There's more news about State victim, Shaneen Allen.
Now the corrupt "judge" denies her request to drop the bogus charges.
Not that I'm surprised, since this is what you get when you allow the conflict of interest with State employees being involved in cases where The State is one of the interested parties (the imaginary one, at that!).
Wish I could save you from the cannibal clowns, Shaneen.
.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Another question- Time's Up items
Now that I have Time's Up patches offered for sale, are there any other items you might be interested in? Other than flags.
Some of the items I have considered include bumper stickers, key rings, lighters, pens, calendars, yard signs, "do rags", rubber stamps, and Christmas ornaments.
I'm open to suggestions if you think of anything else people might like.
.
Some of the items I have considered include bumper stickers, key rings, lighters, pens, calendars, yard signs, "do rags", rubber stamps, and Christmas ornaments.
I'm open to suggestions if you think of anything else people might like.
.
Self evaluation time
I write for you, my readers. This makes you my employer. And you get a very good deal because you can choose whether to pay me or not- and whether to even notice me or not.
And I'll probably continue to write, either way.
I get a good deal because no one person can really fire me or coerce me in what I write. Well, the newspaper gig could, but I get more money from donations and subscriptions, anyway.
I always wonder: Am I doing the right thing by writing about liberty? Would I be more effective doing something else- or nothing at all; just living it, instead?
As long as I keep getting your support and comments, I'll keep thinking I am doing some good. Feel free to chime in to tell me otherwise.
.
And I'll probably continue to write, either way.
I get a good deal because no one person can really fire me or coerce me in what I write. Well, the newspaper gig could, but I get more money from donations and subscriptions, anyway.
I always wonder: Am I doing the right thing by writing about liberty? Would I be more effective doing something else- or nothing at all; just living it, instead?
As long as I keep getting your support and comments, I'll keep thinking I am doing some good. Feel free to chime in to tell me otherwise.
.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Governments pay lip-service to reasoning
Governments pay lip-service to reasoning
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 11, 2014)
There are two- and only two- ways to interact with other people: you can use reason or you can resort to force. Reason is the civilized choice.
The really great thing about most people is they almost never- on their own- resort to force. Rarely does anyone try to force their will on others in daily life. Rarely do they steal rather than making a trade. People say "excuse me" and hold doors open for one another without anyone ordering them to. People are mostly decent, and it is no trick to get them to see people who shun reason and prefer force as the damaged ones.
In fact, with one absurd exception, almost everyone understands choosing force over reason to be wrong. Sure, there are a few freelance bad guys out there, and there always will be, but the number is much smaller than you have been tricked into believing. The rest of us outnumber them so overwhelmingly that if we were to once again take responsibility for our own safety and self defense they'd be wiped out very quickly unless they changed their ways.
For the rest of us, when we want someone else to agree to something we try to convince them how great our idea is, or how it would be in their interest to join our cause. We may even offer incentives. If we can't convince them, the civilized thing is to let them walk away.
When was the last time someone physically twisted your arm to get you to compromise on pizza toppings? How long has it been since you had a gun stuck in your face for saying you'd rather opt out of a family gathering?
When someone chooses to use force to make you do things their way, you are completely justified in responding with force in self defense. Those who choose force don't want you to know this- they want protection or immunity from the consequences of their choices.
Why do people imagine the rule of civilized behavior magically changes once someone invokes government?
This dichotomy of reason or force is also why all governments, no matter what they say, are uncomfortable with people like you or me owning and carrying adequate weapons to resist those who default to force. It's why they always impose exceptions or "reasonable" limits in spite of "shall not be infringed". Governments all rely on force, and will only give reason lip-service for show.
Force leads to tyranny; the use of reason leads to liberty. People, left to their own, choose reason and liberty most of the time. Left to ourselves we can handle those who don't.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 11, 2014)
There are two- and only two- ways to interact with other people: you can use reason or you can resort to force. Reason is the civilized choice.
The really great thing about most people is they almost never- on their own- resort to force. Rarely does anyone try to force their will on others in daily life. Rarely do they steal rather than making a trade. People say "excuse me" and hold doors open for one another without anyone ordering them to. People are mostly decent, and it is no trick to get them to see people who shun reason and prefer force as the damaged ones.
