Saturday, July 14, 2012

Anti-immigration: the truth from the horse's... ummm

I realize most anti-immigration ("I'm not 'anti-immigration', I'm anti ILLEGAL immigration, blah blah blah...") people are racists- I've listened to enough of them justifying their warped statist religion in every conceivable way for years- but this comment (found on Aretae) was so blatant it shocked me:

Most of those immigrants where [sic] white Europeans. There is a big difference between that and current immigration that should be obvious. You have to be willfully ignorant to believe otherwise.

So, "white Europeans" are somehow generally preferable, as a collective, over anyone else (like "Mexicans"?) to this guy.

It would make me be ashamed if I had anything in common with this guy. Which I apparently don't. Whew! No wonder he posts anonymously.


.

Friday, July 13, 2012

50 Shades of Tyranny

If there were a free society somewhere, it would be obvious to almost everyone that going to an area which had a government is a foolhardy risk to take.

Rational people know that it isn't wrong to smoke a little pot, or wear a gun of your hip, or "neglect" to wear a seat belt. Governments are not made up of rational people. Doing any of those things can get you killed by employees of that government who are eager to add you to their trophy wall.

The problem is that there is no free society to compare to the evil of the States. What we have instead are fifty shades of tyranny, and that makes for a deceptive comparison.

I want to see the day where a true comparison can be made. How about you?


.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

"Place on top of your warhead and detonate for 2 picoseconds at..."

The "Classical Liberal" stance is that the sole purpose of government is to defend and protect the right of an individual to life, liberty, and property.

Ha ha!

Then can I claim that the sole purpose of a hydrogen bomb is to bake cakes? Or that the sole purpose of a rabbit is to discover and describe the Grand Unified Theory?

Because those claims are no more absurd or unreasonable.


.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

"If you don't like government, move to Somalia!"

This statist incantation has been around for quite a while now, but seems to have gotten more popular again. And it is still just as silly.

Two of my videos from quite a while back, "Love it or Leave it" and Theft by Any Other Name", mention the ridiculous retort. I never dreamed we'd still be hearing ignorant statists chanting the same line over a year later. I guess they are running out of quips and excuses.

So, why is this such a silly thing for statists to say? The situation in Somalia is the result of trying to force a State on people who knew it was not an improvement over the old system they already had.

So, read the two articles linked below and laugh in the pathetic statist's sincere and angry little face next time they pull this one out of their.... um, "hat":


And, if all the good people moved to Somalia, like the ignorant statist's seem to be suggesting, it would mean we would abandon everything to the thieves and thugs. How is that the right thing to do? No, it is better to stay and fight than to abandon America to the parasites.

.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Donaldson Cousins - Growing Up Blessed

I recently helped my mom publish a book about a branch of our ancestors. It is called "Donaldson Cousins - Growing Up Blessed". She compiled the book from stories her cousins sent her, along with a lot of old pictures and some recipes.

The Frontier lasted longer here than in many places, so some of those things are interesting. As are the old pictures of that era.

There is a lot more religion/Christianity in the book than I can really stomach, but that's the lifestyle choice/orientation of my relatives.

Some events I lived through even crop up in later stories- particularly the Easter Blizzard of 1970.

If you are interested in personal accounts of life on the dry plains of the western Texas panhandle during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and beyond, or if you know someone who might be, check it out.


"Home" again.

I just got back from a week of vacation time (tagging along with my parents). Returned to "Galt's Gulch" for a short visit while I was in the neighborhood.

Ahhhh! Nice!














Did you miss me?

I'll have a tale from the road... or maybe a couple. Stay tuned.


.



Passing laws doesn't solve problem

Passing laws doesn't solve problem

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 8, 2012. I think I would have called this one "Biased toward liberty" or something, but...)

Most of the loudest voices in America are biased toward socialism and collectivism- even if they call them by other names. They slant everything they report so that it shows businesses and successful entrepreneurs in the worst possible light. They widely report innocents killed by gun-wielding thugs, but ignore the innocent lives saved because someone ignored a "gun law" and acted with bravery. They praise the collective while condemning the individual. They denigrate private property rights and liberty with their every word. Worse, they pretend they have no bias while doing it.

Everyone is biased. It's just an unavoidable fact of life, but one that is not necessarily bad. I am biased toward liberty- the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate anyone else's identical rights. I might as well admit my bias since it is probably obvious. I am always going to come down on the side of individual liberty on every issue and defend it from those who try to belittle it or fritter it away. No matter what excuse they use.

