You'd need to alter reality

I hate to be disagreeable, but...

You'll never convince me "government is necessary" because I don't need it.

You'll never convince me "government is good" because I see its inherent evil with my own two eyes.

Until you can change reality your words are as ridiculous to me as a person who tries to tell me I need to get cornea piercings, just because it would be cool. I know what is unnecessary and harmful to me, despite any arguments and pleas.

.

Defending property rights of the "nonconformist"

Just as freedom of speech is meaningless until someone says something "offensive", so are property rights meaningless until someone decides to use their property in a way you disagree with.

Very few people need to defend the property rights of the guy with the neatly trimmed, water-wasting lawn, with nothing in it but a birdbath (cleaned daily to prevent mosquito propagation) in front of the perfectly maintained house. The only time you are likely to have to defend that person's property rights is when the State decides to steal his property via "eminent domain".

The person who needs others to rally to his defense is the guy whose idea of a great place to live differs from that of his neighbors.

Whether it's the tall weeds, the crop of Cannabis, the herd of goats, his "unlicensed" home-based business, or his prized, rusted Yugo in the middle of the front yard, the "community" wants to force him to keep his property they way "the majority" has decided it must be kept, and they will steal his property as punishment if he doesn't comply.

And this is the guy who will illustrate to observers whether you really believe in property rights, or if you just make a show as long as you aren't uncomfortable.

So which will it be? What kind of excuses will you come up with why this guy must give up his rights for "the common good"? Or, will you really defend him?

.

The use of a militia

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment 

So, what happens when the militia failed in its duty to stop a standing army from being established? Because that's where we are, and a lot of people don't remember that quote and its implications. And they forget that the military is the mortal enemy of both America and the liberty of Americans (and anyone else they encounter). People need to remember. Or recognize the reality.

.

Is this The End for JPFO?

Claire Wolfe has unsettling news about a very important gun rights group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and its imminent destruction.

I posted the following on JPFO's Facebook page (it is awaiting "approval"- can you say "snowball's chance in Hell"? I hope I'm wrong- we shall see...)

 ADDED: just found out the person who runs the JPFO Facebook page has an actual LIFE and doesn't just sit around waiting for people like me to post stuff. Amazing! ;) And, Thanks!

 I have been a LIFE member of JPFO for several years. I have never been wealthy, and it was very hard to scrape up the dues, but I did so because of the "no-compromise" position Aaron [Zelman] and JPFO held.
  

So it pains me, but if the deal with Alan Gottlieb's SAF goes through I will publicly and loudly renounce my membership on my blog to all my readers. And I will tell everyone I know why I felt forced to do so.

There is an alternate plan, one which respects Aaron's legacy and my wishes for the group. JPFO doesn't have to be destroyed. It can be saved. Do it, because it's the right thing to do.

Now I will forward this to JPFO's board of directors. Why not put in your "2 cents", too?


Contact the JPFO board (Copied from Claire's blog, "just in case")

Executive Board Director
Robert (Bob) Meier — bob@rhmeier.com

Senior Board Member
Bruce Bell — boo3@ix.netcom.com

Board Member and Managing Director
Doug Schuett — jpfoscty@att.net

UPDATE: Yep. It was The End.

.

Ferguson, Missouri, Micheal Brown, and Darren Wilson

Other than a few comments on other sites I really haven't been saying much about Ferguson, Micheal Brown, and Darren Wilson.

Well, I guess I'll speak now.

First off, I don't need cops, so I don't want them doing anything on "my behalf". Period. Disband them all and send them home, and give their equipment and guns to the people who have been forced to pay for them.

Secondly- I don't want cops approaching and confronting people for any reason; not for walking down the middle of the traffic lanes or anything else. If someone, insanely, calls the cops for a specific reason, then I suppose it's different as long as the cop goes straight to the person who called and leaves everyone else alone on his way. But, otherwise, cops should stay in the donut shop and out of the community at large.

Thirdly- if anyone is approached by an armed goon (with or without a badge), whom you have reason to suspect will initiate force against you, fighting him is a reasonable reaction. I have zero sympathy for cops getting beat up while they are out committing enforcement. Sure, they have every right to defend themselves- but I believe that is true of any thug. Even if one is attacking me and I try to shoot him. Being a thug can't magically make self defense wrong- I just always hope the thug (he who started the confrontation) loses his fight.

