Rigging elections because Trump is unusually dangerous

I was listening to Scott Adams' podcast recently and he was talking about the Sam Harris admission-- that he approved of the media hiding (and lying about) the Hunter Biden laptop because of his belief that Trump was so dangerous that it was "self-defense" to do anything to keep him from being re-elected. Agree or not, this is advocating for rigging the election.

I've seen this belief expressed many times over the years. That Trump was/is unusually "dangerous".

But, in all the cries of how "dangerous" Trump was/is-- far above and beyond anyone else who might hold the office-- the one thing glaringly lacking is a clear explanation of exactly how he is unusually dangerous. I'm just supposed to take them at their word that he is.

Is it really Trump or is it his rabid followers who are dangerous? Are they really more dangerous than the rabid followers of any other political criminal? I mean, there are still rabid Biden followers out there who pretend he's not an obvious dementia patient.

I think it's the political office that is extraordinarily dangerous, not the specific puppet occupying the office. No one should be allowed to have the kind of power that the presidency, a congressional seat, or a federal judgeship (Supreme or otherwise) gives a person. Politics is bad; there is no way to make it OK.

Trump did plenty of things I hate. Bump stock bans, borderism/nationalism, etc. Plus giving government supremacists on his side an excuse to continue to "believe in" Statism and pretend it isn't pure evil. But I see nothing particularly unusual about anything he did. It was just more of the same, other than the outsized hysterical response from the Professional Adversaries of the "other side".

I am unconvinced, but open to being shown why I'm wrong.

On that same podcast, Adams asked his audience if they would break the rules to rig an election, if it meant saving the world from an existential threat. A great many said "no". Rule fetishists are weird critters. Imagine being so dedicated to rules that you'd let everyone die to avoid breaking bad rules.

I don't believe elections are, or can ever be, legitimate. I would break a "rule" to rig an election to advance liberty so fast it would make you swoon. The problem is, how could I know for sure whatever I do wouldn't have the opposite effect? It's why elections can't be legitimate.

Trump was horrible; Biden is no better (but his mental condition makes him funny). I wouldn't rig an election in favor of either of them.

-

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

Don't you want to be represented?

I saw someone lecturing another person about why they shouldn't be libertarian. Why it's a loser's strategy. 

They said it's because by being a principled libertarian you'll never be properly represented in government.

What?

I guess they are under hypnosis or something because that makes no sense whatsoever. Imagine twisting your mind enough that you can hallucinate that someone is adequately representing you.

No one can ever really represent a single other person, and to imagine that one person can represent millions of others-- who have mutually exclusive, opposing values-- is totally nuts. 

I don't consent to be governed by anyone else. No one can represent me, no matter how much I give up my principles or compromise with monsters. If anyone uses the political means against anyone else-- even against my enemy-- they can't be representing me. Quite the opposite.

You aren't being represented even if you believe you are. So you might as well stay principled.

-

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

Libertarians aren't on right or left

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 20, 2022)

No one really understands anyone else, so it's no surprise that non-libertarians don't understand libertarians.

When I first started writing on the topic of libertarianism, I ran across a blog post written by a self-proclaimed "progressive" who explained why all libertarians were racists and should be hated and mocked. I commented, pointing out a host of reasons this wasn't true. He seemed to imagine everyone he didn't like could be clumped under the term "libertarian". Most of the beliefs he attributed to libertarians were not libertarian beliefs at all. I told him so and provided evidence. He replied with the nastiest name-calling he could manage. Then he blocked me from responding and later his entire blog was taken down.

Other times people who identified themselves as "conservatives" made assumptions about things I would support because they imagined libertarians were something they aren't. Sometimes they thought I'd support harsher enforcement of some law, or a "fair tax". Why I would support something I don't believe is legitimate, and which is not compatible with libertarianism, is beyond me.

The best definition of libertarianism I've run across is "someone who rejects the use of force against anyone who isn't currently violating the life, liberty, or property of another".

Cue the disagreements among libertarians over what counts as "force" or a violation. It keeps things interesting.