Do I not care about people? I certainly do. It means I put people above the things people created. Things created by those who claim to be protecting people while draining their life from them. It means I see that "for the children" is used as justification to use those children as pawns now, and enslave them "for the good of future generations" when they grow up.

It isn't right to pick someone else's pocket or take food out of their children's mouths to support things I like. No matter how much of your own money you give away it ceases to be generosity the moment you offer to give away someone else's money. It then becomes theft.

I want to help the poor and the helpless. I recognize that everyone has rights that are identical and equal to the rights I have, and no one, and no group, has the authority to violate those rights for any reason. I want to protect the environment. I value education highly. I want to see honest businesses prosper in a truly free market. I want to help people keep their own property safe from theft and destruction. I don't want bad guys to have the upper hand when they target someone as a potential victim.

Government is not the best way to achieve any of those ends. In fact, it is the worst possible response, and probable root cause, to any problem that has been recognized. There has never been a problem solved by passing a law; only by repealing them.


.

Monday, July 09, 2012

What's in YOUR lemonade?

I just don't know how people can function while believing it's OK to initiate force or steal.

To me that is like saying sulfuric acid is an acceptable substitute for water. You can claim to believe that all you want, but your continued existence is proof that you don't generally act on what you say you believe.

However, a person can claim it is OK to initiate force or to steal, when they are approving of others doing the dirty work for them, while not really behaving that way in every day life. That's the "safe" way to do it. Just like you could try to convince other people to drink sulfuric acid while not doing such a stupid thing yourself. You'll survive that way- at least until people get wise to what you are doing to them.


.

Sunday, July 08, 2012

Hairy situations

Long hair. I have it, and I like it. And I understand that many other people don't.

But, to me, short hair is a symbol of slavery. Or of those who imagine themselves slavemasters.

When the "whites" enslaved and herded the "American Indians" into reservations, they forced their children into government schools and cut their hair in order to "civilize" them.

When a person is enslaved (either by force or voluntarily) into the military, their hair gets cut off.

Even some jobs are off-limits to those who don't have the "slave hair".

On the "slavemaster" side of the equation- The cops with the shortest hair are generally the most thuggish. Maybe there is an exception to this observation, but I have yet to see it with my own eyes.

Now, I don't believe that everyone who has short hair is necessarily a slave. If that is what you want, for whatever reason, then no one has any reason to disparage your choice.

I do get very tired of the attitude that says that short hair (and a shaved face) is somehow ethically superior, and that seems obsessed with making sure everyone complies with this "style". It's a value judgement, not a matter of right and wrong.

I'll leave your short hair alone, and I would appreciate the same in return.


.

Saturday, July 07, 2012

The Enemy

I have always been amused by the Mighty Morphin' Enemy of America.

This year we are told that this country, or this group of people, is "our" enemy, and they all want us dead, or converted to their particular superstitious delusion, or they want to enslave us by economic means, or... well, whatever excuse enough people will buy to make it seem real.

Next year it will probably be someone else and the old enemy will be ignored or swept under the rug. The old enemy may even be recast as "our ally" against the new enemy. Craziness!

Yes, there are bad people out there. The only ones who are really dangerous have government jobs, and the only ones who are a credible threat to you and me are those who work for governments which are close enough to actually mess up our lives. And you are more likely to be targeted by a local govthug than by one in DC except in unusual circumstances (although the govthugs in your town may be on DC's leash).

Most people, worldwide, are decent and have no overwhelming desire to harm you. Avoid "imperial entanglements" whenever you can and you'll avoid most of the bad guys automatically. And let the bad guys, the govthugs of every country, beat each other up while you stay out of their way and laugh at them.

.


Friday, July 06, 2012

Holy Words

Some things are just so ingrained in some people that there is no point even making a comment. They are like holy words to those who say them.

"Cops and the military keep us safe."

"You should go to college."

"America is the best country ever."

"Respect the office of the president even if you don't respect the man."

"Grow up, get a 'real job', and get married."

And, there are lots more. When I hear things like this I don't usually even respond, unless it is online where I can go into great detail. In real life, no one will listen. Online the person who chanted those holy words won't listen, either, but maybe someone else will read the response.

What are some of the other holy words out there? Besides these, I mean.

.

