Drug tests, "checkpoints", and the TSA

From drug tests, to DWI "checkpoints, to the TSA, rapists have been given "authority" to control your life.

Welcome to America, the world's first "rape-ocracy:".

.

"I voted Demopublicratican because..."

I got half of this in an email, from someone who said it was only "pointed in one direction", and that I point in all directions. So, I added another direction. It's not perfect, by any means, but sometimes it is really hard to make a distinction where none really exists. See what you think.

**

1. I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.

1a. I voted Republican because I love having the power to insert myself into other people's marriages through State coercion. Everything is subject to licensing, even love.

2. I voted Republican because I don't care what oil companies do as long as it doesn't affect my driving habits.

2a. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

3. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3a. I voted Republican because I believe without government "laws" my friends, family, and neighbors will not know the difference between right and wrong and they might do things I don't like.

4. I voted Republican because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as I am not offended by it saying things I don't like about my traditional values.

4a. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

5. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

5a. I voted Republican because I trust the police and military with guns even though they kill more innocents than all the freelance criminals combined.

6. I voted Republican because I want authorities to absolve me from the consequences of my actions, and because I like to poop in my nest. And, because I believe "laws" are the answer.

6a. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

7. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7a. I voted Republican because I'm not concerned about millions of babies, children, mothers, and fathers being bombed to death in "Brown people countries" so long as we keep all American fetuses alive. And as long as we can keep killing people to show that killing is wrong.

8. I voted Republican because I believe government owns the whole country and can violate my right to decide who I allow, or not, on my property- and that Social Security is not socialism because I paid into it all those years.

8a. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the social security from those who paid into it.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9a. I voted Republican because I believe that businesses should submit to government before being allowed to engage in trade, should be "taxed" to support the military, and that many consensual economic activities should be forbidden because I don't like them.

10. I voted Republican because I believe that the Constitution is Holy and can't be improved upon even when it authorizes the government to commit acts of evil.

10a. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

11. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions for their oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.

11a. I voted Republican because I think it's OK to pay trillions of dollars of your money to bomb and invade countries to make their people hate us, as long as it keeps the oil flowing and keeps me feeling patriotic bliss.

12. I voted Republican because my head is so firmly planted up my a**, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

12a. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my a**, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

.

Keep abreast of the illegal infringements

"Shall not be infringed". It's the Law. But criminal governments don't obey it, and will murder you if you do what you have a fundamental human right to do.

That being the case, it is probably a good idea to know the counterfeit "laws" that the bad guys will use against you. So, here's a book that can help:



Another good thing is that if you buy the book through that link I get paid a bit of money, which I am always in desperate need of. So, think about it. Please.

.

If that's "peace", then you can have it

In a blog post that showed up in my Google Reader, but then vanished before I could actually go to the blog and post a comment, a libertarian said that because of the Aurora movie theater shootings he was getting rid of his shotgun by finding someone who would destroy it so it could never be used again. I find his lack of reasoning ability frightening. So I'll address it here.

He said he had once been "a gunnie" and had bought a revolver for self-defense. He spoke of going to the shooting range with his revolver, and how he learned to hate guns from his experience of shooting one (hey, it's not for everyone), and realized that he wasn’t ever going to use it in his home to defend himself against an aggressor. If someone broke in, his plan was to try to escape through the back door. He decided he could never shoot a home invader. His "reasoning" was that if they wanted his possessions, then they could have them. He says he wasn’t going to kill anyone over his "stupid stuff".

But what if it isn't your "stuff" they want? Sometimes, what they want is to kill you. Or worse. And, then after they survive the encounter with you they'll go do it to someone else. Shouldn't you do all you can to prevent that? I guess not. I think his attitude is selfish and self-centered. Think about other people, not just about yourself.

He says his original desire to own a gun was based upon fear and self-deception, and that it gave him a false sense of "control". That's not the point of owning and carrying a gun. The point is to prevent someone else from controlling you or the ones you love. Sure, you may fail. Is that a reason to give up and never try? Only if you are a coward. Just because any number of things could kill you at any time do you close your eyes and walk out into traffic when crossing a busy road? Do you get rid of your smoke detectors and fire extinguishers? Do you stop eating? Well, perhaps some mentally disturbed people do, but healthy people take charge of the things they can control and face the things they can't when they arise. They don't just give up.

