Infestation

I have a small mesquite bush in my yard. Every summer for the past few years, it gets covered-- literally covered-- with Giant Mesquite Bugs. I like the mesquite; I hate the bugs.

I've vacuumed them off with a shop vac. I've sprayed them with nicotine, bug killer, and soapy water. I've netted them, covered the bush in black trash bags, and probably several other things I can't think of at the moment. 

I got the best result from the bug killer (no surprise), but that only resulted in a few hours of fewer bugs, and a thick layer of dead bugs under the bush that has been there 2 years so far. Only a few hours later, there were just as many bugs as before.

So this year, I gave up. I ignore them-- or at most, kick the bush from time to time to set them all abuzz. Just because it is satisfying. Yes, I get covered with the bugs and I always end up transporting a few into the house with me. 

These bugs are like politicians and their legislation. Right now, I'll just have to deal with the infestation. If they get thinned out, they (or more like them) come back again. But, for the most part, I could ignore them if I choose to. I don't have to fight them or try to get rid of them. Not really. They don't actually impact my life much. They are only a problem because (or if) I let them annoy me. If I could choose, though, I'd choose the bugs over the political pests.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

People's rights are not negotiable

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 8, 2022)

Politicians speak most passionately about things they understand the least, like guns. This is especially dangerous when they talk about what they believe your rights are.

President Biden has recently shown he doesn't understand rights-- he confuses them with privileges and he's plotting to violate our rights because he doesn't like them.

This is criminal behavior from him and should be treated as such.

Recent events caused emotions to run high, which leads to foolish threats from authoritarian politicians. It doesn't change what our rights are, nor does it excuse the threat to violate them.

The rights of good people can't depend on what bad people do. Especially when our rights are all that stand between us and letting the bad people do anything to anyone at any time without opposition. Such as happens in schools, hospitals, or any place where your right to defend yourself (and others) with effective tools is routinely violated.

You've now seen the bumper sticker come to life: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Or an hour or more. Assuming they are inclined to help.

Some politically minded people like to claim there are no such things as rights; it is only about power and who has the power to do what to whom. If that's true, then no one has any reason to complain about anything anyone with power does. Putin had the power to invade Ukraine, the Ukrainian people had no right to not be displaced or killed, so all is fine.

The same could be said about every other dictator who caused holocausts. If rights aren't a real thing, people should just shut up and take it, whatever "it" happens to be.

I don't believe this is reality. Society can only exist if we each respect the rights of those around us and stand up against-- with effective tools of defense--  those who refuse to do so, whether it is the grimy mugger from the alley or the mentally compromised occupant of the Oval Office.

Rights are non-negotiable and must be defended, regardless of the opinions of those with power. When those with power try to make it so you are unable to effectively resist them, then it is doubly important you do so before it is too late. Do you want to sentence your grandchildren to a life of slavery, or is liberty worth the risk? I know where I stand.

PS: Also in the same issue is this item about a planned anti-gun march. Notice the lack of awareness the organizer of the march demonstrates. Is he really that clueless or is he a liar? I don't know.

-

Kitten fundraiser: https://www.givesendgo.com/G3AR7

Why you can't debate a "gun con-troll"

"Gun control"? No. We're done. We're taking it all back-- all our natural human rights.

Those who advocate for anti-gun legislation always lie. They have to. They have nothing else to fall back on. Not history, logic, rights, or ethics. Only lies. Lies based in government supremacy. 

"Gun control" is a lie; those who call for it are liars. Or worse.
At best they are nothing but trolls trying to con you with lies about guns: gun con trolls.

They are completely unreasonable trolls, too.

Trying to be reasonable with unreasonable trolls is setting yourself up to fail. Expecting them to be able to be reasonable will bring nothing but disappointment and betrayal.

There's no possible compromise. There's no actual discussion even possible. They are what they are. If we gun owners were what they claim, they'd all be dead by now. But, gun con-trolls are liars.

-

Please support the Tobbles Rescue Project on Patreon

How to identify a good cop

People tell me about "good cops" and scold me for not believing in them. I've never seen any evidence of their existence, but I know what one would look like if I saw it.

A good cop is one who never gives tickets (traffic tickets, seatbelt tickets, etc.) to anyone who didn't cause actual harm to an individual or their property. Even those who do cause harm don't owe anyone but the person harmed (they never owe government). I'd support the giving of tickets only if all the money was given to the victim.