Some libertarians are fans of the U.S. Constitution. Others only use it to show how off-course the U.S. government has gone in the years since it was ratified.

Many libertarians believe a fetus is a human being with rights, while many others believe a fetus could eventually become a human being with rights, but a woman is a human being with rights now, which includes the right to end her pregnancy.

Some libertarians believe you can have a limited government-- a "night watchman state"-- while others think a little cancer is still too much.

Libertarians can be slightly "statist", believing that governing others can be a legitimate human endeavor-- as long as it is done gently, or they can be anarchists; not believing political government is ever justified. Or anything in between.

What libertarians are not is politically Right or Left. Even if our personal views could be categorized by those labels, we can't condone the use of force-- including legislation-- to impose our personal views on people who aren't harming anyone. It's a matter of principle.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Religion in schools

I see on the "news" that some recent Texas legislation allows government schools in the state to put up signs saying "In God we trust" if a private group donates the sign to the school district.

Even though I'm not a believer, this bothers me much less than the active promotion of the religion of Statism that occurs in those institutions-- paid for with money stolen from the population rather than voluntarily donated for the purpose.

Government schools have always promoted religion. Sometimes more than one. 

When my daughter was in the local school they pushed Statism and Christianity equally hard. Never mind that these two religions are adversarial (even though some will fight hard to claim that this isn't true). The teachers pushed Christianity and encouraged the students to pressure any kid who was hesitant-- to the point of bullying. 

So, really, this legislation is more of the same rather than anything particularly new.

Abolish government schools and let everyone teach whatever is important to them. Paid for voluntarily. Attended without compulsion. 

-

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

Random thoughts

• I don't like "Second Amendment rights". The phrase, I mean. It's misleading. The right to own and to carry weapons doesn't come from the Second Amendment, but pre-exists it. The right will still exist even if the Second Amendment is abolished or ignored. 

• I really hope Joe Biden-- or his rigid corpse-- runs for president again. It would be hilarious. It's not as if any other candidate would actually be good for liberty, so you might as well go with the funniest one.
  
  
• Just because you support someone doesn't mean they are on your side. It may mean they have you fooled and are working against you while you fawn over them.

-

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

Close the "sensitive place" loophole

People are still celebrating the recent Bruen Decision by the Supreme Courtjesters. It has its good points, but Justice Thomas left a Trojan horse in it. One thing he should have never let stand: he pretended there are "sensitive places" where government must be allowed to continue to (illegally) prohibit firearms.

He was wrong.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, there's no such thing as a "sensitive place" where it's OK for government to prohibit firearms. None. 

And "government property" [sic] is the one place where any sort of gun prohibition is specifically prohibited by the Second Amendment. To whom does the Constitution apply? Government. Not to you or me. The Bill of Rights tells government which things it is not allowed to do. Making up anti-gun rules being specifically laid out as a prohibited action.

Look how the evil anti-gun bigots around the country-- particularly the political criminals of New York and California-- are misusing that imaginary "sensitive place" loophole now. They are essentially declaring their entire states to be "sensitive places" where guns can't be carried (except by their own armed gangsters, of course). 

Close the "sensitive place" loophole. Don't leave the authoritarian monsters any place to hide.

-

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

The useful thief?

If I'm a thief who mugs everyone in town at gunpoint and who breaks into homes to steal money and weapons, but once in a while I use the stolen money and weapons to rescue a hostage, am I a good guy or a bad guy?

Does it change anything if I call myself "the military" or "the police"?

Is there no way to do the good without doing the bad?
I believe there is; government supremacists believe there isn't.

-

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

Good people in bad organizations?

Good people don't willingly join evil organizations. This includes, but is not limited to, working for the FBI, local police, the IRS, the BATFE, the DEA, etc.

Even if you joined them out of ignorance, if you continue to work for them you are no longer a good person.

I make exceptions for moles who are actively working to destroy those organizations from within. In that case, you have to be having an actual effect, not just doing all the evil things expected of you, but maybe not going quite as hard on an individual here and there. You get no pass for your heart being "in the right place" while you violate individual rights.