In fact, with one absurd exception, almost everyone understands choosing force over reason to be wrong. Sure, there are a few freelance bad guys out there, and there always will be, but the number is much smaller than you have been tricked into believing. The rest of us outnumber them so overwhelmingly that if we were to once again take responsibility for our own safety and self defense they'd be wiped out very quickly unless they changed their ways.
For the rest of us, when we want someone else to agree to something we try to convince them how great our idea is, or how it would be in their interest to join our cause. We may even offer incentives. If we can't convince them, the civilized thing is to let them walk away.
When was the last time someone physically twisted your arm to get you to compromise on pizza toppings? How long has it been since you had a gun stuck in your face for saying you'd rather opt out of a family gathering?
When someone chooses to use force to make you do things their way, you are completely justified in responding with force in self defense. Those who choose force don't want you to know this- they want protection or immunity from the consequences of their choices.
Why do people imagine the rule of civilized behavior magically changes once someone invokes government?
This dichotomy of reason or force is also why all governments, no matter what they say, are uncomfortable with people like you or me owning and carrying adequate weapons to resist those who default to force. It's why they always impose exceptions or "reasonable" limits in spite of "shall not be infringed". Governments all rely on force, and will only give reason lip-service for show.
Force leads to tyranny; the use of reason leads to liberty. People, left to their own, choose reason and liberty most of the time. Left to ourselves we can handle those who don't.
.
Freedom (or liberty?) and Property
A while back, after I had said that a person has no right to trespass even if surrounded by private property and prevented from getting vital resources by the owner/s, this link came up in comments: Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict.
I found it very interesting. It seems to dovetail very nicely with my "most unpopular idea". That doesn't make either one right, obviously. Still, it's something to think about, and it does make a lot of sense.
Of course, the author keeps talking about freedom, when I always think the critical issue is liberty.
.
I found it very interesting. It seems to dovetail very nicely with my "most unpopular idea". That doesn't make either one right, obviously. Still, it's something to think about, and it does make a lot of sense.
Of course, the author keeps talking about freedom, when I always think the critical issue is liberty.
.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Your tainted symbol
If "The US Flag", "Old Glory", were just a symbol of Americana- apple pies, mom, hotdogs, and happy times- I wouldn't be offended by it. If it were a symbol of home and hearth and community it would be fine.
But it's not. Not anymore- if ever.
If that were the case government buildings wouldn't be so dedicated to flying it.
It is now an omnipresent symbol of the US Empire and the militarism that goes with it. It has become primarily a military banner- symbolizing the ongoing wars of State vs Liberty.
I feel really bad for people who desperately want to love and defend that banner. Those who make all sorts of excuses for it, and say it is being used in a way contrary with its real meaning.
Tell that to the swastika.
.
But it's not. Not anymore- if ever.
If that were the case government buildings wouldn't be so dedicated to flying it.
It is now an omnipresent symbol of the US Empire and the militarism that goes with it. It has become primarily a military banner- symbolizing the ongoing wars of State vs Liberty.
I feel really bad for people who desperately want to love and defend that banner. Those who make all sorts of excuses for it, and say it is being used in a way contrary with its real meaning.
Tell that to the swastika.
.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Crack down on the crime of "governing"
It is a criminal act to commit "government".
But, it's worse than that.
"Government" is a copycat crime.
Not only that, it is an escalating copycat crime, where each thug gets new, innovative ideas of how to violate more people "better" from all the others committing the same evil act.
I say it's time to break the cycle.
.
But, it's worse than that.
"Government" is a copycat crime.
Not only that, it is an escalating copycat crime, where each thug gets new, innovative ideas of how to violate more people "better" from all the others committing the same evil act.
I say it's time to break the cycle.
.
Saturday, August 09, 2014
Hey buddy, wanna buy something?
Don't forget to buy Time's Up patches for yourself and your co-conspirators. And maybe other things from my "shop".
Don't make me beg!
Don't make me beg!
Prison is a racket
Prison is about punishment, not justice. If punishment is what you want, then don't call it "justice"; just be honest about what you are advocating. And don't force others to pay for your desire.
Justice is about returning the victim of theft or aggression to as near their pre-victimized condition as possible. Prison is about victimizing the victim again by "taxing" them to pay for keeping their violator in a cage.
Sure, as long as a violator is caged, he isn't victimizing anyone else- at least, no one else who isn't caged with him. (And remember that most people who are trapped in those state cages are there for violating counterfeit rules, not for actually doing wrong, so them being violated by an aggressive captive is doubly wrong.)