A good cop would never hassle anyone about a weapon of any sort, unless it was currently being used to violate an innocent person. Then, it's not about the weapon but about the act. No "weapons charges" at all, ever. If they can't be legitimately charged with a real crime, let them walk.

A good cop would never arrest anyone on drug charges, and never take anyone's drugs. Yes, this means addicts would die. Some innocent people would also die (which prohibition hasn't prevented anyway). That's a price of liberty.

A good cop would never confiscate property that wasn't stolen and being immediately returned to its owner-- would certainly never participate in the staged photo-op table covered with drugs, guns, and money after a "bust".

A good cop isn't going to care where a person was born or what government paperwork/permissions he possesses.

A good cop will not enforce any "tax" or help punish anyone who didn't pay one. Would never help steal anyone's property over a "property tax" issue.

A good cop will never help enforce "eminent domain".

A good cop would not patrol looking for trouble, but would wait at the station until explicitly called for.

A good cop would abide by "no victim, no crime", no matter what "the law" said.

A good cop would obey the Constitution to the letter where it enhances individual liberty and utterly ignore it any time it doesn't. No "law" which violates individual liberty can ever be legitimate, no matter who wrote it.

You find me this person and I'll concede that you've found a good cop. Otherwise, you're a government supremacist living in a statist delusion I want no part of.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

Preventing evil loserism

Is it my imagination or do the recent evil losers look unusually effeminate and/or weak? (As do many of their cheerleaders.) With the parade shooter being practically a parody of the "type".

Or, is that just the current condition of the species (in America) and any random sample of young males would look the same?

But then, there are also the "masculine" bullies (another type of evil loser)-- who are probably a large piece of the puzzle triggering the shooters. Does everyone have to be only one or the other? And how does it make the problem worse that so many girls have rejected boys (or being girls) altogether? It was already hard enough for anyone who wasn't a star athlete to find a happy relationship, but now?

Would you be doing the world a favor if you tried to reach out and befriend anyone who looked this way-- especially if they also seemed angry? Or would you just be putting yourself at unnecessary risk?

I don't know an answer that will be widely respected, since all the loudest voices prefer to blame the tool and punish those of us who didn't become evil losers-- and they refuse to hear or consider anything else, no matter how many innocent lives are lost on their altar.

-

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

Not the way I wanted to start the day

 

R.I.P. Tobbles.

Happy Secession Day!

I approve of every act of secession, from the one that created America, to the individual today seceding from the state completely. Even if I disagree with their motivation for doing so. Break it up.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

New laws won't solve problems

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 1, 2022)

Senseless aggression toward innocent victims enrages me. No matter who is harmed or who commits the act. But to intentionally target children? Rage doesn't begin to describe what I feel.

Are you ready for some hard truth? Some of you are; those who aren't should probably read the comics instead.

You'll never stop crime with new legislation and harsher enforcement. You'll never even reduce crime that way.

In fact, even if you imagine this tactic would prevent some crimes, you'll have to ignore all the crimes it unintentionally causes. Directly. Which it will do. No legislation only affects the bad guys. It affects those who generally try to obey the rules much more... which has a negative effect.

What good is making up some legislation which prevents one crime if it causes five other crimes which wouldn't have happened otherwise? "If it saves one life" is the mantra of activists who wear blinders.

Knee jerk legislation giving government added power, created under the stress of tragedy, is never a good idea. It always works out badly, having devastating unintended consequences down the line. We are seeing the unintended consequences of that kind of legislation happen now, while politicians and activists are theatrically trying to place the blame where it doesn't belong.

People can't be forced to be good or responsible. You can't improve society through authoritarian tyranny. Turning society into a prison is never the right thing to do, even if you imagine safety will be the result.

All that will happen is you'll contribute to making things worse for everyone, not better.

Yet, it's what politicians want to do and it's what the loudest activists demand from them. It's not "common sense" in any sense of the phrase, but anti-liberty politicians hope you won't realize it.

What you can do is to decide to be responsible. Decide to be part of the solution, regardless of what rules are imposed on you.

Don't comply. Don't let anyone make you feel bad about refusing to go along with your own enslavement. Understanding, respecting, and exercising liberty doesn't make you a bad person. What they want to do to you-- what they intend to do to you-- makes them the bad guys. Their political acts will guarantee crimes like this will continue to happen again and again. You know it. Don't let them forget it and show them you aren't fooled by their easy and popular lies.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Is "binary thinking" even thinking?

