Cops are ethically required to die to avoid violating rights

The more information that comes out about that cop who murdered the guy who came to his door holding a gun, the worse it shows the cop to be.

Everything about that incident is horrible. 

The cop was a coward (what a shock) and killed someone who wasn't even a threat to him. Even if the guy had been a threat, a cop is ethically required to die to avoid violating someone's rights. Don't like it? That's easy: Don't be a cop.

The cop knocked and hid from the peephole. Multiple times, He didn't adequately announce himself-- but even if he had it wouldn't have made a difference because in that case, it's either a badged thug or a freelance thug at your door, and both will murder you. It's a no-win situation for the good guy.

Then, worst of all, the badged parasite briefly caught a glimpse of someone doing something they had a right to be doing, in a place they had a right to be, and he shot that person to death because he was afraid.

That cop needs to be exposed.
He needs to be stripped of his position, blocked from ever collecting another cent of "tax" money or having any position of power over anyone, and any pension he might have collected needs to be given to the grieving survivors his cowardly act left behind. At a minimum.

Also, something about boiling tar and dirty feathers comes to mind, although that might be vengeful and I'm opposed to revenge,,. so...

There are no words to describe how utterly worthless that cop is. As well as all who are like him.
The same is true for those working tirelessly to lick the jackboots of cowardly, murderous legislation enforcers by making the case that seeing anyone who isn't a cop with a gun merits immediate death.

Cops are scum, and copsuckers are lower than scum.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Analyzing the world around us

I can't look at anything without analyzing it. I can look at and enjoy beautiful sights, but I am going to also analyze what I'm looking at. I may not always analyze it correctly-- that's a separate issue-- but my brain is going to be working on it. It seems to serve me fairly well.

To me, understanding something is part of the beauty of it. I realize not everyone has the same experience. I've even found some people who have the opposite reaction. 

For a couple of years now, my daughter has been wanting us to watch the TV series Young Sheldon together. A couple of days ago we finally got around to starting it. We weren't too far into the first episode when she said "Dad, that's you!"

Presumably, without taking into account his math skills.

Yes, I do see some similarities. Even some that are less than flattering. I can't argue that my mind isn't analytical, though.

It's why I'm not going to buy the justifications for the state that others want so hard to believe. In my analysis, the justifications don't hold up. 

It's why I'm not going to excuse a cop who goes to the wrong door and then murders the person who answers the door holding a gun.
It's why I don't automatically believe "climate change" is a crisis.
It's why I wasn't susceptible to COVID fearmongering.
It's why I think elections are always rigged, and it matters less than some might believe.
It's why I don't care where someone was born, only what they do.
It's why, many years ago, I gave serious consideration to the argument that "we" would be better off if guns were banned, and then utterly rejected that position in its entirety.

Since I can't look at the world without analyzing everything anyway, I might as well use it in a way that seems useful to me and gives some context to what's going on. If it also gets me closer to understanding reality, that's a bonus.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Fighting crime with crime?

The solution to crime isn’t more crime. It’s not more government, which is a criminal organization. It’s not more legislation, more stringent enforcement, more cops, harsher punishment. Raising "taxes" can't solve crime. All those things are crime in the real sense. 

Those things aren't going to make things better for the non-criminals among us.

I understand the concept of fighting fire with fire. This isn't that. 

This is "fighting fire" by burning all the firetrucks, dumping all the water into the ocean, and throwing all the firefighters down a well where they can't be of any use, while hiring more arsonists and nihilists and expecting them to make things better.

It's insanity.

The real solution to crime is liberty. It always has been and always will be. No matter how many career criminals claim otherwise.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Don't fall for government provocation

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 7, 2024)

Is government trying to provoke you? I believe it is. It's setting a trap.

If, by doing provocative things, government can trigger you into acting, your actions become an excuse to crack down harder- which will trigger more people to act. Like a feedback loop.

It's part of the reason for anti-gun legislation. It's part of the reason the two main factions of authoritarians love the fight over the issue of "immigration". It's why the real solution to crime is criminalized.

It's why government officials decided to paste a divisive new "holiday" over a traditional religious holiday, as if no other days were available-- a slap in the face to a significant number of believers. Doesn't this look calculated to anger and divide?

Government needs to divide the population; it needs excuses to destroy any remaining shreds of liberty. They do things to you, hoping to cause a reaction giving them the excuse they need. Don't hand them another 9/11.