But a universally armed population would probably assure that most violators would soon be out of work- or dead- anyway, without theft or government employee aggression. And without caging people for "crimes" where only the mental glitch called "the State"- claims to have been victimized.
The above video is pretty good, but the guy is still not able to escape his statist delusions, saying silly things such as prison being necessary for society, and making other ridiculous statements like that. Discount the chaff and latch onto the meat of the matter.
.
Thursday, August 07, 2014
Liberty Lines, August 7, 2014
(Published in the Farwell TX / Texico NM "State Line Tribune". Wow... the version printed by the newspaper is filled with typos and errors that were not in my original. Because I came back and looked to make sure I hadn't made those mistakes. Sigh...)
What is authority? I think most people are very confused about that.
Let's say you have a vault which contains gold coins. The contents of that safe are yours, free and clear, and if you choose to do so, you can give me some of it. It is within your authority to do so.
If you have a butler whom you have authorized to hand out coins on your behalf, he also has the authority to give me some.
Thank you!
However, if the coins aren't yours to give away, but belong to someone else, or if you haven't given your butler permission to hand out your coins, giving them to me wouldn't be right. It is not within your authority, nor your butler's, to give them away. Doing so would be theft.
You also can't give the butler the authority to break into your neighbor's house and give away the neighbor's coins, because that authority is not yours to give. You would be wrong to pretend you could delegate that authority to anyone.
Similarly, you can't give any government employee authority you, personally, don't possess.
You can delegate the authority to catch a murderer, attacker, or a thief because you, personally, have that authority. No one had to give it to you; you were born with it. Those things are within your authority to deal with.
On the other hand, you don't have authority to forbid people from doing anything they want which doesn't directly cause physical harm- not just the potential for possible harm- against the innocent or violate private property rights, and therefore you can't delegate that nonexistent "authority" to anyone on your behalf. You would be attempting to give away something imaginary which therefore can't be yours to give. No matter how badly you want to, how you try to justify it, or how many of your neighbors agree with you. Acting as though you can do it anyway just makes you and your employee the bad guys.
Because you, as an individual, regardless of any delusions of grandeur, do not have the authority to tell others what to do with their own property, including their own lives, you can't delegate that authority. Not even by inventing governments or making up "laws". If you forge ahead, or send others to carry out your wishes on your behalf, you are a thief or an attacker.
.
.
What is authority? I think most people are very confused about that.
Let's say you have a vault which contains gold coins. The contents of that safe are yours, free and clear, and if you choose to do so, you can give me some of it. It is within your authority to do so.
If you have a butler whom you have authorized to hand out coins on your behalf, he also has the authority to give me some.
Thank you!
However, if the coins aren't yours to give away, but belong to someone else, or if you haven't given your butler permission to hand out your coins, giving them to me wouldn't be right. It is not within your authority, nor your butler's, to give them away. Doing so would be theft.
You also can't give the butler the authority to break into your neighbor's house and give away the neighbor's coins, because that authority is not yours to give. You would be wrong to pretend you could delegate that authority to anyone.
Similarly, you can't give any government employee authority you, personally, don't possess.
You can delegate the authority to catch a murderer, attacker, or a thief because you, personally, have that authority. No one had to give it to you; you were born with it. Those things are within your authority to deal with.
On the other hand, you don't have authority to forbid people from doing anything they want which doesn't directly cause physical harm- not just the potential for possible harm- against the innocent or violate private property rights, and therefore you can't delegate that nonexistent "authority" to anyone on your behalf. You would be attempting to give away something imaginary which therefore can't be yours to give. No matter how badly you want to, how you try to justify it, or how many of your neighbors agree with you. Acting as though you can do it anyway just makes you and your employee the bad guys.
Because you, as an individual, regardless of any delusions of grandeur, do not have the authority to tell others what to do with their own property, including their own lives, you can't delegate that authority. Not even by inventing governments or making up "laws". If you forge ahead, or send others to carry out your wishes on your behalf, you are a thief or an attacker.
.
.
Wednesday, August 06, 2014
Open letter to the individuals of the world
Individuals of the world:
The people who call themselves the US government consider YOU to be their enemy. That is why they spy on you. They spy on me, too. That means they consider me to be their their enemy.
