Death memorial equity

Curry County is wanting names to add to its "DWI Memorial" at the courthouse. Statist propaganda that feeds off of emotionalism!

Why not have a memorial to all those murdered by government in the past hundred years or so? Too many to be realistically manageable for a memorial? What about the past quarter century then? Probably still too big and too embarrassing to the supporters of The State.

Revolution!

Everyone has the right to act in self defense- with violence, if necessary. If enough people exercise that right at the same time, against their attackers who all work for the same gang, and that gang happens to be The State, this becomes a revolution.

Revolution can not be made "illegal" by the organization that employs the attackers anymore than freelance murderers or robbers could band together and form a fraternity that declares that it is "illegal" to resist them. If the attackers don't wish to be resisted and perhaps killed, they should stop attacking and stealing. They should repudiate the fraternity of aggression and stop supporting those who still work for it. Or they should shut up when the chickens come home to roost.

Response to CNJ letter to editor- UPDATED

(I was not allowed to respond in the paper, due to a policy of letting the readers have the last word, so I am posting this here instead. My original column is here, and the letter I am responding to is here.)

I was quite excited to see the response by Karl D. Spence to my most recent column. I was slightly disappointed, however, to find he missed my point. Perhaps it gives me an opportunity to clarify some things.

My stance is not so much "anti-government" as it is pro-liberty. Other individuals and groups of individuals can threaten liberty just as much as The State, but those other threats are not usually protected from the consequences of their actions by quite as large a gang, and are not protected by the illusion of legitimacy that has been draped around The State and its actions. However, if someone considers it "anti-government" to be pro-liberty, I will wear that label with honor.

I'd like to address the main points in the letter. Is the city actually keeping the hotel "from continued deterioration" or does it continue to deteriorate? Why is there "no other entity" that could do the same (does it have anything to do with any of the consequences of government action I mentioned?), and why, if it is true that the city has both kept the hotel from continued deterioration AND that no one but the city could have done so, is that goal more important than keeping government out of the real estate business and from using stolen money?

But, I see Mr. Spence has an issue with me calling a spade a spade. Taxation IS theft. Anytime property, such as money, is taken from its owner when that owner would prefer to keep it for his own use, it is theft. If you trade the hours of your life for money, you own that money just as surely as you owned the hours you traded for it. Once they are gone they can never be regained. If the owners of that money did not prefer to keep their own property there would be no need to threaten or penalize people in order to get them to pay "taxes". An act doesn't change its nature simply because the perpetrator has a badge or a government job.

If taxes must be taken to pay for something, it is not necessary. There is no good reason roads must be government-owned. Do you think you use roads "for free" now? You don't. Parks suffer from "the tragedy of the commons". (Have you not been to a city park recently? I have.) Cities which have eliminated traffic lights and all other traffic signals have seen a dramatic reduction in accidents and an increase in courteous driving. What is the benefit in not following suit? I don't need police patrols, and neither do you. It is your responsibility to watch out for yourself (and those around you if you see them being harmed). You can no more delegate that responsibility to anyone else than you can delegate another to eat, drink, or reproduce for you. Fire protection can be, and frequently has been, provided by independent fire departments which use member fees or donations for financing. I have written extensively on such excuses for keeping government around. Government, once again, is completely unnecessary.

Yes, I'm sure cities are happy to get the federal handouts, but receiving stolen property, when you know it is stolen, is just as wrong as doing the stealing yourself. Where does that "federal grant money" come from? Some comes from Clovis residents and some comes from people who have never heard of Clovis. Do you think Clovis gets more than was taken from its residents, or less? Does that make a difference in how you view it? Just because a thief promises to only use the money he takes from you to feed widows and orphans (after keeping a percentage for "expenses", of course) does not excuse or justify his act.

Like Mr. Spence, I also hope a productive use can be found for Hotel Clovis, but "productive" necessarily means without government intervention.

Update: I got a comment on that letter that can be found here and which I wanted to reply to. The main points are that my "ramblings" here make no sense, and that taxation can't be theft because no governments could exist without it, and the world couldn't function without taxation.

For some reason the site is not allowing me to comment, so until I can add the comment there, I'll post it here.

The thieves have convinced a majority of people to believe otherwise, but taxation is still theft.

