Jury Duty day

If this posts, it means "my" jury duty didn't get canceled at the last minute and I'm sitting in the courthouse. Hoping I'll be allowed to do some good.

Support FIJA.

Watch for updates below if you're interested in this sort of thing.

UPDATE: Well, the case was settled out of court but they forgot to update the website. The girl who does that was on vacation when they settled and didn't think of it when she got back to work. "You didn't call?" No, I checked the website like it said I could. And these are the people who know better how to run your life than you do.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

A rude and unreasonable demand

From the link on "compromise" below

You can't compromise liberty. There is no compromise between liberty-- doing all you have a right to do-- and someone's unreasonable feelings.

And yet, that's what rude anti-gun bigots demand.

No one has the right to demand someone else "give up some liberty". There is no such thing as "too much liberty", so there's never any conflict.

When you are living your liberty you aren't violating anyone in any way. It simply isn't possible.

Those whose feelings are hurt by this truth just need to grow up and get out of the way. If they are scared or offended it's a sign they are not sensible. If they demand you "compromise" your liberty for their feelings they are the bad guys. You have no obligation to deal with them. You certainly have no obligation to give up some of your liberty to make them feel better.

It wouldn't work anyway. People who demand you compromise your liberty are broken people. They'll never feel better because the problem is inside them. Nothing you give up will ever be enough for them. They'll always demand "just a little more".

No.

I don't want to be mean to anyone, but I'm not going to act as though anyone demanding someone else give up "some" liberty is being reasonable. They aren't. They are being rude, nasty, childish, and irrational. They can't be taken seriously, but they are a serious threat.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Don't become like the evil losers

There are many factors that contribute to a loser deciding to become an evil loser and shoot up a bunch of innocent (or even random guilty) people.

However, the statist knee-jerk reaction to enslave us all with "laws" for the acts of a few is just as bad as shooting into a crowd of innocent people. It absolutely is.

"Laws" kill people, including innocent people. That fact is swept under the rug by those who want to impose "laws". All "laws" are enforced by death, no matter how trivial, but that's not the only way they kill people.

If you are prevented from having the proper tools for defense when you need them, people may well die. Many already have.

If you advocate "laws" you are no better than those who gear up and go into a crowd and start shooting. Yes, some "laws" are less horrible than others-- those are the unnecessary "laws". But the very idea of-- the superstitious belief in-- "laws" is toxic to society. Don't go down that path. You can be better than the evil losers. Act like it.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Limiting liberty never good for people

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 10, 2019)

There are few things I enjoy more than helping people.

In the past few months, I've opened a car for a neighbor who locked her keys inside it. Twice. I gave a military-style can opener I was carrying to a guy who was unsuccessfully trying to buy a can opener.

I hold doors for people, I hand them items they drop, and do my best to help whenever I see the opportunity.

I just put in a two-week stint helping my family with a fireworks stand. It was like one of those harsh character-building programs, except it didn't cost anything. There was even the potential to make some money, although that didn't pan out.

Still, I was helpful to those who needed me when they needed me.

The thing is, helping people makes me happy. It's good for the person I help and it's good for me. It bothers me when I miss an opportunity to help because I'm distracted or self-absorbed. I want to pay attention to people's needs and do what I can.

I like people and I like helping. It's why I promote liberty and responsibility. Nothing helps people more in the long run than helping them realize the benefits of embracing liberty; recognizing their freedom to do everything they have a right to do, even if they don't choose to exercise it all. Limiting liberty is never good for people. Even if liberty scares someone, it's the fear which is harmful, not the liberty.

If I didn't like people very much I would convince them their rights come from government and can be limited or lost. I would tell them the Bill of Rights gives them rights, not the truth that it only applies to government by making it a serious crime for government to violate-- in the tiniest way-- any of the enumerated rights plus all unlisted rights which are placed off-limits by the Ninth Amendment. 

I would use collectivist phrases like "our government" and "our president", and dishonest terms like "your taxes".

I would want people to be dependent on government and its handouts.

If I didn't like people very much, I would celebrate laws and those who enforce them.

If you ever see this change in me you'll know I've stopped liking people. I've stopped wanting the best for them and would rather see them suffer. Be afraid!

Otherwise, I'll keep helping however I can, whenever I see the opportunity.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Slavery gaining steam-- Revenge by "law"

"Red flag laws" are becoming all the rage. Or, as I call them: "Bitter Ex-Wife Revenge and Empowerment Acts". Because you just KNOW that's how they'll mainly play out.