Fourthly- the killer cop didn't know about the robbery Brown is posthumously being suspected of committing, so approaching Brown was not justified by that possibility. If Brown robbed a store, the people present had the right to kill him in the act- the cop doesn't figure into that at all.

Fifthly- If you are going to riot and loot, using police brutality as an excuse, TARGET THE COPS AND THE POLITICIANS WHO HOLD THEIR LEASHES! Striking out at people who didn't do it is stupid and makes you into nothing but common thugs who also deserve to be killed. There are all sorts of courthouses, police stations, police cars, DMV offices, and other government facilities which would be perfectly justifiable targets for destruction and looting. So, go after them, not the innocent (who admittedly have more appealing stuff to take, I suppose).

Sixthly (spell check is losing patience with me here)- This goes along with Fifthly, above: Targeting people who aren't burning and looting stuff with your heavy-handed enforcement is stupid and makes you into nothing but common thugs who also deserve to be killed. That includes targeting reporters, photographers, people going about their daily lives, people driving through the area, and everyone not currently initiating force or violating private property.

Seventhly- Adding militarized enforcers to the situation NEVER makes things better. Want protests to get violent? Send in the clowns... uh, cops. That will guarantee violence. And the more militarized the cops, the more violent the situation will become. Pretending otherwise is stupidity of a monumental nature.

Eighthly- Any time a cop fires his gun, is involved in a car wreck, or anything else on the job- and probably off-duty, too- his name should not be kept secret. It makes him look guilty, and reasonable people will assume his bosses know he's guilty and are trying to cover it up. If you are a tax parasite you have no right to expect privacy from your employers' (the "taxpayers") scrutiny. If you don't like that you can quit and get an honest job.

And that's all I can think of at the moment.

.

Welfare of the worst kind

Almost all "laws" amount to nothing more than a welfare program for cops.

Without enforcers to support, those "laws" would be recognized* as pointless. Or worse.

They don't help or protect or serve anyone, except the political parasites and their enforcers. I wouldn't suffer one bit if those "laws" evaporated.

But, because there are enforcers, and those enforcers want to "do something" (eat, keep a roof over their heads, clothe their crotch-fruit), the welfare program of inventing "laws" keeps feeding them- with money stolen from actual productive people.

It's sad and disturbing that too many people support those destructive rules and the parasites who enforce them.

-

*Recognized as such by others who aren't you and me, I mean. We see them as they really are already... right?

.

Future enforcer in training

Recently, at a family reunion, I watched some kids playing. They had some little wheeled scooters they were riding around on; "driving" them in circles. But all was not so peaceable.

This one kid was practically sitting on his smaller playmate and preventing him from driving anywhere- just holding him in place and holding his arms down at his sides; just generally being a hands-on thug. The smaller kid complained some- I was watching to make sure nothing got too out of control (and wishing the smaller kid would haul off and bloody the other kid's nose or lip). Someone asked the bigger kid why he was doing that. The kid's answer: they were playing "cops and robbers". I know which side he was emulating.

I don't think the smaller kid was consenting to this "game", but the big bully didn't really care.

Yep, unless he changes his ways he'll make a fine police officer one day. He's already got the routine down.

.

Tolerating government not a virtue

Tolerating government not a virtue

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 18, 2014)

Tolerance. It is sold to us as some sort of virtue when it's nothing of the sort. It's simply putting up with something, or someone, you hate.

I don't want or need any government, but how much could I tolerate?

I could tolerate a government which coordinates the construction and maintenance of roads, but not one which hires enforcers to patrol those roads, collecting money for government in the process.

I could tolerate a government which provides courts to intervene for victims facing their violators, but not one which makes up laws which run counter to Natural Law, and pretends government can be the victim.

I could tolerate a government which trains volunteers to defend from invaders; not one which sends invaders to other places around the world.

I could tolerate a government which offers services and products in competition with the free market; not one which enforces it's own monopolies in defense, postal services, justice, or "protection".

I could tolerate a government which draws lines on a map it calls "borders", designed to prevent other liberty-destroying governments from expanding their territory farther; not one which enforces those borders against travelers and migrants going either direction.