As for the restaurant analogy, there is no comparison. Are you forced to eat at the restaurant? Are you required to eat at any restaurant and not allowed to prepare your own food instead? If you choose to eat at the restaurant are you not allowed to eat only what you can afford? Are you required to pay for other people's meals too? Restaurants must compete for your business and if you would rather not do business with them they don't send armed thugs to your house to make you pay up anyway.

Why do you believe governments ("city, state or country") are necessary? Rules based upon not harming the innocent are good, but these don't come from government, and all governments violate these foundational rules by their very existence.

Instead of taking money from people, let people pay for the services they want, from the provider they prefer. End the monopoly that is government.

TSA trial comes to ABQ

TSA trial comes to ABQ


Come January, Albuquerque gets the dubious distinction of being the site of the nation's first TSA-defiance trial- against a man who defied the professional molesters and became the target of the molesters' gang. And, no, this isn't the "Don't touch my junk" guy.

If there were ever a good time for jury nullification, this is it! The man did nothing wrong and should be set free. His accusers should then be required to personally pay all his legal expenses out of their own pockets- by selling their homes and vehicles if necessary- as well as any lost income and travel expenses that resulted from this kidnapping. This is the only possible outcome that serves justice.

So, in case you or anyone you know gets called for jury duty anytime soon, please educate yourself and everyone you know, and don't be a useful idiot to be used as the terrorists of the TSA/federal government would like to use you. Make sure there is NO ONE left in Albuquerque who is ignorant of the right and THE DUTY of a jury to void counterfeit "laws".

For more information, visit http://www.fija.org/
*
Donate?

Reader responds

My most recent Clovis News Journal column has gotten a response published as a letter to the editor.

I have already written, and sent, a reply and await word from the editor whether he wants to publish it in the paper, or would rather I post it here and refer readers to this blog.

Either way, I will let you know.

*
Donate?

Nothing political to exploit

Sometimes when I point out how bad The State (externally-imposed government) is, someone will claim it is only a tool, like a gun, and could be used for good if only the right person (or political party) is wielding it. They will claim that since I don't think guns are inherently harmful I should apply the same to The State. Boy, do they ever get it wrong!

If guns existed only for the purpose of getting more guns there might be some similarity. Guns save more innocent lives than they take, and they don't turn good people bad just by being present. The same can never be honestly said about The State.

The State, even if it is used to "help" someone, is funded by theft and imposed by force. If I decide to help a hungry person, the right way to do so is to dip into my own pocket to pay for the food, or to ask for help from others. The wrong way to "help" is the path always taken by government: steal the food (or money to buy the food) from someone else. Two wrongs do not make a right, and you can't solve a problem by causing another problem. To say it another way, you can't fix harm by shifting the harm to another innocent person.

A person can not be a part of The State without being damaged and corrupted by that system. Politicians will always exploit their power to get more power, which is why the entire political business must be ended. If there is no system for voting to impose your will on others, there is nothing political to exploit. If there is no system in place that can be used to take money or property from some people to give it to other people (while keeping a cut for the bureaucracy), then no one could do so without being subject to the rules of justice.

There is almost nothing in the world that should be up for a vote. Let something be proposed and those who agree to it completely can go off to do it while leaving everyone else alone. How many people want to do it, or what percentage, should not even be a consideration. If, under any system, everyone is not given an easy, painless way to opt out, it is wrong.

Unexamined statism rampant in ABQ

Unexamined statism rampant in ABQ


The Albuquerque news is just a carnival of statism. "Problems" that wouldn't be problems in a free society. Most of these stories are the same old thing, over and over again. It's ridiculous that the statists refuse to open their eyes and see that their standard operating procedures are nothing but wheel-spinning absurdity.

What am I talking about? Well:

Albuquerque police arrested a woman for selling drugs to teens, and in an unrelated incident an Albuquerque man was arrested in El Paso for having marijuana in his gas tank.

Neither of these things would have been "news", or even likely happened, without the incredibly stupid and evil "War on (some) Drugs", and its complicit soulless and mindless enforcers. Don't like drugs? Then don't use them (including ibuprofen, nicotine, statins, alcohol, etc.)! Don't like other people using drugs? Then educate, ridicule, shun, preach... but don't criminalize. Criminalization has utterly failed to reduce drug abuse and is only useful for growing The State's enforcement power and the inevitable abuse of that power. Supporting prohibition is stupid- even more stupid than abusing drugs.

