"I voted Demopublicratican because..."

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

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Keep abreast of the illegal infringements

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

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



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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Chick-fil-A and gay marriage

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

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

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

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

.

Bloomberg's Plan- Police Strike

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

He says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Patriots? Where?

Nationalists:

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

Patriots:

• Would have started shooting government employees by now.

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

.

No one should meddle in our lives

No one should meddle in our lives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Business Idea for you

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

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

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

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

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

.

Who let the dogs in?

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

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

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

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

I do not consent.

.

Unconscious Guy and the EMTs

Revisiting the tale of The Unconscious Guy...

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

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

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

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

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

.

If Islam ever "takes over" America...

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

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

.

"Cell Phone Free Zones"

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

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

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

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

.

Coming up short

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

Try as I might, I just can't.

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

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

.

.

Legal drugs just as risky to use

Legal drugs just as risky to use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

"Gun Free Zone"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Chaos, with bullets flying everywhere!

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Check for yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idiot.

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

.

Bug Out Bag confession

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

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

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

.

Warning: Aurora Massacre rant

Any shooting of innocent people is a tragedy. A mass shooting is an individual tragedy multiplied by many individuals.

You think I'm angry? You bet I'm angry.

Any sane society would be so outraged (as sane individuals are anyway) by every shooting, that people like disgusting NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg would be too afraid to open their festering mouths for weeks afterward. He'd be cowering under his desk with his armed security goons standing guard to protect him from the decent people who don't appreciate his continual enabling of mass murder. Of course, in any sane society filth like Bloomberg wouldn't hold any position above "Apprentice oral toilet bowl scrubber".

It infuriates me that people like Bloomberg are directly responsible (slightly less so than the evil person who pulled the trigger, but truthfully, imperceptibly so) for mass murders like this, and yet are taken seriously by so many deluded reporters and "John Doe" ignoramuses when they start preaching about how liberty is to blame. Of course, they call liberty by other names (because they are liars who are incapable of speaking the truth). Names like "gun show loophole", "automatic [sic] firearms", "high capacity clips" [sic], "easy access to guns", and numerous other things. This is why Bloomie is such a fan (along with his evil familiar, NYC Chief PoPo Kelly) for street assault by his minions, the NYC reavers. His euphemism for this violent assault is "stop and frisk", but it is still perverted and wrong.

There is only ONE real world solution for massacres like the one which just happened in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater: Get rid, completely and forever, of every single gun "law" that has ever been enacted. Every. Single. One.

Bad people, even psychos, choose "safe" places to kill. They choose places where the politicians and cops have done the heavy-lifting by making sure that "law abiding" people won't risk breaking the "law" to take responsibility for their own self defense. Stupid business owners go another step by adding another layer of prohibition- which only applies to people inclined to obey. Bad guys have already decided they aren't going to play by the rules by planning to murder- only a fool would believe that a gun prohibition will stop them.

You can scream that this isn't true. You can cherry pick false statistics compiled by evil people who want potential victims to be disarmed. You can cry "for the children" as you work to guarantee a future of slavery and death for them. You can pray, wish, dream, hope and pretend that there is another solution to mass murders. But you will never change the reality no matter how much you try to deny it: Gun "laws" KILL.

Advocating, passing, enforcing, or obeying a gun "law" does nothing to help anyone but the bad guys. It helps the murderers who pull the trigger, and it helps the murderers of the blood-dancing, TV camera lusting, Mass Murder Fan Club: those, who like Bloomberg and the Bradiots, salivate in hopes that another massacre will happen every time a new gun "law" is on the horizon so that they can feign "concern" for the victims. Inside, they are jumping for joy at every death. And don't you ever be fooled.

Say I am being harsh or unreasonable. I'm not being 1/1,000,000th as "unreasonable" as I want to be. Because I want to put an end to these mass killings of unarmed people. I get no mileage out of their deaths.

And, yet, those who "sympathize" with the dead and injured, by whining that "we need more gun laws", are taken seriously and treated as humane. They are the monsters.

-

More links about this subject:

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

Chaos, with bullets flying everywhere!

"Gun Free Zone"

Gun laws won't stop killers

Gun laws won’t prevent deaths

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

.

Aurora movie theater murders

I admit I don't know too many details about the Aurora, Colorado shooting. I know all I need to know. I can see the monster behind the curtain: "gun laws".

