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.

I want children to be educated. I don't want schools run by government, funded by taxation, or their standards established by government. A century and a half of this mistake has resulted in a population of functional illiterates.

Even if you support centralized schooling, there are better ways to do it. Come up with what works best for you. The only limit: you can't force others to pay for it, or force them to send their children to it just because you believe it's best.

Justice for crime victims is important. America doesn't have a credible system for providing justice. Governments have punishment systems, which they've fooled the population into confusing for justice. Justice means restitution, or a best effort at restitution. Government is good at punishment- less good at punishing only the guilty, and terrible at facilitating restitution. Restitution doesn't give government money or power.

Keeping accurate records of who owns what, in case of disagreements over ownership, is an essential service. It's a disservice to keep records of ownership so you can tax those belongings, or so you can later deprive someone of their property because a political criminal has written a rule making this property illegal. If you can't imagine a way to keep records without violating rights, you aren't trying.

Defending liberty is critically important, but government has proven itself utterly incapable or unwilling. It's too busy looking for loopholes around liberty. It's nearly impossible to find a government employee, including those tasked with defending liberty, who could give an accurate definition and explanation of the concept. They'd probably spend the time trying to justify their own job, instead.

I even want robotic probes, explorers, and colonists sent to other planets, but not enough to force you to pay for it. I can wait for a billionaire to find a reason to send them.

If there's something you want, why do you believe it's not popular enough that others would join you in paying for it voluntarily?

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Actions more important than words

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 19, 2026)

To discover who someone is, you have to pay attention to what they do, not what they say. Words are cheap, and lies come easy.

This goes triple for government.

A government which talks about your safety but does things which will make you less safe is not on your side.

Sending an adventurous military abroad makes Americans less safe at home, and especially when they travel. People who have been displaced and lost relatives due to the US military conducting terror campaigns against terrorism will blame innocent Americans as much as they'll blame the US government. They don't distinguish between the two. This has resulted in many tragedies. This government behavior isn't for our safety.

Spy cameras installed to track you are not for your safety; they are for the convenience of those who want to find something they can call a crime and use against you. How is this safe for you? It isn't. The safety is a lie.

A government which talks about your rights, but violates them at every opportunity is not your friend. If a government continues violating your rights after being told to stop, it's not a government of the people, for the people, or by the people. It's an out-of-control occupying force of domestic enemies.

Never forget that freelance criminals are far less dangerous than government employees, especially unaccountable government employees who enjoy "qualified immunity" or who are the ones writing the legislation they'll apply to us and exempt themselves from.

Government promotes the myth of "consent of the governed", but when there is no consent, they govern anyway. You haven't taken up arms yet, so they'll take that as a sign that you consent to it. Whatever "it" may be. It's a dangerous standard for government to apply. Dangerous for the people and for the government which enslaves them for their own supposed good.

Observe how Congress names legislation, and you'll see that it matters more what they do than what they say. They could make up legislation mandating that kittens be killed at birth and call it the "Saving Kittens Act". It wouldn't even be the first time they've done something like this, as every anti-gun rule demonstrates.

If a politician speaks, assume it's a lie. Don't believe it. Government lies. Its lies are exposed by what it does. So, watch government's actions, but don't forget to live your life in the fullness of liberty.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Being mainstream would be easier

Sometimes I wish I could fall in line with the mainstream of society. But then, we’d both be comfortably wrong.

I know... this isn't the first (or even the 100th) time I've thought this.

Everyone who advocates that others be governed has some issue they'd be willing to see the State kill you over to prevent you from doing what you have a right to do. Just because they don't like it.

This includes "libertarians" who have some issue they'll defend the State's position on. And there are a lot of them. I suspect some are lying because they don't want statists to think badly of them, or they have seen how libertarians who stood up to the authoritarian narrative were treated in the past. I get it. 

They'd be better off keeping their mouths shut than defending the State's position, but they don't.

A current example is public spyware. I can't get over the supposed libertarians who are defending Flock cameras, using the excuse that you don't have the right to not be photographed by a random stranger in public. That's not even close to the same thing.

If a random stranger took photos of you in public places, then used the information gained in those photos to track you down to rob, kidnap, cage, or murder you, you have the right to use deadly force against that stranger. (The State might dispute this, but the State is often wrong.)

You have the same right if that stranger works for government and uses Flock spyware, but you aren't "allowed" to defend yourself in this case. No matter how blatant the violation or how immediate the threat. Why do these people pretend they can't see the difference?

If the "law" allows you to be photographed and tracked so that your life, liberty, and property can be violated, the "law" is wrong. If the "law" forbids you from defending yourself from someone doing this, the "law" is wrong.

I'll stand up to those who say otherwise, and I'll question their motivations and their ethics.

But, I admit life would be simpler if I just went along with the mainstream and begged for safety instead of demanding liberty. Instead of sticking up for uncomfortable rights and inconvenient liberty.