Good people quit gov. Good people don't encourage others to get-- or remain in-- government "jobs".

-

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

Politics depends on blind spots

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 13, 2022)

Everyone has blind spots. Especially when it comes to politics. In fact, I'd say politics is made up of blind spots knitted together with wishful thinking, expressed through legislation designed to violate people you don't like.

Conservatives generally love the Constitution. They have a blind spot when it comes to unconstitutionally controlling people's movement. They obsess over "immigration" and are willing to toss the Constitution aside for this issue. It's almost a universal conservative trait, now, but this wasn't always the case.

Liberals, progressives, or whatever they are calling themselves today, generally love bodily autonomy, at least concerning abortion. They don't feel the same when someone makes the choice to defend their bodily autonomy with a firearm, or chooses to not have injections forced into them. It's a blind spot that almost defines their ideology.

Politics depends on blind spots for its very existence. Without them, it would shrivel away in the burning white light of truth.

The thing with blind spots is that you can easily see them in others, or in other groups, but you can't usually see them in yourself without help.

If someone points out what they think is a blind spot you have, you'd better take notice. They might be right and they might be wrong, but wouldn't you rather figure it out?

Often, the answer is "no".

I've spent my life trying to find and eliminate my own blind spots. People have been enthusiastic to point them out to me. It's how I went from being a conservative, to being a constitutionalist, to being libertarian. Every blind spot I discovered led me toward a greater respect for liberty. It never swung the other direction-- or hasn't yet.

I owe thanks to the people who helped me along the way. Many times they were right. Often, though, people imagine blind spots where they don't exist, based on seeing their biases through their own blind spots.

If someone looks at the color you've called "blue" and tells you it's orange, take another look, comparing it to examples of blue, orange, and other colors. If you still see it's blue, you aren't obligated to say you agree it's orange just because someone tells you it is and calls it your blind spot. If you can logically explain yourself-- to shine light where someone else thinks you have a blind spot-- it may indicate the blind spot is theirs.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The statists' sandcastle of lies

I first noticed the over-reliance on lies demonstrated by anti-gun bigots. There is just nothing they can say to advocate for their side that isn't lies built on lies topped with lies. 

It's no different if it's disgusting individuals like Joe Biden, Bob'O'Rourke, or Shannon Watts, or their criminal organizations like Moms Demand Slavery or the BATFEces gang. Lies, lies, and more lies by liars who need to lie to justify their existence. The truth is a strange concept to them, and they treat it as a mortal enemy... because it is.

Recently though I've come to notice that all statism is exactly the same.

Statism depends on lies. Advocates create a foundation of lies, then build a sandcastle of lies on top of that, then top it off with little flags of lies.

Of course, all the anti-gun bigots called out above are also statists relying on lies; government-supremacist liars. But even "nice" statists who pretend to be "the reasonable adult"-- while they condescendingly pat you on the head-- are leaning on lies. Without their sandcastle of lies, they have nothing. Nothing. They would just flounder in the void with nothing to hold on to.

I was going to list specific examples, but there's no point. The list would be all-inclusive: ALL statism is the same. If it justifies government supremacy, it is built on lies. If it justifies any limit on liberty, it relies on lies. If it carves out exceptions, those exceptions are lies. Every government agency or bureau requires lies to justify its existence. Every piece of legislation is nothing without the lies it pretends are truth. "Taxation", border control/"immigration", anti-gun rules, prohibition. "vice laws", "national security", "law enforcement", etc., etc., etc. It's all a lie.

It's no different if it is "Right-statism" or "Left-statism"-- it's still a web of lies. If you respect truth and reject lies, you'll naturally gravitate away from statism. All of it.

-

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

Economics lesson for political criminals

Inflation is a rate of increase. Until that rate is zero or negative, there's still inflation and inflation is still a problem. 

It's not "zero inflation" if the rate of increase stays constant. 

It's not "zero inflation" if the rate of increase is a little less than it was before-- as long as it's still inflating more than zero or a negative rate.