Aurora might object, but it is still "Denver". Just one big metroplex. Maybe it has fewer gun "laws" than does "Denver" proper, but even if it does, gangrene spreads. When an area is subject to oppression it will poison adjacent areas. Denver is venomously anti-gun and anti-liberty. It isn't safe to drive through that city responsibly armed. Of course, that never stops those bent on destruction, does it.

I also know that most movie theaters prohibit firearms. At least to their customers who don't intend to go on murder sprees.

One armed movie-goer could have ended the rampage before such a large number were killed and injured. Only a monster would stand in the way of self defense and defense of the innocent. Are YOU a monster? Obama is a monster. Michael Bloomberg is a monster. Who else? To find out, just watch to see who calls for more "laws" against the tools that could have stopped this attack.

I smell another Manchurian Shooter.

.

The only good Only Ones...

So many petty (or serious) thugs like Gabe Suarez and Massad Ayoob like to repeat how reasonable and realistic they are. Not like us freedom outlaws who have actual, you know, principles. We are "nut cases" and "tinfoil hat wearers" because we see that murder is still murder when the murderer wears a badge. Or that theft is still theft, no matter what euphemism has been made up to hide the truth.

Perhaps those thugs are trying to convince themselves. Or ingratiate themselves to the puppeticians and authoritarians who hold their leash. History isn't kind to those like them; licking Master's butt only seems reasonable and realistic until Master dies. Then all those who saw which side you chose will judge you by the butt you lapped.

But, go ahead you vile parasites. You tax addicts. You fans of genocide, kidnapping, and murder- often over the issue of dried leaves, for crying out loud! Expose yourselves as the disgusting vermin you are so that no one will make a mistake and come to rescue you from the consequences of your actions when the piper is paid. We'd be in more danger if we falsely believed you were actually on the side of the good guys. This way we can laugh, dance, and toast the sight of your festering corpse when you get justifiably "indiana'ed". Good riddance!

.

Obama channels Marx

Obama's absurd Marxist statement that "You didn't build that" has stirred up a lot of people. But just watch- within a few years (unless the USA collapses before then) it will be common knowledge. Self-evident. And still it will be a lie. Just like the other lies that have become part of the USA's DNA over the years.

.

All rules are not equal

On my recent road trip I was amused when I noticed the driver behind me. Every time we would pass one of those "Do not drive on shoulder" signs, he would veer onto the shoulder of the road for a mile or so. Or at least edge his tires just over the white line. After a "proper distance" he would start driving in his lane again- until the next scolding sign.

I was laughing about this when we got to our destination and my mother chimed in with "Maybe he just hates all rules like you do."

Hmmm. That wasn't very nice... or accurate.

I replied "I don't hate all rules, just arbitrary ones."

Seriously. The Zero Aggression Principle is a rule that I like very much. "Don't take other people's property" is another rule that I really like.

I suppose statists have a blindness that prevents them from seeing a difference between "Don't initiate force" and "Sell a 32 oz Dr Pepper and break the law". Or "Fail to wear your seat belt and it's OK for a cop to electrotorture, kidnap, or shoot you if you don't submit to his intention to take your property fast enough".

.

RIP Samantha

4/2003 - 7/18/2012

Some services better off privatized

Some services better off privatized (All of them actually, but I don't write the headlines. My Clovis News Journal column for June 15, 2012)

One stumbling block that trips up a lot of people when confronted by the idea of a truly free society is how to do any job currently monopolized by government: building and maintaining roads, water and food safety, a system of justice, education, fire fighting, national parks, etc.

Why do people believe these things and services must be provided by government? That's not the way it was always done, and not even the best way it can be done

I would suggest a thought experiment. Suppose you wanted to provide a product or service of the sort government generally does now. Suppose that theft and coercion- the methods employed by every government today- were forbidden. How would you proceed?

Let's just look at one of those examples for a start: fire fighting.

In a recent story out of Albuquerque a house burned while waiting for the arrival of the fire department, while a closer fire department wasn't allowed to come fight the fire. The problem was that the burning house was not in the nearer fire department's jurisdiction. And Albuquerque firefighters say this happens on a daily basis.

That is complete idiocy.

In a free society, competing fire companies, possibly financed by subscription, would most likely fight the fires first; sort out the details later. After all, a house on fire, or a wildfire, could threaten their customers' property regardless of whose fire company was responsible for putting out the flames. Plus, it is quite probable that your subscription would make the fire company liable for any fire damage that occurred while under contract; your fire company would pay to repair any damage they didn't prevent. Try that with your government fire department- or even a volunteer fire department operating under government rules- and see how far you get.