Well, Ammo.com has written a piece on where these bad ideas came from, how they "work", and some of their consequences.

Seems to me only a pathetic coward would use a "red flag law" instead of doing the hard work to defend the innocent herself/himself-- if there were a credible threat.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Stand up

Somebody's got to stand up and say "No". But I know it's not easy.

I don't know if I'm the right person. I don't know if I'm up to the task or strong enough. But I'm doing what I can... and it has cost me.

I know it would probably be smarter to keep my head down and be quiet. I have caring online friends who remind me of this from time to time. I know my family would prefer it. I would probably be a lot more outwardly comfortable and have a lot more money.

There's always that temptation to just pack it in-- especially when the money gets really tight or when I get ganged up on for not pretending aggressive, thieving gang members are heroes when they happen to work for government.

But, if I did could I really live with myself?

I don't know. I've never been good at going along to get along. I always let something slip, even when I'm trying to bite my tongue.

I guess I'm destined to be broke and unpopular, especially when I see what would be necessary to "fix" that.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Understand what you ridicule

I'm beginning to wonder if the person more dangerous than the overt anti-liberty bigot is the person who doesn't even understand what liberty or natural human rights are to begin with. Ignorance may be even more dangerous than openly advocating evil. Of course, ignorance can lead one to openly advocate evil, too.

I saw a lot of ignorance after the evil losers' recent shootings.

Scott Adams is a prime example.

He advocated (while denying he was advocating anything) a lot of anti-liberty ideas founded on his utter lack of understanding of liberty and rights, and of guns and human nature (which surprised me*)-- and on his rejection of the concept of ethical principles. Of course, he claimed anyone who stood firm for human rights is "dumb" and hinted they are not part of "the adult conversation"-- his go-to for shutting down people who disagree on principle because they actually have principles. (Although many of his listeners seem to be as unprincipled and ignorant as he is, judging by the comments he mentions.)

He's dead wrong again.

He's not the only one.

If you don't understand brain surgery, should you be making fun of the opinions about brain surgery held by those who do understand it? Only if you are arrogant and foolish.

Well, if you don't understand what liberty is and why it matters you have no business preaching at others against it. If you don't understand guns or the natural human right to own and to carry them, your opinions on the topic are invalid. Of course, this probably won't matter to you if you laugh at the notion of ethical principles, and only want to have things your way.

Principles are scary to those without them. Principles take some options off the table. You can't excuse slavery and democide without ignoring principles or making up fake "principles" which leave room for such things. They don't even know how to talk about things and events without relying on utilitarianism and pragmatism. So they try to trivialize or ridicule principles.

Adults have principles.
The childish person just excuses whatever they feel like doing by finding ways to justify it after they've decided to do it. If you can't grasp the fundamentals of the topic of conversation-- be it brain surgery, liberty, or guns-- this is even easier for you to do.

-

*He suggested that in a hypothetical world where all AR15s are pink, losers wouldn't feel "cool" using them to murder people. He's wrong about that. In a world where all AR15s are pink, pink guns are "cool". Just like black guns are "cool" in our world. It's not the color which makes the gun "cool", it's the gun that makes the color "cool". I'm almost shocked someone who claims to understand human nature so well could miss that so badly.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

I oppose all "laws"

I'm against drug abuse, but neither can I support prohibition.

This is difficult for some people to understand, no matter how many times I try to explain. Why? Why isn't it clear?

It's exactly the same way that I'm against shooting innocent people and I'm against anti-gun "laws".

Even if I'm against something, it doesn't imply that I'm for the government knee-jerk "solution". I know those government edicts only make things worse. Why would I support that? You can't solve a problem by doing more of the thing which contributes to the problem.

No, "laws" aren't the only factor causing drug abuse and mass murder (just for 2 examples), but they are a contributing factor. One which I completely, whole-heartedly oppose in every case.

I don't ever support "laws" or those who impose and enforce them. Never. Not even when I see a problem I want solved.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Politics makes people stupid

I'll say it again: Politics makes people STUPID!

I listened to someone defending and supporting Trump where they had to discard their life-long touted principles to do so. Just because they want to keep out "those people" and are grateful there's no "President Hillary". And perhaps because they like ritual human sacrifice. Disgusting and stupid.

Then I overheard some other people complaining about higher property "taxes" (ransom) and blaming Trump. What I didn't hear was a reason beyond that they hate Trump so it must obviously be his fault rather than the fault of those who actually impose and collect the ransom, "or else". Just so stupid.