So many people are trapped in binary thinking. I'm not going to assume I'm immune.

I got into an ill-advised argument over abortion. But, because I didn't exactly agree with the mob that descended on me, they could only believe I was 100% on board with the opposite side's opinion. I gave evidence that this wasn't true, but they seemed literally unable to physically see it. All they could do was continue responding to the hallucination that they had formed and that the rest of the mob was helping to prop up.

It was educational.

If I think something is a bad idea, or even wrong, it doesn't mean I believe government should make up legislation prohibiting it. 

I don't even think government should make murder illegal-- but I know murder is unethical. Most people can't reconcile those two opinions. If I'm against murder, I must be for laws prohibiting it. If I'm against those laws, obviously I must think anyone should be allowed to kill whoever they want without consequence. Neither is even remotely true,

I even said things unambiguously supporting the mob's side against others who chimed in with the other view. Those comments were ignored completely. They didn't fit in the round hole.

Pointing out this trap-- the binary "thinking"-- just triggers this kind of person even more. No, the problem must be with me, not with them. Some of them resorted to mocking my "centrist" position.

Will I ever learn?

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Secession Day approaches

The family is planning a little Secession Day cookout this weekend.

I get a little uncomfortable celebrating Secession Day with people who don't get what the day is about. They fly Holy Pole Quilt and honor "The USA" (America's biggest threat), and don't realize they are missing the whole point.

The day is supposed to be about "independence" and without secession there would never be any independence. It's the foundation.

Yes, celebrate that historic secession, but don't discount the necessity of future (near future) secession. If you want any independence to celebrate, it's going to have to happen. Otherwise, a future of slavery to the state is what you can look forward to.

-

 Check out the recent posts: Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon,.

Violating a little less isn't an expansion

Several times over the past week I've seen anti-liberty pundits proclaiming that the Supreme Courtjesters' recent Bruen opinion "expanded gun rights" or "expands the Second Amendment".

No, it doesn't.

It just tells the feds to stop violating the right to own and to carry weapons quite as badly as before. That's not an expansion.

If you "generously" give your starving child a second weekly potato, you aren't encouraging their gluttony. You aren't being a wonderful person for doubling their food rations, you just aren't being quite as evil as before... maybe. You are still evil for starving them, just as the Supreme Court is still evil for not explicitly explaining why any and all anti-gun legislation is null and void-- as they have to know it is if they've read the document.

Now, it seems they've also kicked some other anti-gun cases back to the "lower" courts, with instructions to do them over, taking into account the Bruen opinion. Expect sneakiness to ensue.

The bigger news may be-- depending on how it is used-- the opinion against the EPA's extra-legislative rulemaking (Algore is very disappointed with this turn of events). The EPA is obviously guilty of this crime, but BATFEces is the prime violator in this regard-- they make everyone else look like amateurs by comparison. Maybe someone will use this opportunity to slap them around a bit and knock them down a few notches. But anything that allows the BATFEces gang (or its function) to continue to exist-- as anything other than a ridiculous Nazi fan club with no power over anyone-- is a failure.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Something that has always bothered me

Relating to yesterday's badly headlined column, and a good counterpoint by Thomas Knapp, I finally put in the effort today to articulate to myself something that has always annoyed me about the Roe v. Wade "opinion". It's something that has been in the back of my mind for ages, but I'd never spent the time or effort to put it into words. Until now.

And it's not even about abortion.

The Supreme Courtjesters sat down and diligently picked the Constitution apart with tweezers and an electron microscope to "discover" a right to an abortion-- which isn't spelled out explicitly, regardless of whether or not such a right exists-- and yet they can't just READ the bloody document to see it clearly says-- no magnifying glass needed-- that government is not allowed to have any oversight over the weapons (guns, ammunition, swords, cannons, etc.) owned by the people. None. It's right there in writing. In English. No "interpretation" necessary. No need to pick anything apart to find it. Just read it and obey it. Or tell the rest of the government to immediately stop committing the crime of violating it.

But it seems beyond their ability to do this simple job. Because they don't want to. It would be inconvenient to the rest of their gang.

