--- Support FIJA.org and take this short quiz.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

Legislation's result

Those who say "there oughta be a law", concerning anything, must LOVE outlaws. What else could explain their drive to make more and more of them?

Every "law" creates an outlaw. Or millions of them.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Legislative damage takes time to undo

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 14, 2021)

Why are legislative messes so quick to be made but so slow to be removed once in place? After they are shown to move society further from the goal used to justify them, they should be immediately reversed.

If politicians can hide their mistakes without admitting or reversing them-- and get away with it-- that's what they'll do.

At most, cleaning up these messes is done piece by piece, as though searching for a way to keep as much of the mistake around for as long as possible.

Even the failed scheme of alcohol prohibition is still around; handed off to local governments, rather than completely reversed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. Governments are still allowed to get away with unconstitutional restrictions, taxes, and enforcement powers. The ghost of alcohol prohibition still haunts America. It's why there are still "dry counties", liquor licenses, and Sunday alcohol sales bans. If it's wrong when done by the federal government, it's still wrong when done locally.

It's happening again with drug prohibition. It hit society all at once-- not coincidentally just as the federal government was looking for excuses to keep employing all the useless prohibition enforcers-- but only gets removed a little at a time, state by state. Never enough to stop the prohibition-fueled violence.

Maybe it's finally moving in the right general direction, but replacing the eased prohibitions with prohibitions on new things-- vaping for example-- isn't a net gain. Government has never had any business being involved with what people voluntarily consume.

It's the same story with gun prohibition. Sure, more states than ever have passed watered-down relief for the rights violations, dishonestly calling it "Constitutional carry" when the Constitution allows no exceptions whatsoever, but other states and the federal government keep looking for new ways to enslave Americans on the perverse altar of "public safety".

It's said people get what they vote for, but most people either voted for the opposite or didn't vote at all. They shouldn't be shackled with the bad ideas other people supported. Those who vote for something should be the only ones who have to live under it; let everyone else be exempt.

Liberty must be restored, in every case where it has been criminalized and regulated with legislation. No matter what excuses are used to keep violating natural human rights-- even those rights you care nothing about-- it needs to be stopped.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Time to right marijuana wrongs

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 28, 2021)

Once the marijuana rules have changed, everyone with marijuana charges on their record should get a clean slate. At least where marijuana is concerned. Then they need to be paid the restitution they are owed by those who harmed them.

People arrested or fined for a crime which is no longer a crime deserve a break. Those who were jailed over marijuana were wronged. Those who were fined need to be repaid the money which was taken under phony pretexts. All for a "crime" which, finally, after nearly one hundred years of false claims and shoddy justifications, is recognized as not actually wrong.

Would you still consider runaway slaves criminals, with a record, after slavery was abolished? False claims and shoddy justification were used to excuse that evil institution, too.

What you ingest has never been government's business. Pretending it is doesn't make it so. Punishing people for ignoring the arbitrary wishes of politicians is wrong. Those who do wrong-- even if someone else has told them to do it-- owe restitution to their victims. "I was only following orders" has never excused such behavior.

Something can't be wrong one day and not wrong the next, or OK one day and illegal the next; based only on the opinions of smug politicians. Situations like this are why I have no respect for legislation. This exposes the absurdity of the whole system.

It seems silly to keep punishing people for past marijuana offenses, which is what is happening if those offenses stay on their record.

Even if the arrested individuals did something which will still be technically illegal under the new rules, it's long past time to let prohibition go. It's no more sensible than the witch trials of the 1690s or the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. Everyone who once "waged war on weed" looks as bad as those who came before them, and in the future may even look worse.

If you're going to insist on having police and government courts they need to focus only on those acts where someone's life, liberty, or property has been harmed. Beyond this is where any legitimacy ends. It's not a fuzzy gray area; it ends hard at that line. If they violate anyone's life, liberty, or property in the course of doing their jobs, they've become what they claim to be fighting. Prohibition is one example of them having done exactly this.

It's time to make it right.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The Chauvin verdict

As you might have guessed since I didn't rush to post this, I was neither upset nor happy about the Chauvin guilty verdict. I don't really care one way or the other.

As I explained earlier, I'm completely hostile to both sides. I consider police to be the worst criminal gang there is and consider them guilty of evil behavior from the moment they take that "job", but I don't like to see the prosecution "win", either. This was just one evil creep vs. an evil "system"-- I wish there were a way both could lose hard.

I don't believe in imprisonment, or even punishment. I prefer justice, and that was never on the table. (It never is in government courts.)

Let the guy run free among people who know who he is and let him live with the consequences of his actions.

I see some copsuckers worrying that this accountability will cause people to reconsider becoming cops. If so, maybe there could be a positive from all this monkey-business.

PS: If it is being reported accurately, and if the situation was as it seems to have been (all big "ifs", as you know) the Columbus, Ohio shooting death of the girl-- who is on video attacking another girl with a knife when she was shot-- is an example of a justified shooting. No matter who pulled the trigger it was a good shooting. That shooting probably saved an innocent life or two. If you make the choice to archate, whatever happens due to that choice is on you. Trying to make it fit the "racist" narrative and make the attacker out to be a victim is just dumb. Do you think the girl who was being attacked believes it was a racist shooting?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Balanced and fair?

Believe it or not, I would have been about the best juror possible on the Derek Chauvin trial.

On one hand, I have zero respect for members of the Blue Line Gang. I want them held totally accountable for everything they do, and I am not deluded into imagining that a badge grants "extra rights".