Apparently they are so paranoid they see everyone not calling themselves "US government" to be their enemy. And probably not even all those in the same club ("the US government") are excluded. This will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
You may not be my friend. The enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend. But I don't believe the lies told against you by those who work for the US government. I have seen them lie far too often to ever again believe them about anything- at least not without plenty of independent confirmation. They are the boy who cried wolf, while he was the one savaging the sheep.
You and I probably have more in common than either of us have in common with the thugs and goons of the governments which want us to submit to their violations.
The thing is, I don't consider you my enemy. The US government in no way represents me. Not in the slightest. They don't spy on you on my behalf, but against my wishes. They don't put soldiers and military bases near you on my behalf. They don't violate your property for me. They don't torture for my benefit, but only for their own. They don't kill your brothers or fathers, sisters or mothers, cousins, sons, and daughters on my behalf.
Anything you do against those murderers in defense of your friends, family, or property is your right and doesn't upset me at all. As long as you aren't attacking or stealing from me or any innocent person, what you do is none of my business.
Don't forget to order some Time's Up patches!
.
The people who call themselves the US government consider YOU to be their enemy. That is why they spy on you. They spy on me, too. That means they consider me to be their their enemy.
Apparently they are so paranoid they see everyone not calling themselves "US government" to be their enemy. And probably not even all those in the same club ("the US government") are excluded. This will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
You may not be my friend. The enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend. But I don't believe the lies told against you by those who work for the US government. I have seen them lie far too often to ever again believe them about anything- at least not without plenty of independent confirmation. They are the boy who cried wolf, while he was the one savaging the sheep.
You and I probably have more in common than either of us have in common with the thugs and goons of the governments which want us to submit to their violations.
The thing is, I don't consider you my enemy. The US government in no way represents me. Not in the slightest. They don't spy on you on my behalf, but against my wishes. They don't put soldiers and military bases near you on my behalf. They don't violate your property for me. They don't torture for my benefit, but only for their own. They don't kill your brothers or fathers, sisters or mothers, cousins, sons, and daughters on my behalf.
Anything you do against those murderers in defense of your friends, family, or property is your right and doesn't upset me at all. As long as you aren't attacking or stealing from me or any innocent person, what you do is none of my business.
-
Don't forget to order some Time's Up patches!
.
Tuesday, August 05, 2014
Privacy violations won’t keep us safe
Privacy violations won’t keep us safe
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 4, 2014)
You are being spied on. As you read this, hackers are getting into your computer, your other electronic information, your telephone, and possibly even watching you with cameras (including the webcam on your computer- even if it's turned off). And the worst culprits, capable of doing the most harm, work for governments you may support. It's not just the federal employees, either.
"If you have nothing to hide, why would you care?"
The above is pretty much the standard response when those who love liberty try to warn anyone else of their information being stolen.
As if secrecy were somehow wrong, which it isn't, unless you are using secrecy to escape scrutiny of your violations of others- like the crime of spying on just about everyone in order to gain information to use against them. In such a case the secrecy still isn't wrong, in and of itself; only the violations you are hiding. But this is not even a fraction of the whole picture.
The issue has never really been about secrecy; it's about privacy. If you don't value your privacy why don't you publish your bank account information and all your passwords somewhere, right now, for everyone to see?
Why would you bother putting curtains on your windows at home, and why not do everything you normally do in private right out in the open for all the world to watch?
Oh, now you care?
It's not you who needs to show a reason for your life to remain private; it's that no one else has any right- and certainly no "authority"- to violate your privacy in this way in order to use your information as justification for using coercion against you.
By insisting on your privacy you are simply expressing your right as an individual- and anyone violating your privacy is the one who should be defending his actions- and the bar should be set impossibly high.
If you are paying attention you know Edward Snowden has exposed what the enemies of your privacy and your liberty are doing. Yes, privacy and liberty are inseparably linked. And, it seems, each time the responsible officials deny the new revelations just enough more information is released to expose their latest denial as, shall we say, less than honest. The process keeps repeating. It would be funny if the implications weren't so serious.
Yet, it seems the majority of Americans see no problem with this- as long as they believe it keeps their fearful hides safe.
It doesn't, and never could, but those who are spying on you will never admit this inconvenient fact to you. Their power depends on keeping you in the dark.
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 4, 2014)
You are being spied on. As you read this, hackers are getting into your computer, your other electronic information, your telephone, and possibly even watching you with cameras (including the webcam on your computer- even if it's turned off). And the worst culprits, capable of doing the most harm, work for governments you may support. It's not just the federal employees, either.