He also quoted some Brady Mass-Murderer Fan Club lies about gun owners being more likely to shoot themselves than to use a gun in self-defense. Way to go, dude.

Guns are not "The" solution for everything, but they are a solution for some specific problems. Irrationally excluding one solution just because you don't like it is... well, irrational. I don't know, but I would have to say that he probably isn't responsible enough to own a gun. And that isn't "peace"; that's just a tragedy.

.

Chick-fil-A and gay marriage

The (somewhat) free market works every time it is allowed to do so.

Chick-fil-A's owner said he opposes gay marriage. His statement drove away some people and attracted others. That's how it should work. Even if the result isn't the one I would agree with. I don't get to "run" the economy.

This is how it should be. The only thing that happened here "as it should never be" is when that one elected crook (was it the mayor of Boston? I forget...) said that because of that statement, Chick-fil-A was not welcome in "his" town. What a worm.

That's why political power is not legitimate. It gives parasites and control freaks the delusion that they have the authority to decide who gets to enter into voluntary arrangements with others. No one has that authority.

.

Bloomberg's Plan- Police Strike

It's been a while since Bloomin' Bloomberg called for a nationwide police strike unless we "mundanes" agree to be violated with even more gun "laws".

He says:

I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, 'We're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.'

I'm in full support of that idea. With a couple of conditions.

Not only must the police go on strike with regards to providing "protection", but they also must stop their thieving for The State. No traffic enforcement. No DWI "checkpoints". No drug busts. Nothing. Sit home and eat donuts and pretend to be 15 year-old girls online. On your OWN time.

Your safety is your problem, not mine. My rights don't crumble in the face of your fear or your desire to go home at the end of your shift. If you are scared to be a cop among an armed population, then f'ing QUIT. Please! Make the strike permanent.

It will never happen, though. The truth of the matter is that cops can't afford to stop "servicing" the public or the public will realize what an unnecessary burden the Reavers really are. Without fear of "legal" assaults, they could carry their own defensive tools without risk. They would get a taste of liberty and they just might like it. Some of us already know we don't need you at all. It might only take a police strike to show the rest of the people the light.

That's a risk Bloomers and his minions- wherever they may run their scheme- can never permit to happen. His promise, as delightful as it is, is nothing but a blast of verbal flatus from a giant windbag. What a disgusting waste of meat.

.

Patriots? Where?

Nationalists:

• Get teary-eyed over the "Stars and Stripes" and the national anthem.
• Say things like "our government" and "my president".
• Believe that "if we just elect the right people..."
• Believe that the Constitution is the answer, if only it had been enforced.
• Say "Love it or leave it".
• Chant "USA, USA".
• Believe the propaganda about the latest Enemy of America, whether economic or military or "terrorist".

Patriots:

• Would have started shooting government employees by now.

Note: I do not consider myself a "patriot", and I am certainly NOT a "nationalist". Liberty is what matters, not where you find it. Or don't.

.

No one should meddle in our lives

No one should meddle in our lives

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 29, 2012)

When I defend liberty I constantly get accused of condoning all sorts of things I don't condone. Rather than "condoning" them, I realize that those things are simply none of my business; not mine to approve or condemn. Nor are they anyone else's business, either.

Recently a fellow libertarian posted a comment on facebook that I agreed with whole-heartedly. He said "There is a difference between approving of what someone does and approving of their freedom to do it, and the latter does not somehow mandate the former."

So true! Why is this impossible for so many people to understand?

It really does seem to be impossible for the majority of people to grasp. Our entire political system is evidence of that. Almost everyone is seeking to use the force of the state to prohibit others from doing things they don't approve of, while others are doing the same thing to them. It's like the Hatfields and McCoys, but without taking responsibility for the violence that is done on your behalf. Or, actually, it's precisely what some people claim would happen in the absence of an externally-imposed government. "You kill one of ours, so we kill one of yours", and the cycle goes on until everyone has been shot.

It's a demented way to run a society, if you ask me, and, it is probably one of the best demonstrations that societies shouldn't be "run" at all; complex systems function better when allowed to "self-organize". No one should have the authority to meddle in other people's lives until there is an individual victim.

This obsession over condoning or forbidding other people's voluntary, mutually-consensual behavior is also why government grows and grows, and never becomes smaller. It is why the number of laws increase geometrically- or faster- every year until even no one in government has a clue how many laws there now are. Or whether you (or they) are breaking some of them.