I could tolerate a government which doesn't penalize anyone for choosing to opt out of any of it's programs or services, at any time, for any reason; not one which forces people to pay for and use things they don't want and can't afford.

I could tolerate a government which coordinates, not one which enforces.

I could tolerate a government which billed me for services I voluntarily agreed to pay for, not one which taxes anyone for things they don't consent to- including any of the things on this list I could otherwise tolerate.

I could tolerate that sort of government, but I still wouldn't support it. Mainly because I don't need it, and I know you don't either.

Sure, once government has socialized some product or service it becomes difficult for most people to admit this isn't the only way it can be done. People stop being able to imagine better ways. Often, they deny any other way is even a possibility. This is flawed thinking; not reality.

One thing I could never tolerate is a government which metastasizes into a State. A State invariably becomes, by definition, all the things above which I couldn't tolerate. Tolerance can only be stretched so thin before it breaks.

All States, without exception, will eventually collapse because they all grow beyond those things which can be tolerated or sustained;, becoming top-heavy, fragile constructs. Stop being dependent now, to avoid the pain if the inevitable collapse happens in your lifetime.

.

Requesting donations- shameful or just annoying?

If you are one who doesn't enjoy reading posts about my personal finances, this post isn't for you. See ya tomorrow, I hope.

For anyone else...
Most of my life I have had "real jobs", even if they weren't high-paying jobs. There were good things and bad things about every single one of them- just as there are with this job. Probably the worst thing about this job- besides the pay- is the isolation. But, when I can, I get out and interact with people. (Money helps that, too.) The best thing? I love the emails of support I get, and the occasional in-person appreciation!

But, even my "real jobs" have not always gone smoothly, as far as bringing in the money.

Once I was working for a place which got into some financial trouble, due to some dishonesty from a relative of theirs. I didn't get a paycheck for at least 6 weeks, but I wasn't in dire need at the time, so I kept working without complaint, listening to the assurances that "soon" all my back hours would be paid. Finally I said I had to start getting some money, or I would need to find a different job, therefore I would only keep working if I got paid in cash at the end of the day. I hated mentioning it. So, that's what happened- and finally I started getting paid for the back wages, too. (I still got stiffed for one whole week of work- my claim was disputed, so perhaps I was wrong... but I was keeping up with what I was owed, and what I was being paid, pretty carefully).  If I hadn't asked for the money I was owed, I doubt I would have ever gotten it.

Well, the recent commenter who is "embarrassed for [me]" and my tin cup rattling obviously feels I either don't deserve to be paid for the writing I do (except, perhaps, for the newspaper column, which is only 1/7 of my writing), or that I am paid enough already. Or maybe that only certain work, under certain traditional conditions, deserves to be paid. And that is his perfectly valid opinion, so I can't dispute it. That doesn't guarantee I wouldn't end up asking for money, either, but I guess I wouldn't be bothering you (or him) about it.

I have some very generous subscribers and donors, and I can't begin to express how grateful I am for their support, but unless I mention a need I rarely get any "out of the blue" donations. And I really do need those extras to make ends get sorta close to meeting- or at least being in sight of one another.

So, why should I be ashamed to mention the need?

I have donated money to certain blogs/projects/people, myself- not as much as I would like to, and not usually when I am feeling the need to do some begging of my own (although I helped one person out in an emergency, which made me have to ask for donations afterward- but I would have helped her regardless of what happened to me in that case).

I have never been offended by others asking, even if I feel bad that I can't help. That's my problem, not theirs. The "job" landscape is changing, and it is still a bit chaotic and unsettled. And it may get worse before things settle into the new "normal".

I love William N. Grigg's "Pro Libertate" blog, and even though he ends every single post with a request for donations, and even though I don't believe I have ever donated a cent to him, his requests don't bother me at all. He is awesome and works for- and richly deserves- every penny he gets.

Recently Chris Muir's "Day by Day" comic strip ran a multi-week fund raiser where he requested a specific amount and kept beating the drum until he got it. And, once again, I didn't donate anything, but his request didn't strike me as crass or that he was asking for "money for nothing". He obviously works hard to produce his strip and I believe he should be rewarded for the work he does.

And, I could mention other examples, too.

Do I think I am as good or important as either of those examples? Heavens no! If you'd rather donate to them- or to no one- it's none of my business. But, if they can ask, why can't I? What makes me different? That I am not famous?

