Opt-out for decency and liberty
The Albuquerque Sunport is trying to hint that National Opt-Out Day will be a failure. Prove the Sunport managers, and their filthy co-conspirators of the Terrorist Support Agency (TSA), wrong. Better yet, boycott flying until security theater is scrapped and ONLY real security, armed passengers and crew, becomes the norm. Of course, this means kicking The State out of the airports completely, which sooner or later will be done anyway.
The Sunport claims to have "contingency plans" to deal with people standing up against tyranny. Well, I personally hope their "contingency plans" turn out to be as successful as a decision to use a six-foot step ladder to reach the moon after the only rocket on earth rusts away and is forgotten, due to "public education".
The TSA, and the very idea of security, is completely evil and wrong. They need to fail and be crushed, along with any business which supports them. Use the freedom you have left to choose to boycott flying. Bankrupt the airlines. Put the airports out of business. Use your right of association and shun anyone who has anything to do with the TSA or "airport security".
It is time to stand up. Will you be counted with the sniveling collectivists, or will you make the mature, self-responsible choice and defend this clearly visible line in the sand? Your liberty and the very lives of your kids is at stake. Don't blow it this time; you may never get another chance in your lifetime if you comply now.
*
Donate?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
When is a gift not a gift?
When is a gift not a gift?
How can it be a gift if your money is stolen to pay for it, and a molester (or his familiar) gives it to you after violating you? Yet, this is just a part of what the state police and the Albuquerque badge-vermin are doing during their new checkpoint [sic] blitzkrieg.
The gift bags were actually handed out by those harpies of "Mothers" Morons Against Drunk Driving. (They are not just against "drunk driving" but any driving freedom at all, and against all alcohol consumption, or they wouldn't condone and advocate these "checkpoints" and wouldn't have advocated lowering the blood-alcohol levels to the point of meaninglessness.) The MADD cows may have handed out the bags, but DOT "bought" the bags with money taken from you.
Don't believe the lie: these "checkpoints" are not about "drunk driving" at all, and if alcohol (and every other intoxicant or relaxant) were to vanish overnight, The State would still find some bogus excuse to violate your right to travel without being robbed and molested. This is about asserting control over your life; nothing else.
These "gift" bags make me wonder- What's next? Wine and roses after a TSA "security" rape?
*
Donate?
How can it be a gift if your money is stolen to pay for it, and a molester (or his familiar) gives it to you after violating you? Yet, this is just a part of what the state police and the Albuquerque badge-vermin are doing during their new checkpoint [sic] blitzkrieg.
The gift bags were actually handed out by those harpies of "
Don't believe the lie: these "checkpoints" are not about "drunk driving" at all, and if alcohol (and every other intoxicant or relaxant) were to vanish overnight, The State would still find some bogus excuse to violate your right to travel without being robbed and molested. This is about asserting control over your life; nothing else.
These "gift" bags make me wonder- What's next? Wine and roses after a TSA "security" rape?
*
Donate?
Monday, November 22, 2010
TSA scanners: helping kill the Empire with idiocy and evil
TSA scanners: helping kill the Empire with idiocy and evil
It seems as though the TSA may just be a tipping point in bringing tyranny to the attention of some of the less-aware among us. Whether that awareness will last more than a week or two, or bring any return to sanity is anyone's guess.
The TSA's new invasive and dangerous scanners have become widely known as "porno-scanners" which indicates some people are waking up (although I still prefer my own terms of "pedophile-o-vision" and "molest-o-vision" since "porn" is consensual, but molestation isn't). And, if you choose to "opt out" of being photographed naked (a choice that may be denied to you soon), and not in a flattering pose to be sent to your sexting friends, you will be subject to a groping that would be illegal in any other non-consensual situation. Make no mistake, there is nothing consensual about the TSA's procedures.
Of course, some people claim that they "must" fly due to their job or situation. That's ridiculous. Would you claim you "must" allow yourself to be raped "for your job" in any other circumstance? If you value yourself and your family so little that you'll not stand up for yourself I pity you.
I suggest you Boycott Flying, and proclaim "We Won't Fly!". If you aren't willing to make a real stand, at least muck up the plans of those in TSA "authority" by participating in Opt Out Day. Or if that isn't your style and you had no plans to be flying anytime soon anyway, let a major business know why you can't take your children to their theme parks anymore, if that means subjecting them to the hands and eyes of the federal perverts, by writing a letter to just one targeted company.
I don't know, nor do I care, if Albuquerque's airport has the molest-o-vision machines. If not now; soon. (If you do know, feel free to leave a comment with the information in case someone does care.) Either way, I WILL NOT FLY until the idiots in government (redundancy alert) stop meddling with air transportation so that REAL security and safety can be implemented by everyone being able to carry the gun of their choice on board with no obstacles at all, other than (perhaps) type of ammo. Anything less is "security theater".
*
Donate?
It seems as though the TSA may just be a tipping point in bringing tyranny to the attention of some of the less-aware among us. Whether that awareness will last more than a week or two, or bring any return to sanity is anyone's guess.
The TSA's new invasive and dangerous scanners have become widely known as "porno-scanners" which indicates some people are waking up (although I still prefer my own terms of "pedophile-o-vision" and "molest-o-vision" since "porn" is consensual, but molestation isn't). And, if you choose to "opt out" of being photographed naked (a choice that may be denied to you soon), and not in a flattering pose to be sent to your sexting friends, you will be subject to a groping that would be illegal in any other non-consensual situation. Make no mistake, there is nothing consensual about the TSA's procedures.
Of course, some people claim that they "must" fly due to their job or situation. That's ridiculous. Would you claim you "must" allow yourself to be raped "for your job" in any other circumstance? If you value yourself and your family so little that you'll not stand up for yourself I pity you.
I suggest you Boycott Flying, and proclaim "We Won't Fly!". If you aren't willing to make a real stand, at least muck up the plans of those in TSA "authority" by participating in Opt Out Day. Or if that isn't your style and you had no plans to be flying anytime soon anyway, let a major business know why you can't take your children to their theme parks anymore, if that means subjecting them to the hands and eyes of the federal perverts, by writing a letter to just one targeted company.
I don't know, nor do I care, if Albuquerque's airport has the molest-o-vision machines. If not now; soon. (If you do know, feel free to leave a comment with the information in case someone does care.) Either way, I WILL NOT FLY until the idiots in government (redundancy alert) stop meddling with air transportation so that REAL security and safety can be implemented by everyone being able to carry the gun of their choice on board with no obstacles at all, other than (perhaps) type of ammo. Anything less is "security theater".
*
Donate?
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Swastika branding not a good idea
Swastika branding not a good idea
Aggression is aggression, and whether it fits The State's definition of "hate" or not is irrelevant.
The Albuquerque news brings word of three "men" in Farmington who are charged with a "hate crime" for burning a swastika into the flesh of a supposedly "mentally disabled" victim.
It wouldn't make any difference if they had branded him with a happy face rather than with the pattern commonly known as a "swastika". That symbol has a very long history before the German "progressives" known as Nazis adopted it as their own. Nazis are a temporary cancer on the history of the world and you shouldn't let them define anything for the rest of us. The swastika is a sacred symbol to many Native Americans and others around the globe. If you automatically despise that symbol, you should also automatically hate the US flag since it has been adopted by the world's largest terrorist group and is flown over all occupied territories world-wide.
Anyone with any decency isn't going to brand another human being with anything, especially if there is any question as to whether the person understands the implications. If he wants to be branded, let him do it himself or ask to have it done. In that case, you'd better have a lot of witnesses around who can see for themselves that the man actually, really wants the brand and understands the pain it will cause, and the social implications of having it burned into his flesh for all to see from now on. If there is any question as to the person's ability to consent, then you had better be doubly sure before you agree to perform the procedure.
In any case, I sense coercion and I don't care whether "hatred" (as defined by The State) was a part of it or not. It seems obvious to me that hatred is at the core of all acts of coercion, whether committed by The State or by freelance individuals. Even if I am wrong there, hatred doesn't make any harm worse, nor would doing it in "love" make it any better.
The fact that the branders also shaved the symbol into the back of his hair and used a marker to write on his body shows me that their intent was to make the man an object of ridicule. This shows me that they are acting out of evil intent. But it is the reality of their actions, not their intentions, that form the basis of the harm they committed. They owe restitution on a grand scale.
*
Donate?
Aggression is aggression, and whether it fits The State's definition of "hate" or not is irrelevant.
The Albuquerque news brings word of three "men" in Farmington who are charged with a "hate crime" for burning a swastika into the flesh of a supposedly "mentally disabled" victim.
It wouldn't make any difference if they had branded him with a happy face rather than with the pattern commonly known as a "swastika". That symbol has a very long history before the German "progressives" known as Nazis adopted it as their own. Nazis are a temporary cancer on the history of the world and you shouldn't let them define anything for the rest of us. The swastika is a sacred symbol to many Native Americans and others around the globe. If you automatically despise that symbol, you should also automatically hate the US flag since it has been adopted by the world's largest terrorist group and is flown over all occupied territories world-wide.
Anyone with any decency isn't going to brand another human being with anything, especially if there is any question as to whether the person understands the implications. If he wants to be branded, let him do it himself or ask to have it done. In that case, you'd better have a lot of witnesses around who can see for themselves that the man actually, really wants the brand and understands the pain it will cause, and the social implications of having it burned into his flesh for all to see from now on. If there is any question as to the person's ability to consent, then you had better be doubly sure before you agree to perform the procedure.
In any case, I sense coercion and I don't care whether "hatred" (as defined by The State) was a part of it or not. It seems obvious to me that hatred is at the core of all acts of coercion, whether committed by The State or by freelance individuals. Even if I am wrong there, hatred doesn't make any harm worse, nor would doing it in "love" make it any better.
The fact that the branders also shaved the symbol into the back of his hair and used a marker to write on his body shows me that their intent was to make the man an object of ridicule. This shows me that they are acting out of evil intent. But it is the reality of their actions, not their intentions, that form the basis of the harm they committed. They owe restitution on a grand scale.
*
Donate?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The tragedy of pumpkin vigilantism
The tragedy of pumpkin vigilantism
OK, so there is really no tragedy here. Unless you are the humiliated and sore burglar in question.
An Albuquerque man used an "assault pumpkin" to defeat a burglar. He is being called a "vigilante" and the LEOs (that perpetual burglar support crew) are busy saying people should just "give 'em what they want" rather than standing up for yourself when robbed. These cops say you should never take "the law" into your own hands. I agree in a way since "the law" is nothing but putrid fecal matter and it is shameful to be associated with it in any way, but that's the fault of "the law", not the fault of those who refuse to be victimized.
I do have one small suggestion for the "Punkin Chunker": He should probably offer to pay for the pumpkin he used, since he apparently trespassed and then took and used the pumpkin without permission. If it had been my pumpkin, however, I'd refuse payment; feeling the result was well worth the loss.
*
Donate?
OK, so there is really no tragedy here. Unless you are the humiliated and sore burglar in question.
An Albuquerque man used an "assault pumpkin" to defeat a burglar. He is being called a "vigilante" and the LEOs (that perpetual burglar support crew) are busy saying people should just "give 'em what they want" rather than standing up for yourself when robbed. These cops say you should never take "the law" into your own hands. I agree in a way since "the law" is nothing but putrid fecal matter and it is shameful to be associated with it in any way, but that's the fault of "the law", not the fault of those who refuse to be victimized.