And there's more.

An Albuquerque woman was charged $177 for visiting the an online porn site, and then she found out the site apparently had her "Social Security" number and other "identity information" on file when she called to dispute the charges. The site did refund her money, so kudos for them.

Since the identity thief didn't charge "enough" on the porn site, "The Law" says it is unlikely to do anything about it. Funny how "identity theft" was not a problem until The State forced its numbers and other tracking information on us in order to "protect our identity". The State is nothing but a cancer pretending to be its own cure. It sees an imaginary "problem", forces its own "solutions" on everyone, and then points to the resultant real disasters as evidence it needs to do more.

Still want more?

Albuquerque restaurants passed their health inspections, and this made the news. Nowhere is it recognized that "health inspections" are not any government's job. Instead the restaurant owners simply accept this violation of their rights as "business as usual"; not that they have any choice. I would much rather let voluntary, competing inspection companies spring up to take care of the market for restaurant inspections. Government "standards" are always an oxymoronic joke anyway.

Statism is all around us, is always a bad thing, and is largely invisible to most people until it harms them directly. Yet, harm them it will at some point. Will that event wake them up to reality, or will they continue to think it's OK as long as it only hurts "those people"? There is no justification for The State.

*
Donate?

If you think you can't afford gifts...

It is said "There's no time like the present", and I would add that there is no present like time.

Give a gift of your time to those you want to spend time with and who would love to spend time with you... and do it now. It's better than anything you could ever buy them.

City's involvement not necessary

City's involvement not necessary

Hotel Clovis keeps turning up in the news. Is it destined to be an eyesore, a money pit, or a slum? Or will tax money be spent to demolish it? As long as government is involved, you can bet those are the only realistic outcomes.

I realize the city believes it owns Hotel Clovis, but no government “owns” anything it did not steal, or buy (and maintain) with money it stole. Also, government will make it impossible for owners to actually use and profit from their property so that they give up and walk away, handing “ownership” to the city. Which still qualifies as “theft” in my book. Of course, governments have euphemisms like “eminent domain” and “taxation” for these acts of theft, and refuse to accept responsibility for making a project unworkable.

I suspect the above-mentioned red tape, taxation, and regulations cause most vacancies to begin with, since you can adjust your overhead and business model except where government is concerned. These same hurdles also prevent vacant buildings from being put to good use. Unless you are rich or politically connected you have little chance of making it through the regulatory and extortion gauntlet of “fees” and “permits” that starting an ambitious project requires. You never have the opportunity to see how the market would respond to your idea.

So people turn to uses that completely depend on government’s support.

I have no problem with “low-income housing.” Poor people need a place to live, too. What I do have a problem with are entrepreneurs who go seeking government handouts for their projects; which when completed will only survive through more government handouts. This is not sustainable development, but a planned failure. It ties up your money that you could have better spent. Profitable use that doesn’t require locally or federally stolen money to be infused would be a much wiser use of any building than planning for a subsidized project.

I also have a problem when some government entity believes it “needs” to get involved. It is not the government’s money to dole out. Not for the renovations, nor for the eventual rent payments. All government can do to help is step aside.

A good suggestion I heard was to let some film production company blow up the building for a movie. Think of all the attention and money that would bring in.

I know some people would hate to see the building destroyed, no matter how it is done. So would I. But, if it is to be destroyed due to government interference, I would rather see it be done without costing taxpayers, and perhaps bringing in some business to the locals at the same time.

I’m available for a bit part in the film, as long as I don’t have to portray a bad guy.

The Truth Exposed

The kidnapping of Julian Assange proves that what "conservative" conspiracy theorists have railed about for years is a done deal. There is already a "One-World Government". (And "patriotic conservatives" have been its biggest supporters by propping up one of its tentacles.) How long has that been the case? For a long time.

Just as the different agencies and branches of the federal government may fight amongst themselves, yet have the same ultimate belief that what they work together toward is legitimate, so it is with all the "separate" nations' governments. Step on the toes of one, and they all stick together to protect the interests of The State as a unified force.

This also illustrates (for liberty-minded folk or anyone else who is honest) the illegitimacy of "national borders"- why bother with them when the only "need" for them is to divvy up the spoils of politics among the various gangs of governmental thieves? "National borders" serve the interests of The State as separate cages serve the interest of the dog pound.