-

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

Technology- good and bad.

I am not a Luddite or anti-technology. I like new technology- when it improves my life.

Spying on me, tracking me, and controlling me is not an improvement to my life.

Nasty little cowards who are afraid of the world and want Big Brother to keep them safe feel otherwise. Unfortunately, a lot of new technology is tailor-made for them. They beg for it, and someone is creepy enough to give it to them. Or, more accurately, someone will create it and sell it to The State, which is evil enough to use it against all of us on behalf of those people. For "safety".

Because of this, I can relate to people who are anti-technology. I'm trying not to join them, but I understand where they are coming from. They are better people than those making and deploying technology to spy, track, and control the rest of us.

-

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

Yes, you do have a right to privacy from government's spying

The scaredy-trolls who support Flock spyware (and similar spyware from other companies) like to claim that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution.

Perhaps they forgot the Ninth Amendment.

Whether that’s the case or not, they are making two big errors.

Their first mistake: Unless the Constitution explicitly allows government to do a thing, it is prohibited for government to do that thing. They get this backwards, pretending that government is allowed to do anything not explicitly prohibited and that only those things specifically listed are your rights. This is where the Ninth Amendment comes in. They ignore that one.

The second huge mistake they make is that even if the Constitution explicitly allows government to do something which violates life, liberty, or property, it’s still wrong for government to do that, and the Constitution is wrong for allowing it. That is a counterfeit “law”; a rule with no ethical foundation whatsoever.

If the Supreme Court takes government's side, it is wrong. 

If someone insists that you obey such a rule until it gets changed, just like you should turn in runaway slaves until it's no longer "the law" to do so, you know they are on the wrong side. They are the bad guy here.

This is how you can tell such a person is a government supremacist, and probably a Statanist. 

You have the right to privacy because that right doesn't violate anyone else's right to life, liberty, or privacy in any way. That's the bottom line, not the opinions of political criminals who want to spy on you to find (or invent) a "crime" to use against you.

-

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

The Ancestral Enemy's eyes are also in Farwell, Texas

The domestic enemies who rule this little town have crossed a line. The politicians and all the legislation enforcers have declared war on the residents.

This is a line that makes me incredibly angry with everyone involved.

These new Flock spy cameras have been installed right at the state line. It's possible one of the reasons is to catch people who visit the weed store in New Mexico, then molest them if they cross into Texas.

Or, maybe it's more general than that; just basic authoritarian surveillance and rights violations. Watching people crossing a "border" that is otherwise uncontrolled (for now).

This business, Tireworks Tire Pros, is one I've used for years. Really nice people. They are also the only local FFL. I can't in good conscience patronize them anymore if they are willing to sell me out to those who want to track us all. Don't partner with the enemy and expect me to ignore it. Or forgive you without an apology and a simultaneous change in behavior.

I want these cameras gone. I don't want them replaced with something from another brand. If anything, place them to watch police stations and officers' and politicians' homes. But they can not be allowed to watch the rest of us.

These cameras are clear evidence that government is your mortal enemy. The Ancestral Enemy. It needs to die. Even if it "only" rules a tiny town on the Texas/New Mexico state line in the middle of nowhere.

-

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

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.

This may even be more important and urgent than defending the natural human right to own and to carry weapons without government interference. These data collectors will be used to violate your right to bear arms and all your other rights as well. If this is to be stopped, it must be stopped now. Before long, it will be too entrenched to stop. Public attention is fleeting. Outrage fades. Political criminals will say, "But we've done this for years, and no one cared before."

Maybe you imagine this is only an issue in big cities you rarely, if ever, visit. If so, I have an unpleasant surprise for you.

If you check out the interactive map available at deflock.org, you'll see that they document 22 of these Fourth Amendment violations right here in Clovis, New Mexico. A flock of them, watching you, every time you pass one. Scooping up your data. Without a warrant. That's unacceptable,

Constitutionally, it's a criminal act.

Any politicians, including police department officials, who are using your confiscated money to steal your privacy are your enemies and a serious threat to your rights.

They claim it's "for safety", but you may have noticed how few real crimes are solved this way. Even if they were, it's not worth it. Not even close.

Instead, the spyware is being used to collect data to use against you. If not today, then next week or next year.

This is not for your benefit.

It would be better for you, your safety, and your liberty, if every one of these cameras-- and whatever comes next-- were removed from public spaces and placed inside government offices and chambers for all to see and record what goes on there. Watch the watchers, not the people. You have a natural human right to privacy; government officials have none.

Groups are organizing across the country to fight these unconstitutional spies. Find one and support its efforts. You might not realize how important this is, but your grandchildren and future generations will. Will you fight for them or betray them? You're making the decision now, whether you realize it or not. Choose wisely.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Water troubles, exacerbated by government screw ups

When government screws up, the people pay the price. Often, literally.