Fighting fires, wherever they occur, is in the best interests of everyone around. Wildfires would be fought by any local fire companies to nip it in the bud rather than wait until their customers, and their profits, were at risk. I suspect that there would also be professional fire crews for hire that could be brought in at a moment's notice by the fire company for extreme situations like forest fires. There will always be adrenaline junkies looking to do the heroic jobs. For pay. Pay that is collected voluntarily without the threat of "fines" or prison.

For every governmental function there is a voluntary alternative that enhances liberty. What is your idea?

.

Hey Repubmocraticans...

The Frankenstein's chimera known as Obamney- it's halves differ only in which of its lies you believe in order to cast your vote. That's right- the only difference exists purely in your perception. Not in reality. Wake up.

.

Melissa's Ghost

Just for fun. Claire Wolfe wrote the first part of this tale and invited readers to finish the ghost story. Her part is in italics.

***

It was a perfectly generic house. Oldish. But not old. Fading and peeling a bit. But not decrepit. Neither mansion nor shack. Neither architectural monument nor eyesore. Just another house plunked somewhere between “needs TLC” and “cute starter home” as real estate agents measure these things.

No great tragedy had ever darkened its aura. Neither bodies nor mysteries were buried in its perfectly ordinary though slightly damp basement. In fact, nothing bad had ever happened in it other than the ordinary bumps, scrapes, petty spats, broken collarbones, bill-paying crises, sibling rivalries, marital discords, and teenage heartbreaks of life.

It was not located on a windswept hill or wreathed in the fetid mists of a cinematic marsh. The weed-grown lot next door hardly measured up to any Brontean (or Hollywoodian) moor or heath.

It had no more cobwebs than you might expect. No jilted crone sat in her wedding finery, mourning her life away in its rather small dining room (which was, in fact, only an ell off an otherwise boringly rectangular living room). No pale women robed in black, no blood-drenched children or mad deceased poets roamed its halls (which were in any case actually one hall, singular, 12 feet long, leading to three boxy bedrooms and one bath that still featured chipped “Seafoam Aqua” colored tile, installed circa 1955).

Neighborhood children did not avoid it. Renters did not run screaming out of it. Buyers did not dump it back on the market after six months of tormented residency, telling lies to hide its savage secrets in hopes of salvaging a few bucks of their downpayments.

In short, it was a perfectly unnoticeable house in a slightly run-down neighborhood.

Nevertheless, it was haunted.

And perhaps those hypothetical renters or buyers would have abandoned it, had they known. But they remained in their peacefully hypothetical fog, leaving only Melissa — sensitive, unsuspecting Melissa — to risk her life and sanity for the sake of its unhappy spirits.

Melissa matched the house. No boys fantasized about her. No women hated her to cover their jealousy. Had anyone noticed her, though, they would have thought her attractive in a "girl-next-door" sort of way. She was comfortable.

Except for the haunting.

Sometimes she almost decided it was all in her imagination. She had never actually seen anything she would call GhostBusters about. It was more of a feeling. And the occasional movement just beyond the edge of her peripheral vision. At those times she would joke aloud to the presence, or to herself.

"Nothing to see here, Ghost. You'd better find a fancy hotel with a tragic past to haunt before you die of boredom. Or, since I suppose you're already dead, before you fade away."

Sometimes she almost felt she expected an answer. Had one come, would she have jumped with a start, or would she have continued the conversation? She didn't know. Yet.

One overcast night as she made one last trip to the kitchen before bed, the feeling brushed past her strong enough to make her gasp and get chills. She quickly looked behind her, then felt silly for doing so. Yet, was that a shadow she had seen? Suddenly she felt very exposed and vulnerable. She wanted to say something to break the silence, but her voice didn't seem to work. And, somehow, she knew the sound of her own voice would shock her. She shook her head, and started for the sink again. Perhaps a bit quieter this time. A shadow behind her shifted, unseen, across the wall.

She filled her glass from the bottle of room temperature tap water she kept on the counter, then raised it to her lips. Her mouth felt even more dry after she had taken a sip. She stood there staring at the glass, noticing the reflections of the dark room, and the bubbles clinging to the inside surface, seeming to mimic the drop running down to her thumb. For some reason she couldn't name, she was terrified to turn around. The longer she stood there, the stronger the terror grew. She knew, just knew, that if she turned around she would see something she didn't want to see. Why was it better to have it behind her unseen? She couldn't say, and didn't want to think about it.