You may believe I'm pretending to read their minds. No, I'm watching their actions. The effect is the same regardless of their inner thoughts. They do things which anger you; if you react, they have an excuse to cancel you from public life or even make you a political prisoner.

They want-- they need-- to get a reaction they can use against your remaining liberty. If you believe they wouldn't do this, you don't understand the history of political government and those who seek to use its power.

This doesn't mean you have to take it. It means being smart enough to know government is a failed system on borrowed time. No one has the right to govern another. Nothing can create this imaginary right. Going through the motions in spite of this tears society apart by destroying the lives of individuals.

The best solution is for you to stop supporting "your side" and stop complying with "their side". Don't go along. Withdraw all support for any politician or political theater. Ignore them as much as possible. Stop making them relevant to any part of your life, your opinions, or your economic future. Starve them out by making them irrelevant. You don't need to rebuke or renounce them-- they're not that important. If you can't walk away cold turkey, wean yourself. Grow liberty, not tyranny.

Whatever you do, don't get drawn into a fight which will only empower them. It's probably what they want most.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Just say "No" to government efficiency

“There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” ~ Peter Drucker  

Things such as v*ting, governing others, spending “tax” money, registering vehicles, writing legislation, etc. 

I don't want government to be more efficient. I don't want the IRS and its tax code to be more efficient. I don't want murder to be efficient and industrialized. I want everything government does to be difficult, expensive, complicated, messy, and screwed up. I don't want government to have a more efficient way of enslaving the population. I want them to be hated on the path to being eliminated.

I really don't understand those who advocate for government efficiency. If they mean to govern, I want it to hurt and inconvenience people enough that they will stop tolerating it. I want the population to want to get rid of the things that violate human rights, not make government work more smoothly on less money.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

In which I fail as a detective

This is a little morbid, but someone (not me) wanted to go to the park to see where those women were murdered last week. So that became Wednesday's field trip.

I followed the directions to the crime scene (from the public reports), knowing that people aren't generally great at compass directions and that sometimes "authorities" intentionally give incorrect information to misdirect people coming to gawk at a crime scene. (People like me, I suppose.)

The information from the cops said it happened 100 yards north of the pond closest to the entrance. It said the bodies were found beside a minivan. 

At the scene, I saw there was no way a minivan could have been north of that pond-- or even sort of north-- unless it was airlifted in. So, incorrect information. But which information is incorrect? Location? Or the presence of the minivan? Was it even this pond? There are 2 other ponds in the park (near roads), but they are considerably farther from the entrance. 

Working on the shakey assumption the pond indicated is the right pond, I scanned the area. 

About 100 yards directly west of that pond, right beside the road, where cars regularly park (I've parked there in the past), there was a strange spot in the dirt. The surface looked artificially "weathered". Completely different from any other surface conditions anywhere around, and different from any natural surface conditions I have ever seen in my extensive time outdoors.

A spot maybe 6 feet across looked scoured. Like high-pressure air-- coming from one direction-- had been used to blast away the top inch or two of dirt. It almost looked like pressurized water had been directed at the surface, but there was no run-off in the area beyond, where you would expect to see such a thing if water had been used. And there has been no rain here in the past week or three. Alternatively, the marks could have been made by a horizontally spinning brush like a vacuum cleaner brush.

I tried to search for information on how an outdoor dirt crime scene is cleaned of blood (probably not the best thing to search for-- Hi, NSA. For future reference, I don't murder people). I wasn't able to find any useful information before I stopped looking.

Do any of you know if either of these methods is used to clear away the dirt under and around a crime scene as a standard practice? I keep trying to think of any other explanation for the marks I saw in the dirt and I'm drawing a blank. This spot may have nothing to do with the crime, anyway. Maybe there's another reason someone scoured the ground in that spot. But why?

I have strained my eyes looking at the one photo (possibly from a drone) taken of the cops on the scene after the bodies were discovered and nothing adds up. It doesn't appear they are in the right location. Things are obviously not as reported. It may not have even been at this particular pond. After all, government lies. 

Also, I have never once had first-hand knowledge of an event which made the news that was, in my opinion, reported accurately. So there's that.

If you're interested, here's an update on the guy who was caught with the child taken from the scene.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Here's how to show your support.

Bag or Sack?