This whole Wikileaks situation has completely ripped away the thin veil that was marginally hiding the monster at the controls. The State has exposed itself for exactly what it is. Those who still support it are siding with death, tyranny, and inexcusable evil. Don't be a brainwashed "useful idiot". Stop supporting or defending The State at any level.

Technical question

If anyone has a clue how to (if possible) to set up a subdomain as a page on my KentForLiberty website, let me know.

I gave this blog a custom subdomain (blog.kentforliberty.com) and I would like to have this blog as a page on my website, but I am confuzzled by the technicalities and can't even figure out if such a thing is possible.

If I don't know what you are talking about if you try to explain it, have patience, please!

Digging out the infection

This may hurt, but truth often does, just like digging the infection out of a wound isn't a pleasant experience. This particular infection is frequently found on blogs and other writings from people who otherwise support liberty- except where this blindspot is encountered.

I get so tired of military worship from people who pretend to be on the side of liberty and freedom. You can't have it that way if you are honest, because it just doesn't work that way, no matter what you wish.

I realize a lot of people have "invested" their lives with the military, and have family members- parents, siblings, offspring, and ancestors going back for generations- who have done the same. They want to believe that they have been a part of "something bigger than themselves" [sic] and a FORCE for good. They want to believe in spite of reality. What a waste.

You have all been working against everything America was supposed to be. You have been destroying liberty while being told you are preserving it. You have been the willing (or enslaved, in the case of the conscripted) tool of tyrants and psychopaths.

I do not "support the troops" except in that I want them all to come home NOW and stop bringing American Empire to other shores- this alone will stop the dying. I do not value the goals of the US police State. I do not support efforts to "democratize" other cultures. Nor do I want these troops joining with "law enforcement" to bring the "blessings of tyranny" to America once they lose their overseas jobs. No occupying troops here or abroad!

Some claim to join the military as a way to "help" people. Seriously? If you really want to be on a disaster relief crew, traveling to the scene of the latest natural or man-made disaster, then being in the death squad known as the military isn't the right way to go about it. Join a better group, form your own, or go it alone. Think you'll need armed back-up while you are there? I agree. Provide your own or re-think the situation you are getting yourself into.

The military, even in the best circumstances is not helping liberty, but killing it. Don't join for ANY reason.

Abandoned briefcase triggers overreaction in ABQ

Abandoned briefcase triggers overreaction in ABQ

America is populated by cowards. Of course, this is by design, since this way agents of The State can be seen by the fear-numbed population as "doing something" heroic.

Some of those cowards, however, deserve to live in fear. The government-sanctioned thieves at the Albuquerque IRS building went into panic mode Friday afternoon over an abandoned briefcase. Maybe the Albuquerque Police Department left it there. If the IRS employees are doing nothing wrong, why do they believe people are out to harm them? Perhaps some of them do still possess a conscience. Somewhere.

It was all a false alarm. The briefcase contained nothing but air. If the briefcase had turned out to contain one of those "suitcase nukes" we are assured are everywhere, would cowering in place have actually saved the school children that were held captive by the public schools in the vicinity?

The State would be funny if it didn't kill so many people.

*
Donate?

Pathetic!

If you hate or fear what Wikileaks is doing, you are pathetic.

If you value security (or the illusion of security, anyway) over liberty, you are pathetic.

If you excuse mass murder simply because it is done by "your" government (or more specifically by its "troops"/hired killers) in some other country, you are pathetic.

If you have anything other than revulsion for those evil perverts of the TSA, you are pathetic.

If you support the murderers and cretins who carry out the War on Drugs, you are pathetic.

If you still believe there are "good cops" you are delusional and are hiding your head in the sand.

If you think your religion is more important than liberty, you are pitiable.

If you don't see that any border that keeps "them" out can also be used to trap "us" here, you are pathetic.

If you think "gun control" is about anything other than removing people's ability to resist harm from bad guys, and giving more power to The State, you are pathetic.

If you won't admit that taxation, any taxation, is theft, you are pathetic.

If you trust a bunch of amoral, unethical, power-mad politicians and bureaucrats to run your life and the lives of others more than you trust yourself, you are pathetic.

If you expect me (or anyone else) to be numbered, scanned, groped, tracked, spied on, regulated, controlled, licensed, censored, or otherwise "governed", you are my enemy.