Inflation isn't "normal" or just how things are. It signifies bad choices made by political criminals who interfered in the market by counterfeiting money. It's a consequence of bad policy when no policy should be imposed.

-

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

An improvement

This is the new sign put up today by the school across the car path from my house. I approve. 

This replaces, or is in addition to, the signs at every door saying the same thing.

The only thing I'd like more would be an "out of business" sign on the chained doors, but I'll take it.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

The Secret of Success

Work really hard and/or really smart (find the perfect balance of the two) in the right way, on the right thing (unknowable), at just the right time (unknowable), and have lots of luck.

There you have it. You're welcome. Now go forth and prosper.

-

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

Trust the FBI?

The gang that creates "terror" plots so it can foil them and pat itself on the back (and say it needs a bigger budget) can also (and probably will) plant whatever "evidence" it wants to find during a raid.
Abolish the FBI.

- 

My WiFi router died last night. So posting will be more inconvenient until it is replaced (which will happen when/if I can afford one). Not sure I'll miss any posts after tomorrow's newspaper column, but if I do, don't be surprised.

-

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

If everyone acted like you...

How would the world be if everyone acted exactly like you act? The "why" of their motivations don't matter, just how they actually act. They could be doing the same thing for completely different reasons.

If everyone littered the same amount as you, would the world be clean, buried under a thick layer of trash, or somewhere in between?

If everyone wanted government to make up or enforce legislation "only" to the same extent as you do, would the world be free or an authoritarian prison?

Pick anything you do. If everyone did the same sort of thing, at the same amount you do, what would the world be like? If that sounds like a good world, congratulations! You must be doing things right. If it's not a world you'd want for your grandchildren, think about what you could do differently.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

See all sides, but don't fall for them

I believe I can see all sides of any issue. I could argue for or against anything. (Not that I would, except in my own mind, because why clutter an issue unnecessarily?)

Maybe it's a bad sample, but no one I know in person seems to be able to do this. Not even a little. No matter how I try to get them to even explain what "the other side" would argue, they can't seem to do it. Which I find interesting.

However, being able to argue (or articulate) the other side isn't the same as buying what they are selling. Once I've reached a conclusion I'm not going to change my mind until (or unless) some new data comes in (which has happened many times over the years). Rehashing the same points I've already incorporated into my decision isn't going to change anything. And irrelevant data doesn't count. If it's an ethical principle, showing me how "dangerous" it could be if misused is irrelevant to my decision. Danger only figures in if I'm trying to decide whether to jump off of something.

If there's nothing new to add, you're wasting your time discussing it.

Of course, that goes for me trying to convince the other side, too. 

So, trying to convince the other side out of something they've already decided is probably pointless. The best you can do is to show all the information to anyone watching (who hasn't already decided) so they might make a better-informed choice.

Unless, as has been postulated, we all believe first, and then look for data that supports what we already believe. If that's the case, why discuss anything important with anyone, ever? You may as well spend all your time gossiping about people, or talking about what "The News" wants you to talk about. That seems to be the popular choice anyway.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon
The help I've gotten so far has taken some of the pressure off.
Thanks to those of you who've helped!

Preparation can ease your anxiety

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 6, 2022)

If you are worried about the next few years, I can relate. Supply chain problems, inflation, the ongoing drought, and the possibility of political violence seem like they are closing in on us. An effective way to defeat the worry is to take charge of your life. Be responsible for your own well-being. Don't wait to be rescued.

You'll always feel worse about things you think you can't control. So, take control and do what you can, and you'll put your energy to better use than you would by worrying.

Stock up on things you'll need later, now, before the prices get higher. If they aren't available in stores at the moment, stay alert and buy them when you see them. Give local sellers a chance first, but if it doesn't look as though they'll be able to get what you need, try an online source.

Canned food is a good place to start. Dry rice and beans-- as long as you have the water to prepare them-- are items every house should store against hard times.

Please stock up on water, both to drink and cook with, and for cleaning and sanitation. You can never have enough.