They've put as much effort into burying or overlooking the right spelled out as off-limits to government interference in the Second Amendment as they put into finding a right to abortion fifty years ago. And they are still being dishonest weasels* about it to this day, even when they supposedly reaffirm the right mentioned therein. 

*Apologies to actual cute little weasels.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Face, meet dirt

Looking down at the site of the adventure

A few days ago I took a tumble or a nosedive off the back steps and into the ground. My heel slipped off the top step as I was carrying out the trash and things went downhill (literally) from there in a cascade of awkwardness.

I got some scrapes and bruises, and twisted my ankle, and mildly sprained my wrist. Those pains have gone away (mainly my wrist pain) and allowed me to feel other minor pains they had been masking. Pretty much my whole left side took some damage. My hat protected my head and face-- as it has many times over the years.

I now feel slightly motivated to improve the back step situation. A small deck to transition from the door to the steps might be a good idea as this is far from the first time I've had trouble with the narrowness of the top step when going out the door. Yet, for some reason, the idea never occurred to me until this happened. (I try to not think of construction projects!)

Isn't it odd how many times an obvious idea or solution goes unnoticed until something-- some pain-- brings it to mind? Often it's not even a particularly difficult thing to do; it was just never thought of. I've put up with minor annoyances or inconveniences for years before I noticed them enough to fix them. Sometimes it was just a matter of realizing how annoying and unnecessary something I considered "normal" (*cough cough* government) was. Slapping the ground with my face may have been the inspiration I needed to fix the back steps. If so, it was a useful event.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

A couple of points about guns

1. Trustworthy people don't ban/forbid guns. They just don't. Not to anyone. The proper response to a bad guy with a gun is an armed defense, not a rule, policy, or legislation.

2. When the 2nd Amendment was written it was meant to be absolute. Yes, in spite of the lies of anti-gun bigots, you could own cannons and better weapons than the military because what the 2nd Amendment did was take government oversight off the table. It didn't create the right to own and to carry weapons-- it forbade government any say in what they recognized was a natural human right held by everyone (a right not only held by people in America, but everywhere). It is still absolute; only criminal regimes violate it. "But every government puts some restrictions on guns!" Yep. That's what I said-- criminal regimes.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Censorship not the answer to evil

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 25, 2022)

People like the murderer in the Buffalo, New York grocery store will always find justification to be evil losers. He would have found some excuse even if no one had ever suspected that government is trying, for political purposes, to dilute the culture with those who don't share it.

The way to fight such ideas is to openly discuss them, not censorship. If you choose to censor ideas, I'll think you have no argument against them.

They will also always find something to use as a weapon, even if the anti-gun bigots ever manage to ban the type of weapon this one chose.

The effective way to defend from evil losers isn't with lone armed guards or with an armed class of enforcers, but with a universally armed population ready to stop any such attack in its tracks. An armed guard is too easy to notice and target, but when nearly everyone around you is ready to stop any attack, the cost of committing one is raised back to where it belongs.

Even so, the armed guard at the store gave his life to delay the evil loser and give more people the chance to escape. He saved lives.

There will always be evil people, and some percentage of those will decide to try to kill people who aren't harming them in any way-- even if they must hallucinate that they are being harmed. You won't stop them by making everyone else helpless or by forbidding ideas which could inspire them to attack.

It might also help if government would stop actively radicalizing them with its actions and policies.

While government is constitutionally prohibited from regulating immigration, it is also not permitted to import people from other countries. Not that government stays within what it is allowed to do. There's a difference between something happening naturally and government forcing something to happen. The latter is more intrusive.

Maybe government hopes more of these attacks will occur. They always seem to happen right before some anti-gun legislation is under consideration-- I'm sure it's only a coincidence. This attack-- apparently spurred by ideas a weak mind encountered online-- also happened, coincidentally, in the midst of a fight over censorship. It's all rather convenient, is it not?

Either way, I will not accept blame and be legislatively punished for things other people-- people I don't support in any way-- do. Will you?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Anti-gunner compares gun owners to bike riders to make her point

Someone arguing for more anti-gun legislation said "gun owner [sic] is a thing you own* just like you can be" a bike rider or a TV owner, not inherent like "Race, religion, gender [sic] identity". 

She then claimed that gun owners "are not oppressed". 

Seems she poked holes in her own argument.

Because she's right. 

Legislation targeting gun owners is like legislation targeting bike riders and TV owners. It is looking to punish (oppress) people for something they simply own. Not for something unethical they have done. Not on behalf of anyone they've harmed.