It does bother me to ask- sometimes a lot. Does it bother others to ask? I have no idea. But, often, asking is what makes a difference. In the past I would say I have usually gotten donations about half the times I make a request. And for that I thank you all.

But then, maybe I am not "good enough" to ask for donations. That would be a perfectly valid reason to object to my requests- if I seem to be saying I "deserve" something I don't. Only you can judge that.

I thought long and hard after feeling I had been scolded for asking for donations- on a post where I wasn't asking for donations, but running some product ideas past my readers. After that happened I considered making a commitment to myself to never ask again.

But, you know what? I have nothing to be ashamed of. I have never resented someone telling me they won't or can't donate to me. I have never tried to make anyone feel bad for not donating when they try to explain why they don't. I put a lot of work into this blog, and when I need money I ask, but if you don't want to donate, for any reason, don't. It doesn't bother me. You don't "owe" me anything. No explanations necessary.

If I ever get to the point where I am regularly getting at least $600 per month, total, I don't think you'd ever see another request for donations- unless some unusual crisis crops up. Until then, I hope you don't mind if I post the occasional reminder. If you do mind, I'm really sorry. I don't want to drive anyone away, and I hope the rest of my content is worth the occasional bleg you can just skip over without giving it a second thought. If it's not, it isn't your fault.

And, yeah, I could really use some donations right now.

.

Gangs

A "new" justification for the brutal and ridiculous gang of government is that without them, freelance inner-city (or foreign) gangs will eventually leave the cities to rampage the countryside, killing and raping us all. Especially when the "free stuff" dries up.

Never have figured out why I'm supposed to fear freelance gangs, whom I can generally "legally" shoot and kill, more than the government gangbangers who are "legally" off-limits, no matter what they do.

But, it brings up a question in my mind. Why are there gangs?

I think it's because humans have a strong need to belong. To a tribe or a gang. Or a "government"- but I repeat myself.

Now, I'm no expert or anything, but I sometimes feel that same need myself, and I can extrapolate that to others. Perhaps I am wrong.

Belonging to a group gives you a sense of place, but it also gives you a bunch of people to watch your back. For people without principle- aggressive thugs of any sort- belonging to the group is all that matters, and they'll happily commit any atrocity to show their loyalty to the group. They watch each other's backs while doing evil, not only when others would do evil to them.

But the "criminal gangs" owe their very existence to The State. The State causes the problem it is supposedly the only solution to.

By inventing counterfeit "laws", The State empowers and finances gangs on both sides of "the law". It pits them against each other, and bystanders like you or me can get hurt in the crossfire. It also invents rules designed to protect those aggressive gang members from the rightful consequences of their actions. Because the gangs use weapons, The State's goons make up rules saying you and I are forbidden to own and to carry weapons- making the bad guys safer. If they attack or steal, self defensive violence should end their parasitical life- no matter what gang they call their own. Or whether they belong to a gang or not.

I do not benefit by having a gang rob me and violate my rights in order to fight against another gang which might like to rob me and violate my rights in their place. I benefit by committing myself to defend myself, my friends, and my family from any attack, no matter who is committing it. And I benefit by those who reciprocate on my behalf- voluntarily, without claiming a "right" to rob and molest me for my own good.

I'm sorry, but your fear of freelance gangs doesn't give you any right to impose your gang on my life, liberty, or property.

Added:
The way I see it, the "argument" boils down to this: "Because there are gangs out there- with limited territories and resources- I need to support the creation of other gangs- with almost limitless territories and resources- even though I am a member of neither gang."

Part 2

Interestingly, after I wrote the above, I participated in a discussion with someone who says a centralized monopoly of force- government- is the only thing freelance gangs respect, so he is in favor of it. He based this on his experiences in a pretty nasty place- which he ended up leaving (which I pointed out is a perfectly valid choice).

Here is my response:

Once you have a centralized, monopolized force you have the very sort of gang you fled from. It's just that- for whatever reason- you prefer the gang calling itself "government" to the other gangs. That's your choice. But it's still nothing but a gang.

There can never really be a monopoly of power. Governments/gangs wish it were possible- as long as they end up on the "winning" side. There will always be competition for that power. Government vs gang Z vs gang X vs "rich warlord" vs determined and armed individual vs who-knows-what. If you base your society of gangs, you'll always have gangs fighting gangs, seeking to increase their cut. Right now, the gang called "government" just has a temporarily larger slice, but it's still nothing but gang warfare over turf and who they are "allowed" to fleece and rape.

Any gang- government or freelance- will usually leave you mostly alone until they want something of yours, or until you refuse to comply with some other demand. Then they'll take it or "enforce" their demand if you can't stop them. Government enforces all of their theft and aggression with death. Don't believe me? Refuse to cough up for some "fine" or "tax". You'll get a threatening message. Ignore it and eventually men with guns will arrive to force you to pay up or be caged. Resist and they will kill you. Each step of the way thugs calling themselves "government" will escalate the violence until you either comply or die. That is gangland behavior; not civilized behavior.

Government isn't security- except for the members of its own gang. Same as any other gang. Everything you point out about the freelance bad guys applies identically to "government".
You are making a distinction where none exists.

There will never be a Utopia free from the presence of all bad guys. I just don't do mental gymnastics trying to justify one violent, thieving gang over another. Maybe because you believe you know what to expect from your chosen gang, and the other gangs seem unpredictable and arbitrary, you have chosen the one you support. I can see why some might see that as preferable. So, you support the gang you prefer, and I'll do the same (which, since I prefer no gangs at all...).

Every anti-gun "law" and anti-self defense "law" makes it that much safer to be a thug. Until the point is reached where some people actually believe that without "government" the (freelance) gangs would run rampant- as if that is substantively different than the current situation. It's quite a handy scam they've got going.
.

Liberty matters!

Sometimes, after a discussion with a statist, I feel very irritated at myself for having allowed my emotions to show.

Why do I get worked up? Why?

Because it matters.

Things are the way they are because most people keep following the same foolish path toward more state. And no one wants to hurt their little feelings, even when they are headed over the cliff.

Cowardice!

If someone doesn't stop being so meekly polite in the face of insanity others may never realize they are behaving insanely.

That doesn't mean every discussion is the time or place to get emotional, but you have to understand that a lot of people aren't convinced by rational arguments and logic. Nope. For them it takes plucking their heartstrings; they are ruled by emotionalism and are only swayed by an emotional appeal. I don't like that, either, but it is what it is.

So, when you need to be emotional, allow yourself to show it. Because liberty freakin' MATTERS!

.

The failure that is "pragmatism"

How many times have you been scolded and told to be "pragmatic"?

If you advocate for liberty and gun rights, I'll bet you've heard that a lot. After all, you can't expect "them" to actually respect your rights. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." And, you shouldn't be so stubborn and inflexible.

Well...

There is a time and place for pragmatism. Choosing to initiate force or theft- or excusing those who do- because you can't get the bad guys to admit they are evil isn't it.

Don't tell me to offer up one of my kids "pragmatically" as a human sacrifice so the others may have a better chance to live. Wrong is wrong. I may never live in a perfect world- in fact I'm quite certain I won't- but you don't hit the target by refusing to pick up your weapon for fear of hurting someone's feelings or spooking the herd. Aim small; miss small. I know what I want.

Yes, your compromise with evil may be better than "what is", and I won't stop you from advocating for it. I'll even enjoy any fruits of liberty you manage to bring to harvest. But I'll never be distracted from the prize. I also hope once you get "enough liberty" you'll decide to join my drive for the rest of the pie.

.

I'm grateful for cops

No, seriously.

There was a time when bandits didn't advertise their evil intent. They blended in and you had no clue who they were until it was too late and they attacked.

The bad guys of the Western genre wear black hats and bandannas over their faces so you can know to keep an eye on them- while you watch the show. In real life I doubt they advertised so conspicuously.

But today the majority of the individuals you are likely to be violated by advertise their evil intent with badges and uniforms. Imagine that! You can tell at a glance who's the most likely, in a group of people, to be a real and credible danger to your life, liberty, property, and happiness.

We should all thank them for being so up-front about their intentions and loyalties.

.

Shaneen Allen is denied justice again

There's more news about State victim, Shaneen Allen.

Now the corrupt "judge" denies her request to drop the bogus charges.

Not that I'm surprised, since this is what you get when you allow the conflict of interest with State employees being involved in cases where The State is one of the interested parties (the imaginary one, at that!).