I do have one small suggestion for the "Punkin Chunker": He should probably offer to pay for the pumpkin he used, since he apparently trespassed and then took and used the pumpkin without permission. If it had been my pumpkin, however, I'd refuse payment; feeling the result was well worth the loss.
*
Donate?
Robber-officer suicide
Robber-officer suicide
Albuquerque's most recent bank robber killed himself when it became obvious he was caught. It would have been slightly more satisfying had an armed bank customer or employee fired the fatal shot. However, justice sometimes comes from strange directions.
The revelation that the dead robber had been working for The State as a prison guard at Los Lunas until his death shouldn't surprise anyone who recognizes the flawed personality traits that lead a person to seek unlimited power and control over others, a sense of entitlement, and a lack of empathy or ethics that are essential in either "career choice".
There's also a disturbing admission from the cops who surrounded the robber: "According to police, the suspect was driving out of control which justified the shooting of the truck's tires." Because we all know the solution to out-of-control driving is to have a sudden, violent blow-out. Right? Well, according to "cop-think" it is.
(I can't help but wonder, since the robber turned out to be an "Only One", what would have been the penalty for shooting him during his robbery?)
*
Donate?
Albuquerque's most recent bank robber killed himself when it became obvious he was caught. It would have been slightly more satisfying had an armed bank customer or employee fired the fatal shot. However, justice sometimes comes from strange directions.
The revelation that the dead robber had been working for The State as a prison guard at Los Lunas until his death shouldn't surprise anyone who recognizes the flawed personality traits that lead a person to seek unlimited power and control over others, a sense of entitlement, and a lack of empathy or ethics that are essential in either "career choice".
There's also a disturbing admission from the cops who surrounded the robber: "According to police, the suspect was driving out of control which justified the shooting of the truck's tires." Because we all know the solution to out-of-control driving is to have a sudden, violent blow-out. Right? Well, according to "cop-think" it is.
(I can't help but wonder, since the robber turned out to be an "Only One", what would have been the penalty for shooting him during his robbery?)
*
Donate?
New Writing Gig!
I just got a new writing gig with the Clovis News Journal (and the Portales News-Tribune), which are both Freedom Communications papers.
Once a week, to be published in both papers simultaneously each Friday, and it doesn't pay much at all, but it still pays better than Examiner (so guess which will get priority). They also want more length than Examiner does, and more depth. Plus I still get paid even if I don't specifically mention the names of the towns.
I'm not allowed to post the content anywhere else for 30 days, but I will be posting the link to the column here as soon as it is online.
The Portales News-Tribune has been using some of my material recently, anyway. This just makes it official.
Look for the first column next Friday.
Once a week, to be published in both papers simultaneously each Friday, and it doesn't pay much at all, but it still pays better than Examiner (so guess which will get priority). They also want more length than Examiner does, and more depth. Plus I still get paid even if I don't specifically mention the names of the towns.
I'm not allowed to post the content anywhere else for 30 days, but I will be posting the link to the column here as soon as it is online.
The Portales News-Tribune has been using some of my material recently, anyway. This just makes it official.
Look for the first column next Friday.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Drive-up robber service: I'm lovin' it?
Drive-up robber service: I'm lovin' it?
A disgusting parasite robbed an Albuquerque McDonald's drive up window Sunday evening. Follow the link and look at the guy. It's obvious he is scared senseless. As well he should be. (In addition to being dumb as dirt to let the camera get such a clear look at his face.) Someone out there knows him, and can make sure he'll never be able to do such a thing again and that the stolen property is returned to the rightful owner.
Speaking of justice- he is lucky there were no self-owning, responsible customers or staff present during his cowardly act of freelance taxation. Of course, since he robbed the drive up window, I suppose it would have been hard for customers inside to have seen what was going on. That's if anyone was even paying attention to their surroundings.
I can't help but think that anyone who complies with demands of a robber at a drive up window might be too compliant for their own good. Where's a big vat of extremely hot oil when you need one?
*
Donate?
A disgusting parasite robbed an Albuquerque McDonald's drive up window Sunday evening. Follow the link and look at the guy. It's obvious he is scared senseless. As well he should be. (In addition to being dumb as dirt to let the camera get such a clear look at his face.) Someone out there knows him, and can make sure he'll never be able to do such a thing again and that the stolen property is returned to the rightful owner.
Speaking of justice- he is lucky there were no self-owning, responsible customers or staff present during his cowardly act of freelance taxation. Of course, since he robbed the drive up window, I suppose it would have been hard for customers inside to have seen what was going on. That's if anyone was even paying attention to their surroundings.
I can't help but think that anyone who complies with demands of a robber at a drive up window might be too compliant for their own good. Where's a big vat of extremely hot oil when you need one?
*
Donate?
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Questions arise in detective's crash
Questions arise in detective's crash
An Albuquerque police detective crashed his unmarked, stealth copmobile into a stop sign and through a bush before it came to rest near a home's garage. It is only fitting that this happened on Halloween weekend since he claims the cause was a phantom car that caused him to swerve before it disappeared. OK, so he claims the car was real and that it drove away, but there seems to be no sign of this car except in his report.
The LEOs who investigated the crash said they saw no signs that the detective had been drinking, but we all know cops see what they've been trained to see. And one thing they are definitely not trained to see (or perhaps, trained to not see) is another cop doing something wrong.
It seems suspicious to me that the news took over a week to surface. What does APD have to hide? That's not the only oddity, either. The wreck happened at 6AM, but the investigation seeks to discover "what actually took place that evening". I guess the mysterious Halloween spirit is real, and haunting the Albuquerque Police Department. Boo!
*
Donate?
An Albuquerque police detective crashed his unmarked, stealth copmobile into a stop sign and through a bush before it came to rest near a home's garage. It is only fitting that this happened on Halloween weekend since he claims the cause was a phantom car that caused him to swerve before it disappeared. OK, so he claims the car was real and that it drove away, but there seems to be no sign of this car except in his report.
The LEOs who investigated the crash said they saw no signs that the detective had been drinking, but we all know cops see what they've been trained to see. And one thing they are definitely not trained to see (or perhaps, trained to not see) is another cop doing something wrong.
It seems suspicious to me that the news took over a week to surface. What does APD have to hide? That's not the only oddity, either. The wreck happened at 6AM, but the investigation seeks to discover "what actually took place that evening". I guess the mysterious Halloween spirit is real, and haunting the Albuquerque Police Department. Boo!
*
Donate?
Control-freaks to 'discuss' the future of the internet
Control-freaks to 'discuss' the future of the internet
The future of the internet will be debated, and no doubt endangered, on November 16 in Albuquerque at a public hearing with Federal (Prevention of Free) Communications Commissioner, Michael Copps.
Rest assured, as if you had any doubt, that when anyone in government discusses "the future" of the internet or anything else, they are not speaking of leaving it alone to thrive or wither on its own. They are talking about taking control so that they can meddle or ration the resource in whatever way they feel is best for "the common good". And planning on making you pay for the privilege of having your liberty violated. This is always bad for for individuals.
It is also illegal according to the First Amendment, as if that would ever stop them. You are the enforcement clause of your rights. Don't look to a piece of old, faded paper to do your job for you.
*
Donate?
The future of the internet will be debated, and no doubt endangered, on November 16 in Albuquerque at a public hearing with Federal (Prevention of Free) Communications Commissioner, Michael Copps.
Rest assured, as if you had any doubt, that when anyone in government discusses "the future" of the internet or anything else, they are not speaking of leaving it alone to thrive or wither on its own. They are talking about taking control so that they can meddle or ration the resource in whatever way they feel is best for "the common good". And planning on making you pay for the privilege of having your liberty violated. This is always bad for for individuals.
It is also illegal according to the First Amendment, as if that would ever stop them. You are the enforcement clause of your rights. Don't look to a piece of old, faded paper to do your job for you.
*
Donate?
Monday, November 15, 2010
Results of elections
Results of elections
With every election I have ever heard of, the results are always the same: Liberty loses and The State wins. If you are even the slightest bit aware, you already know that will happen since the system is rigged.
I have zero faith that the "Tea Party-backed" politicians who won their elections will do anything but increase the breadth and depth of government. They may focus their efforts in different areas than the Democrats have been- I expect more religious justifications for violating liberties of Americans, more "patriotic" justifications for the cult of border-worship and the related demonization of hispanic immigrants in particular, and a mix of the two excuses for the endless parade of US-sponsored terrorism Orwellishly called "The War on Terror". All, historically proven Big Government favorites.
Believe it or not, this never-changing course makes me smile to myself. It isn't as hopeless as you might think if you were counting on liberty to be saved by an election (which is a ridiculous notion). The reason is that these election results are only the "official, government sanctioned results". The reality is that The State, with the help of its supporters, is killing itself bit by bit with each election. It loses more true-believers every day, and I don't think they are being replaced as fast as they are leaving. Even I used to vote.
I believe voting for a candidate is wrong, but that running for office, if you are a hard-core libertarian or anarchist, is a very good thing. I know, it sounds contradictory. But it isn't.
First of all, hard-core libertarians and anarchists aren't going to vote. Not for you or for anyone else. But, lots of very good, "almost there" folk will. And it is better to give those people a real alternative rather than allowing them to waste their vote on a statist shill. Also it is good to remember that there are a lot of really stupid voters out there who haven't got a clue who any candidate is or what they stand for and can't think deeply enough to even question the legitimacy of the system. It is good to funnel off some of those votes into a harmless candidate.
So, if you are a radical, hard-core libertarian or an anarchist who has the inclination, and you feel like dealing with the violations and scrutiny, go ahead and run for office under whichever party's banner you want. Just don't expect your own guys to vote for you.
In Albuquerque news: ABQ LEOs have shot 13 people so far this year; killing nine of them. At least the dead avoided being charged with the counterfeit "crime" of "aggravated assault against an officer" after being shot, because, you know, it's so violent to make a poor innocent LEO shoot you. They'd so much rather kill you in less obvious ways. I'm sorry, but the disingenuousness from these parasites just infuriates me.
*
Donate?
With every election I have ever heard of, the results are always the same: Liberty loses and The State wins. If you are even the slightest bit aware, you already know that will happen since the system is rigged.
I have zero faith that the "Tea Party-backed" politicians who won their elections will do anything but increase the breadth and depth of government. They may focus their efforts in different areas than the Democrats have been- I expect more religious justifications for violating liberties of Americans, more "patriotic" justifications for the cult of border-worship and the related demonization of hispanic immigrants in particular, and a mix of the two excuses for the endless parade of US-sponsored terrorism Orwellishly called "The War on Terror". All, historically proven Big Government favorites.
Believe it or not, this never-changing course makes me smile to myself. It isn't as hopeless as you might think if you were counting on liberty to be saved by an election (which is a ridiculous notion). The reason is that these election results are only the "official, government sanctioned results". The reality is that The State, with the help of its supporters, is killing itself bit by bit with each election. It loses more true-believers every day, and I don't think they are being replaced as fast as they are leaving. Even I used to vote.
I believe voting for a candidate is wrong, but that running for office, if you are a hard-core libertarian or anarchist, is a very good thing. I know, it sounds contradictory. But it isn't.