"If you have nothing to hide, why would you care?"
The above is pretty much the standard response when those who love liberty try to warn anyone else of their information being stolen.
As if secrecy were somehow wrong, which it isn't, unless you are using secrecy to escape scrutiny of your violations of others- like the crime of spying on just about everyone in order to gain information to use against them. In such a case the secrecy still isn't wrong, in and of itself; only the violations you are hiding. But this is not even a fraction of the whole picture.
The issue has never really been about secrecy; it's about privacy. If you don't value your privacy why don't you publish your bank account information and all your passwords somewhere, right now, for everyone to see?
Why would you bother putting curtains on your windows at home, and why not do everything you normally do in private right out in the open for all the world to watch?
Oh, now you care?
It's not you who needs to show a reason for your life to remain private; it's that no one else has any right- and certainly no "authority"- to violate your privacy in this way in order to use your information as justification for using coercion against you.
By insisting on your privacy you are simply expressing your right as an individual- and anyone violating your privacy is the one who should be defending his actions- and the bar should be set impossibly high.
If you are paying attention you know Edward Snowden has exposed what the enemies of your privacy and your liberty are doing. Yes, privacy and liberty are inseparably linked. And, it seems, each time the responsible officials deny the new revelations just enough more information is released to expose their latest denial as, shall we say, less than honest. The process keeps repeating. It would be funny if the implications weren't so serious.
Yet, it seems the majority of Americans see no problem with this- as long as they believe it keeps their fearful hides safe.
It doesn't, and never could, but those who are spying on you will never admit this inconvenient fact to you. Their power depends on keeping you in the dark.
Laws fail the stated purpose, but stay around
Time after time, new "laws" against texting while driving have done absolutely nothing to cut down on the number of accidents. Yet, no government employee or statist seems willing to give up and abolish those "laws".
Seems odd... if you assume "safety" is the intent.
But it's not, is it?
Nope.
The only thing that would change if those "laws" were abandoned is the ruling gang would lose one excuse to rob you. That's it; that's all.
Is texting while driving dangerous? Quite probably. But "laws" are not the solution. They never are.
.
Seems odd... if you assume "safety" is the intent.
But it's not, is it?
Nope.
The only thing that would change if those "laws" were abandoned is the ruling gang would lose one excuse to rob you. That's it; that's all.
Is texting while driving dangerous? Quite probably. But "laws" are not the solution. They never are.
.
Monday, August 04, 2014
If there's no hope, why bother?
A while back I tried to point out to the anti-immigrant folks (who usually claim to be only anti-illegal immigration, as if that has any meaning) that their current chosen response is only going to ensure that the new immigrants v*te for the Democrat branch of the national socialist party rather than for the Republican variety.
I got a couple of variations of the same objection:
No one else (libertarians, Republicans, LPers) will ever be willing (or able) to give the immigrants as much as the Democrats give them, so no one else can ever hope to win over the new immigrants.
If "we" can't out-give Democrats, and if that's all that matters, then "we" have already lost and had better come up with a different plan. All the borderism in the world won't solve that problem, since over half of the "citizens" living here feel the same way. "Lazy, greedy immigrants" would only hasten the inevitable, but not cause it.
But, if that's all that matters, why do I not v*te for Democrats? Why don't those making this claim v*te for Democrats? After all, the "free stuff" is there for anyone to take, as long as they say or do the "right" things. If "free stuff" is all that matters to humans, why aren't you v*ting Democratic, too?
Why do anti-migration folks think new immigrants are all clones of one another with no independent thoughts and who have no other consideration but "Free stuff!"? And why do they think liberty and self responsibility are so unattractive? Didn't they themselves (at least the ones who've rejected The State completely) embrace it? It must not be too disgusting. Do they really believe that they are so different from any other humans anywhere else on the planet?
And, again- if the Democrats' promises to give away stuff is what really matters, then liberty, or any chance for it, is already lost.
And maybe they are right.
If that's the case you'd better stop wasting your time and energy on politics and v*ting, or screaming about "illegals", and you'd better just prepare for TEOTWAWKI.
.
I got a couple of variations of the same objection:
No one else (libertarians, Republicans, LPers) will ever be willing (or able) to give the immigrants as much as the Democrats give them, so no one else can ever hope to win over the new immigrants.