Was that a whisper or was it her own breath? "Calm down, Melissa! You're scaring yourself for no reason." Did that thought come from her own mind, or was it whispered in her ear? She glanced down and could see her heartbeat causing her threadbare nightshirt to bounce. This was ridiculous! This was her house. She knew no one had come in. She knew ghosts didn't really exist. Not anymore- if they ever had. This wasn't the middle ages and she wasn't an ignorant peasant! Turn around, Melissa!

She spun around so fast she almost slipped on the floor. Nothing. See, it was all in her imagination. Wait... what was that? Is that shadow in the right place? Did it move? If her heart had been beating hard before, it was pounding now. She squinted at the shadow. Maybe a passing car's lights had caused a movement. Her excited state could make her misinterpret normal things. Yes, that was it. Then she heard a sigh.

The glass slipped partway from her hand, but she caught it before it fell, splashing its contents on herself and the floor. Yes, the shadow was moving. Or, was it a group of shadows? The sigh had come from that direction.

As she watched the shadow seemed to detach from the wall, out into the air. How is this possible? Something was taking form- but a chill ran through the chill she was already experiencing when she realized it wasn't a shadow. It was a reflection. She was seeing herself.

As Melissa watched Melissa appear in front of her, she heard her own voice, not certain which mouth had spoken. "What do you want?"

"I want to be noticed."

"What do you mean?"

"I want to do the things you want to do, but are afraid of doing. I want to make a scene sometimes. I want to laugh a little too loud. I want to drink just a little too much. I want to love dangerously. I want to try things I am no good at. I want to take risks. I want to feel alive."

"But, I am alive. I mean, you... or we... are alive."

"No, Melissa. You are breathing, but you haven't been alive in a long time. If you won't do it I'll do it for us. For me. For you."

"You are just a ghost. You can't..."

"You are mistaken. You are the ghost. You are the ghost of what I once could have been. Look at yourself."

Melissa looked down. She did seem a little more gray, perhaps a bit smokey. She looked back at Melissa, who seemed more real now.

"You're wrong. I am real. This is my house. I'm the one who..." Why couldn't she think of anything she had done recently?

"I'm not going to watch life pass me by anymore. I'm not going to worry about what the neighbors think. I'm not going to worry about saying the wrong thing and giving the Women's Bible Study group something to get the vapors over." Melissa watched as Melissa seemed to slip back against the wall a bit more. She reached out her hand. "I'm not going to see you again, am I?"

"I just want a chance to live." The face was gone. The shadow became a little harder to distinguish from the others. A sigh filtered across the spaces.

Outside a light rain had begun to fall. Melissa looked again at the wall. The shadow might be gone now. She wasn't sure. She looked down at the ratty nightshirt. It was dry. Had she really been talking that long? She turned and looked out the window at the water shining on the street. With a flash she pulled the nightshirt over her head and tossed it off to the side and went out the door to dance in the rain.

.

Forget the fireworks- celebrate the right way!

(Yeah, this is late, but it just hit me as I was catching up on blogs I missed while unconnected.)

Maybe part of the reason I am not a fan of fireworks (while despising the government's yearly "just in time for Independence Day" ban on them) is that I see them as a poor substitute for the guns and ammunition that can actually bring liberty back to America.

Wanna make noise on Independence Day? Then do it with the real thing instead of the explosive toys. Scare the bad guys.

.

Don't fall off a park bench...

While walking along the River Trail in Durango, Colorado last week, I came upon an unconscious man with a bloody face. (Yes, that is the bench he was found near- sorry, no picture of the actual guy.)

He had apparently passed out and fallen off the park bench he was sitting on. Unfortunately for him, the bench was facing the river and was at the top of a rather rocky and steep slope. His face and bare chest had received quite a beating on the rocks and he was lying there with his head about 2 feet lower than his feet, due to the slope.

Anyway, the event unfolded like this:

A companion and I were walking the trail when we noticed him lying there, unmoving. At first I just thought someone was joking around.

Companion asked "Is he OK? Is he breathing?"

I approached and saw that he was not conscious, and that his face was caked with dried, but fairly recent, blood (which had also soaked the dirt under his face).