On the other hand, I don't like the prosecution winning, ever. It always feels like a win for the state. My automatic bias is to declare "not guilty" in every case so as to not reward the state.

In other words, I would be completely hostile to both sides. That's about as balanced as anyone could be.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Was a crime committed?

Click to embiggenize

Someone I know was told to show up for grand jury service this morning (Edit: She didn't make the cut). So this seems like a good time for a link-heavy refresher on what is and isn't a crime.

No victim; no crime.
Unless there is a "somebody" who can be pointed to (or specifically named) who had their life, liberty, or property harmed, there is no crime. There is nothing to take to court regardless of the legislation alleged to have been violated, and no matter how much evidence there may be that the legislation was violated, or how "serious" the employees of the state seem to think the violation to be. Somebody was murdered, somebody was raped, somebody was robbed, somebody was intentionally hurt, somebody was kidnapped, somebody was archated against-- crime. Otherwise, no crime.

With a bit of a qualifier I'll get to momentarily, accidents can't be crimes even if somebody was harmed. There has to be intent for it to be a crime. The courtroom is not the place to decide on restitution for accidental harm done.

However, negligence which accidentally results in harm to somebody might be a crime in some cases, depending on how likely the act was to cause harm and how easily that harm could be foreseen by rational people. Hypothetical example: If I'm shooting at a paper target on the other side of a crowded room at my house and just as I squeeze the trigger someone steps into the bullet's path, I was criminally negligent. Shooting the person might have been an accident, but any reasonable person could have foreseen the result of my action. It would be different if I were shooting at a target outdoors, having made sure of my target and the surroundings, and a time traveler suddenly materialized in my bullet's path. In most cases, it's not that obvious, though. Since this is subjective, tread carefully in this area. It's always more ethical to let the guilty "get away with it" than to punish even one innocent person. And restitution instead of punishment is always the ethical choice, especially in the case of accidents or negligence.

Being offended doesn't qualify as being harmed.

The State isn't a "somebody" and neither is society.

Possession of anything, absent someone besides the someone doing the possessing being specifically harmed by that thing, can never be a crime.

The State's courtrooms are probably not the proper place to seek justice even in cases of actual crimes.

To be better informed, learn from the Fully Informed Jury Association.
And this is why they'll never let me on a jury.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Cannabis isn't "Black market"

Dealing in Cannabis is no longer a real "Black Market" activity; it is now more like a Gray Market activity in those places where the backward legislation continues to regulate it in some way.

And make no mistake-- all legislation is backward.

Cannabis is legal, except that some locations still legislate against it, other places demand their piece of the action, and other places insist you only buy certain types of it from certain sellers. None of which is legitimate in the slightest. Just like gun "laws".

And it was never wrong to begin with.

(I'm told I may get internet today!)

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Guess who got another jury summons

In case you can't read it, it says: "Proper Clothing Required: All persons entering the courtroom should be dressed in clothing reasonably befitting the dignity and solemnity of the court proceedings."

So, a clown costume, then. 😆

Really, I don't think I have any clothing frivolous enough to properly befit "the dignity and solemnity of the court proceedings".

So, if I actually have to show up I'll go the opposite direction and wear my Old West, Man in Black outfit-- minus the duster (too hot in August for that). It's very dignified and solemn, much more so than the court deserves.

This is just a thought exercise. It's not going to come to that. It didn't last time.

They'll either scare the accused into a plea deal before August 14, or they'll toss me out of the jury pool at the earliest opportunity. Which is a shame since I'd like the chance to save someone from the State and its counterfeit "laws".

-

Just so you know, the internet will be shut off at my house until I can pay the bill.
Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Concealed carry key to safety for all

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 14, 2018)

I want you to be safe. I hope you don't do things to endanger yourself and others, and I want you prepared-- everywhere you go-- in case someone else means you harm.

In the past couple of weeks there have been at least two cases of some loser deciding to murder people who were harming no one. I will not boost the fame of these murderers by using their names; calling them losers is clear and accurate.

In one case, the loser chose his victims based on a delusion that their religious group was responsible for killing his people. It's a common type of delusion, but most people don't decide to murder because of their hallucinations.

In the more recent attack, the loser said, in social media posts he made around the time of his murders, that he was bored and didn't understand why mass shootings kept happening.

Mass murders happen when losers like him make the choice to murder people. It's not hard to figure out. And if your cure for boredom is to murder twelve people, you are evil.

Misguided people will blame the losers' guns, but you know what was missing, don't you? Guns in the hands of the right people; not identifiable security guards, who are easy targets. Widespread concealed carry is critical to your safety.

If something happens in your presence, you are the first responder. No one else is. The moment a crisis begins, no one else is in a better position to defend your life and the lives of those around you. Any law which makes it harder for you to do so is making the problem worse.

These murderous losers make me angry, but I get just as angry when political activists start clamoring for more anti-gun laws which can only guarantee the success of these losers.

There's no safety in hiding behind laws. Losers with murderous intent will not be stopped by laws-- even if you could magically make every gun vanish. Look at other parts of the world where similar losers choose knives, bombs, or cars for mass murder. You might as well make it illegal for the Sun to zap the Earth with X-rays; people intent on murder will pay just as much attention. Each situation is different, as is each loser's motivation, but other than trapping everyone in their own padded cell, there is no way to solve this with laws. The best cure is a commitment to defense.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com