For that matter, if you support The State and don't see it as the cancer it really is, you are beyond pathetic.

I may not tell you to your face because if this describes you I doubt you'd have the ability to comprehend any of it, and would only try (pathetically) to insult me in some way. I've seen it happen over and over again.

Of course I'm an anarchist- because I have principles and ethics. There is no good to come from The State nor from supporting or respecting it. Time's Up!

Government incompetence brings more problems

Government incompetence brings more problems


More water mains have broken in Albuquerque. I know, this is nothing new. I love the way the KRQE story starts out with a sense of resignation. It's not just ABQ. This is happening in cities everywhere. If it isn't water mains, it is bridges.

But it doesn't have to be this way. Yes, the infrastructure in America is crumbling. Because government has been "in control" of it for far too long. Government doesn't do anything well. Not anything which is necessary, anyway. It steals, kills, molests, trespasses, and defrauds exceptionally well, but this isn't a good thing and benefits no one but goverment employees.

The infrastructure needs to be owned by those with an economic interest in keeping it operational and safe. Government's only contribution would be in staying out of the way. If something needs repairs, they could be done without time-wasting permits and red tape. If it fails, there would be consequences. And there needs to be competition for supplying the needs rather than a government-imposed monopoly. There would still be problems, I am sure. However, this way there would be individuals responsible and accountable. Government is not the solution to anything.
*

If you know a liberty lover (or a potential one) who needs a gift, please consider sending them one of my books. I have a book for almost any person. And your purchase would be about the best gift you could give me. Unless you want to spend more, of course. ;)

Enemy inside the gates

Enemy inside the gates


A gated community in Albuquerque needs better gates for keeping out the riff-raff. And its residents (and ethical people everywhere) probably need to shun at least one member of that riff-raff who lives among them. Too bad the bad guy's identity is withheld.

A busy-body "neighbor", too cowardly to stick a gun in his neighbor's face personally, called in the government to do his dirty work for him when he got upset over the neighbor's porch. Now government has violated the property rights of many of the individuals in the targeted community and is salivating over the money that will flow in from the 96 "violations" the government trespassers found. (Government assumes people will pay rather than sit in jail.)

As always, the nannies claim it is for "their own safety" that this extortion racket is established. "What it there is a fire and it spreads quickly because the houses are too close together?" Yeah, "what if"?

If you don't want a neighbor's porch to be built "too close" to your house, for fire safety or any other reason, keep your own house farther from your property line. Then if your neighbor builds right up to the property line you are still in no danger. You have no authority to control where on his property your neighbor builds. And neither does any government.

As I have written before, "codes" are nothing more or less than a violation of property rights. They have no place in a free society.

Is The State worth it?

Is The State worth it?

What is the goal of statism? The two excuses for having a State I've heard most often, even by people who don't think of themselves as statists while still promoting the notion that "some government is necessary", are to protect the rights of people and to keep people safe.

Is that really the goal of The State or a dishonest justification covering the true goal? Well, since I am not a statist I can only look at the actions and results. Since I see very few actions by The State that would seem to be working toward this goal, and a bunch of actions that seem to be actively fighting against the stated goal, I would have to say the stated goal is not the true goal. Let's pretend for a moment that the stated goal is the real goal, however.

Are those goals "good" or "bad"? Do they help or harm?

Is it good to protect the rights of people? Of course this requires an understanding of what rights are and what they are not. First of all, do rights exist? If not, that means no one has a right to do anything, not even to control the lives of others, so there is no right to Rule.

If, on the other hand, rights do exist, a right can not violate the equal and identical rights of others. The basic right is the right to say "no". So, no one has a right to do things to someone else that would violate their self-ownership, self determination, and property rights. Rights can not impose an obligation on others beyond the obligation to not violate rights. Protecting your own rights and the rights of other people would be a good thing to do.

Does The State's existence advance this goal?

No, it fails to even advance toward this goal a tiny bit. The State has become the only credible threat to the rights of people. My neighbor won't steal from me (without repercussions, anyway), nor will he attack me for disobeying his edicts about how I choose to live as long as I am not infringing on his life or property. If he tries to do so, The State would protect him from my defensive actions more than it would protect my right to defend myself from his depredations. Fail number one.