If "we" can't out-give Democrats, and if that's all that matters, then "we" have already lost and had better come up with a different plan. All the borderism in the world won't solve that problem, since over half of the "citizens" living here feel the same way. "Lazy, greedy immigrants" would only hasten the inevitable, but not cause it.
But, if that's all that matters, why do I not v*te for Democrats? Why don't those making this claim v*te for Democrats? After all, the "free stuff" is there for anyone to take, as long as they say or do the "right" things. If "free stuff" is all that matters to humans, why aren't you v*ting Democratic, too?
Why do anti-migration folks think new immigrants are all clones of one another with no independent thoughts and who have no other consideration but "Free stuff!"? And why do they think liberty and self responsibility are so unattractive? Didn't they themselves (at least the ones who've rejected The State completely) embrace it? It must not be too disgusting. Do they really believe that they are so different from any other humans anywhere else on the planet?
And, again- if the Democrats' promises to give away stuff is what really matters, then liberty, or any chance for it, is already lost.
And maybe they are right.
If that's the case you'd better stop wasting your time and energy on politics and v*ting, or screaming about "illegals", and you'd better just prepare for TEOTWAWKI.
.
Sunday, August 03, 2014
Idolizing the bad guys
You may have seen the story about the Albuquerque "Make A Wish" SWAT kid.
So very sad on several different levels.
Yeah, I understand the kid is sick, and all they are doing is making him happy. But, what does it say when innocent kids want to be the most scummy, violent parasites among us? How does one come to idolize such vermin?
Don't bother answering- I know the tragic answer.
Would Make A Wish let a kid become an honorary rapist or armed robber for his wish, too? If not, why would they play favorites?
I realize this kid wouldn't actually go on any SWATtings- so a kid who wants to be a robber or a rapist could just pretend, and hang out with real robbers and rapists, without carrying through the evil acts committed by those he idolizes, either. So why pretend there's a difference when there really isn't?
.
So very sad on several different levels.
Yeah, I understand the kid is sick, and all they are doing is making him happy. But, what does it say when innocent kids want to be the most scummy, violent parasites among us? How does one come to idolize such vermin?
Don't bother answering- I know the tragic answer.
Would Make A Wish let a kid become an honorary rapist or armed robber for his wish, too? If not, why would they play favorites?
I realize this kid wouldn't actually go on any SWATtings- so a kid who wants to be a robber or a rapist could just pretend, and hang out with real robbers and rapists, without carrying through the evil acts committed by those he idolizes, either. So why pretend there's a difference when there really isn't?
.
Saturday, August 02, 2014
Fear and loathing traps the bad guys
The people who call themselves "government" are terrified of you.
I see it everywhere.
More and more government buildings are surrounded by concrete barriers.
Roads are constantly closed near government buildings.
Government buildings are having their entrances closed for "access control".
These cowards are trapped in their own "safety cages"- and I can't figure out the sense of letting them ever venture out.
And, of course, any "mundane" such as you or me must be electronically stripped naked before entering to make sure we aren't exercising any rights which "shall not be infringed", but which make it dangerous for the bad guys to violate us.
Here, even the Air Force's guy in charge of the local base is so incredibly cowardly he browbeat the local government into permanently closing a road because he said it was too hard to control, and it presented an extreme risk for his air base. And these are the clowns who statists insist must be supported to "protect" the rest of us. LOL!
Actual, real "terrorism" is almost non-existent. Pro-liberty acts which "government" spokescritters call "terrorism" aren't much more common. To spend all this stolen money to guard against something that is so rare is paranoia.
But the truth is, all these precautions are because of you and me; not "radical Islam". They only make that excuse so you don't realize who they see as the real threat to their scam.
This fear and cowardice amuses me and tells me I am on the winning side. Sure, fear can make the bad guys strike out excessively and hurt a lot of innocent people. Doing so will alienate some more of their supporters, though. They have to realize, subconsciously at least, that their time is running out. And that makes me smile.
.
I see it everywhere.
More and more government buildings are surrounded by concrete barriers.
Roads are constantly closed near government buildings.
Government buildings are having their entrances closed for "access control".
These cowards are trapped in their own "safety cages"- and I can't figure out the sense of letting them ever venture out.
And, of course, any "mundane" such as you or me must be electronically stripped naked before entering to make sure we aren't exercising any rights which "shall not be infringed", but which make it dangerous for the bad guys to violate us.