Punishing people for something they own is oppression. People have died at the hands of government agents who were enforcing anti-gun legislation. Not killed for harming anyone-- not for violating life, liberty, or property-- but for simply possessing something government doesn't like other people to have. You can't be more oppressed than that.

This was her argument after she tried without success to label me a racist and started grasping at straws

*(I don't believe she meant anyone can own gun owners; her writing was probably a little sloppy.)

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Wade through the pool of Roe

The Supreme Courtjesters were on a roll.

Yeah, we already knew this Roe v. Wade thing was coming, but now it's here. I think the timing is good because it deflected the Left-statist meltdown over the pro-gun ruling that was made hours earlier, giving them another cause to flip out over.

I don't really care about the abortion issue. So I'm at least willing to consider what government says about it (even if I'll probably reject their opinion on principle).

I don't see how abortion could be a natural human right unless it is a clear case of self-defense, nor any logical way for it to be a constitutional right. 

Nowhere does the Constitution say "the right of women to end a pregnancy shall not be infringed".
Nor does it say the federal government has the "authority" to demand pregnant women not end their pregnancy.
It is silent on the matter, which means the federal government has no legitimate say. Even if this falls under the Ninth Amendment, I've always seen that as an indication it is outside of things government has "authority" over.

Obviously, the correct place for such decisions is with the individual, not with government-- but government doesn't like to turn loose of power. So, the Supremes kicked the control back up to the states-- which in such ambiguous cases is probably somewhat better (which is different from ethical) than letting the feds control the matter.

I have my doubts that those who are most angry over the opinion understand it-- they are just taking their cues from those who tell them what to be outraged about. But the rage is real and may be dangerous.

I'll be on heightened alert for generalized violence from angry Left-statists, just in case, even though anything targeting me would be based on assumptions about my opinion. This area is probably exceptionally safe under the circumstances. I don't take it for granted, though.

(I've always been amused that "roe" is fish eggs-- fish reproduction. How fitting.)

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

The Supreme Courtjesters got it wrong

The Supreme Courtjesters have ruled that New York state political criminals can't require people who seek one of their concealed carry licenses to show "special need" or "proper cause" to get the license.

Yay?

That's better than what might have happened, but of course, they still got it wrong. As they tend to do as government supremacists, which they all are.

It's not that New York should make it easier to get a license, it's that licensing a natural human right is wrong. It's just evil. No one has a right or the political "authority" to do that to anyone, for any reason, under any circumstances, ever.

The people don't need a license, and the Supreme Courtjesters just-- once again-- supported the erroneous position that they do, and that government is there to grant (or deny) permission for an act which needs no such permission.

As I pointed out to an acquaintance decades ago, the Supremes will NEVER rule to force states to actually obey the clear language of the Second Amendment because it goes too hard against "government interests". They'll always allow some illegal violations of the natural human right to own and to carry weapons, just because that supports the power of the gang they belong to. They might make some minor tweaks to remove a little bit of power from the state when they can't see a way out, but they'll never actually be honest about the issue. They always leave some breathing room for tyranny, and that's exactly what they did with this opinion. They proved me right, again.

And you just watch: states will find a way to weasel out of obeying the law anyway. Probably using that breathing room.

Yeah, I know. "No one" would v*te to support such a radical idea as taking away ALL the power of government to legislate about guns. Funny... I've never believed my liberty is subject to the opinion of an ignorant mob anyway. Liberty is not extreme-- that descriptor fits those who seek to destroy liberty on an altar to the state.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Should I be nicer to the mentally challenged?

 He never responded.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Be unreasonable (according to monsters)

Being "reasonable" with monsters who want to violate natural human rights-- and who claim the right to define "reasonable"-- is what got us here. 

Yet, the monsters keep demanding we "be reasonable" and compromise with them some more. 

No.

It's never going to be enough to satisfy them.

I don't care if v*ters won't side with me because I'm being "unreasonable". 

I don't care that government will continue to criminalize me due to my "unreasonableness". 

I will not negotiate with criminals for my liberty. And they are criminals, by the only definition that matters: those who violate, or encourage others to violate, the natural human rights of others,

Just NO.

They will do what they will do, but they'll do it without my help or cooperation, and without my agreeing that what they demand is in any way "reasonable". It's not.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon