Cops have only themselves to blame

Sometimes, as I drive or walk around town, I see prisoners being used as slave labor on the grounds of the local cop-shop-- I mean "law enforcement center". It disgusts me to see this.

They are dressed in the old black and white striped prisoner uniforms. I've read the local police reports, so I know it's not likely that any of them violated real laws; most likely counterfeit ones. I mean, it's probably not going to be the truly rare dangerous prisoner used for outdoor slave labor, right?

Which brought a thought to mind the other day as I walked past.

If I saw a prisoner escaping from the local jail, I wouldn't help the cops catch him. I'm certainly not going to report a sighting to them if I think I saw him somewhere else. 

This doesn't apply if I know, for myself, that he committed an actual crime. I'm not prone to believe what lying cops say about what someone did. Nor am I going to be convinced by a report in the paper since those usually just parrot whatever the cops want printed.

Legislation enforcers today have discredited themselves so badly by enforcing counterfeit "laws" that my default assumption would be that the prisoner is being held unethically. I'm not going to help them violate someone. They've done this to themselves and have only themselves to blame.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating. Please!

When you are the source of the problem

There is a campaign ad I've been subjected to on some streaming service. I can't remember who it's for, but it has a couple of stereotypical Texas sheriffs yapping about the Fentanyl crisis and "our borders". (I looked-- it's an ad against the fake Hispanic anti-gun bigot.)

Assuming there is a Fentanyl problem-- and how would I know either way?-- people like them are the reason for it. They caused it.

Fentanyl happened due to prohibition. 

Those who declared (or supported) the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs are directly at fault. If you make things illegal, people will pay smugglers (market merchants) to supply them. If you double down on catching the merchants, smaller packages become safer, maybe even essential-- which means a stronger product. A stronger product is more dangerous because it is easier to overdose on.

Yet, instead of realizing their mistake and their complicity (and it may be too late to fix it), they go down another wrong path because of the issue they created in the first place. This is why I don't always get along with "conservatives"-- when they are wrong, they are just as wrong as their supposed opposite.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

What police ARE obligated to do

Police have no obligation to protect you or any specific individual. This is something which courts have repeatedly ruled on. It completely destroys the anti-gun argument: "you don't need to carry a gun; the police are there to protect you". They aren't, and they probably can't and won't.

Copsuckers try to make the claim that a duty to protect the public or the community is the same thing as protecting the individuals who make up the public/community. It's not.

However, police do have an obligation to not prevent you from protecting yourself; to not get in your way. Even if no courts (yet) agree. It simply can not be otherwise, especially in light of what courts (and the police) say is the situation.

If you decide you need to carry a gun in order to protect yourself, a cop is obligated to respect your choice. Ethically, if not "legally"-- and if "the law" says otherwise, it is worse than useless. It is actively harmful.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

You don't license rights

I saw that the criminal regime in Florida is "legally" kidnapping people for repairing hurricane-damaged roofs without being "licensed" by the state. That's criminal behavior and should be treated as such-- not the carpentering, the kidnapping.

It has always aggravated me when some out-of-control government thugs decide they have the "right" to force you to license your rights before you're "allowed" to exercise them. 

It goes against the very concept of rights. Only a true villain would do this to anyone.

No one has the right to require a license before you are allowed to speak your mind. Nor before you go to church. Nor before you drive a car, earn money, or carry a weapon. No one has the right to demand you get a license first before you exercise any of your rights because there can be no such "right" to do so. There is no such thing as the "authority" to require a license for a right, either.

People accept some of these licenses without much fuss when they would freak out over other licensing scams that are no worse. It is no more ridiculous to demand a license to go to church than to drive-- both should be completely unacceptable to reasonable people. Yet, people buy into the government lie that "driving is a privilege" when they'd never accept the same lie if it were told about going to church. Why is this? Looks identical to me.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

The worst of a bad lot

Republicans-- the "Right", conservatives [sic], whatever you call them-- advocate for things I strongly disagree with.

I despise prohibition, border control, their fawning over police and the military, and using religious beliefs as an excuse to impose legislation. I'm also over any Constitution fetish that I once had-- although I still like to use it against constitutionalists who obviously have no clue what it actually says.