Don't forget medical supplies, including medicines. Health-endangering prescription rules make it hard to stock up on essential medications, but this is something to take into consideration before it becomes an emergency.

If things improve on their own, having extra food, water, and health supplies isn't going to hurt you any. If things get worse, though, they'll be worth more than gold.

Political violence looks like it may soon become a bigger threat. Americans have irreconcilable differences, and it shows.

I would recommend you stay away from big cities to avoid the worst threat of political violence. Sometimes you can't avoid them, but get in, get done, and get out. The less time spent there, the better.

I have neighbors I know I can depend on, and I would do what I can to support them, too. I have neighbors I don't know well enough, and that's my fault. It's something I need to correct. You need to build community where you live. Community, as opposed to its opposite-- government, is essential for survival.

Doing useful things will help you feel better about the future. You'll feel more capable and competent. It's more than a feeling-- you'll be making it real.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Is this an "assault post"?

"Assault weapon" is a lie. Yes, there is such a thing as an assault rifle, but that's an entirely different thing with a real definition. An "assault weapon" doesn't have a set definition; it just "is" whatever the anti-gun bigots want it to be today. Usually whatever they feel like they can get away with banning right now. (They probably want to ban ALL guns, but will take what they can get now and try for more later.)

I guess in their eyes something is an "assault weapon" if it is more effective than the base model. Or scarier, for some subjective reason.

By that type of... "reasoning"... an "assault book" could be a computer or a religious book. Or a science book. Or something by Claire Wolfe or L. Neil Smith. Scary!
Motorcycles might be "assault bikes". Or maybe a regular bike --if it has cards in the spokes and flame decals-- would qualify.
"Assault baths"? Showers. "They didn't have showers in 1776, so you don't need them today!"

Idjits.

Those who use the term "assault weapons", other than when making fun of ignorant anti-gun bigots, are too dumb to have their opinions listened to. You can be warned by the lies they tell, though, so you know how they plan to enslave you. That way you can be ready to resist, not to comply.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

Respect the truth, not the speaker

It doesn't matter how horrible someone is, or how much I usually disagree with them: The truth is the truth no matter who says it.

This is something it seems most of the population simply can't comprehend. And they'll punish you for agreeing with truth uttered by someone they don't like.

It's best if you ignore "the masses" at that point. The truth doesn't turn into a lie just because you don't like the person who said it. Even if everything else they've ever said was a lie.

If Trump warned European politicians about becoming too dependent on Russian energy, or if Alex Jones answers an antagonistic question in court about elite pedophiles by mentioning Jeffrey Epstein, you don't have to like or agree with either of them to enjoy the truth of their statements. 

I've found myself agreeing with politicians and criminals (and just ordinary nasty people) of every sort over the years. Sometimes when people forward those emails full of quotes I can hardly believe the truthful things some monsters have said-- but if they actually said them (not to be assumed, for sure), the source doesn't affect the trueness.

There's a cost to ignoring the truth, no matter who it comes from.

-

Please support the Tobbles Rescue Project on Patreon

GVE warn of MVE

I can't help but be amused every time the FBI (or some other terrorist group associated with the US Feral Government) leaks another "domestic threat" page (page 1, page 2). I've seen several over the years, and they are all ridiculous.

 

Now their "concern" [sic] is "Militia Violent Extremism (MVE)". I wonder if that has anything to do with the recent SCROTUM... uh, SCOTUS opinion on the Second Amendment. Maybe the dipsticks of the Feral Baby Incinerators are laying some groundwork for future terror plots they have in the works.

If anyone is a problem, it's government. Many of those listed on the latest sheet as "MVE" are problems only when they act like government-- and precisely due to their fawning over statist ideology. They are really GVE (Government-Supremacist Violent Extremists).

The FBI is a laughingstock. It is still dangerous, of course, but it's not something to respect or fear. Just take reasonable precautions and don't do dumb things. Don't cooperate or associate with them and don't let yourself get pulled into any of their terrorist plots. You'll probably be fine.

-

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