So, as long as you aren't attacking anyone or taking or destroying other people's property, whether or not I approve of the other things you do isn't even something you need to concern yourself with. It's not even on the map.

But, while we are talking about attacking and stealing, I definitely don't condone taking property from people by threat of force in order to finance the loss of more of their liberties, and to finance the enforcement of that violation.

.

Business Idea for you

Spending money can be fun. Spending large amounts, if you can afford it, can be even more exciting.

Here's a business idea to capitalize on that quirk of human nature so that you can get your own large amounts of money to spend. If you're nice you can cut me in on your profits for giving you the idea.

What I envision is a website where people can place fantasy orders for things like cars, houses, home entertainment centers, or whatever they might like. However, the only thing they actually pay for is the thrill of choosing among various options and placing the orders. Perhaps they might actually pay only $1 for every $100,000 they spend.

There could even be free accounts where they are limited to "spend" less than $50,000, and to spend more they need to upgrade to a premium account by actually linking a credit card.

Then, they can go shopping. When they click "place order" they would only pay the price of the game they just played. They might get a receipt showing the items they "ordered", so that they could print it out.

.

Who let the dogs in?

If I construct a gate that keeps out cows, but allows dogs through, and then I scatter bacon all over my yard, why would I be surprised to find dogs in my yard?

When you construct a political system, why are you surprised to find politicians occupying it?

The system actively selects for power-hungry people. Are all power-hungry people evil? Maybe not, but more of them are evil than among the general population. And dangling a system that gives power right in front of their faces makes it inevitable that they will accept your offer and rule over you.

The cows are not interested in breaching the gate, and are not drawn by the bacon. You have selected for dogs.

I do not consent.

.

Unconscious Guy and the EMTs

Revisiting the tale of The Unconscious Guy...

When the EMTs eventually showed up, my daughter asked "Are they gonna kill him?" I told her that they were going to try to help him. I said they were seeing if he needed to go to the doctor, and if he did they would take him there. She thought about this a moment and said "No, I think they're gonna kill him."

I was telling my family members about this, thinking it was kinda amusing. Instead, my mom muttered "Where has she heard that before?" while looking at me.

I think she misunderstood and thought I was saying my daughter said that about the cop who arrived after the EMTs. I don't think she would have said that. I don't mention cops to her at all. I ignore them. As far as I am concerned, they don't even warrant my attention in most cases. Like a pile of dog crap, I just avoid stepping in them.

I found it a little ridiculous that just because my family members can't face reality about the nature of The State they make assumptions.

I will NEVER try to teach my daughter to trust cops as a group. I will never try to get her to give up her sovereignty to any collective for any reason. But to try to get her to repeat things like that about cops isn't even a goal of mine. They aren't worth the effort. Now, if she's exposed to the D.A.R.E. propaganda, then the game will change.

.

If Islam ever "takes over" America...

If Islam ever does take over America it will be because we allowed a government to be available for them to co-opt.

If you leave a tool lying around, don't be surprised that someone picks it up. Then, don't be surprised if the tool is used as you have already demonstrated, by your past actions, that it can be used.

.

"Cell Phone Free Zones"

I just thought of another item that is sometimes, ridiculously, banned on some property: cell phones.

I can understand if there is a real danger of the radio signals setting off explosives, like at a construction site, but that is a special case and is not common. The myth of the cell phone's ability to ignite gasoline fumes has been disproved enough times that the warnings have started disappearing from gas pumps- at least around here.

But, there are still places of business that forbid the employees from possessing cell phones while working. Not just forbid them from having the phones turned on or using them while "on the clock", but forbidding them from having it in their possession at all. Ridiculous.

This is just as stupid (and just as dangerous) as a prohibition on any other thing that stays totally concealed and doesn't harm anyone's property in any way. And I am just as opposed to this prohibition as any other.

.

Coming up short

I keep trying to imagine some object or "thing", anything at all, that I hate or fear so much that I would prohibit a (otherwise welcome) visitor to my property from having it hidden in his pocket, as long as it stayed completely hidden and had no physical effect on my property.

Try as I might, I just can't.

Does this mean I am short on empathy? Or imagination? Or that I don't have "enough fear"?

Once again I am faced with the possibility that there is something inherently different about me. Something some people consider "wrong".

.

.

Legal drugs just as risky to use

Legal drugs just as risky to use

(Ummm... not the headline I would have chosen at all. Not at all... My Clovis News Journal column for June 22, 2012. I have it on good authority that this column is "edgy, but it won't put an eye out".)

How many of you know someone whose life was destroyed by drug use? Before you answer that question, think for a minute.

Was that person's life destroyed by the chemical substances they put into their body, or by the legal and social penalties that have become automatic when they were discovered to be using those substances?

There is almost no successful person, in any sphere of life, who hasn't admitted using "drugs" or been caught using them at some point during their life. This still doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do- it isn't- but it does show that the drug use doesn't automatically destroy a person's life, as long as they can somehow avoid the worst of the imposed damage.

"Winners don't use drugs" is a lie. Sure, you can make the claim that the drug use alone makes the person a loser, but that doesn't reflect reality and it makes you look very dishonest to people who trust you to always tell them the truth. It can make them decide to see for themselves when it becomes obvious you weren't entirely truthful. It can erode the trust they are willing to place in you in other areas of life, too.

There are real reasons to avoid drug use, and most especially abuse. Point to the real reasons instead of the demonstrably false ones.

So, what are the real reasons it is a really bad idea to abuse drugs? It is expensive. It really can cause health problems if allowed to get out of control. It can cause legal trouble and a host of social problems if discovered. Because it is normally illegal, it puts you in the company of people who are willing to risk serious legal trouble, so adding one more offense by harming you in some way is not as daunting to them as it would be for most of us. It also can expose you to corrupt or over-zealous law enforcement and justice system employees who can drag you in deeper than you would go on your own in order to enhance their job statistics. I'm not saying this necessarily happens here, but it certainly does happen in most places in America today.

Legal drugs have just as many health risks as the illegal ones. Sometimes even more. By focusing on too many of the societal consequences you can skew the view of those you are trying to convince. And that could lead to tragedy.

.

"Gun Free Zone"

I hate "gun free zones". For one thing, they only apply to people who have no intention of murdering or robbing.

A true "gun free zone" is one that is administered by some government entity. Since government is prohibited from passing or enforcing any "laws" concerning guns, these "zones" have no authority or "legal" basis whatsoever. And certainly no ethical foundation. You are not a bad person nor a trespasser if you ignore their edict. That doesn't mean there may not be consequences- so, be smart.

Private "gun free" zones are a slightly different matter, but no "better".

I don't believe we would see very many private "no gun" signs had not the government previously made it appear acceptable to prohibit decent people from carrying guns in certain areas.

There is almost no place where there is a legitimate justification to prohibit guns. Some place where a shot fired could cause an explosion is about the only one. Most gun bans are based upon touchy-feely emotionalism. Or a backwards fear of liability.

Now, anyone can be a pig-headed idiot and be "afraid" of people who are taking responsibility for their own safety, but seriously, if you don't trust someone with a gun, why do you pretend to trust them at all? Because if you say you do trust them, just not with a gun, you are lying.

Yes, you have a right to prohibit people from coming onto your property for any reason, or no reason at all. But sometimes you are wrong to do what you have a right to do. Sorry, but that's just how it is. You have a right to prohibit Jews, or homosexuals, or blondes, or left-handed men, or people wearing green shirts from coming onto your property, but by doing so you expose yourself as a bad person who is subject to shunning. And if someone comes on to your property and is harmed by an otherwise preventable act of violence while they were disarmed at your insistence, I would hold you liable if I were arbitrating. Just as I would hold them liable if they came onto your property and, by an act of carelessness or willful destructiveness, caused bodily harm or property damage.

I don't trust people who don't trust me to be armed. I suspect their motives.

.

Chaos, with bullets flying everywhere!

Yes, it really would have been better had at least one of the good guys in the Aurora movie theater been armed.

One excuse that I saw repeated over and over again was that if anyone else in that theater had been armed, it would have been "chaos, with bullets flying everywhere, hitting more innocent people". Sure, that is possible. I don't think it's likely, though.

A decent person isn't going to start firing blindly even when there's an active shooter in the room. They just don't do that. "Know your target and what's beyond it." It isn't going to be hard to tell which person is trying to kill others (unless you have "law enforcement" training, that is): he's the one taking aim at the crowd. The people on your side are the ones taking aim at him.

Sure, there is always the possibility of hitting the wrong person in such a situation- that's why you would have to decide for yourself whether you can take a shot or not. If not, you are no worse off than you would be if you were not armed (until the cops show up and kill you), and an opportunity still might arise where you can do some good.