Then you have other people begging government to violate their right to own and to carry weapons with "laws" because some evil losers who ignored "laws" murdered a bunch of people in places where the right to carry weapons was already thoroughly violated. Stupid, self-destructive, and evil.

Over and over, whenever politics becomes the topic of conversation, I see otherwise sensible people lose all their sense.

People believe politics is their Savior or their Satan-- depending on their momentary focus. They even manage to hold both of these contradictory beliefs simultaneously. Crazy!

Politics is antisocial. It is the use of theft and aggression instead of cooperation and trade. Politics makes people stupid.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU can decide if I get paid.

Feelings are immune to reason

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

How many?

I'm not going to accept blame for something I didn't do.
For something I oppose in the most fervent way possible.
Something that the popularly pushed "solution" would only make worse.
No.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something valuable... if so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Compounding the stupid

If you believe the way to stop mass shootings in places which prohibit guns is more "gun control" [sic] then I guess your solution to a plague outbreak is to add more plague-infested fleas.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The anti-gun bigots' silly strawman

Anti-gun bigots have a "new" favorite strawman. They demand to know why the right to own and carry weapons (they'll sometimes mischaracterize this as "Second Amendment rights") is more important than the right to not be murdered.

The dishonesty-- or ignorance-- displayed by such a question is absolutely stunning.

You and I have the natural human right to own and to carry weapons. No one has the right to use those weapons to harm someone who isn't currently violating the life, liberty, or property of another. There is no conflict, and at least some of those anti-gun bigots know it.

You also have no right to make up "laws" which violate anyone's rights in any way. And since that's what all the harmful "laws" do, those who support these "laws" are currently violating life, liberty, and property. Not smart.

You have no right to make up anti-gun "laws". You can't delegate a right you don't have (because it can't exist) to someone else. If you try to do either of those things YOU are the bad guy. Just as bad as the evil losers who inspire your calls to action.

Anti-gun bigots would have us live (and die) in a failed society where only the government goons and freelance thugs are adequately armed. That's not civilized. It's prison.

Burn their strawman to the ground and leave them exposed as the bad guys they are.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Keep American spirit of 1776 alive

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 3, 2019)

America was born in an act of secession. Those future Americans told an overbearing central government-- the world's most powerful empire and military at the time-- it was no longer welcome. It had lost the consent of the people.

Of course, the overbearing central government didn't want to let go. They never do. It had to be convinced. Its military had to be defeated and sent away.

It's a precedent which should be continued to this day.

Washington D.C. is much worse, by every measure, than King George III ever dreamed of being. The overbearing central government America is now burdened with steals many times more in taxes than its British predecessor did, and claims to have the imaginary authority to watch and control every aspect of our lives. Not only the lives of Americans but the lives of people all over the globe. This is the height of arrogance. Washington D.C. has become a global empire.

A global empire can't last. They never do.

How much will Americans put up with before they finally tell this overbearing central government to pound sand-- and back it up with meaningful action after the inevitable refusal?

Federal supremacists believe Abraham Lincoln's war settled the question of whether states are allowed to divorce the Union or are obligated to be eternally crushed under the heel of a relationship which no longer benefits their people. Any union which can't be withdrawn from is no longer a union; it is slavery. I never support slavery under any conditions-- in fact, I'm more firmly against slavery than is anyone who believes in governing others.

Slavery was already dying out in the Western world. It would have soon ended in America, too, without killing multitudes of Americans and rejecting the spirit of the Declaration of Independence in the process.

Even if you don't want to secede from Mr. Lincoln's union, you should keep the threat alive in the minds of the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington. A credible secession movement might slow the growth of the American police state. If it doesn't, you may eventually change your mind.

It's not that I believe the fifty state governments are better. They need to be seceded from as well, but it can wait.

America began with an act of secession; I believe secession is something the real American spirit can't survive without.

This Independence Day, keep the American Spirit of 1776 alive. Celebrate the honorable American tradition of secession.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Enough enabling, already!

Another evil loser killed a bunch of people. This time at a mall and Walmart in El Paso, Texas.

It infuriates me that anti-gun bigots keep making this type of event more likely.

He, or a comparable evil loser, would have free rein at the local mall and Walmart. Because both of those places post "No Guns" signs. The stupid behind this sort of "thinking" astounds me.

I see people ignore the signs and open carry while shopping in the local Walmart. People who are obviously not Blue Line Gang special flowers. Probably unintentionally-- New Mexico is an open-carry state, after all. I've never seen the Walmart management throw anyone out for ignoring the "We don't care if you die" signs. But they are there as an invitation to evil losers, regardless. They make the customers and employees much less safe by their presence. If I were rude and didn't mind drawing attention to them I'd thank them for their service.