However... I would have to be delusional to not see that right now the Democrats-- the "Left", "liberals" [sic], "progressives" [sic], "w0ke"-- are more of a threat to liberty than the Republicans are. I expect that could change at any time, depending on the circumstances, but that's just the situation at this moment in time.

And I understand why you might feel differently if your main motivation is unlimited abortion.

I despise the Democrats' "gun control" [sic], "intersectionality", racism labeled "antiracism", "gender" politics, and their democracy/v*ting fetish (usually using women as a sacrificial talisman), I hate that they just can't get over Trump or Covid, and keep trying to use these topics as weapons against skeptics. If you don't instantly agree with them 100% you are an extreme MAGA white supremacist... even if you aren't white and never supported Trump. I actually saw this happening to a black gun owner the other day. It was disgusting how he was attacked.

Don't misunderstand me. None of this would ever get me to v*te for any brand of DemoCRAPublican ever again. I just want everyone to keep their filthy "laws" and their nasty State off my life, no matter who they are or why they think I need their "help". If things get so bad that the choice is v*te or die in slavery, it's past the point where v*ting will make a difference.

But burying your head in the sand to deny reality isn't doing anyone any good.

-

If I didn't make you overly angry with this post-- or maybe if I did-- think about 

subscribing or donating.

I could really use an infusion of some extra funds at this time. Yes, that's usually the case all the time, but right now in particular because of all the extra medical expenses recently. 

I try to hush up about it most of the time, but if I don't ask, no one knows.

Decide what's most important to you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 7, 2022)

Do you only care about some things because you've been manipulated into caring?

There are many things you can't change about the world. Caring too much about those is going to make your life worse. You could lose your mind obsessing over things you can't control, even if they are important.

Should anyone care that the President gave a more dark and divisive speech than usual? Will caring about it accomplish anything?

Are there other things you're being told to care about, but which you probably shouldn't?

If climate change is real, if it is caused by human activity, if it is a net negative, if anything reasonable can be done about it, and if it's not already too late, is there anything you-- individually-- can do to solve it? Should you beg government to crack down on everyone in order to force them to do what you believe they should? What if you're wrong? Might worrying about it destroy your peace of mind without any benefit whatsoever?

Do you still care about Covid? How could caring about it improve your life? Are you making your life better or worse by worrying about whether others have submitted to the shots?

What about unconstitutional control of people's movement across government borders? Should you really care whether the person standing in line in front of you at the store has government permission to be here? Why? If someone isn't currently violating the life, liberty, or property of some individual, their existence isn't hurting you at all. If they are violating someone, why would it matter to you where they were born or which government claims them as property? Caring about it only makes your life less joyful.

Maybe you think I've been fooled into caring about liberty. Do you feel as though I'm trying to manipulate you into caring about something you shouldn't? Should I care about liberty, or is it pointless and meaningless to my quality of life? Should you care?

You need to decide for yourself which things are important enough to focus on. If liberty matters to you-- and imagine how your life would be without it-- then join me in caring about it. If you'd rather have false promises of safety in exchange for giving up your rightful liberty to politicians, then worry about how other people's liberty scares you and beg to be saved from those exercising their freedom responsibly.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

It's a government problem.

There is no energy problem. It's a government problem,

There is no environmental problem. It's a government problem.

There is no crime problem. It's a government problem.

There is no drug abuse problem. It's a government problem.

There is no "immigration" [sic] crisis. It's a government problem.

There are no international problems. It's a government problem.

There is an economic problem-- and it's also a government problem.

What I mean by calling these "government problems" is that a problem may have actually existed, but instead of doing what was necessary to solve it, someone applied political government to the issue and made the problem worse. The current situation is caused by government.

The effect is that the problem was probably made unsolvable unless government stops being used to address it altogether. This solution is so painful for government-supremacists to face that they'll fight you until nuclear doomsday (which, if it happens, they directly caused) to avoid it.

At best, politics is a bandaid. A filthy bandaid that never gets changed but is allowed to cause the problem to fester underneath. But political criminals are "doing something". Yes, something that's making things worse, but "something".

Want to solve problems? There's one way to show you're serious. You've got to eliminate the source, or at least stop supporting and advocating it. Politics and political government will never solve a problem. The sooner you face that and stop pretending otherwise, the sooner real solutions can be allowed to work.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

They are getting desperate and careless

You may not believe me when I say all anti-gun bigots are either ignorant or lying. They are, but you may not believe me.

I think I ran into one of the former.

He had posted a request for Biden to ban "assault weapons" and someone reasonably asked him what an "assault weapon" was. He didn't respond, so I posted the pic above to be helpful. 

That got his attention and he decided to educate me on why I was wrong about what an "assault weapon" is:

There were a couple other responses to him after mine, confirming what I said and pointing out that he knew nothing about firearms. As is almost universally the case with anti-gun bigots. 

Such as that congressvermin who was carefully explaining to his colleagues how a pistol brace turns a semi-auto full auto because it is a bump stock. And these liars/ignorami believe they are wise enough to govern us!

Around this same time, I encountered another of this sort calling a black gun owner a "white supremacist" "MAGA" person for supporting this natural right. Yes, she was being ridiculed by lots of people for her absurd claim, but she wasn't backing down.

Another guy responded to my graphic explaining the Second Amendment and the right to own and to carry weapons with the comment:

Not sure that quite made the point he was going for.

They are trying really hard to fool people. Too many people fall for it. Not you, though.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

My own daycare story

(Note: The news of the mass murder at the daycare in Thailand came just after I typed out this story from my past. After I scheduled this to post, I went on Twitsite and saw the terrible news. Then I came back and changed the title of this post to avoid confusion. It was just one of those odd coincidences.)

Back when my son and older daughter were little, we put them in daycare so we could both work. It was barely worth the cost since my job paid only slightly more than we spent on daycare. But we thought it was the responsible thing to do-- what we should be doing so we could both have a job. (I did things differently this time around, which is why I depend on your subscriptions and donations.)

Then the daycare announced it had been purchased by the daycare that operated in the local college.

We got the official letter a few days later and saw that the price had doubled. We immediately pulled our kids out and decided they would go to work with me and I'd babysit them at the pet store-- there was space where this was doable-- if not wonderfully, at least workably.

It turns out that almost everyone else did the same. Or maybe it was unanimous. Suddenly the purchaser didn't want to buy a daycare without any customers and they backed out of the sale. (Not sure what they thought would happen when they doubled the price-- to me it seemed obvious.) 

The daycare owners called and begged us to reconsider and keep our kids in the daycare, but it just wasn't possible under the circumstances. We would have been losing money fast.

I guess a few parents were convinced to leave their kids in after the sale fell through, because a few weeks later...

A little kid left the daycare and walked several blocks to the elementary school to find his (or her) older sibling. The daycare hadn't noticed the kid was missing until someone at the school called. The daycare ended up just shutting down for good at the end of the day. They lost interest and just didn't seem to care anymore after the sale fell through.

Just imagine if that daycare had operated like government. We wouldn't have had the option of not doing business with them, no matter how harmful it was to us or our children. We would have been forced to pay whatever they demanded, even if we decided to take care of our kids ourselves (if that option was even allowed). If the service was poor or dangerous, it would have just been too bad. Deal with it or have your life destroyed. "That's the price of living in a civilized society", you know.

This is why-- no matter how bad a private business is-- it is still better than a coercive government "service".

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

My relationship with rules

I don't respect rules, not automatically. Doesn't matter if you call them "laws", legislation, policies, or whatever. 

I don't go looking for rules to break, but I also don't ask what the rules are before I act. I'm not necessarily going out of my way to violate the rules, but if one seems arbitrary to me, chances are I'm not going to pay much attention to it either way. 

I'm not saying this is the best way to live or anything like that; I am just saying this is how it is. How I am.

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ~ Robert A. Heinlein

If you can explain to me the reason behind the rule-- explain why it's not arbitrary or why it is needed-- and if I'm convinced that the reason makes sense, I will change my mind about it. If you can't, that rule has just lost every shred of credibility with me.

Perhaps surprisingly, I expect the same from others-- including my daughter-- regarding rules I make up. If I can't reasonably explain the "why", then my rule is most likely nonsense, too.

Funny how often even asking for an explanation triggers those behind the rules. To them, rules must not be questioned. To me, every rule must be questioned and sufficiently justified.

Rules against harming others are well justified. Most others, not so much.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Got nothing? Demand to see their degree

When people realize they are wrong, they suddenly rely more heavily on appeals to authority.

I've seen it many times. 

They'll demand to know what your psychology credentials are when you point out that they are projecting. Even if moments before they were shrugging off expert opinions that didn't align with what they want to continue believing.

It doesn't matter that a degree isn't necessary to recognize what they are doing right in front of you. Or that they (also lacking a psych degree) made an almost identical comment about someone else moments before. It doesn't take a degree in ornithology to know a pigeon is a bird-- or that a frog isn't.

I've watched it happen with many topics. Recently I'm seeing it mostly in anti-gun bigots, probably because that's who I'm engaging with (poking at) the most. 

When you've got nothing supporting your position, you'll imagine "authority" in anything you can twist to prop up your side, and you'll demand unnecessary "authority" when called out.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

People have responsibility for actions

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 31, 2022)

Is it my imagination, or do many people run from responsibility as fast as they can?

If you cause harm to a person's life, liberty, or property you need to take responsibility. Don't wait for someone else to hold you accountable. Step up and accept it.

If it was an accident, it can't be a real crime, no matter how bad it was or what government says. You still owe restitution but government has no stake in the matter. It's between you and the one you harmed. Punishment shouldn't even be an option.

It's only if you refuse to take responsibility that I can see how some might justify government involvement. I still suspect this will always make things worse.

If you caused harm on purpose you committed a crime. You can still choose to take responsibility, although if you're the sort to commit crimes I doubt you will unless backed into a corner. Some people imagine government is the right tool to use to back criminals into a corner; I think it's a weak tool and still makes things worse in the long run. Being punished by government isn't the same as accepting responsibility or even being held accountable. It's nothing.

It's not just the big things like this, though. In fact, those are the extreme cases, even if too common. The smaller examples are even more common, and probably affect more people.

People don't take responsibility to put their trash in a proper receptacle, and if they do, they don't care if it's going to blow right back out again. They'll leave paper in the back of their pickup, knowing it's going to blow out and become litter.

They dump cats and dogs, not caring about the pain and misery they'll suffer as strays-- and the puppies and kittens born doomed.

I get it; responsibility is hard. It's not fun. It's easier to let someone else deal with your messes and suffer your consequences. But this is how others justify political government-- which is just more irresponsibility; every bit as damaging as the other things I've mentioned. Laws are pollution, too.

You are responsible for your actions, whether you accept it or not. If you don't face it you are hurting yourself. You're making a world none of us-- including you-- would want to live in. You might as well be telling everyone that you're not very smart or good.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Dystopia + government = same old thing

I often enjoy dystopian fiction. Books like the Hunger Games series, television series, and movies.

However, almost all of it introduces some factor that I don't like, which interferes with the whole premise-- usually because it doesn't seem like it really fits the story. Something that tries to make it into something other than what it was.

After establishing how you'll adapt to survive this world, suddenly, "Oh, look: there's a whole society you never knew about living just over the hill...or under it. This changes everything." And usually not in a good way. It's like the common fiction arc: "Let's discover this wondrous new place or thing, and destroy it so the world can return to how it was before."

And, of course, most dystopian fiction has to become a sermon promoting the Religion of Statism in some way. "See how brutal and short your life would be without us robbing and controlling you for your own good?" They do this, for example, with aggressive neo-governmental gangs calling themselves a militia and pretending they are different from any other political government. They aren't. And it kind of ruins the storytelling in a lazy way.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Making a case or making a claim?

There's a difference between repeatedly making a claim and making a case.

I see people getting those confused pretty often, and I'm sure I've done the same. It's easier to notice when others are doing it while disagreeing with you. 

When that happens you see them making the same empty political claim over and over again, acting like they've made their case through simple repetition.

They haven't. 

They are just chasing their own tail, believing they are getting somewhere. Like a hamster in a wheel or a mule on a treadmill. Hoping you'll keep following them as they go in circles.

I see it happening a lot. Online and in person. And always where political government is concerned. It can be amusing to watch for a couple of minutes but gets boring before too long.

(Even making a case doesn't necessarily mean they've proven their point, just that there's a possibility they are right. If they can't make a case, the chances are higher that they aren't right.)

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

How to have a credible election

If you want to ever have a credible election, there are things you'd have to do. Not a legitimate election, of course, but a credible one.

First, count all non-v*tes (every person eligible to v*te, whether registered or not, who doesn't cast a v*te) as a v*te for "None of the above" or a v*te against the ballot measure. Yes, that would make them much harder to impose, but that's the whole point. It should be nearly impossible to govern people harder.

Then, where political offices are concerned, have "None of the above/Abolish the position" as the top choice on the ballot and as the default. As the default, if left blank, this is counted as a v*te for "None of the above/Abolish the position". If no candidate ends up with the winning number of v*tes, then that office is abolished and will never be re-established unless it later gets v*ted back into existence. The position's powers or duties don't get transferred to another office-- they just go away.

Next, have any politician who "wins" only represent (or pretend to do so) those who v*ted for that politician. To everyone else, that politician is nothing but another random person whose opinions are meaningless.

Finally, have any ballot measure only apply to those who will admit to v*ting in favor of it. If a "tax", only those who v*ted for it pay it. If a ban on some object or activity, only those who v*ted for this prohibition will have government violence directed at them if they don't comply. People who v*te against it, and those who didn't v*te at all, are exempt from the measure or any consequences of it.

That's an election I would probably not object to too much.

Now, even though this would make an election more credible, it still wouldn't be legitimate. The reason is, no one's rights or liberty are subject to a v*te. The mob doesn't have the right to decide which of your rights you are allowed to exercise. Not ever. So, no matter how credible the election may be, if someone's rights are up for grabs, it is not a legitimate outcome no matter how one-sided the v*te in favor of violating someone's rights ends up. No majority-- not even everyone except for one individual-- has any right to violate the rights of any minority.

If this makes it too hard to impose your government violence on others, too bad. Find an honest pastime instead.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

Don't ask permission!

Someone who recently moved to town put chickens in their backyard. This is against the rules in this authoritarian little town-- although others have chickens, too, and have for as long as I've lived here. I would have chickens if my yard weren't so ridiculously unsuited for ... literally everything.

Anyway, this new resident decided to ask permission from the town rulers to have his chickens. That was months ago, and they finally squeezed out a juicy decision after months of delays and indecision: "Yes, but".

The rules make me believe none of these petty tyrants have ever had chickens. Maybe they've never even seen one. They definitely must hate chickens and anyone who keeps them. And they obviously want to make it as burdensome as possible so as to convince people to not have them. (While right across the imaginary line that runs through town to divide "New Mexico" from "Texas", the residents of the NM side are "allowed" to have chickens. Because, states.)

First, no roosters are allowed. I have to put up with hearing dogs barking day and night, but Heaven forbid I hear a rooster crow! Just petty and stupid. Actually, I can hear roosters crowing because 2 blocks east of me is the "city limit" and homes across that road have roosters-- and guineas, horses, and cattle. (The town has tried to assert the "authority" to tell people within several hundred yards of the town limits what they are allowed to do and have, but this hasn't gotten anywhere yet.) So this arbitrary rule is pointless.

Then, the rules say you have to clean the chicken pen daily. And you aren't allowed to dispose of the bedding (or whatever) in the dumpsters the town provides for trash and garbage. They didn't suggest an approved alternative, and in cases like that, people usually just dump stuff along the road somewhere. Yeah, that's helpful.

There are more dumb little rules, but those are the main ones. Makes me want to get rheas.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Find a way to make it work

It has always been surprising that people greet any solution you suggest with "that can't be done because..." instead of considering what you actually propose.

Often, the "because" is that government wouldn't allow it.

If that's the case, get rid of government.

"But you can't do that because..." See? There it is again.

Cops are a gang that violates liberty, but if you point out that the solution is to abolish police, "You can't do that because...". Insert whatever weakness, personal failing, or irrational fear causes a person to cling to government police (or any policing) as a concept.