First of all, hard-core libertarians and anarchists aren't going to vote. Not for you or for anyone else. But, lots of very good, "almost there" folk will. And it is better to give those people a real alternative rather than allowing them to waste their vote on a statist shill. Also it is good to remember that there are a lot of really stupid voters out there who haven't got a clue who any candidate is or what they stand for and can't think deeply enough to even question the legitimacy of the system. It is good to funnel off some of those votes into a harmless candidate.
So, if you are a radical, hard-core libertarian or an anarchist who has the inclination, and you feel like dealing with the violations and scrutiny, go ahead and run for office under whichever party's banner you want. Just don't expect your own guys to vote for you.
In Albuquerque news: ABQ LEOs have shot 13 people so far this year; killing nine of them. At least the dead avoided being charged with the counterfeit "crime" of "aggravated assault against an officer" after being shot, because, you know, it's so violent to make a poor innocent LEO shoot you. They'd so much rather kill you in less obvious ways. I'm sorry, but the disingenuousness from these parasites just infuriates me.
*
Donate?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The State- the definition
"The State"* is the term used to encompass the entirety of the concept of externally-imposed, coercive government, whether a small, local town council, or a global empire.
It is (obviously) composed of individuals who might or might not be enthusiastic about committing acts of evil on their own, but by working together under the myth of the legitimacy of authoritarianism, they can do nothing else. There is nothing good about "The State". It is, and always has been, criminal.
*Capitalized in order to ridicule The State's empty self-importance.
.
It is (obviously) composed of individuals who might or might not be enthusiastic about committing acts of evil on their own, but by working together under the myth of the legitimacy of authoritarianism, they can do nothing else. There is nothing good about "The State". It is, and always has been, criminal.
*Capitalized in order to ridicule The State's empty self-importance.
.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Free-range idiots- they are out there
As a result of the recent election, the "localish" city government was denied the bond issues they were pushing to build a new jail and courthouse. A couple of days later one commissioner was quoted in the paper as saying: “Tell us how to do it. If somebody out there in TV land or somebody that comes to the meetings has an idea (we want to hear it).” and “We need the public’s help. As our bosses, what do you want us to do?”
So, I posted the following:
Surprisingly, and not in any way usual, my comment only got two replies. One of lukewarm agreement (who only slightly missed what I was saying by stating that "...I do believe certain individuals ... should be jailed for an appropriate time."), and a much more typical response.
That one demonstrated very clearly what people with functioning brains are up against. He said:
Did the idiot even read what I wrote, or is he just too stupid to comprehend the written word? Pinheads like this are why I sometimes wonder if it's even worth the effort.
*
Donate?
So, I posted the following:
I have my doubts you really want "help and solutions", but you did ask:
#1- Stop enforcing counterfeit "laws" (those which have no specific, individual, victim- "society" can't be a victim). No drug "laws", no gun "laws", no prostitution "laws". If someone commits theft, aggression, or fraud, using these or any other things as an excuse, prosecute the actual wrong acts, not the silly "crimes" that are simply based on emotional/religious ideas of what people "ought not do".
#2- The focus of any real justice system must be restitution, not imprisonment. Jailing a thief doesn't restore the victim to his pre-crime condition (what real "justice" is all about). In most cases, it doesn't help the victim of an attack, either.
#3- Let people defend themselves with the correct, fully-functional tools designed for defense, everywhere they may go without fear of becoming a victim of the "justice system".
Surprisingly, and not in any way usual, my comment only got two replies. One of lukewarm agreement (who only slightly missed what I was saying by stating that "...I do believe certain individuals ... should be jailed for an appropriate time."), and a much more typical response.
That one demonstrated very clearly what people with functioning brains are up against. He said:
"Yes, stop enforcing laws. That'll show em! That'll totally make this place safe and crime free. You're right dullhawk (apt screename), cutting assault and robbery rates is easy when you make assault and robbery legal."
Did the idiot even read what I wrote, or is he just too stupid to comprehend the written word? Pinheads like this are why I sometimes wonder if it's even worth the effort.
*
Donate?
Friday, November 12, 2010
Cops found "not guilty" of fabricating evidence
Cops found "not guilty" of fabricating evidence
Three cops who were accused of fabricating evidence against two suspects in a particularly cruel multiple murder case have been cleared by a jury. The "Torreon cabin murders" happened in December 1995, sixty five miles southeast of Albuquerque.
Of course they were cleared. Juries almost always find cops "not guilty". Yet, the preponderance of evidence shows that cops are more likely to be bad guys than the general population. They are not trustworthy. They have more in common with those in prison for crimes of extreme violence than they have in common with you or me. The job attracts damaged people who like to hurt others, yet are too afraid of doing it without the guns of The State backing them up to go freelance. Cowardly bullies with a cruel streak and a badge are a bad combination. Until police are reined in again, it is inevitable.
There are so many cases where cops fabricated evidence, lied under oath, filed false reports, and tampered with the crime scene for their own purposes that I wouldn't trust a LEO's version of events unless I saw the crime happen and the cop's version matched what I witnessed exactly.
So, did the cops really fabricate the evidence? Probably. But no one but the cops and those they accused will ever know the truth. Did those they tried to trap actually play some role in the murders? There is no way to know for sure.
It is important to know who really commits acts of aggression. Knowing the truth is much more important than getting a conviction or fooling the public into thinking you are "doing something". Real bad guys will eventually pay (sooner than later, if the right to own and to carry firearms were respected) with or without cops lying to catch them.
*
Donate?
Three cops who were accused of fabricating evidence against two suspects in a particularly cruel multiple murder case have been cleared by a jury. The "Torreon cabin murders" happened in December 1995, sixty five miles southeast of Albuquerque.
Of course they were cleared. Juries almost always find cops "not guilty". Yet, the preponderance of evidence shows that cops are more likely to be bad guys than the general population. They are not trustworthy. They have more in common with those in prison for crimes of extreme violence than they have in common with you or me. The job attracts damaged people who like to hurt others, yet are too afraid of doing it without the guns of The State backing them up to go freelance. Cowardly bullies with a cruel streak and a badge are a bad combination. Until police are reined in again, it is inevitable.
There are so many cases where cops fabricated evidence, lied under oath, filed false reports, and tampered with the crime scene for their own purposes that I wouldn't trust a LEO's version of events unless I saw the crime happen and the cop's version matched what I witnessed exactly.
So, did the cops really fabricate the evidence? Probably. But no one but the cops and those they accused will ever know the truth. Did those they tried to trap actually play some role in the murders? There is no way to know for sure.
It is important to know who really commits acts of aggression. Knowing the truth is much more important than getting a conviction or fooling the public into thinking you are "doing something". Real bad guys will eventually pay (sooner than later, if the right to own and to carry firearms were respected) with or without cops lying to catch them.
*
Donate?
Monday, November 08, 2010
New comments on an old post
I would like to draw your attention to some new comments on an old post. I am not being very "pragmatic" in my defense of liberty. Anyway, go here and read the rest of the comments.
Friday, November 05, 2010
The Fifth of November...
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Government's tyrannical Plot,
I know of no reason
Why the Government's Treason
Should ever be forgot.
President, Congress, t'was their intent
To violate rights; our money they spent.
Thousands of laws, each a new crime;
Liberty, it seems, had run out of time.
Elections were held to pacify some,
A new batch of scoundrels to Washington come.
Wake up, wake up, your life is your own!
Wake up, wake up, YOU sit on the throne!
And how shall we live? In true liberty!
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Property rights: absolute with one limit
Property rights: absolute with one limit
Yes, I said long ago that I had written my last word on the Bubble Theory of Property Rights. Well, it keeps rearing its head, and the more I examine the concepts and counter-arguments, the more sure I am of where I stand. That still doesn't mean I am right.
Property rights are absolute (even if The State acts as if they are not). Property rights have only one limit: they end where the property ends. You can't claim ownership of your neighbor's house just because it is adjacent to your property, even if your property is completely surrounding his property and he must parachute to his house from deep space in order to avoid crossing your land. Your property lines are where your property rights end in this example. Those who own land in the middle of national forests still retain ownership of their own property (even if the feds aren't happy about it and seek to violate those property rights in myriad ways).
The same goes for smaller units of property such as a house or business and an individual allowed to enter that property. If you allow me to come onto your property, my body does not become your property even though it is engulfed by your property. My property "bubble" extends to the outer surface of my clothing because my clothes are still my clothes even if you allow me, and them, on your property. Your property rights end at my surface, and do not penetrate any deeper. So, anything beneath the surface of my clothes, as long as it remains only there, is occupying only my property even if I am surrounded and engulfed by your property at your permission.
You can insist I leave my rights behind if I enter your property, but the demand is no more valid than the demand that I become your unwilling sex slave if I enter your property. Slavery or murder is not OK just because you "only" do it on your own property. Now, obviously, anyone evil enough to make the demand that you relinquish your rights in order to enter their property is someone you should avoid if at all possible. It is better to avoid putting yourself in these situations if you can. You can cooperate or not as you see fit, but I don't consider it noble to kowtow to bad guys.
Added as clarification: It's not so much that I think I have a right to carry a concealed weapon onto other people's property, it is that I don't believe I have a right to forbid such on my own property. If I invite someone, I invite them as a sovereign individual with all their rights fully intact. I have no right to regulate what is in their pockets as long as it stays there in every way.
* * *
A federal jury in Albuquerque has convicted a Rio Rancho man of the "crime" of being a "convicted felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition". They've obviously never heard of FIJA.org.
The man was charged in the case in June 2009 after a cop stopped his car and during an undoubtedly unethical violation of property rights, found a .40-caliber pistol and ammunition in a computer bag.
Why was he stopped? Why did the cop illegally search the car? And why, if the man is still a danger who can't be trusted with a gun, was he running free? Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted. And rights can never be "lost".
On top of this, one of the two "felonies" he was previously convicted for was probably not even wrong. "Aggravated assault on an officer" is one of those false crimes that anyone who doesn't bow to a LEO's puffed-up "authority" quick enough, and is then put in a position of having to defend oneself from an attack by the authority-crazed cop, could be charged with.
*
Donate?
Yes, I said long ago that I had written my last word on the Bubble Theory of Property Rights. Well, it keeps rearing its head, and the more I examine the concepts and counter-arguments, the more sure I am of where I stand. That still doesn't mean I am right.
Property rights are absolute (even if The State acts as if they are not). Property rights have only one limit: they end where the property ends. You can't claim ownership of your neighbor's house just because it is adjacent to your property, even if your property is completely surrounding his property and he must parachute to his house from deep space in order to avoid crossing your land. Your property lines are where your property rights end in this example. Those who own land in the middle of national forests still retain ownership of their own property (even if the feds aren't happy about it and seek to violate those property rights in myriad ways).
The same goes for smaller units of property such as a house or business and an individual allowed to enter that property. If you allow me to come onto your property, my body does not become your property even though it is engulfed by your property. My property "bubble" extends to the outer surface of my clothing because my clothes are still my clothes even if you allow me, and them, on your property. Your property rights end at my surface, and do not penetrate any deeper. So, anything beneath the surface of my clothes, as long as it remains only there, is occupying only my property even if I am surrounded and engulfed by your property at your permission.
You can insist I leave my rights behind if I enter your property, but the demand is no more valid than the demand that I become your unwilling sex slave if I enter your property. Slavery or murder is not OK just because you "only" do it on your own property. Now, obviously, anyone evil enough to make the demand that you relinquish your rights in order to enter their property is someone you should avoid if at all possible. It is better to avoid putting yourself in these situations if you can. You can cooperate or not as you see fit, but I don't consider it noble to kowtow to bad guys.
Added as clarification: It's not so much that I think I have a right to carry a concealed weapon onto other people's property, it is that I don't believe I have a right to forbid such on my own property. If I invite someone, I invite them as a sovereign individual with all their rights fully intact. I have no right to regulate what is in their pockets as long as it stays there in every way.
* * *
A federal jury in Albuquerque has convicted a Rio Rancho man of the "crime" of being a "convicted felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition". They've obviously never heard of FIJA.org.
The man was charged in the case in June 2009 after a cop stopped his car and during an undoubtedly unethical violation of property rights, found a .40-caliber pistol and ammunition in a computer bag.
Why was he stopped? Why did the cop illegally search the car? And why, if the man is still a danger who can't be trusted with a gun, was he running free? Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted. And rights can never be "lost".
On top of this, one of the two "felonies" he was previously convicted for was probably not even wrong. "Aggravated assault on an officer" is one of those false crimes that anyone who doesn't bow to a LEO's puffed-up "authority" quick enough, and is then put in a position of having to defend oneself from an attack by the authority-crazed cop, could be charged with.
*
Donate?
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Tribal leaders make bad ruling
Tribal leaders make bad ruling
The leaders of the Jemez Pueblo, northwest of Albuquerque, have banned a newspaper from tribal land because they think it sensationalized a story on a murder.
The tribal leaders claim they are exempt from the First Amendment. I agree, since the Bill of Rights only applies to governments of the US. I'm all in favor of governments not being affiliated or cooperative with that particular criminal organization.
However the tribal leaders are not exempt from the laws of right and wrong, and freedom of speech (and the press) still exists just as fully at the pueblo as anywhere else. Rights are no more subject to tribal "law" than to Federal "law". It doesn't matter if you are talking the right of free speech, the right of freedom of the press, the right of freedom of religion, the right of owning and carrying guns, the right to not testify against yourself, or anything else. "Laws" can never repeal even the most trivial right. A right doesn't cease to exist just because you happen to own (or control) property and you don't like the right.
By trying to violate freedom of the press they are exposing themselves as unworthy of the title of "leader" and are acting as Rulers instead. They are committing evil just as much as any government does when engaging in the same, wrong, acts. Individuals can decide, on an individual basis, whether they want to buy the paper or not. Try to convince them to boycott, don't use coercion.
*
Donate?
The leaders of the Jemez Pueblo, northwest of Albuquerque, have banned a newspaper from tribal land because they think it sensationalized a story on a murder.
The tribal leaders claim they are exempt from the First Amendment. I agree, since the Bill of Rights only applies to governments of the US. I'm all in favor of governments not being affiliated or cooperative with that particular criminal organization.
However the tribal leaders are not exempt from the laws of right and wrong, and freedom of speech (and the press) still exists just as fully at the pueblo as anywhere else. Rights are no more subject to tribal "law" than to Federal "law". It doesn't matter if you are talking the right of free speech, the right of freedom of the press, the right of freedom of religion, the right of owning and carrying guns, the right to not testify against yourself, or anything else. "Laws" can never repeal even the most trivial right. A right doesn't cease to exist just because you happen to own (or control) property and you don't like the right.
By trying to violate freedom of the press they are exposing themselves as unworthy of the title of "leader" and are acting as Rulers instead. They are committing evil just as much as any government does when engaging in the same, wrong, acts. Individuals can decide, on an individual basis, whether they want to buy the paper or not. Try to convince them to boycott, don't use coercion.
*
Donate?
Liberty's false friends
Liberty's false friends
You can't get more, or more complete, liberty for yourself by restricting it for others. Liberty is an interconnected web. Pull one thread and the entire structure is damaged.
"Immigration" is a good example. It shows why the Tea Party crowd is not helpful to liberty. You can't claim to be for liberty, but then advocate for government to be more powerful in "just one area"; more government control, but only when you "really want it". It always damages all liberty.
You also can't claim you are for liberty, but be enthusiastic about the government-controlled military. It doesn't work that way. The more powerful and bigger the government's military is, the more exceptions liberty suffers, and the more enemies the military creates to threaten you.
A lot of the Tea Party folk claim that these aspects of government power enhance liberty, after all, their justification goes, you can't be free if your country has been invaded and overrun. Yet, the country has already been invaded (by an ideology- collectivism) and overrun (by statists and authoritarians whose goals are the opposite of liberty). These are a greater
danger to your real, livable liberty than all the "terrorists" in the entire world could ever dream of being.
Add to these travesties the War on (some) Drugs, government-sanctioned or rationed marriage, entitlements, "gun control" that even Tea Partiers say is "reasonable", favoring one primitive and violent religion over another primitive and violent religion, the taxation that Tea Partiers are saying is "enough" rather than admitting it is ALL theft, and all the "required" permits, licenses, red tape, and other government violations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... it adds up.
One example of those violations of rights and liberty that Tea Partiers are generally OK with: Two massage parlors in Albuquerque were raided and shut down yesterday by LEOs- for prostitution. Consensual trade, "even" in sexual gratification, between responsible, self-owning people is no one else's business. "Laws" attempting to control, forbid, or regulate
it are counterfeit "laws" and it is wrong to advocate or enforce such "laws". (Any "legitimate" massage provider who tipped off the LEOs to the prostitution should be shunned into bankruptcy. It isn't as if they were actual competitors... or were they?)
I'm certainly not perfect, and I have my preferences and opinions. Yet I recognize that liberty is the closest to "perfect" there is, and I can set aside my petty short-term desires to work toward that which I really want. Liberty for ALL, which includes me and those I love. You can't damage your enemy's liberty without doing damage to your own. This is a textbook example of "cutting off your nose to spite your face". It is just a simple truth, and it just isn't worth it.
When Tea Partiers, or anyone else who claims to value liberty, supports these enemies of liberty and their anti-liberty agenda it shows they haven't thought it through, or they are lying.
*
Donate?
You can't get more, or more complete, liberty for yourself by restricting it for others. Liberty is an interconnected web. Pull one thread and the entire structure is damaged.
"Immigration" is a good example. It shows why the Tea Party crowd is not helpful to liberty. You can't claim to be for liberty, but then advocate for government to be more powerful in "just one area"; more government control, but only when you "really want it". It always damages all liberty.
You also can't claim you are for liberty, but be enthusiastic about the government-controlled military. It doesn't work that way. The more powerful and bigger the government's military is, the more exceptions liberty suffers, and the more enemies the military creates to threaten you.
A lot of the Tea Party folk claim that these aspects of government power enhance liberty, after all, their justification goes, you can't be free if your country has been invaded and overrun. Yet, the country has already been invaded (by an ideology- collectivism) and overrun (by statists and authoritarians whose goals are the opposite of liberty). These are a greater
danger to your real, livable liberty than all the "terrorists" in the entire world could ever dream of being.
Add to these travesties the War on (some) Drugs, government-sanctioned or rationed marriage, entitlements, "gun control" that even Tea Partiers say is "reasonable", favoring one primitive and violent religion over another primitive and violent religion, the taxation that Tea Partiers are saying is "enough" rather than admitting it is ALL theft, and all the "required" permits, licenses, red tape, and other government violations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... it adds up.
One example of those violations of rights and liberty that Tea Partiers are generally OK with: Two massage parlors in Albuquerque were raided and shut down yesterday by LEOs- for prostitution. Consensual trade, "even" in sexual gratification, between responsible, self-owning people is no one else's business. "Laws" attempting to control, forbid, or regulate
it are counterfeit "laws" and it is wrong to advocate or enforce such "laws". (Any "legitimate" massage provider who tipped off the LEOs to the prostitution should be shunned into bankruptcy. It isn't as if they were actual competitors... or were they?)
I'm certainly not perfect, and I have my preferences and opinions. Yet I recognize that liberty is the closest to "perfect" there is, and I can set aside my petty short-term desires to work toward that which I really want. Liberty for ALL, which includes me and those I love. You can't damage your enemy's liberty without doing damage to your own. This is a textbook example of "cutting off your nose to spite your face". It is just a simple truth, and it just isn't worth it.
When Tea Partiers, or anyone else who claims to value liberty, supports these enemies of liberty and their anti-liberty agenda it shows they haven't thought it through, or they are lying.
*
Donate?
Monday, November 01, 2010
You've got better things to do than vote
You've got better things to do than vote
And here are a few things to remind yourself of that truth in case you get tempted to play the rigged game:
* * *
"They're quick and slick, they're insincere..."
Yes, I know that line was originally referring to heffalumps and woozles, but it applies at least equally well to Democrats and Republicans (or any politician for that matter). You'll be surprised at how appropriate to politics this little song is. (I'm surprised no one has ever put the song to photos and clips of politicians who fit every description in the song.) Enjoy it and pay attention to the words: Heffalumps and Woozles.
* * *
From the blog of Kevin Wilmeth, the former and greatly missed Anchorage Libertarian Examiner, comes this explanation of how to (bring yourself to) vote on Election Day.
* * *
Feel free to Mock the Vote from wherever you happen to find yourself when the thought crosses your mind. Don't bother going to the polls to do it, or the vote will be mocking YOU.
* * *
For those of you interested in a local angle, here's an article by the amazing Will Grigg on a home-grown Albuquerque thug. An absolutely disgusting excuse for a human, but it's good to be aware that these parasites walk among us. People like this show why voting will never increase your liberty. You will still be forced to resist and break thugs of this sort at some point if liberty is to be rescued. Might as well get used to the idea.
* * *
I think, for my own amusement, I'll print out, on adhesive paper, the "button" I made to illustrate this article and wear it when I go out today. Feel free to use it, too, if you want.
*
Donate?
And here are a few things to remind yourself of that truth in case you get tempted to play the rigged game:
* * *
"They're quick and slick, they're insincere..."
Yes, I know that line was originally referring to heffalumps and woozles, but it applies at least equally well to Democrats and Republicans (or any politician for that matter). You'll be surprised at how appropriate to politics this little song is. (I'm surprised no one has ever put the song to photos and clips of politicians who fit every description in the song.) Enjoy it and pay attention to the words: Heffalumps and Woozles.
* * *
From the blog of Kevin Wilmeth, the former and greatly missed Anchorage Libertarian Examiner, comes this explanation of how to (bring yourself to) vote on Election Day.
* * *
Feel free to Mock the Vote from wherever you happen to find yourself when the thought crosses your mind. Don't bother going to the polls to do it, or the vote will be mocking YOU.
* * *
For those of you interested in a local angle, here's an article by the amazing Will Grigg on a home-grown Albuquerque thug. An absolutely disgusting excuse for a human, but it's good to be aware that these parasites walk among us. People like this show why voting will never increase your liberty. You will still be forced to resist and break thugs of this sort at some point if liberty is to be rescued. Might as well get used to the idea.
* * *
I think, for my own amusement, I'll print out, on adhesive paper, the "button" I made to illustrate this article and wear it when I go out today. Feel free to use it, too, if you want.
*
Donate?
Election day approaches- Avoid the trap (Don't vote!)
Election day approaches- Avoid the trap
I'm completely serious: Don't vote!
I'm not even saying you shouldn't vote because it lends a false air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system. Or because it encourages them- the control-freaks- to keep on "governing" as long as people keep consenting to be governed. I won't point out that if non-voting were not a threat to the illegitimate system, they wouldn't keep pressing that idea of "It doesn't matter WHO you vote for, just VOTE!" I won't even tell you you shouldn't vote because it is wrong for a majority to violate the rights of even one person.
Those are all true, of course, but not why I say today "Don't vote".
There are more practical reasons. Such as voting is an utter waste of your time. You could always find something more meaningful to be doing. The system is completely and totally rigged, and you can not improve the quality of your life one iota, in Albuquerque or anywhere else, by voting. Don't vote!
If you have any brains, yet vote anyway, your vote will be drowned out by the vast numbers of voters who are clueless idiots and vote with their feelings. That's how Mr. Hopenchange got elected, you know. And how Mr. "Withus-er-with-the-terrerists" got elected before that. While most people mean well, most people are not smart enough or aware of reality enough that they should be deciding anything for anyone else, even if doing so were not wrong. They feel that new "laws" will actually help people, and they allow themselves to be led down whatever path the Rulers point them toward. Don't be like them. Don't vote.
No candidate who would actually be a threat to the status quo will ever be allowed to take office, if they even manage to get on the ballot and then get enough votes counted in their favor to win. Never. Democrats and Republicans have the game fixed. Tea Party Republicrats are not serious about smaller government, except on the socially "conservative" (and still completely statist) issues they value, and LP candidates who are on the ballot are not going to be rogue enough to change anything, and may even be statist wolves in libertarian clothing. Even if they are liberty-embracing good guys, they will be powerless while the rest of the establishment politicians and bureaucrats conspire to fight over who gets to control the rudder of the government train while knowing that whoever wins the election, the train will stay on the tracks. If one side [sic] wins, they will advance their own anti-liberty agenda for a while, until the other side [sic] wins, and then an anti-liberty agenda coming from a different direction will be advanced. It's just like being swallowed by a snake. Yet there are some agenda items that remain the same through it all. Such as The War on (some) Drugs and the War on Guns. And theft in the name of entitlements and military spending. Police State USA will never be threatened by those working within the system.
Don't vote!
Even in cases where you feel you are voting in self defense such as against a tax or for "legalization" of marijuana, if the results are unpleasant enough for the government or take away some power, the results will be ignored. "Legalizing" pot, but then "taxing and regulating" it is no real improvement. You are just shifting the enforcement power to a different branch of government. And that power will still be used to steal money, and to kidnap and kill innocent people. Remember that "gun control", such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, wasn't originally a ban on functional firearms and safety equipment, but a "tax" scheme. Look how many people have been destroyed or killed through that.
Don't waste your time voting. Actually do something real, and ignore or violate the results of the election in whatever way you can until the train of The State goes off the cliff. Jump off now while you still can. Don't vote.
Since it is claimed that government exists by the consent of "the governed", remove your consent by refusing to participate in the rigged game that is placed before you. I do NOT consent. I will not be legitimizing those who seek to use you for Soylent Green. I will not be asking that force be used against you just because you are in the "minority". Not on my behalf! I will not be voting.
Join me. Don't vote.
*
Donate?
I'm completely serious: Don't vote!
I'm not even saying you shouldn't vote because it lends a false air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system. Or because it encourages them- the control-freaks- to keep on "governing" as long as people keep consenting to be governed. I won't point out that if non-voting were not a threat to the illegitimate system, they wouldn't keep pressing that idea of "It doesn't matter WHO you vote for, just VOTE!" I won't even tell you you shouldn't vote because it is wrong for a majority to violate the rights of even one person.
Those are all true, of course, but not why I say today "Don't vote".
There are more practical reasons. Such as voting is an utter waste of your time. You could always find something more meaningful to be doing. The system is completely and totally rigged, and you can not improve the quality of your life one iota, in Albuquerque or anywhere else, by voting. Don't vote!
If you have any brains, yet vote anyway, your vote will be drowned out by the vast numbers of voters who are clueless idiots and vote with their feelings. That's how Mr. Hopenchange got elected, you know. And how Mr. "Withus-er-with-the-terrerists" got elected before that. While most people mean well, most people are not smart enough or aware of reality enough that they should be deciding anything for anyone else, even if doing so were not wrong. They feel that new "laws" will actually help people, and they allow themselves to be led down whatever path the Rulers point them toward. Don't be like them. Don't vote.
No candidate who would actually be a threat to the status quo will ever be allowed to take office, if they even manage to get on the ballot and then get enough votes counted in their favor to win. Never. Democrats and Republicans have the game fixed. Tea Party Republicrats are not serious about smaller government, except on the socially "conservative" (and still completely statist) issues they value, and LP candidates who are on the ballot are not going to be rogue enough to change anything, and may even be statist wolves in libertarian clothing. Even if they are liberty-embracing good guys, they will be powerless while the rest of the establishment politicians and bureaucrats conspire to fight over who gets to control the rudder of the government train while knowing that whoever wins the election, the train will stay on the tracks. If one side [sic] wins, they will advance their own anti-liberty agenda for a while, until the other side [sic] wins, and then an anti-liberty agenda coming from a different direction will be advanced. It's just like being swallowed by a snake. Yet there are some agenda items that remain the same through it all. Such as The War on (some) Drugs and the War on Guns. And theft in the name of entitlements and military spending. Police State USA will never be threatened by those working within the system.
Don't vote!
Even in cases where you feel you are voting in self defense such as against a tax or for "legalization" of marijuana, if the results are unpleasant enough for the government or take away some power, the results will be ignored. "Legalizing" pot, but then "taxing and regulating" it is no real improvement. You are just shifting the enforcement power to a different branch of government. And that power will still be used to steal money, and to kidnap and kill innocent people. Remember that "gun control", such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, wasn't originally a ban on functional firearms and safety equipment, but a "tax" scheme. Look how many people have been destroyed or killed through that.
Don't waste your time voting. Actually do something real, and ignore or violate the results of the election in whatever way you can until the train of The State goes off the cliff. Jump off now while you still can. Don't vote.
Since it is claimed that government exists by the consent of "the governed", remove your consent by refusing to participate in the rigged game that is placed before you. I do NOT consent. I will not be legitimizing those who seek to use you for Soylent Green. I will not be asking that force be used against you just because you are in the "minority". Not on my behalf! I will not be voting.
Join me. Don't vote.
*
Donate?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
"The werewolf" (Happy Halloween!)
So, here's the deal: I'm a werewolf.
Of course, being one, I know that a werewolf is no more a "wolf" than a koala bear is a bear, or a guinea pig is a pig. It's just a case of convergent evolution that makes a primate look somewhat wolf-like; similar to the way a marsupial mole, which is more related to wombats than moles, looks very much like a regular garden-variety mole. The similarity goes beyond appearances so that the werewolf exhibits some very wolf-like behaviors. Except for the urge to be a part of a pack. Werewolves are not very social with one another. And those computer-generated "werewolves" seen in recent sappy, love-sick teen movies... those would just be "shape-shifters" turning into wolves, if they were real. Which they aren't! They are really pretty insulting to us. I suppose it's just entertainment; not to be taken too seriously. Not that all this explanation has anything to do with anything. It's just in my nature to ramble on about things no one really cares about. If you encounter one of us these distinctions will not seem important.
I first discovered my "talents" as a teenager when I was surrounded by a pack of feral dogs in the woods where I roamed as a youngster. I have always had a "problem" with dogs. It's not that I don't like them, exactly, but there is some primal rivalry there. And when I see dogs my teeth ache and an almost overwhelming urge to bite them rises up inside of me and settles in my jawbones under my teeth. At least that's the only way I can describe the feeling.
Anyway, back to the feral dogs. They had me treed, without a weapon. But as I sat up there a change began to take place. I can't say for sure that it was a physical change that time, but it was certainly a change. I began to growl deep in my throat, without even intending to. The dogs became unsettled. Instead of looking at me as something to attack, they began backing away from the tree while still watching me. My fear was evaporating as the dogs became more uncomfortable. Suddenly I just got out of the tree and the dogs took one look at me and ran. Fast! They never bothered me again, which was a relief as they had made my wanderings less pleasant than I would have liked.
Of course, being one, I know that a werewolf is no more a "wolf" than a koala bear is a bear, or a guinea pig is a pig. It's just a case of convergent evolution that makes a primate look somewhat wolf-like; similar to the way a marsupial mole, which is more related to wombats than moles, looks very much like a regular garden-variety mole. The similarity goes beyond appearances so that the werewolf exhibits some very wolf-like behaviors. Except for the urge to be a part of a pack. Werewolves are not very social with one another. And those computer-generated "werewolves" seen in recent sappy, love-sick teen movies... those would just be "shape-shifters" turning into wolves, if they were real. Which they aren't! They are really pretty insulting to us. I suppose it's just entertainment; not to be taken too seriously. Not that all this explanation has anything to do with anything. It's just in my nature to ramble on about things no one really cares about. If you encounter one of us these distinctions will not seem important.
I first discovered my "talents" as a teenager when I was surrounded by a pack of feral dogs in the woods where I roamed as a youngster. I have always had a "problem" with dogs. It's not that I don't like them, exactly, but there is some primal rivalry there. And when I see dogs my teeth ache and an almost overwhelming urge to bite them rises up inside of me and settles in my jawbones under my teeth. At least that's the only way I can describe the feeling.
Anyway, back to the feral dogs. They had me treed, without a weapon. But as I sat up there a change began to take place. I can't say for sure that it was a physical change that time, but it was certainly a change. I began to growl deep in my throat, without even intending to. The dogs became unsettled. Instead of looking at me as something to attack, they began backing away from the tree while still watching me. My fear was evaporating as the dogs became more uncomfortable. Suddenly I just got out of the tree and the dogs took one look at me and ran. Fast! They never bothered me again, which was a relief as they had made my wanderings less pleasant than I would have liked.
This part of my nature has saved me from aggressive dogs on several occasions. My lip curls, my teeth are bared, and the growl wells up from inside. The dog backs down.
There have been other times the werewolf has manifested itself as well. I know I have always had a tendency to howl at the moon. People just thought it was a quirk. They had no clue at the compulsion I felt and how I felt if I repressed the urge. It was almost as if I were drowning if I didn't let myself howl. A feeling of becoming something different- something "other"- would then flow through my entire body. It felt good. It was also a relief.
I soon discovered that if I were joking around with people, growling, and generally acting like a wolf, and if I didn't stop soon, it would take over. I would become animalistic and my human side would be submerged and become almost unreachable. It would be very hard to stay tame and to change back. Honestly, it scared me a bit the first few times it happened. I have mostly gotten control of that now. As long as no one backs me into a corner.
I think only one person who knows me has really seen the "werewolf me", and then only once. My first ex-wife was reading once when I entered the room. For some reason I growled and leaped in as I did. She screamed and recoiled so severely, with such an expression of terror on her face, that I panicked and looked behind me, certain from the reaction she gave that an indescribable demon was at my heels about to grab me from behind. Nope. It was just me. I tried apologizing but it wasn't very effective. And I was still terrified, too. I then knew this power I had needed to be controlled and kept hidden. I think I've done fairly well. But it is part of the reason I need large empty spaces to roam. I can't keep the werewolf bottled up all the time, and letting it out around people is a problem. Even at night.
It is still mostly dogs that seem to "know", and who trigger my "toothache" by their presence. You can't be expected to understand the craving to bite them that flows up my body and settles underneath my teeth. It feels as though my teeth will pop out of their sockets if I don't satisfy that urge.
So, the next time that person in line next to you seems to give off a different vibe, or seems a little wild and dangerous, listen to your instincts. Not all werewolves refuse to initiate force. Some may be authoritarians.
Trick or Treated like a criminal
If a "registered sex offender" once lived at your address, and moved without telling the authorities, or if the address is read wrong, you may get a surprise visit from a real pervert. And if you are not prepared to instantly comply with his aggressive demands to provide ID upon his (illegal and evil) request, expect to be violated in one or more ways.
Federal Marshalls, the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department, and the New Mexico Probation and Parole Office will be checking up on those people who appear on the incomplete, inaccurate, and utterly useless "sex offender registry" on Halloween night in Albuquerque and Las Cruces. Be warned.
The standard collectivist/authoritarian lie is being dragged out of its coffin, propped up, and dusted off: "the effort is aimed at making sure children are safe". Sure it is.
* * *
The standard collectivist/authoritarian lie is being dragged out of its coffin, propped up, and dusted off: "the effort is aimed at making sure children are safe". Sure it is.
* * *
Want to really frighten your mainstream (probably even voting!) neighbors on this spooky and fun day? Dress as Liberty. Not the pitiful, harmless statue that commonly goes by that name, but REAL Liberty. The freedom to exercise your rights. All of them. A real Liberty who has the determination to back it up with justified, righteous force if those rights are violated in any way. Not aggressive; not looking for a fight; but a staunch refusal to be prey. That's what scares so many collectivists out of their droopy, soiled diapers these days.
*
Donate?
*
Donate?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Pomeranian held hostage by abusers in city shelter
Pomeranian held hostage by abusers in city shelter
Some rules, such as "Don't attack", "Don't steal", or "Keep your (non-coerced) word" always make sense. Most other rules, especially arbitrary government or bureaucratic rules, don't. They are a substitute for thought. Just as "zero tolerance" policies in schools frequently forbid the "authorities" from distinguishing between a butter knife and a switchblade (both have their legitimate uses and neither should be forbidden anywhere), so do the rest of government's rules remove the human element- discernment- from the equation.
Now a family is suffering from bureaucratic mindlessness, as is their dog. Their pomeranian is being held by Albuquerque's Eastside Shelter, and the "law" says the dog can't go home until it has been neutered. But this particular pomeranian is a breeder. To neuter it would devalue the family's property. It's like if every time the city "impounded" (stole) a vehicle, it refused to give back the stolen property until the seats had been removed. And that's in addition to the ransom being paid.
To have a "no exceptions" policy that is based on anything less than an ethical principle is wrong. And there is no ethical principle that demands that you neuter someone else's dog. In fact, the ethical principle is that you shouldn't damage other people's property. But, governments shouldn't steal or lie or attack the innocent either, so their inability to grasp this simple concept isn't surprising. Evil can be found in the most trivial of places and is upheld by the most stupid of people. Why not tell them about it?
*
Donate?
Some rules, such as "Don't attack", "Don't steal", or "Keep your (non-coerced) word" always make sense. Most other rules, especially arbitrary government or bureaucratic rules, don't. They are a substitute for thought. Just as "zero tolerance" policies in schools frequently forbid the "authorities" from distinguishing between a butter knife and a switchblade (both have their legitimate uses and neither should be forbidden anywhere), so do the rest of government's rules remove the human element- discernment- from the equation.
Now a family is suffering from bureaucratic mindlessness, as is their dog. Their pomeranian is being held by Albuquerque's Eastside Shelter, and the "law" says the dog can't go home until it has been neutered. But this particular pomeranian is a breeder. To neuter it would devalue the family's property. It's like if every time the city "impounded" (stole) a vehicle, it refused to give back the stolen property until the seats had been removed. And that's in addition to the ransom being paid.
To have a "no exceptions" policy that is based on anything less than an ethical principle is wrong. And there is no ethical principle that demands that you neuter someone else's dog. In fact, the ethical principle is that you shouldn't damage other people's property. But, governments shouldn't steal or lie or attack the innocent either, so their inability to grasp this simple concept isn't surprising. Evil can be found in the most trivial of places and is upheld by the most stupid of people. Why not tell them about it?
*
Donate?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
ABQ couple had chemicals, guns, and books in home
ABQ couple had chemicals, guns, and books in home
An Albuquerque couple is in trouble for the chemicals they had in their home. Also, if the story is true, the male half of the couple initiated force against an innocent man. It gave the authorities a good excuse to whip up a dramatic overreaction so they could be seen to be "doing something". However, if his bombs don't work any better than he shoots, probably no one was in much danger.
I have to shake my head when I hear some authority get breathless over "dangerous chemicals". Every home is full of dangerous chemicals. It is the way they are stored and used that can be the problem. I see no indication this was the case. With this couple it is the fact that The State is scared (or wants to make people believe) that the chemicals might have been intended to be used against its assets that is the issue.
Other non-issues are also being brought up. Specifically that the home contained firearms, "biohazard materials", and books. Every home on the planet should contain several firearms. I would bet that many homes also have books that contain information about making explosives. And every home also contains "biohazard material" if you listen to The State and mainstream health authorities.
I see nothing other than the attack on the innocent man that requires any response from any third party. And that's assuming the innocent man really is innocent.
*
Donate?
An Albuquerque couple is in trouble for the chemicals they had in their home. Also, if the story is true, the male half of the couple initiated force against an innocent man. It gave the authorities a good excuse to whip up a dramatic overreaction so they could be seen to be "doing something". However, if his bombs don't work any better than he shoots, probably no one was in much danger.
I have to shake my head when I hear some authority get breathless over "dangerous chemicals". Every home is full of dangerous chemicals. It is the way they are stored and used that can be the problem. I see no indication this was the case. With this couple it is the fact that The State is scared (or wants to make people believe) that the chemicals might have been intended to be used against its assets that is the issue.
Other non-issues are also being brought up. Specifically that the home contained firearms, "biohazard materials", and books. Every home on the planet should contain several firearms. I would bet that many homes also have books that contain information about making explosives. And every home also contains "biohazard material" if you listen to The State and mainstream health authorities.
I see nothing other than the attack on the innocent man that requires any response from any third party. And that's assuming the innocent man really is innocent.
*
Donate?
How is your hoard of lead?
With the approaching elections comes the possibility of unhappy voters. While I doubt anything too serious will come of their unhappiness (voters are too easily placated), it is never a bad idea to use this as an excuse to check up on your stocks and supplies. Any excuse to do what you should do anyway, right?
One thing I like to inventory (and re-stock) from time to time is my supply of ammo. Like most other emergency supplies, even if you don't "need" it, you can always use it. And you can never have enough of it. It's just fun to go out and shoot up a few boxes for relaxation, and it is useful fun that keeps your skills honed.
Plus, it makes a great gift in my opinion- I have never gotten ammo from someone and wished I had gotten something else. (hint, hint- if any of my family is reading)
I also look at my stock of ammo as a bank account of sorts; even calibers you don't use in your own guns make good trade goods- and, with the Fed's vigorous counterfeiting operation, it will hold its value better than FRNs. So, check out your stocks, and refill any gaps.
Disclaimer: I did get paid for this endorsement. However, I have been a customer of theirs for years and have always gotten great service and have always been more than satisfied. I wouldn't have agreed to this had it been otherwise.
One thing I like to inventory (and re-stock) from time to time is my supply of ammo. Like most other emergency supplies, even if you don't "need" it, you can always use it. And you can never have enough of it. It's just fun to go out and shoot up a few boxes for relaxation, and it is useful fun that keeps your skills honed.
Plus, it makes a great gift in my opinion- I have never gotten ammo from someone and wished I had gotten something else. (hint, hint- if any of my family is reading)
I also look at my stock of ammo as a bank account of sorts; even calibers you don't use in your own guns make good trade goods- and, with the Fed's vigorous counterfeiting operation, it will hold its value better than FRNs. So, check out your stocks, and refill any gaps.
Disclaimer: I did get paid for this endorsement. However, I have been a customer of theirs for years and have always gotten great service and have always been more than satisfied. I wouldn't have agreed to this had it been otherwise.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Bernalillo County bans bullying
Bernalillo County bans bullying
Cool! Bernalillo County (that's Albuquerque) says it now has "zero tolerance" for bullying. Now, normally I equate "zero tolerance" with zero brains since it doesn't allow for actual thought or discernment to go into the process, but maybe in this case it's a good thing. Bullying is always an initiation of force or coercion; something I have no tolerance for either.
So no more enforcement of counterfeit "laws"! No more innocent people being bullied for smoking a plant, or for carrying a gun, or for refusing to hand over their own property to those who would like to steal it! Right? So let's watch the news about the announcement together.
Oh, wait, it seems some bullying is still OK with the authorities, just not freelance bullying by young people. I knew it was too good to be true. It's those statist double standards again.
*
Donate?
Cool! Bernalillo County (that's Albuquerque) says it now has "zero tolerance" for bullying. Now, normally I equate "zero tolerance" with zero brains since it doesn't allow for actual thought or discernment to go into the process, but maybe in this case it's a good thing. Bullying is always an initiation of force or coercion; something I have no tolerance for either.
So no more enforcement of counterfeit "laws"! No more innocent people being bullied for smoking a plant, or for carrying a gun, or for refusing to hand over their own property to those who would like to steal it! Right? So let's watch the news about the announcement together.
Oh, wait, it seems some bullying is still OK with the authorities, just not freelance bullying by young people. I knew it was too good to be true. It's those statist double standards again.
*
Donate?
Is libertarianism an 'ivory tower'?
Is libertarianism an 'ivory tower'?
I was told yesterday that I live in an Ivory Tower. Nice! But it doesn't seem to lift me beyond the height of the ground around me, and it's made out of reddish-brown sandy dirt instead of ivory.
The assertion of my ivory-tower dwelling was made because I claim that voluntary charity is better than coerced welfare, and that instead of government protecting "the weak" from "the strong", it has become "the strong" that preys on "the weak" and it therefore attracts the very worst of "the strong" who wish to prey on others with impunity.
I assure you I would qualify for all sorts of government "benefits" due to my income and situation. I could also "benefit" by using government against people who have harmed me. Many people don't understand why I refuse to take advantage of the government's offers of "help". It's because the cost of "free" is too high for me to afford.
It is pure delusion to claim that The State is in any way good or beneficial. The real problems of real life can not be solved with coercion; only shifted, rearranged, or delayed. They accrue compound interest as well while you move them around to avoid dealing with them. That's the reality, no matter what some might wish.
Respecting liberty and the rights of others always works, in real life, every single time it is applied. That isn't "ivory tower", that's the real world.
In Albuquerque news: Some robbers in Albuquerque may have learned the lesson that if you are going to rob people, you should make certain your get-away car isn't visible to your victims, and that your tank has enough gas to actually get away. They probably should have taken the safer course for thieves and gotten cushy government jobs instead.
*
Donate?
I was told yesterday that I live in an Ivory Tower. Nice! But it doesn't seem to lift me beyond the height of the ground around me, and it's made out of reddish-brown sandy dirt instead of ivory.