Moving along to the second excuse. Would "keeping people safe" be a good thing? Maybe. Safety is in the eye of the beholder. True safety can never exist, nor would it be a completely good thing with no drawbacks if it seemed to. Life is dangerous. There is a thin line between safety and meddling. You might be safer to stay in bed and eat only pureed food while you breathe filtered and sterilized air, although such safety would be dangerous in its own way. No sane person would choose that "life" for himself (although he would have the absolute right to do so), and only an evil person would dictate that "life" for others.

Pretending for a moment that you could create a "safe" situation with no downsides, then it might be OK to do so as long as you didn't force it on those who don't consent.

Does The State "keep us safe"?

It partially depends on who "us" is. If you are talking about people who choose to steal, rape, murder, kidnap, and boss people around, then the answer is "yes"- as long as those people join the ranks of government. The State keeps them pretty safe from the consequences of their actions. If, on the other hand, you are talking about ordinary people who are simply trying to go about their lives, The State fails to keep them safe. It may protect them from some freelance thieves, but only by the trade-off of sending its own officially-sanctioned thieves instead. This is not a net gain.

The same applies for all other dangers. On the rare occasions that a freelance aggressor is stopped by The State, he is replaced with one or more sent directly from The State- aggressors who have legal immunity for the harm they cause. If you fight back against agents or bureaucrats of The State you will face an escalation of force on a scale unavailable to the freelance thugs The State claims to be protecting you from.

The actions of The State also directly threaten you by creating and encouraging enemies around the globe. Enemies that will want to harm you and me simply because they don't realize that The State is not me, I am causing them no harm and have no wish to do so, and I do not support the aggressive acts that The State claims are done on my behalf.

The bureaucratic "safety measures", such as "gun control", drug "laws", traffic "laws", airport "security", food and drug standards (and testing), all have hidden costs, which if taken into account honestly would diminish any "benefit" to those burdensome regulations to the point that they would be seen to create no net gain in safety. Fail, fail, fail.

The State does not "keep us safe".

My conclusion is that since The State fails in its stated goals it is obsolete and not worth its cost to civilization.

Originally published here

The Julian Assange Welcome Pledge

From nostate.com and Knappster:

I, Kent McManigal, hereby pledge that if Julian Assange should call upon me in need of a place to stay, I will provide it to him with no questions asked, indefinitely, and with the highest degree of security and confidentiality I can provide. I’m easy to get a hold of.

Now it’s your turn. Simply replace your name with mine and publish. Link here if you wish, but publish.

No room for double standards

No room for double standards


(I had to almost fight to get this one published mostly intact. Here's the original version.)

The recent tragedy in which a Clovis police officer seems to have run a stop sign and caused an accident that killed a woman illustrates the difference between the way statists and libertarians see things.

Make no mistake: I don't believe for an instant the officer wanted to cause the accident. (Hence the word "accident".) I firmly believe he would do absolutely anything to be able to rewind time and avoid killing the woman were such a thing possible.

However, what is done is done and can never be undone. Accidents are a part of life and will continue to happen no matter what "laws" are passed or how careful you try to be. How you respond to an accident once it occurs shows what kind of person you are.

All I expect in a situation such as this is that the officer be treated exactly the same as any other person involved in the same circumstance. No double standards.

If the officer is to be given the benefit of the doubt, which I think he should be, I expect the same the next time a "commoner" is involved in a traffic accident that kills a police officer.

I expect the investigation to take a long time to conclude, perhaps allow the driver's family or friends to participate in the investigation of the accident, as Clovis police are investigating this case.

Employees of the state are not an elite class. They should not receive any special treatment.

Army of pots calling a mustard seed 'black'

Army of pots calling a mustard seed 'black'

The Albuquerque news laments that a serial property crimes offender has been arrested for the 127th time. Yet, there is a worse property crimes offender at large- one who violates the property rights of everyone who is forced to interact with one of its representatives- one who makes this freelance parasite look like an amateur by comparison.

The State, what most people are speaking of when they use the word "government", has no rivals where property rights violations are concerned. Either your property is held for ransom, or you are not allowed to use your property as you see fit, or your property is stolen outright by this offender. And it points the finger at this minor player in its own game to distract from the truth. People should stop being fooled.

People should also understand that The State, by its "laws", protects all bad guys, including property rights violators, from facing the realistic consequences of their actions. Consequences that would be sure and swift in a free society.
*
Donate?