Some worried that an armed person would have just attracted the shooter's attention and been targeted as soon as he showed himself. Possibly. But then that gun would have been available for someone else to attempt to use against the bad guy.

Look, some things are just going to go badly. It's "life". Sometimes, in spite of your best efforts, you will not make a positive difference. If that's enough reason for you to never try, then... I have nothing but pity and contempt for you. You can always find some excuse to be a sheeple if that's all you want to be.

.

Check for yourself

On the road north of Durango, Colorado there is a hot spring that bubbles out of the top of a pile of rocks right on the shoulder of highway 550. The minerals have formed a smooth rounded rock formation that is pretty cool.

A lot of tourists stop and take pictures of it, and some climb on it. As did I. And I discovered it isn't quite what it seems.

I had noticed that some of the rocks near the top seemed too angular to be the result of mineral deposition. Then when I climbed to the top I saw that the water was coming out of a metal pipe that poked out of the middle of the top rock.

I tasted the water, and it was warm, not hot, and tasted like soda. Not horrible, but I wouldn't be craving this water if I were thirsty.

I suppose the story is that there was a hot spring beside the road, and someone decided to make it more interesting by sinking a pipe and piling rocks so that the water could cascade down rather than just pool. And it worked well. Time has made it even better by growing a nice deposit of minerals that makes it look more natural and like something you might see at Yellowstone.

What got me was how many tourists stopped while I was there and, instead of checking out anything for themselves, stood there taking pictures and asking me about it. They asked how hot the water was. They asked what the water tasted like (when I mentioned tasting it). And I told them about the pipe. Not one then checked on what I had told them.

Where is the scientific method in these people? Is this why people just accept the lies that are told them about how necessary The State is? Am I that different in my willingness to check things out for myself rather than just asking some random guy standing around?

.

Argh! Anti-liberty idiots are crawling out of the sewers!

Why is it that when I point out that ONE armed person in that Aurora theater, besides the guy who wanted to murder people, could have (not "would have", but "could have") saved a lot of lives, the anti-liberty bigots read "everyone in the theater, firing randomly in every direction, would have been great!"?

Are these people really that stupid? Yes. Yes, they are.

One of them waxed "eloquently" about how he had "served" [sic] and my "Monday morning quarterbacking" showed I was never in the army or marines. And, even with his superior training, he doubted he could have effectively shot the bad guy.

In fact, why don't I just post his entire response right here in all its glory.

It's alright to be angry about this as well as the knee-jerk reactions of the "gun control" camp.

A lot of us are, but, as an Army vet (trained in a variety of weapons and situations), I can tell you that, under those circumstances, I doubt that even I could have taken the useless bastard down.

Your assessment indicates that you are not a veteran, or not a veteran of the Army or Marines, at least.

Very few people in this world are not temporarily (much more than just a few seconds) debilitated when CS gas is a factor ( I have met only one - a Drill Sgt in basic), having dealt with it in training, and even the best of us, in those circumstances, would not be able to get an accurate shot off (possibly targeting/hitting a civilian, instead).

Your argument is just "Monday morning quarterbacking"; something that I suspect there will be a lot of with this, just as there was after Columbine.

The gun laws are both the problem and not the problem.

There needs to be some sort of lawfully mandated test to determine the mental stability of someone who decides to purchase a weapon (particularly if they purchase multiple weapons and are not a licensed collector), be it a rifle or handgun.

Until we can make THAT happen, then these sorts of things will always be a possibility. Do we know if he even had a concealed carry permit? I haven't heard on that and my guess is that he did not have one.

So I responded "So you'd rather keep it so that only bad guys are armed. Good to know."

Idiot.

Sorry, but my tolerance for these morons is running low.

.

Bug Out Bag confession

My Bug Out Bag is HEAVY. This might be a problem, I know. If you can't carry it, it is of no use. However, I haven't dumped anything yet, and here's why:

I know that different circumstances demand different preps. If I have to flee my house in a rainy (?) spell during the winter I will need different stuff than if I get stranded while driving across the desert during the summer. My thought, and it may be flawed, is that I can ditch (or maybe cache) what isn't immediately necessary in that circumstance, thus lightening the load.

I would rather not take something out while the bag sits waiting, thinking that "I won't need that here, today", and find myself in a situation that calls for that which I just took out of the BOB. When the bag is called into service, I can evaluate better. I hope. At least it feels like I have left my options open this way

.