Thursday, July 05, 2012

You're doing it wrong...

Do you know anyone who refuses to use things in the proper way, and then blames the objects when they don't work "right"?

Cast iron cookware comes to mind, but it could be just about anything. Some people think I am that way about the Constitution or The State. Perhaps.

In any case it can be amusing. Especially if you bother to try to show the person the correct way to use that which they are using wrong. They almost never express any gratitude, and sometimes get angry- calling you "obsessed" or something for bothering to know the right way to do something. And they continue to do "it" the wrong way and complain about their failures.

I try to keep this in mind when something isn't working for me. Am I doing something wrong? Am I sabotaging my own efforts? Do I look like a fool to someone who might be watching and actually knows what I am doing wrong?

Will I listen, really listen, if someone offers advice?

For my own part, I know liberty works. Just fine. As close to perfect as will ever exist in reality. Those who desperately try to find some exception just aren't doing it right, and look silly to me. But, instead of pointing that out I should first offer some help. If it isn't wanted I should just walk away before I start rolling my eyes. It's how I would like to be treated if I am too stubborn to listen.


.


Wednesday, July 04, 2012

An Independence Day thought

A government-extremist taterhead commented (on my CNJ column about the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs) about the toll drug use has on "the families and children of the addict".

Never mind that I wasn't talking about addiction, but casual use.

But it made me think this is a good subject for Anarchy Day/"Government-go-screw-yourself" Day/Independence Day.

Sure, the family of a person addicted to anything can be harmed. Possibly it is inevitable. Greater harm still results from the legal/societal consequences of being discovered to be using those substances than ever comes from the chemicals, themselves. And even people who have never touched any drug are harmed- even killed- by the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs every day. Yet idiots like that commenter believe, without a shred of evidence and in spite of ample proof to the contrary, that it is "worth it". And they worship the murderers who work for The State.

But, OK, harm can occur from drug abuse.

A stronger case could be made for those who choose to subject their family to the government-extremist lifestyle. You don't think it harms the children and spouse to have a parent who is in the military or "law enforcement"? Then you aren't connected to reality. Look at the divorce rates, the abuse rates, and the suicide rates of those who have thrown their lives away- sacrificed to the God of the State. Then claim "drugs" are more harmful- if you dare.

If you justify harming your family by being a government-extremist, then you have no "moral high ground" from which to cast stones at those addicted to things that are minor compared to your addiction.

.

The Declaration of Independence (The only good thing to ever come out of congress)

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

.

Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Liberty makes Mortimer tremble in fear

Anti-gun idiots.

From David Codrea's War on Guns blog comes a common anti-liberty whine:
Please, if the world scares that much that you feel the need to take a gun with you everywhere, please stay at home.
Besides illustrating the linguistic "ability" of the typical anti-liberty pants-wetter, it also demonstrates a common error in their (ahem) "thinking".

Carrying a gun "with you everywhere" is not a sign of being scared. It is a sign of taking responsibility. It's a sign of being mature.

It's no wonder people like "Mortimer" can't understand it, and are frightened at the prospect of meeting someone so different from themselves. A person so much better than the ones, like Mortimer, who are obviously really scared of the world. Scared because they aren't equipped- mentally, emotionally, or physically- to handle reality. Mortimer is a prime example of "projection".


.

Monday, July 02, 2012

It's OK to hate government. Really.

Why is it OK to hate rapists? You never hear someone discussing a rape and apologizing if they admit to hating rapists. Or, if during the discussion they say they hate rapists, the people they are talking to don't scold them for saying so. Odd.

Why is it OK to hate rapists, but not government? After all, government, by which I mean The State, rapes, murders, kidnaps, steals, etc. on a scale that dwarfs all the similar deeds done by all the freelance bad guys throughout all of human history. Yet, one isn't allowed to admit to a hatred of this gigantic evil? That's insane.

I have said before that I don't hate "the government"; I love liberty. Government just happens to be the opposite of liberty. Government isn't important enough to hate. I do hate almost everything that is done in the name of government. And I will never come down on someone who admits they HATE government; I'll just hope they are consistent in that hatred and don't change their mind when "their guy" is in power.


.

Sunday, July 01, 2012

Driver's licenses do not make roads safer

Driver's licenses do not make roads safer

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 1, 2012)

I find it somewhat disturbing that both candidates in the District 7 Republican state senator primary race consider violating the inborn fundamental human right of free travel a pressing issue. The "most significant local issue", in fact.

Of course, this violation is dishonestly framed as ending the issuance of "drivers licenses" for "illegal immigrants"

It is strange that the people most in favor of this out-of-bounds abuse of authority are also the ones who most often advocate restoring the Constitution to its position as the highest law of the land. Those two positions are mutually exclusive. The Constitution, not to mention Natural Law, makes no provision for declaring anyone an "illegal immigrant' That's right- regulating immigration is unconstitutional and puts you on the wrong side of the law. Who's "illegal" now?

You can support the Constitution, or you can try to enforce laws against "illegal immigrants", but you can't do both without being inconsistent.

Where does that leave the issue? Isn't there a problem that needs to be solved? Yes, but it isn't what you might believe it is.

The root problem is the unfounded belief that government has the authority to require a license before anyone is allowed to drive. How far do you think such a bizarre notion would have
gotten with Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Benjamin Franklin? I think they would have ridiculed the first politician or bureaucrat to make such a demand, and resisted, in a spirited manner, the first soldier who tried to enforce it. Once again, the Constitution that they established simply doesn't allow it.

Remember that the Constitution was intended to restrain the government, not "the people", and that anything that is not expressly permitted of government, in writing in the Constitution, is strictly prohibited. If it isn't there, the government can't legally do it.

Those who make the claim that since government builds the roads they can regulate travel thereupon are missing the point that government has no business building roads in the first place.

So, I am in the position of provisionally agreeing with both candidates and those who find this to be a "most significant local issue". "Illegal immigrants" (or independent migrants, if we were to be more honest) should not be issued drivers licenses. And neither should anyone else.

It's not about "safety"; it's about liberty. If a driver is being dangerous there are real-time ways to stop the threat when it occurs. Possessing a license is a guarantee of nothing, as some of the safest drivers I have ever known have proved by not being caught.


.

Politics. Bleah!

I hate politics.

I resent the need to pay attention to politics in any way, shape, or form (for self-defensive reasons).

Those who make that necessary are my enemy. They steal part of my life.

I understand how some people are energized by the "political process" and elections. As long as the results don't affect my life in any way I don't care what game they play. Politics should be like football (I also have zero interest in sports): those who want to play, play. The results don't affect anyone other than those who choose to play or to be a "fan". No bearing on the Real World, unless you want there to be in your own personal life. A sports fan can't force me to cheer or support his team (unless he gets government involved in subsidizing his hobby).

If politics could become civilized in this way, I wouldn't be bothered by it at all. I might even play on occasion.

.

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Zombies, drugs, and brainwashing

I have to wonder...

How many of the "bath salts zombie attacks" were copycat attacks triggered by the (inaccurate) news coverage of the original?

Are people using "bath salts" and then thinking that while under the influence they "should" have a zombie episode?

Now that the "Original Face-Eating Zombie" has been discovered to have NOT been on "bath salts" it would seem that the epidemic should fizzle- except that the damage has been done and impressionable people now believe that "If I use 'bath salts' I will attack and eat someone".

The human mind- is it worse than the drugs?


.


Friday, June 29, 2012

Supreme Idiots and ObamaCare

... and people are surprised that the Supreme Courtjesters claim ObamaCare is "constitutional".... why?

This is the same pack of imbeciles who find excuses to claim (and expect to be taken seriously) that gun "laws" don't violate the Second Amendment and "shall not be infringed". This is the same dimsquad- well, their anti-intellectual descendants, anyway- who decided to steal the authority to be the final say on matters of constitutionality back in the early years of the 19th Century.

Look, the Constitution is NOT the best way to protect individuals from a bad government (sorry for repeating myself there), and it's a dead letter anyway. Then, on top of that, the Supreme Court, and its royal jesters, have no legitimate authority to decide what is or is not "constitutional". They never had that authority and they never will. Stop looking to them for "The Word From on High".

Theft is theft, no matter who declares it to be "legal" or "not theft".

Government and its terrorists will never willingly give up any power they think they can get away with stealing. There is no way, "legally" or "working within the system", to hold them accountable in any meaningful way. You are wasting your time by trying- but that's your time and your business. Do what you want.

As for me... I do not consent. I will not pretend they have any authority or legitimacy. I will continue to do what I can to outsmart the thugs and stay off their radar. Maybe it will work, maybe not, but I won't bend and lick their hands.


.