I think a way to reduce opioid overdose deaths could be to invent a new drug that produces an even better high, but can't be overdosed on, and is entirely legal. Yes, I understand there are chemistry problems involved, but I think the political hurdle is bigger-- government and the Puritans who are addicted to government don't want people to enjoy themselves in unapproved ways. But I suggested this, as an alternative to the US gov declaring war on China and Mexico, and all I got was "but that wouldn't work because..." followed by ignoring the meat of what I had proposed.

This is why we are still stuck in the era of the state.

To get free, people are going to have to consider different ways out. They'll have to think of ways to make new things work instead of only focusing on why new things "can't work". If you are sure it can't work as proposed, fix it. Find a way to do the same thing in a different way that will work. Be part of the solution, not part of the shackles that bind us to the problem.

For every problem, there is a liberty-respecting solution. Someone only has to find it. Maybe it will be you.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Day at the range

As much as it pains me to spend ammo, I spent a few hours yesterday at the range with my son. I almost never go to the Big City without coming home with more ammo; this time I came back with less. Ouch! But I'll be OK.

A while back I inherited a tiny rolling block .22 rifle that was my grandfather's. It's a J. Stevens Little Scout 14 ½. I had never shot it before. Until yesterday. I had to make a new front sight to replace the one that was missing when I got it, but it was right on-target. The only issue I had was that it doesn't like ejecting cartridges. Its extractor pulls them out but doesn't fling them because they stick. I had to use multitool pliers to get them the rest of the way out. I may do a little chamber polishing and see if that helps.

I also shot my carry guns and my scary black Sport Utility Rifle and a .22 revolver. It was a needed break and a useful way to spend a few hours. I always enjoy seeing other families out there practicing, too. It warms the heart. 

I may have missed Paratus (Paratus Day?) due to an unpleasant previous engagement, but better late than never.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Government not worth trade-off

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 24, 2022)

Do you believe you need to be governed? I mean you, as an individual. If you didn't feel like government was watching over your shoulder all the time, would you steal, kidnap, or murder? I'm betting you wouldn't. Neither would I.

If you're saying you would commit crimes if not for government, I'm guessing you commit crimes anyway. By "crimes" I'm not talking about the counterfeit "crimes" which are only called crimes because government made up an arbitrary rule that says so. I'm speaking of acts which have a specific individual victim whose life, liberty, or property has been violated in some concrete way.

I doubt many in my audience would ever do anything actually criminal. People who read these columns simply aren't the sort. You govern yourselves perfectly well.

So, you probably don't believe you need to be governed. I certainly don't. It would be a very defeatist attitude to take. Nor do I want you governed on my behalf. I'm not helpless.

I'm glad we settled that.

Perhaps, like most people who still believe political government is necessary, you think you're not the problem; it's all those other people out there who need to be governed. People who won't, or can't, govern themselves.

Yes, there are people among us who violate others. Some of them choose this as a lifestyle; it's habitual. As you may have noticed, they don't stop committing crimes simply because government exists to punish them. Just like you wouldn't become a criminal if government went away.

Government makes it safer for the actual criminals to continue a life of crime. It protects criminals by enforcing rules against defending yourself and your property from them. Crime is largely a government-created problem. or at least a problem government doesn't want solved.

Maybe you can see that you don't need to be governed and criminals can't be governed, but you imagine you still need government in your life for some reason. Do you need government in your marriage? Do you believe there are things only government can give you which you couldn't get on your own? Things only someone with the power to steal can hand out, like a powerful, crooked Santa Claus. There's nothing I want bad enough that I'm willing to have government steal it from you to give it to me.

I'm not willing to trade what's right for what's expedient. Do you really believe it's worth the trade-off?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The signpost up ahead...

I'll say a little about that recent experience I don't know whether I should relate.

It was either a neurological event, a "glitch in the matrix" type thing, or something else equally disturbing. It was completely unsettling, whatever it was.

I am meeting up with someone later today and I might feel comfortable enough to discuss it. I'll see.

Whatever else, I'll make an effort to get back to writing on topic as soon as possible. 

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!