The assertion of my ivory-tower dwelling was made because I claim that voluntary charity is better than coerced welfare, and that instead of government protecting "the weak" from "the strong", it has become "the strong" that preys on "the weak" and it therefore attracts the very worst of "the strong" who wish to prey on others with impunity.
I assure you I would qualify for all sorts of government "benefits" due to my income and situation. I could also "benefit" by using government against people who have harmed me. Many people don't understand why I refuse to take advantage of the government's offers of "help". It's because the cost of "free" is too high for me to afford.
It is pure delusion to claim that The State is in any way good or beneficial. The real problems of real life can not be solved with coercion; only shifted, rearranged, or delayed. They accrue compound interest as well while you move them around to avoid dealing with them. That's the reality, no matter what some might wish.
Respecting liberty and the rights of others always works, in real life, every single time it is applied. That isn't "ivory tower", that's the real world.
In Albuquerque news: Some robbers in Albuquerque may have learned the lesson that if you are going to rob people, you should make certain your get-away car isn't visible to your victims, and that your tank has enough gas to actually get away. They probably should have taken the safer course for thieves and gotten cushy government jobs instead.
*
Donate?
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Opposites, but both still wrong
Opposites, but both still wrong
The two "mainstream" politicians who are trying to fool you into consenting to one of them being appointed governor of New Mexico express their opinions on "social issues" in this article from Albuquerque's KOB.com: link
I could go down point-by-point to show where they are both completely, pathetically wrong, even when one seemingly "supports" the correct side (usually Denish, on these issues). I'll assume you are smart enough to do that on your own if you care about the opinions of a couple of authoritarian sociopaths. (But feel free to discuss specifics in the comments below if you feel I am being too harsh, or can't see where one is wrong.)
There is really only one "social issue"- the right to live without being molested. Everything derives from that. Voting for a politician only ensures that someone, somewhere, will be molested in the name of "The Greater Good".
That molestation may be a consequence of a "drug law". It may result from some violation of property rights, such as a "property code" or a license plate "requirement", or a property "tax". That molestation may come when a reasonable, self-responsible person is kidnapped for keeping and "bearing" (which means carrying) a firearm. It may come from double standards which make the same act "legal" in some situations for some people, and "illegal" in similar situations for other people.
There is no real way to separate "social issues" from "economic issues". It is only about liberty. Liberty is completely entangled and inseparable. It is a tapestry that is damaged by trying to pull out any one thread as an exception. Violations of your "social rights" are also violations of your "economic rights", and vice versa. To pretend there is a dichotomy is dishonest and is only of benefit to those who with to rule and enslave others. Don't fall for it. Don't vote.
*
Donate?
The two "mainstream" politicians who are trying to fool you into consenting to one of them being appointed governor of New Mexico express their opinions on "social issues" in this article from Albuquerque's KOB.com: link
I could go down point-by-point to show where they are both completely, pathetically wrong, even when one seemingly "supports" the correct side (usually Denish, on these issues). I'll assume you are smart enough to do that on your own if you care about the opinions of a couple of authoritarian sociopaths. (But feel free to discuss specifics in the comments below if you feel I am being too harsh, or can't see where one is wrong.)
There is really only one "social issue"- the right to live without being molested. Everything derives from that. Voting for a politician only ensures that someone, somewhere, will be molested in the name of "The Greater Good".
That molestation may be a consequence of a "drug law". It may result from some violation of property rights, such as a "property code" or a license plate "requirement", or a property "tax". That molestation may come when a reasonable, self-responsible person is kidnapped for keeping and "bearing" (which means carrying) a firearm. It may come from double standards which make the same act "legal" in some situations for some people, and "illegal" in similar situations for other people.
There is no real way to separate "social issues" from "economic issues". It is only about liberty. Liberty is completely entangled and inseparable. It is a tapestry that is damaged by trying to pull out any one thread as an exception. Violations of your "social rights" are also violations of your "economic rights", and vice versa. To pretend there is a dichotomy is dishonest and is only of benefit to those who with to rule and enslave others. Don't fall for it. Don't vote.
*
Donate?
Monday, October 25, 2010
Will a mugging wake a politician up to reality?
Will a mugging wake a politician up to reality?
(And this is one of those times I actually have the meat of the post after the obligatory ABQ stuff.)
State Senator Mary Jane Garcia was mugged and robbed September 16 outside of a hotel in Albuquerque. So, although she seems to be recovering, she now considers herself a victim who is entitled to sue the hotel because they didn't have security guards patrolling around the hotel that day. Never mind that her safety is first and foremost her own responsibility.
She has said that as a result of the mugging she is more aware of the affects of criminal violence, and that she intends to be much more active in promoting "support for victims". She says she wants "women to be more aware of what they can do to protect themselves". Good. I expect to see her become very active in fighting the repeal of "laws" that make it harder for people to own and to carry weapons with them everywhere they go. If she does anything else, she is a liar and a hypocrite. And a typical statist.
Speaking of statists:
Some people can't tell the difference between being coerced and having someone else refuse to be coerced. It seems strange, but it's true.
My young daughter gets mad when she wants me to do something that I am not willing to do at the moment. I wanted to eat lunch today and she had a fit because she didn't want me to stop playing to eat. I told her she could keep playing but I needed to eat. My choice didn't really affect her in any way other than the fact that for a while she'd need to play alone. I had to assert my right to act for myself.
I have also had other people in my life whose attitudes were no more mature than that. As an example: one woman I was involved with insisted on going to karaoke with me, even though she hated going and did nothing but cry, complain, and whine (except when she was trying to start fights) while there. Obviously, I would have preferred she not go. In other circumstances, when she wanted to force me to go somewhere I didn't want to go or do something I was not willing to do, she would say "But you force me to go to karaoke with you and I HATE it!" No, I simply was going and she insisted on going along to make sure I didn't enjoy myself too much. Her choice. When I mentioned that there was a big difference between forcing someone to do something, and refusing to let someone force me to not do it, she would sulk.
The same is true of so many other people in "society". They hate guns so they try to claim it is an imposition on them if I carry one. They support the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs and claim it imposes on them if someone destroys themselves by abusing some substance. They claim that since they are forced to get government permits for certain activities, everyone else should have their liberty violated in the same way. It is a very childish attitude, to be sure.
*
Donate?
(And this is one of those times I actually have the meat of the post after the obligatory ABQ stuff.)
State Senator Mary Jane Garcia was mugged and robbed September 16 outside of a hotel in Albuquerque. So, although she seems to be recovering, she now considers herself a victim who is entitled to sue the hotel because they didn't have security guards patrolling around the hotel that day. Never mind that her safety is first and foremost her own responsibility.
She has said that as a result of the mugging she is more aware of the affects of criminal violence, and that she intends to be much more active in promoting "support for victims". She says she wants "women to be more aware of what they can do to protect themselves". Good. I expect to see her become very active in fighting the repeal of "laws" that make it harder for people to own and to carry weapons with them everywhere they go. If she does anything else, she is a liar and a hypocrite. And a typical statist.
Speaking of statists:
Some people can't tell the difference between being coerced and having someone else refuse to be coerced. It seems strange, but it's true.
My young daughter gets mad when she wants me to do something that I am not willing to do at the moment. I wanted to eat lunch today and she had a fit because she didn't want me to stop playing to eat. I told her she could keep playing but I needed to eat. My choice didn't really affect her in any way other than the fact that for a while she'd need to play alone. I had to assert my right to act for myself.
I have also had other people in my life whose attitudes were no more mature than that. As an example: one woman I was involved with insisted on going to karaoke with me, even though she hated going and did nothing but cry, complain, and whine (except when she was trying to start fights) while there. Obviously, I would have preferred she not go. In other circumstances, when she wanted to force me to go somewhere I didn't want to go or do something I was not willing to do, she would say "But you force me to go to karaoke with you and I HATE it!" No, I simply was going and she insisted on going along to make sure I didn't enjoy myself too much. Her choice. When I mentioned that there was a big difference between forcing someone to do something, and refusing to let someone force me to not do it, she would sulk.
The same is true of so many other people in "society". They hate guns so they try to claim it is an imposition on them if I carry one. They support the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs and claim it imposes on them if someone destroys themselves by abusing some substance. They claim that since they are forced to get government permits for certain activities, everyone else should have their liberty violated in the same way. It is a very childish attitude, to be sure.
*
Donate?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
'Drug deal-gone-bad' or business-as-usual statism?
'Drug deal-gone-bad' or business-as-usual statism?
A man was shot multiple times and killed in what authorities are calling a suspected "drug deal-gone-bad" in Albuquerque.
I have worked in businesses where deals are made all the time. Mostly I worked in pet stores. I don't remember any neon tetra deals that "went bad". Why did none of those deals go bad and result in murders? Why do only "drug deals" seem to precipitate this kind of aggression? Oh, yeah: prohibition.
*
Donate?
A man was shot multiple times and killed in what authorities are calling a suspected "drug deal-gone-bad" in Albuquerque.
I have worked in businesses where deals are made all the time. Mostly I worked in pet stores. I don't remember any neon tetra deals that "went bad". Why did none of those deals go bad and result in murders? Why do only "drug deals" seem to precipitate this kind of aggression? Oh, yeah: prohibition.
*
Donate?
Resistance is not futile
Resistance is not futile
A nine-year old Albuquerque girl says she was grabbed and put into a van, and that she escaped by jumping out and running. I'm not sure why, but I'm just a tiny bit suspicious of the story. However, I will take it at face value since it illustrates some truth, and since I have no real reason to doubt her.
Her detailed description of the man and his vehicle (a white man in his late 50s with a heavy build - dark hair; balding on top - a black beard - driving a white van with a taped up passenger side window) should make it easy to find him.
I'm glad she did not obey this adult. Kids need to be taught that not only is resistance NOT futile, it is essential. They need to be taught that cooperating with someone who wants to harm them is not the right thing to do. Resist smart by watching for opportunities and taking a chance. It is easier to prevent a situation than to escape once you have let a bad guy get control. The time to make a scene, gouge eyes, kick crotches, break things, and generally misbehave is before you are under the control of the ones who intend you harm. Do not allow yourselves to be herded into a room by a thug determined to take you hostage. Do not hesitate to hurt a kidnapper in any way you can.
Statists might balk a bit at this advice since it would be harder to brainwash children into accepting false differences between freelance monsters and those who work for The State than it is to get "adults" to fall for that particular lie.
*
Donate?
A nine-year old Albuquerque girl says she was grabbed and put into a van, and that she escaped by jumping out and running. I'm not sure why, but I'm just a tiny bit suspicious of the story. However, I will take it at face value since it illustrates some truth, and since I have no real reason to doubt her.
Her detailed description of the man and his vehicle (a white man in his late 50s with a heavy build - dark hair; balding on top - a black beard - driving a white van with a taped up passenger side window) should make it easy to find him.
I'm glad she did not obey this adult. Kids need to be taught that not only is resistance NOT futile, it is essential. They need to be taught that cooperating with someone who wants to harm them is not the right thing to do. Resist smart by watching for opportunities and taking a chance. It is easier to prevent a situation than to escape once you have let a bad guy get control. The time to make a scene, gouge eyes, kick crotches, break things, and generally misbehave is before you are under the control of the ones who intend you harm. Do not allow yourselves to be herded into a room by a thug determined to take you hostage. Do not hesitate to hurt a kidnapper in any way you can.
Statists might balk a bit at this advice since it would be harder to brainwash children into accepting false differences between freelance monsters and those who work for The State than it is to get "adults" to fall for that particular lie.
*
Donate?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
'Police brutality' protest in ABQ
'Police brutality' protest in ABQ
Yesterday dozens of people protested police brutality outside the Albuquerque Police Department Headquarters, as part of an annual event held on October 22. Specifically, they were protesting fatal shootings by officers, although this is only the tip of the iceberg. The majority of police brutality isn't fatal.
Anytime a person is grabbed, accosted, questioned, or "arrested" for doing something other than initiating force, fraud, theft, or possibly trespassing, he is a victim of police brutality.
And the tragic truth of the matter is some of those who were fatally shot by police needed to be shot. That it was a cop doing the shooting is beside the point.
Then these protesters watered down their stance even further by saying they are not "anti-cop". As the system is now set up, and until they implement my reforms, I am anti-cop. Any decent person has to be.
*
Donate?
Yesterday dozens of people protested police brutality outside the Albuquerque Police Department Headquarters, as part of an annual event held on October 22. Specifically, they were protesting fatal shootings by officers, although this is only the tip of the iceberg. The majority of police brutality isn't fatal.
Anytime a person is grabbed, accosted, questioned, or "arrested" for doing something other than initiating force, fraud, theft, or possibly trespassing, he is a victim of police brutality.
And the tragic truth of the matter is some of those who were fatally shot by police needed to be shot. That it was a cop doing the shooting is beside the point.
Then these protesters watered down their stance even further by saying they are not "anti-cop". As the system is now set up, and until they implement my reforms, I am anti-cop. Any decent person has to be.
*
Donate?
'Government'- a hysterical overreaction
'Government'- a hysterical overreaction
The State (and its government) is a hysterical overreaction to overblown nonproblems that is then latched onto by evil power-hungry sociopaths for their own purposes, and is supported and cheered by pathetic, empty drones who seek to fill their need to be validated by attaching themselves to something and who want to win the favor of the Rulers.
This "overreaction factor" can be demonstrated more than adequately by stop signs and pot.
There is almost nowhere that a complete stop is necessary for safety. In almost every case, a motorist can see if the coast is clear and whether it is safe to proceed through the intersection without coming to a stop. If stopping is necessary, the sign doesn't change things at all. Stop signs are a hysterical overreaction to "Oh no! An intersection! What do I do?" Traffic signs have been demonstrated to cause a lot of accidents (directly and indirectly), and cities in Europe where such signs are being removed are seeing a huge decrease in delays, accidents, and congestion. Stop signs are a great money-stealing tool for The State, though.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason to kidnap or kill people for possessing, smoking, or selling plants. None. The "laws" are much more dangerous and deadly than marijuana could ever possibly be. If "safety" were really the goal, the "laws" that permit the War on (some) Drugs would be repealed immediately. That they are not shows that whatever the goal may be, it has nothing to do with what's best for you or me. Pot was a nonproblem that hysterical imbeciles and control freaks used to feed their own pathetic addiction. An addiction that actually harms others who are not those addicted, unlike drugs. (The crime that is blamed on drugs is caused by prohibition in the vast majority of cases, and on anti-defense "laws" in almost the entire remainder of cases.)
This truth is also clearly demonstrated in the case of an erotic film festival being forced to look outside the city limits for a venue after Albuquerque "authorities" said that showing erotic movies is prohibited in some (apparently, most) areas of the city. I could understand (though not necessarily agree) if the event were showing the films at a drive-in theater right out in the open for all to see, but that is not the case. Additionally, a city official is saying "the city" is trying to figure out how to ban the censored show the event organizers have scheduled at the Sunshine Theater. It's a hysterical overreaction from busybodies with nothing better to do than to spend their time worrying about what others are doing. They should really get a better hobby.
*
Donate?
The State (and its government) is a hysterical overreaction to overblown nonproblems that is then latched onto by evil power-hungry sociopaths for their own purposes, and is supported and cheered by pathetic, empty drones who seek to fill their need to be validated by attaching themselves to something and who want to win the favor of the Rulers.
This "overreaction factor" can be demonstrated more than adequately by stop signs and pot.
There is almost nowhere that a complete stop is necessary for safety. In almost every case, a motorist can see if the coast is clear and whether it is safe to proceed through the intersection without coming to a stop. If stopping is necessary, the sign doesn't change things at all. Stop signs are a hysterical overreaction to "Oh no! An intersection! What do I do?" Traffic signs have been demonstrated to cause a lot of accidents (directly and indirectly), and cities in Europe where such signs are being removed are seeing a huge decrease in delays, accidents, and congestion. Stop signs are a great money-stealing tool for The State, though.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason to kidnap or kill people for possessing, smoking, or selling plants. None. The "laws" are much more dangerous and deadly than marijuana could ever possibly be. If "safety" were really the goal, the "laws" that permit the War on (some) Drugs would be repealed immediately. That they are not shows that whatever the goal may be, it has nothing to do with what's best for you or me. Pot was a nonproblem that hysterical imbeciles and control freaks used to feed their own pathetic addiction. An addiction that actually harms others who are not those addicted, unlike drugs. (The crime that is blamed on drugs is caused by prohibition in the vast majority of cases, and on anti-defense "laws" in almost the entire remainder of cases.)
This truth is also clearly demonstrated in the case of an erotic film festival being forced to look outside the city limits for a venue after Albuquerque "authorities" said that showing erotic movies is prohibited in some (apparently, most) areas of the city. I could understand (though not necessarily agree) if the event were showing the films at a drive-in theater right out in the open for all to see, but that is not the case. Additionally, a city official is saying "the city" is trying to figure out how to ban the censored show the event organizers have scheduled at the Sunshine Theater. It's a hysterical overreaction from busybodies with nothing better to do than to spend their time worrying about what others are doing. They should really get a better hobby.
*
Donate?
Friday, October 22, 2010
When is it right to shoot a kidnapper?
When is it right to shoot a kidnapper?
Video of an Albuquerque LEO shooting and killing a kidnapper has been released by the Albuquerque Police Department.
I agree with the APD that the cop did the right thing. As if my opinion matters.
What I would like to point out, though, is that it would have still been the right thing to do if the kidnapped woman had shot her attacker herself, had she been in possession of a gun ("legally" or not) instead of a cellphone.
It would have still been the right thing to do if some random passerby had shot the kidnapper if the situation had become evident. Whether the defender had State permission for the gun used in defense of life or not.
And, probably not popular, but true nonetheless, it would have still been the right thing (regardless of The State's response) had the kidnapper been a LEO "just doing his job", if that job included "arresting" a person doing something that is not wrong - is not causing harm to any other person- but just "illegal". No double standards.
*
Donate?
Video of an Albuquerque LEO shooting and killing a kidnapper has been released by the Albuquerque Police Department.
I agree with the APD that the cop did the right thing. As if my opinion matters.
What I would like to point out, though, is that it would have still been the right thing to do if the kidnapped woman had shot her attacker herself, had she been in possession of a gun ("legally" or not) instead of a cellphone.
It would have still been the right thing to do if some random passerby had shot the kidnapper if the situation had become evident. Whether the defender had State permission for the gun used in defense of life or not.
And, probably not popular, but true nonetheless, it would have still been the right thing (regardless of The State's response) had the kidnapper been a LEO "just doing his job", if that job included "arresting" a person doing something that is not wrong - is not causing harm to any other person- but just "illegal". No double standards.
*
Donate?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Public schools or education? Choose one.
Public schools or education? Choose one.
In Albuquerque news: Politicians just don't get it.
I just heard the Diane Denish "education" ad on the radio again. You know the one- where all the teachers' union members are pretending that government schooling has something to do with education, and where they claim that since Ms. Denish wants to throw tons of your stolen money at those government indoctrination camps it means that she "cares" about children. (It seems more like it means she is beholden to the teachers' union, to me.) Oh, and don't forget that she pushed to get more young inmates into the system earlier through the "pre-K" programs. Please. It almost makes me sick to realize how many people fall for the lie.
Government schools are BAD for children and make a mockery of education. As a wise man has long advocated: "[E]radicate the public schools ... empty out their buildings and raze them to the ground, so that not one stone is left standing on another, and sow salt on the ruins."
Not that Susana Martinez is any better, because she isn't. Socialism is never fundamentally questioned by either candidate. Separate school and state: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm
DON'T VOTE. If you waste your time and your vote by voting for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum you are lending an air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system. If you vote you are agreeing to abide by the outcome. Just ignore The State in all its stupidity when at all possible. And elections for governor are one of the possibilities where you should exercise the "liberty option" and refuse to consent to the false "choice".
*
Donate?
In Albuquerque news: Politicians just don't get it.
I just heard the Diane Denish "education" ad on the radio again. You know the one- where all the teachers' union members are pretending that government schooling has something to do with education, and where they claim that since Ms. Denish wants to throw tons of your stolen money at those government indoctrination camps it means that she "cares" about children. (It seems more like it means she is beholden to the teachers' union, to me.) Oh, and don't forget that she pushed to get more young inmates into the system earlier through the "pre-K" programs. Please. It almost makes me sick to realize how many people fall for the lie.
Government schools are BAD for children and make a mockery of education. As a wise man has long advocated: "[E]radicate the public schools ... empty out their buildings and raze them to the ground, so that not one stone is left standing on another, and sow salt on the ruins."
Not that Susana Martinez is any better, because she isn't. Socialism is never fundamentally questioned by either candidate. Separate school and state: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm
DON'T VOTE. If you waste your time and your vote by voting for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum you are lending an air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system. If you vote you are agreeing to abide by the outcome. Just ignore The State in all its stupidity when at all possible. And elections for governor are one of the possibilities where you should exercise the "liberty option" and refuse to consent to the false "choice".
*
Donate?
What's worse- offending someone or trying to kill them?
What's worse- offending someone or trying to kill them?
The State fears nudity (in commoners, anyway) more than it dislikes aggression. Need proof?
An Albuquerque man supposedly showed up at a house, nude, and was seen by a teen girl inside. He also apparently tried to set fire to the girl's home.
Guess what he has been charged with. Not attempted arson, but "aggravated indecent exposure". What utter nonsense.
Nudity can't harm anyone in any way (unless you are the nude person in an environment unsuited for bare skin), but fire... burning someone's house while they are inside... that's a lot more real than "offense".
Humans need to get over their acquired fear of skin. It's really silly and harmful. And it distracts people from the serious problems. But I suppose the statists will claim that "no one" would really think there should be no "laws" against nudity.
*
Donate?
The State fears nudity (in commoners, anyway) more than it dislikes aggression. Need proof?
An Albuquerque man supposedly showed up at a house, nude, and was seen by a teen girl inside. He also apparently tried to set fire to the girl's home.
Guess what he has been charged with. Not attempted arson, but "aggravated indecent exposure". What utter nonsense.
Nudity can't harm anyone in any way (unless you are the nude person in an environment unsuited for bare skin), but fire... burning someone's house while they are inside... that's a lot more real than "offense".
Humans need to get over their acquired fear of skin. It's really silly and harmful. And it distracts people from the serious problems. But I suppose the statists will claim that "no one" would really think there should be no "laws" against nudity.
*
Donate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)