I leaned over and spoke to him. He groaned and his foot moved slightly, so I was glad he wasn't dead. His face was so bloody that I thought he might be the victim of a beating. I was trying to see how badly he was hurt while Companion, acting on her own, stopped some guys on bicycles to ask them what we should do. They still hadn't noticed the guy and just said "call 911" in a rather snarky tone of voice. Sigh.

I didn't think I should move the guy, even though his position looked uncomfortable, until I could see how badly he was hurt. He wasn't still bleeding, which made me wonder how long he had been lying there with people constantly passing him. (He was slightly hidden from the trail, but was more visible from one direction than the other, but I had approached from the disadvantaged direction...)

As I talked to the guy and tried to comfort him and size up his injuries, Companion called 911. The emergency operator asked Companion's name and phone number, and made an issue of similar irrelevancies. And asked where we were, which, being from out of town, she wasn't completely certain of. But Companion told her the name of the park that we were on the edge of, and the operator had no idea where that was. (So much for competent help.) Then she asked questions about how the guy had been injured- which she couldn't say for sure since we hadn't witnessed the event. Companion wouldn't come close to the guy so she shouted questions at me, which I then answered the best I could.

About this time a park ranger on a little golf cart-type vehicle pulled up and said that someone had called "earlier" about a guy on a park bench who looked like he was about to fall off. Companion handed him the phone and I didn't hear what was said.

Then a couple of other guys who had been watching came over and pulled the guy to the top of the slope and into a sitting position. I was really hoping they weren't creating more injuries by doing so. One guy had some paper towels and water and let the injured guy clean his face; he seemed to only have a bloody nose, a gash over his nose, and maybe a bloody lip. And he had a pretty nasty bruise on his chest, too.

Eventually the EMTs arrived (parked far away and sauntered slowly over to the scene), and a cop showed up soon thereafter. The EMTs helped the guy to his feet and, with a person on each arm, walked him across the park to the ambulance. The cop stood there looking around.

All the "authorities" assumed the guy was a drunk homeless man who more or less deserved his injuries. I did notice, however, that his work boots were nearly new, and his jeans were not badly worn. Perhaps assumptions were wrong. Homeless or not; drunk or not, the guy deserved compassion.

Which illustrates a few things you might want to keep in mind.

If you have a medical emergency, try to make sure you are not in an area known for being a homeless/drunk hangout, otherwise assumptions that could affect the quality of your care could cause problems.

Calling 911 is not the best thing to do, even if you are not concerned with avoiding "Imperial entanglements". In fact, from what I heard of the conversation, the operator was almost useless. And, as always, why does a medical call "need" a cop to show up? It doesn't!

And, people really are not very observant- or if they do see something, would rather pretend they don't if it might make them uncomfortable or inconvenience them.

All in all, I doubt I handled things as well as I could have, and I will strive to do better next time.

.

Anti-immigration: the truth from the horse's... ummm

I realize most anti-immigration ("I'm not 'anti-immigration', I'm anti ILLEGAL immigration, blah blah blah...") people are racists- I've listened to enough of them justifying their warped statist religion in every conceivable way for years- but this comment (found on Aretae) was so blatant it shocked me:

Most of those immigrants where [sic] white Europeans. There is a big difference between that and current immigration that should be obvious. You have to be willfully ignorant to believe otherwise.

So, "white Europeans" are somehow generally preferable, as a collective, over anyone else (like "Mexicans"?) to this guy.

It would make me be ashamed if I had anything in common with this guy. Which I apparently don't. Whew! No wonder he posts anonymously.

.

50 Shades of Tyranny

If there were a free society somewhere, it would be obvious to almost everyone that going to an area which had a government is a foolhardy risk to take.

Rational people know that it isn't wrong to smoke a little pot, or wear a gun of your hip, or "neglect" to wear a seat belt. Governments are not made up of rational people. Doing any of those things can get you killed by employees of that government who are eager to add you to their trophy wall.

The problem is that there is no free society to compare to the evil of the States. What we have instead are fifty shades of tyranny, and that makes for a deceptive comparison.

I want to see the day where a true comparison can be made. How about you?

.

"Place on top of your warhead and detonate for 2 picoseconds at..."

The "Classical Liberal" stance is that the sole purpose of government is to defend and protect the right of an individual to life, liberty, and property.

Ha ha!

Then can I claim that the sole purpose of a hydrogen bomb is to bake cakes? Or that the sole purpose of a rabbit is to discover and describe the Grand Unified Theory?

Because those claims are no more absurd or unreasonable.

.

"If you don't like government, move to Somalia!"

This statist incantation has been around for quite a while now, but seems to have gotten more popular again. And it is still just as silly.

Two of my videos from quite a while back, "Love it or Leave it" and Theft by Any Other Name", mention the ridiculous retort. I never dreamed we'd still be hearing ignorant statists chanting the same line over a year later. I guess they are running out of quips and excuses.

So, why is this such a silly thing for statists to say? The situation in Somalia is the result of trying to force a State on people who knew it was not an improvement over the old system they already had.

So, read the two articles linked below and laugh in the pathetic statist's sincere and angry little face next time they pull this one out of their.... um, "hat":

Somali “Anarchy” Is More Orderly than Somali Government

Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse

And, if all the good people moved to Somalia, like the ignorant statist's seem to be suggesting, it would mean we would abandon everything to the thieves and thugs. How is that the right thing to do? No, it is better to stay and fight than to abandon America to the parasites.

.

Donaldson Cousins - Growing Up Blessed

I recently helped my mom publish a book about a branch of our ancestors. It is called "Donaldson Cousins - Growing Up Blessed". She compiled the book from stories her cousins sent her, along with a lot of old pictures and some recipes.

The Frontier lasted longer here than in many places, so some of those things are interesting. As are the old pictures of that era.

There is a lot more religion/Christianity in the book than I can really stomach, but that's the lifestyle choice/orientation of my relatives.

Some events I lived through even crop up in later stories- particularly the Easter Blizzard of 1970.

If you are interested in personal accounts of life on the dry plains of the western Texas panhandle during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and beyond, or if you know someone who might be, check it out.

"Home" again.

I just got back from a week of vacation time (tagging along with my parents). Returned to "Galt's Gulch" for a short visit while I was in the neighborhood.

Ahhhh! Nice!

Did you miss me?

I'll have a tale from the road... or maybe a couple. Stay tuned.

.

Passing laws doesn't solve problem

Passing laws doesn't solve problem

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 8, 2012. I think I would have called this one "Biased toward liberty" or something, but...)

Most of the loudest voices in America are biased toward socialism and collectivism- even if they call them by other names. They slant everything they report so that it shows businesses and successful entrepreneurs in the worst possible light. They widely report innocents killed by gun-wielding thugs, but ignore the innocent lives saved because someone ignored a "gun law" and acted with bravery. They praise the collective while condemning the individual. They denigrate private property rights and liberty with their every word. Worse, they pretend they have no bias while doing it.

Everyone is biased. It's just an unavoidable fact of life, but one that is not necessarily bad. I am biased toward liberty- the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate anyone else's identical rights. I might as well admit my bias since it is probably obvious. I am always going to come down on the side of individual liberty on every issue and defend it from those who try to belittle it or fritter it away. No matter what excuse they use.

Do I not care about people? I certainly do. It means I put people above the things people created. Things created by those who claim to be protecting people while draining their life from them. It means I see that "for the children" is used as justification to use those children as pawns now, and enslave them "for the good of future generations" when they grow up.

It isn't right to pick someone else's pocket or take food out of their children's mouths to support things I like. No matter how much of your own money you give away it ceases to be generosity the moment you offer to give away someone else's money. It then becomes theft.

I want to help the poor and the helpless. I recognize that everyone has rights that are identical and equal to the rights I have, and no one, and no group, has the authority to violate those rights for any reason. I want to protect the environment. I value education highly. I want to see honest businesses prosper in a truly free market. I want to help people keep their own property safe from theft and destruction. I don't want bad guys to have the upper hand when they target someone as a potential victim.

Government is not the best way to achieve any of those ends. In fact, it is the worst possible response, and probable root cause, to any problem that has been recognized. There has never been a problem solved by passing a law; only by repealing them.

.

What's in YOUR lemonade?

I just don't know how people can function while believing it's OK to initiate force or steal.

To me that is like saying sulfuric acid is an acceptable substitute for water. You can claim to believe that all you want, but your continued existence is proof that you don't generally act on what you say you believe.

However, a person can claim it is OK to initiate force or to steal, when they are approving of others doing the dirty work for them, while not really behaving that way in every day life. That's the "safe" way to do it. Just like you could try to convince other people to drink sulfuric acid while not doing such a stupid thing yourself. You'll survive that way- at least until people get wise to what you are doing to them.

.