My little town- population just over 1400 or so- is in a water emergency. Because its government screwed up.

Now, we residents are ordered to reduce our water usage by at least 20% and stop ALL outdoor use of water, or else.

The "else" includes warnings, increasing tiers of "fines", and having your water shut off until the crisis is over. Will it ever be over when they've been saying for years that the wells are running dry because the aquifer is being drained? Maybe once the water towers are full again they'll remove the penalties. I can hope.

I'm not too worried about water in the short term. I have as much water stored as I can fit in the nooks and crannies of my house, and I have several cases of bottled water for drinking. And several filled canteens.

The bigger issue is making sure my parents are set- and discovering they'd dumped the two 6-gallon cans of water I'd filled for them. They still have an 8-gallon jug, though. I've also helped them arrange to refill the other two at my sister's house in the bigger town across the state line that isn't currently having an immediate water emergency. But, seriously...

Less than two weeks ago, I was chewed out for all the stored water in out-of-the-way spots around the house that weren't as out of the way as someone would have liked. Funny how quickly that tune changed with one notice from the local Rulers. This has been a recurring theme in my life. "Why are you doing this? It's inconvenient and stupid!" to "Yes, we were prepared, so we're OK."

If I only had to watch out for myself, things would be so much smoother.

Anyway...

If it would rain, I would also catch rainwater to use, but that's historically the root of the problem in the region.

I'm doing my best to cut back, even while understanding that "the tragedy of the commons" means many residents won't. I'm using stored water to keep the birdbath filled- I'm sneaking out after dark to fill it. I'm also, at the same time, using stored water to try to keep my struggling sunchokes going. And I'm giving water to the stray cats on my porch. I'm abiding by the rules, but since my Jedi powers aren't strong, there's no point in attracting imperial attention and having to answer questions about where the water came from.

Of course, a couple of years ago, the town added electronic spyware to our water meters, supposedly to make it easier to bill us. Now they are saying they are digitally monitoring our water usage on a daily basis, to see who is complying and who isn't. I warned locals that this would happen. No one cared. You know how it goes.

Anyway, I'll bet I've cut my water usage (through the meter) by much more than 20%. Coincidentally, I fixed my dripping faucet last weekend, just in time, apparently. Later, I'll increase my usage when I'm storing up water again. It's just what I do.

-

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?

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?

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?

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?

"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?

No good reason to reject liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 13, 2026)

People find many reasons to reject liberty. Fear. Envy. Ignorance. Tradition. In fact, there are probably as many reasons to reject liberty as there are people on this planet.

Those whose careers depend on violating liberty will use any excuse they are handed.

If they use envy, they can impose socialism and raise taxes on the rich. They can make people believe they have a "right" to things which others must work to provide them. It can never be your right to enslave others!

Using ignorance, political criminals lie and hope that too few notice to do anything about it. It's how we get things like "assault weapon" rules, carbon credits, and the War on (some) Drugs.

They also combine ignorance with envy, so those cheated in the brain department will demand to be coddled to dumb down society so that no one feels stupid. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge; stupidity is a dedicated effort to remain ignorant.

Tradition, when applied to historical evils, is a particularly dangerous justification for rejecting liberty. Just because "it's always been done this way" doesn't mean it should continue to be done this way. When certain rights have been sacrificed in the past, it was wrong. It's wrong to violate rights now, even when ceasing to violate them is unthinkable. Slavery has been around for thousands of years, in every society all over the world. It was traditional everywhere. That's no reason to keep enslaving people.

Of all the reasons to reject liberty, fear may be the most common excuse, used even by some people who generally support liberty. Fear is the one thing politicians count on the most. They feed it, fan the flames, and lie about how much danger you'll be in if other people don't have their liberty crushed under the heel of The State. They'll construct nightmare outcomes they hope will scare you, so you'll beg for someone's liberty to be limited in some way. Liberty restricted is liberty violated. Nearly everyone has one fear a politician can use. You need principles to say "No".

The problem is, no matter what facet of liberty you want to consider, someone is deathly afraid of it. If your rights depended on not scaring anyone, you would have no rights. You would have no liberty to exercise.

Don't fall for any reason to reject liberty. Instead of rejecting liberty, reject the excuses used to justify violating it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

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.

It's all staged

Years ago, a friend of mine owned a video rental business. Remember those? It was a small operation in a tiny strip mall in the middle of nowhere, and was manned by one person: the owner. 

My friend, known by all as "Video Bob", eventually hired a mutual acquaintance to work there part-time. A couple of months later, the place got robbed, and the acquaintance, who was the one working at the time, was tied up, and the robbers got away with all the money in the register.

Only, things didn't quite add up. No one bought his story, which seemed more like the acquaintance was trying out versions of events to see which one people believed.

Our suspicion was that the robbery was staged, with the acquaintance in on it. As these things tend to do, the "official" investigation dragged on, and I moved away, so I don't know how things turned out.

But this made me think of how the state works. It's all staged.  The state causes a situation, plays the victim, lies about it, pursues its own bad "solution", and we are all robbed of our money, our privacy, and our future. 

Worse, the state investigates the situation and finds it did nothing wrong, then doubles down on the wrongdoing it was already engaged in.

It doesn't seem like anyone would still buy it, but most of them do. I think considering the implications is just too uncomfortable for most people.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Robocops are frauds

I oppose archation.

Therefore, I oppose government.
Therefore, I oppose legislation (counterfeit “law”).
Therefore, I oppose the existence of "law enforcement" (police).
Therefore, I oppose traffic police.

If traffic cops are to exist anyway, even though they shouldn't, then they must not be allowed to make contact with anyone who cannot be clearly seen with the naked eye, driving dangerously. 

If the "offense" relies on technology such as radar, traffic cameras, or a breathalyzer to detect, it's not real. It's certainly not worth robbing or killing people over.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Don't trade liberty for dystopian world

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 25, 2026)

It feels like the world, and America specifically, is becoming an authoritarian dystopia. More rules, harsher punishment, more surveillance; all leading to less liberty.

What disturbs me the most is how many people seem to think this is fine. Or actively demand it because they fear or hate other people or what other people might do. Government is always willing to violate your rights and will oblige when asked to do so.

Too many people will trade liberty for a false promise of safety- a hope for something government power can never provide.

As long as they believe "other people" are getting it worse than they are, they're fine with the police state being built around them. They seem genuinely shocked when it is inevitably used against them and their rights.

Enforcers- police- act as though they have rights above and beyond those possessed by "ordinary people". Their delusion is reinforced by a lack of accountability. This is how you know America is a police state, not a free country.

Those who are politically connected and powerful regularly commit the most awful crimes with no consequences, while people the state considers expendable are killed by enforcers for not obeying conflicting orders fast enough. In the unlikely event consequences do come for the "elite", it's too little, too late, and a slap on the wrist compared to what would happen if you or I were in the same situation.

So, little by little, the dystopia grows. The police state gets worse. People who wish to be ruled deny it's a police state, but this doesn't change the facts.

Although libertarians are frequently accused of being utopian, we are the most grounded realists there are. We don't believe human nature permits some to rule over others. We realize that only the worst people are drawn down that path. I don't believe respecting liberty will result in Utopia, but it will make dystopia more difficult to maintain.

Most Utopias seem nightmarish to me, anyway. Pro-government people want to be protected, taken care of, and entertained. I want the liberty to do these things for myself, in ways that fit my values best. If your Utopia is someone else's authoritarian dystopia and violates anyone's rights in any way, you have no right to impose it on them. Not even if you're scared.

Utopia isn't an option; I wouldn't want it if it were. But I don't need your "safe" dystopia.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Bigger government is enemy of liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 28, 2026)

There is no "right vs. left"; no "conservative vs. liberal"; no "Republican vs. Democrat". These labels are deliberate distractions- tools used by the true culprit to keep people confused, angry, and divided.

The real conflict has always been simpler and more fundamental: the State against you and your liberty.

Anyone who helps expand the State, either by giving it more wealth, providing an excuse to gain more power, or cheering its growth, is an enemy of individual liberty and human rights.

Here's the reality: Storming churches during worship services to score political points is anything but noble. It violates individuals and plays into the hands of those who want more government power.

Plotting to annex Greenland as a step towards building a global empire is not about protecting America- it’s about concentrating government power.

Neither path serves you as an individual; both serve the State. Yet, this is the false choice we are given. "If you aren't with us, you're against us."

I'm against anyone who tosses liberty aside for any reason.

I'm pro-America. America is not the US federal government, just as you are not the tapeworm in your gut.

If you are in favor of government power, and especially more power over more people or more places, you're not on the right team.

It's the impulse to fight for a Bigger Government to use against everything they hate or anything they fear. It doesn't matter how they justify it, or which side they believe they're on. They are wrong.

The people wearing masks to hide their identity while working for the state, the people disrupting church services as protest theater, the people blocking cars of those who are only trying to go about their business, the people enforcing rules that directly violate life, liberty, or property- such as mandating a "kill switch" on your car- and anyone supporting any of these actions, are not the good guys.

Breaking the law in order to enforce laws is ridiculous and hypocritical.

Saying you're standing up for someone's rights while violating someone else's rights is absurd.

"It's for your safety" is the nastiest lie there is.

Evil succeeds when people stop caring about doing what is right.

I understand why people do these things. I can empathize with them. But understanding and empathy don't equal approval. They are still wrong.

In the choice between more government control and individual liberty, there's no compromise possible.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.