The local mall lost some of their "No Guns" signs over the past few years. You can actually walk in some entrances which don't have the insults posted by them. But one entrance that I know of still has one by it. I don't go there enough to have noticed whether people ignore that sign-- but you know they do.

If anyone ever decides to go on a murder spree, they aren't going to change their mind because guns are "forbidden" on the property. They'd just be able to murder uninterrupted for longer than they would if someone was shooting back. And all metal detectors at the door would do is cause the evil losers to come in shooting... while the useless alarms blare.

Anti-gun "laws"-- "gun control [sic] laws"-- KILL. Enough is enough.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

I'm back!

Thanks to some help, I'm back online.

It'll take me a little time to get caught up-- I wasn't prepared for this outage. (Shame on me!)

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

I'll be back

I thought I had made it through the squeeze but I was wrong.

I'm going to be without internet for the foreseeable future unless unexpected donations or subscriptions-- above and beyond-- come in. Thank the fireworks stand for the problem.

I had posts scheduled for last week so no days would be skipped. But those have run out and I'm writing this on my phone. I don't have a good way to crosspost from the phone so this won't show up anywhere else other than, maybe, Facebook.

So if you miss my posts for a while you'll know why.
I'll be back.

BALTIMORE IS INFESTED! AND THE GARLIC FESTIVAL'S EVIL LOSER PROBLEM

I guess there's no way to embed a BitChute video, so here's the link.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I've gained one supporter and lost two in the past month.
That's going the wrong direction.
Can you help?

"Eric Garner had it coming"

I've been mulling a recent interaction with a copsucker ever since it happened, and I'm still bewildered by his delusion.

The guy was talking about the proper way to do a chokehold, which made me think of-- and bring up-- Eric Garner.

According to this guy, Eric didn't die from being choked. He died from a heart attack he started having before he was choked.

I have to wonder (if it's even true he technically died of a heart attack) whether he would have had a heart attack if the Blue Line Gangster hadn't been in the process of accosting him. Any encounter with an aggressive, armed gangster is going to be stressful. It can trigger a heart attack-- this much should be obvious to anyone. I mean, I don't know of anyone who would deny that a violent home invasion or mugging could trigger a heart attack in the victim. Why would an attack by the Blue Line Gang be an exception?

The copsucker objected to me referring to the cops as a gang because no "gang" of cops showed up until after Eric began resisting-- before that it was just one cop doing his "job", even if I don't agree with the law he was violenting imposing. And of course, the cop "had to" call backup, because Eric was trying to prevent his own kidnapping... I mean "resisting arrest".

The copsucker claimed it was all Eric's fault because he was a known "criminal" (even though the guy admitted the law he supposedly continually broke was trivial-- selling individual cigarettes without giving the government a piece of the action).

According to this guy, none of it could be the cop's fault anyway because once a cop says you're under arrest he has no choice but to complete the arrest. Even if it kills you. That's how they are trained, so you just go along and sue later if you believe they were wrong. If you survive, that is.

I was reminded of this apologist when I heard Scott Adams say he would have been fine with it if the NYC Blue Line gangsters who had water dumped on them had shot some of the bucket bearers.

Support for cops is like a mental illness. Maybe it is one.

They-- the cops and copsuckers-- are painting themselves into a corner they aren't going to enjoy.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Government is irrational

Government-- specifically, statism-- is irrational. Let's look at what "rational" means:


adjective:
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible:
a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:
a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid:
The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason:
rational beings. 
5. of, relating to, or constituting reasoning powers:
the rational faculty.

I already see a flaw. "a rational plan for economic development". If it's a plan which involves anti-economics-- politics-- it isn't rational. And you know that's the kind of "plan" they are referring to. This is why I'll check dictionary definitions, but don't automatically trust them. They have a lot of biases included.

But, back to the irrationality of government.

Government, specifically statism, is not "agreeable to reason". If it were, there would be no statists. Instead, it is based on a superstition; a "just so" story written to explain something in a fictional manner to simpletons who are assumed to be too stupid to understand reality.

You can't disprove it with reason because it isn't based on reason. It is based on feelings and wishes. This is why the perfectly logical, reasonable, sensible, ethical statement "taxation is theft" sways so few statists. They are not agreeable to reason.

And the rest of the definition hinges on that first one. Government fails the first one so it, therefore, fails them all.

Government is irrational.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.