Here, even the Air Force's guy in charge of the local base is so incredibly cowardly he browbeat the local government into permanently closing a road because he said it was too hard to control, and it presented an extreme risk for his air base. And these are the clowns who statists insist must be supported to "protect" the rest of us. LOL!
Actual, real "terrorism" is almost non-existent. Pro-liberty acts which "government" spokescritters call "terrorism" aren't much more common. To spend all this stolen money to guard against something that is so rare is paranoia.
But the truth is, all these precautions are because of you and me; not "radical Islam". They only make that excuse so you don't realize who they see as the real threat to their scam.
This fear and cowardice amuses me and tells me I am on the winning side. Sure, fear can make the bad guys strike out excessively and hurt a lot of innocent people. Doing so will alienate some more of their supporters, though. They have to realize, subconsciously at least, that their time is running out. And that makes me smile.
.
Friday, August 01, 2014
Need money- so here's a deal on patches
I am in desperate need of at least half a tank of gas. But, instead of the usual bleg, I will offer a special deal on Time's Up patches.
From now until midnight Saturday, August 2, 2014 (according to Paypal or the time stamp on your email), I will dispense with shipping and handling charges, plus, if you buy 5 (or any multiple thereof) patches, I will throw in a free one (for each 5 purchased).
My Shop
.
From now until midnight Saturday, August 2, 2014 (according to Paypal or the time stamp on your email), I will dispense with shipping and handling charges, plus, if you buy 5 (or any multiple thereof) patches, I will throw in a free one (for each 5 purchased).
My Shop
.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Questions? Run away!!
Some time ago a very "liberal" person posted a "news" item on Facebook about how terrible a particular city was to live in, due to rampant violent crime.
He commented that this showed the state's new liberalized concealed carry laws didn't work as advertized by "the NRA" (LOL).
I very politely made the point that I would need to see more information, since the "crime data" in the article was actually all from before the new "laws" went into effect.
But, even with up-to-date data, if it showed a current dangerous crime rate, how does it compare to before concealed carry was liberalized? The same, better, or worse? I mentioned I have never seen a case of violent crime increasing after anti-gun "laws" were softened- and I have looked for cases like that over the years.
Although the above was enough to make him immediately "unfriend" me, I have still more questions, such as: how does it break down by neighborhood? Are those who "carry" victimized successfully at the same rate as those who choose to abdicate their responsibility? Is most of the violent crime between gangs, which are empowered by Prohibition?
But I never got the chance to pose the questions.
Funny how badly statists want to be protected from questions that might show the folly of their ideology. Even to the point of "unfriending" someone who frequently took his side in debates.
(Patches, patches, don't forget the Time's Up patches!
)
.
He commented that this showed the state's new liberalized concealed carry laws didn't work as advertized by "the NRA" (LOL).
I very politely made the point that I would need to see more information, since the "crime data" in the article was actually all from before the new "laws" went into effect.
But, even with up-to-date data, if it showed a current dangerous crime rate, how does it compare to before concealed carry was liberalized? The same, better, or worse? I mentioned I have never seen a case of violent crime increasing after anti-gun "laws" were softened- and I have looked for cases like that over the years.
Although the above was enough to make him immediately "unfriend" me, I have still more questions, such as: how does it break down by neighborhood? Are those who "carry" victimized successfully at the same rate as those who choose to abdicate their responsibility? Is most of the violent crime between gangs, which are empowered by Prohibition?
But I never got the chance to pose the questions.
Funny how badly statists want to be protected from questions that might show the folly of their ideology. Even to the point of "unfriending" someone who frequently took his side in debates.
-
(Patches, patches, don't forget the Time's Up patches!
).
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Government's breeding program for terrorists
So, how's that "War on Terror" going for ya?
I see the "War on Terror" like a war on black footed ferrets.
Or maybe even Sasquatch.
Based on the actual number of attacks around here, or within thousands of miles, the government has declared war on a rare thing indeed.
Most of the "foiled plots" I suspect are more like government work-study programs for easily manipulated dumb guys, anyway. Dreamed up and put into motion by government employees who want to look relevant.
Maybe they should declare terrorists an endangered species. Oh wait, I think the invasion of the Middle East is a conservation program designed to "breed" more terrorists to keep them from going extinct, so I guess they've already addressed that concern.
.
I see the "War on Terror" like a war on black footed ferrets.
Or maybe even Sasquatch.
Based on the actual number of attacks around here, or within thousands of miles, the government has declared war on a rare thing indeed.
Most of the "foiled plots" I suspect are more like government work-study programs for easily manipulated dumb guys, anyway. Dreamed up and put into motion by government employees who want to look relevant.
Maybe they should declare terrorists an endangered species. Oh wait, I think the invasion of the Middle East is a conservation program designed to "breed" more terrorists to keep them from going extinct, so I guess they've already addressed that concern.
.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Limited government Utopian dream
Limited government Utopian dream
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 27, 2014)
The siren songs of the next election season are already tickling your ears. One thing I notice a lot of people advocating is a "return to the Constitution" which they believe would bring back "limited government".
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it didn't work before, so how do you plan to make it work next time?
If the majority of people in the past weren't willing to force the State to operate strictly by the Constitution, what makes you believe "enough" people now or in the future will be willing- or able? Even Thomas Jefferson failed when given the choice to uphold the Constitution or go through with the Louisiana Purchase.
The attempt to "limit" government has failed every time it has been tried. It's like trying to decide how much cancer to leave in the patient, and telling the tumor to limit itself while hoping it will get no larger.
As has been observed throughout history, those who gain political power will do anything to hold on to it, and get more. They change the rules they can change; ignore the rules they can't. Since the only people given authority to stop or punish the miscreants belong to the same gang- the government- and have the same addiction, nothing substantive happens even when they get caught.
By promising to share the spoils with voters, they'll keep getting elected by people who don't want to take away their political power, or stop the over-reach, because they know it would end the goodies.
Both "liberals" and "conservatives" lure voters with treats, but of somewhat different flavors.
"Liberals", as a general rule, use things like free food, cell phones, free medical care, and disability entitlements to inspire voter loyalty, while "conservatives" use military jobs, protection from foreigners, farm subsidies, and "law and order" to bribe their constituents. Both sides encourage fears of the other side, and both promise to keep the Social Security pyramid scheme propped up at all costs. In recent years there has been other "bipartisanship" working against you, too.
None of those things are constitutional, but no politician is willing to face the wrath of those who have become dependent on the State, or those who are scared to let the free market find solutions. Once anything is socialized, people assume only the State can handle it.
"Limited government" is a Utopian dream; completely divorced from reality.
Am I claiming a strictly constitutional government wouldn't be better than the runaway monstrosity America is suffocating under now? Of course not. But keeping it would require changing human nature, and it would still be only the beginning of any real, lasting, solution.
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 27, 2014)
The siren songs of the next election season are already tickling your ears. One thing I notice a lot of people advocating is a "return to the Constitution" which they believe would bring back "limited government".
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it didn't work before, so how do you plan to make it work next time?
If the majority of people in the past weren't willing to force the State to operate strictly by the Constitution, what makes you believe "enough" people now or in the future will be willing- or able? Even Thomas Jefferson failed when given the choice to uphold the Constitution or go through with the Louisiana Purchase.
The attempt to "limit" government has failed every time it has been tried. It's like trying to decide how much cancer to leave in the patient, and telling the tumor to limit itself while hoping it will get no larger.
As has been observed throughout history, those who gain political power will do anything to hold on to it, and get more. They change the rules they can change; ignore the rules they can't. Since the only people given authority to stop or punish the miscreants belong to the same gang- the government- and have the same addiction, nothing substantive happens even when they get caught.
By promising to share the spoils with voters, they'll keep getting elected by people who don't want to take away their political power, or stop the over-reach, because they know it would end the goodies.
Both "liberals" and "conservatives" lure voters with treats, but of somewhat different flavors.
"Liberals", as a general rule, use things like free food, cell phones, free medical care, and disability entitlements to inspire voter loyalty, while "conservatives" use military jobs, protection from foreigners, farm subsidies, and "law and order" to bribe their constituents. Both sides encourage fears of the other side, and both promise to keep the Social Security pyramid scheme propped up at all costs. In recent years there has been other "bipartisanship" working against you, too.
None of those things are constitutional, but no politician is willing to face the wrath of those who have become dependent on the State, or those who are scared to let the free market find solutions. Once anything is socialized, people assume only the State can handle it.
"Limited government" is a Utopian dream; completely divorced from reality.
Am I claiming a strictly constitutional government wouldn't be better than the runaway monstrosity America is suffocating under now? Of course not. But keeping it would require changing human nature, and it would still be only the beginning of any real, lasting, solution.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)