Wish I could save you from the cannibal clowns, Shaneen.

.

Another question- Time's Up items

Now that I have Time's Up patches offered for sale, are there any other items you might be interested in? Other than flags.

Some of the items I have considered include bumper stickers, key rings, lighters, pens, calendars, yard signs, "do rags", rubber stamps, and Christmas ornaments.

I'm open to suggestions if you think of anything else people might like.

.

Self evaluation time

I write for you, my readers. This makes you my employer. And you get a very good deal because you can choose whether to pay me or not- and whether to even notice me or not.

And I'll probably continue to write, either way.

I get a good deal because no one person can really fire me or coerce me in what I write. Well, the newspaper gig could, but I get more money from donations and subscriptions, anyway.

I always wonder: Am I doing the right thing by writing about liberty? Would I be more effective doing something else- or nothing at all; just living it, instead?

As long as I keep getting your support and comments, I'll keep thinking I am doing some good. Feel free to chime in to tell me otherwise.

.

Governments pay lip-service to reasoning

Governments pay lip-service to reasoning

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 11, 2014)

There are two- and only two- ways to interact with other people: you can use reason or you can resort to force. Reason is the civilized choice.

The really great thing about most people is they almost never- on their own- resort to force. Rarely does anyone try to force their will on others in daily life. Rarely do they steal rather than making a trade. People say "excuse me" and hold doors open for one another without anyone ordering them to. People are mostly decent, and it is no trick to get them to see people who shun reason and prefer force as the damaged ones.

In fact, with one absurd exception, almost everyone understands choosing force over reason to be wrong. Sure, there are a few freelance bad guys out there, and there always will be, but the number is much smaller than you have been tricked into believing. The rest of us outnumber them so overwhelmingly that if we were to once again take responsibility for our own safety and self defense they'd be wiped out very quickly unless they changed their ways.

For the rest of us, when we want someone else to agree to something we try to convince them how great our idea is, or how it would be in their interest to join our cause. We may even offer incentives. If we can't convince them, the civilized thing is to let them walk away.

When was the last time someone physically twisted your arm to get you to compromise on pizza toppings? How long has it been since you had a gun stuck in your face for saying you'd rather opt out of a family gathering?

When someone chooses to use force to make you do things their way, you are completely justified in responding with force in self defense. Those who choose force don't want you to know this- they want protection or immunity from the consequences of their choices.

Why do people imagine the rule of civilized behavior magically changes once someone invokes government?

This dichotomy of reason or force is also why all governments, no matter what they say, are uncomfortable with people like you or me owning and carrying adequate weapons to resist those who default to force. It's why they always impose exceptions or "reasonable" limits in spite of "shall not be infringed". Governments all rely on force, and will only give reason lip-service for show.

Force leads to tyranny; the use of reason leads to liberty. People, left to their own, choose reason and liberty most of the time. Left to ourselves we can handle those who don't.
.

Freedom (or liberty?) and Property

A while back, after I had said that a person has no right to trespass even if surrounded by private property and prevented from getting vital resources by the owner/s, this link came up in comments: Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict.

I found it very interesting. It seems to dovetail very nicely with my "most unpopular idea". That doesn't make either one right, obviously. Still, it's something to think about, and it does make a lot of sense.

Of course, the author keeps talking about freedom, when I always think the critical issue is liberty.

.

Your tainted symbol

If "The US Flag", "Old Glory", were just a symbol of Americana- apple pies, mom, hotdogs, and happy times- I wouldn't be offended by it. If it were a symbol of home and hearth and community it would be fine.

But it's not. Not anymore- if ever.

If that were the case government buildings wouldn't be so dedicated to flying it.

It is now an omnipresent symbol of the US Empire and the militarism that goes with it. It has become primarily a military banner- symbolizing the ongoing wars of State vs Liberty.

I feel really bad for people who desperately want to love and defend that banner. Those who make all sorts of excuses for it, and say it is being used in a way contrary with its real meaning.

Tell that to the swastika.

.

Crack down on the crime of "governing"

It is a criminal act to commit "government".

But, it's worse than that.

"Government" is a copycat crime.

Not only that, it is an escalating copycat crime, where each thug gets new, innovative ideas of how to violate more people "better" from all the others committing the same evil act.

I say it's time to break the cycle.

.