My opinion of Donald Trump is that he is an authoritarian, militaristic, anti-science, copsucking, tax-addicted, nationalistic, anti-gun bag of crap.

My opinion of Joe Biden is that he is an authoritarian, militaristic, anti-science, child-molesting, tax-addicted, racist, anti-gun sack of crap.

And people tell me I must choose between a sack or a bag? No, I don't. 

And I would never support anti-gun Robert F. Kennedy Jr., either.

Every v*te hurts. 

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Limit your exposure

Exposure to statists and their insane notions can be bad for your mental health.

If those notions are put into action, they can kill you.

They think they are terribly enlightened. "Adult". Pragmatic. What they are is a disease of society. The more statists, the sicker the society. At some critical mass of statism, society ceases to be. All you're left with at that point is politics. The ideology of the stupid and/or evil.

Yes, I allowed myself to be exposed to too much statism over the past few minutes, and I'm feeling the ill effects. Time for an infusion of liberty.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Here's how to show your support.

Statism relies on ignore-ance

I'm sure you've seen it many times. 

A statist will ask what they believe is a gotcha question. The question is then answered fully, rationally, and completely, but instead of actually seeing the answer, the statist refuses to acknowledge an answer was given. At this point they either go into an endless time loop, asking the same question that has already been answered over and over again, repeating "why won't you answer the question?", or they'll pivot to something else they believe is a gotcha question. Studiously ignoring the answer that was provided in response to the original question.

Ignore-ance is willful ignorance. Carefully maintained by closing off reality when it is shown to them.

It's not something you'll cut through. It's something to pity. The good thing is, it's basically an admission that the statist understands-- on a subconscious level-- that they are wrong; on the loser side.

Without ignore-ance statism wouldn't last a day. Expect to see more of it as statism crumbles.

-

Thank you for reading.  

If you’d like, you can show your support.

How could this have been prevented?

Friday afternoon, the bodies of two women were found in a park I like to visit. One had been shot, the other's cause of death hasn't been released. A 5-year-old girl with serious injuries was found with them. Differing reports say the child might have been shot, beaten, or hit with a car. (They are now saying she was shot.) Also, her 10-month-old half-sister is missing. I'm hoping her body isn't in the nearby pond.

It might be unfair, but in cases like this, my first thought is always that they were probably involved in some activity, or with some individual, that led to this tragic outcome.

So far, in no local case I'm aware of, has this assumption proved to be wrong.

No, I'm not blaming the victims. I'm facing reality. They didn't deserve this, but their own choices might have played a part in it. In fact, it is almost guaranteed.

There have been times in my life when I knew I was around someone who wasn't good for me to be around, or when I found myself in social situations I knew could be dangerous for me. I usually got out of there quickly. Usually.

You can do a lot to increase your safety by staying away from certain people and situations. It's no guarantee, but it gives you better odds. 

It might have also helped had the women been adequately armed (which includes knowing how to use the arms). It certainly couldn't have made things worse for them, considering the outcome, regardless of the standard claims of anti-gun bigots.

The best way to use your keys for defense is to drive far away from bad people and dangerous situations. If that fails, you need a gun.

-

UPDATE: The baby has been found and taken to the hospital to be checked out, and a suspect is in custody.

-

Thank you for reading.  

If you’d like to show your support...

Blind loyalty not a trait I admire

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 31, 2024)

People admire different qualities in others. The traits each of us admires are shaped by our own values and experiences. What some see as a virtue, others see as a vice. Or worse.

It seems most people admire obedience-- they voice admiration for those who follow orders without hesitation. This isn't something I admire. Too much depends on who is giving the orders and what those orders are. This can include bad parents as well as people wearing uniforms or holding a political office. I can't excuse anyone for obeying when the orders are clearly evil.

History's worst atrocities weren't committed by the disobedient, but by those who thought obeying orders should be automatic. They were, and are, wrong.

Every order must be weighed against ethical behavior before being obeyed. A shout to "Duck!" is rarely going to have negative ethical consequences and stopping to think about it could be a problem, so you can make an exception there.

If you are obeying orders to violate life, liberty, or property-- such as an order to enforce illegitimate legislation-- then obedience is the opposite of doing the right thing. Disobedience is the only ethical path in this case.

The same could be said for loyalty. Whether loyalty is admirable or not depends on who or what you are being loyal to. Too many people are loyal to the wrong things and the wrong people. Their loyalty makes the world worse.

If you are being loyal to a group of rights violators, or to the other members of this group, your loyalty is a destructive force you are adding to the world. Being disloyal in this situation would be the right thing to do. This is nearly always going to apply to politics. Loyalty in politics shows you aren't thinking.

The only thing worse than the Republican Party is the Democratic Party. Sometimes it's the other way around. Neither party has earned your loyalty.

I notice both of these traits-- obedience and loyalty-- are encouraged by those who want to use people for their own purposes. When those purposes are political-- looking to violate life, liberty, or property-- the result is nearly always horrendous. At best, it's not helpful.

This is why I have never admired obedient order followers or those who express unconditional loyalty. I prefer those who can think, even when they cause a little bit of trouble by doing so.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

It boils down to this:

Liberty is non-negotiable.

-
Here are some of the best ways to help me

Wouldn’t you like to be a rebel, too?

 

The extreme confidence of the clueless

I’m less self-assured while carrying a gun than some people I know are when they imagine they’ll use their keys to defeat multiple attackers.

Why is this?

It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where the less competent someone is in a specific domain, the more they overestimate their abilities in that domain.

With some topics, it's just embarrassing (or should be), but in the domain of self-defense, it could be deadly. But there's no way to suggest this to the people I'm talking about-- they WILL NOT listen. Their self-assurance knows no limits.

I understand that having the proper tools is no guarantee.
That intentionally not having proper tools because you feel overconfident is handicapping yourself. 

Some people do this because they don't like guns and don't want to admit they might need one.
Others, because they imagine themselves to be ninjas with superhuman abilities who would never need something as crude as a gun to defend themselves from mere human thugs. Too many Marvel movies, perhaps.

It frustrates and worries me.

Even defense with a gun requires training.
To defend yourself with a less effective tool requires much more training. Intensive training.

The most confident people I’ve met “don’t need a gun”, and yet have no idea how to defend themselves with any tool. They think they know what to do from movies and television, or the fantasies created in their own minds. Bad guys will obviously back down in the face of their determination.

I wish there were a cure other than harsh reality.

-

Link to Voluntaryist- the comic series, from whence comes the illustration at the top of the post.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

When criminals die "in the act"

I don’t consider it a tragedy when criminals are killed in the act of archation. It’s probably the best outcome possible, under the circumstances. I'm including those legislation enforcers in North Carolina who were killed while committing the heinous crime of enforcing anti-gun legislation.

Only a copsucker could imagine it makes a difference whether a gang of home invaders-- kicking in a door to kidnap and rob, and with the intent to kill anyone who stands in their way-- have badges or not. Nope. It's the exact same picture.

I think every archator who is willing to use deadly force in the commission of his crime deserves to be killed in self-defense. Right where he stands.

But, "The Law!" When the "law" is illegitimate, enforcing it is a crime. An actual crime, like rape or murder; not a fake "crime" like possessing parts of a plant or owning/carrying any type of weapon you see fit against government's demands.

The North Carolina crime gang showed up at a house to enforce an illegal "law", completely prepared to murder the guy they were after. They did murder him, but it backfired and some of their gang bit the dust, too. Zero sympathy for crooks who die while committing crime.

When the cop in my local area was shot and killed after he stopped to help a stranded motorist, which is something he had a right to do, it was murder.

When a gang of cops is fired upon when they surround a house with the intention of committing crimes against the residents, something no one has a right to do, it is self-defense. Good riddance to bad trash. 

If this happened every time cops show up to enforce an anti-gun rule, it might cause fewer of these useful idiots to be willing to participate. That diseased herd could use culling.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Another pro-slavery artist

A local "artist" makes fabric gun art as a way to advocate for "common sense gun laws" [sic].

Why advocate for something that already exists? How could he have missed "shall not be infringed"? Or even Natural Law that says you have a right to defend yourself and no one has a "right" to prevent you from doing so?

Anything else is just a dishonest and cutesy way to demand a return of slavery. What kind of horrible person-- or misguided victim of lies-- would demand that?

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

If rights don't exist, neither does "wrong"

If rights don’t matter, or if rights don’t exist, then nothing you do to others can be wrong. Wrong means it violates someone’s rights.

Some say it’s not about rights, it’s about power. The power to do things to others. They usually say this to justify government actions that clearly violate individual rights (such as governing). 

But if this is true, it's true for freelance criminals as well. 

If you justify government this way, why claim a rapist is doing anything wrong? How could anyone make that claim? If there are no rights to be violated, by what basis can anyone say he shouldn't do what he's doing? He has power and is using it— and I hope his intended victim has the power to stop him. Permanently.

Saying rights don't exist, or don't matter because they are just a mental construct, is dumb and is setting yourself up for a really bad end.

People who don’t “believe in” rights had better watch their backtrails. Those who believe them might act on the belief.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Not taking the smallest step

People just don’t think like I do. I’m not sure whether that’s good or bad.

My daughter was leaving the house. She had to run back in and blow her runny nose- I told her to put a bunch of Kleenexes in her pocket for later. She didn’t. I asked why she didn’t and she said she can just go to the restroom to blow her nose. Yes, but...

I don’t understand not wanting to be prepared.

Yet, she’s not the only one. All my life I’ve noticed that most people would rather wing it; take their chances. They'll avoid doing something simple, easy. and free to avert a problem just because they think they can deal with the problem later.

Maybe they can. 

Often, however, they act surprised when this lack of preparedness causes trouble. Yet, they never apply this lesson to next time. Why? And why not listen when someone gives a suggestion that could avert problems and isn't even inconvenient? I really don't get it.

It's in the same category as "I don't like/don't wear hats". I see it as "I like causing problems for myself".

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

If I were rich...

What would I do if  I woke up tomorrow and discovered I had become rich? I've probably given this more thought than the "possibility" warrants.

But here's what I would do:

Pay off my medical bills.

Schedule my cataract surgery.

Buy my parents' house, put all the bills in my name, and let them stay there for the rest of their lives.

Have all the porch cats taken to the vet to be treated and spayed/neutered, then either placed in homes or released back where they live now (depending on their willingness to tolerate indoor life). Or, maybe build a sheltered facility where the more feral ones can live in safety without too much human interference.

Make donations to cat rescue groups and encourage, with bonus donations, some group to cover this area.

Send a couple of cases of premium ammo to a friend who just bought his first gun.

I have a short list of liberty advocates I would fund, and a few friends I would help.

Pay off my house.

Get a Cybertruck with the solar panel option.

Half-joking- I would never wear a pair of socks twice. I'd buy new socks, wear them once, then donate them to a homeless assistance group to wash and distribute as they see fit.

Sure, I would probably want to move into a better off-grid house, on acreage, which means I would need lots more ammo. I might (OK, would) buy more guns. But those things would have to wait until I take care of the things on the list.

What would you do?

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Politics opposite of what I try to do

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 24, 2024)

About the most hurtful thing anyone can say about me is to describe my writing as "political". It wounds me more deeply than almost any other words can.

Politics is what someone is doing when they encourage others to vote for or against something. Or someone.

Politics is what people engage in when they advocate yet another law aimed at the rest of society or want existing laws enforced more violently.

Politics says this politician will be better at running your life than some opposing team's politician. It leaves you out of the conversation, even though you are the only one with any right to control your life.

Politics is deciding how to divide the government's plunder-- taxes-- and how to most effectively violate the rights of your neighbors, friends, family, and even your grandchildren years into the future.

Politics never recognizes your sovereignty. Its advocates have made "sovereignty" a dirty word, except when applied to political criminals and the gang they work for. They claim these entities have sovereignty; you don't. This is utterly ridiculous because without sovereignty there's no way you could authorize anyone else to govern you.

Please don't misunderstand me. The claim of so-called "sovereign citizens" is equally ridiculous-- you can be one or the other, but not both.

Politics is the opposite of what I'm trying to do.

I encourage you to take responsibility for your own life. To do what's right without being forced to do it by government employees, and to do the right thing even when government employees threaten to hurt you if you do.

I try to show you that you aren't someone else's property. Government doesn't own you, even if it forces its tracking numbers on you and your children. This is a tactic of desperation; government hopes you don't realize this.

I remind you that liberty is your birthright, and government-- even the "best" government-- is the sworn enemy of liberty and your natural human rights.

If I were political I would be lying to you; telling you how to fix government. Telling you some politician or another has your best interests in mind. That he or she will defend your rights (while violating the rights of people you don't like with legislation and enforcement). I would be trying to prop up the outdated belief that government is a "necessary evil", rather than just evil.

Me, political? Never!

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.