Do you believe in fairy tales?

No election that seeks to impose a ruler (to "fill a political office") or enact any type of liberty-rationing legislation.policy is legitimate. Never.

It doesn't matter who v*tes, who counts the v*tes, or how lopsided the results appear to be. It doesn't matter what the results are. 

No one has any right to gang up and decide to violate someone else's rights. Not even if they know that by doing so they are allowing government to violate their own rights that they don't value.

I'm not going to act as though I believe this fairy tale. Because I don't. It's ridiculous.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

No one has permission to violate rights

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 7, 2024)

You are never obligated to cooperate with anyone trying to violate your rights. Never, for any reason.

It will be dangerous to refuse to help them violate you, but in such circumstances, cooperation is just as dangerous. Once someone has decided to harm you, you're not going to escape without a scratch. Especially when they claim to have the imaginary, magical quality they call "authority".

They'll try to make you sorry you didn't help them hurt you. They'll do their best to punish you. This only shows them to be the bad guys. A defining feature of bad guys-- criminals-- is their willingness to violate the rights-- the life, liberty, or property-- of others.

What are your rights? The Bill of Rights is a start, but not the whole picture. The Ninth Amendment hints at this by stating the other amendments are not a comprehensive list of the rights placed beyond the authority of government. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Government hates, studiously ignores, and violates this law with nearly everything it does.

You have a right to do everything-- absolutely anything-- which doesn't violate someone else's equal and identical rights, regardless of the opinion of the regional political powers.

The flip side of this is the acknowledgment that no one can have a right to violate your rights. It doesn't work that way. This means you aren't obligated to cooperate with anyone who is trying to violate your rights or to prevent you from doing things you have a natural human right to do.

I won't deny this is dangerous knowledge to have and act upon.

Once you know this, you'll see anyone who is trying to violate you in the same light: as a criminal, nothing more. It doesn't mean you'll always prevail-- sometimes the criminals have the drop on you. Their gang may outnumber you. They may have given themselves permission to do what they do, and they may even claim you and your neighbors gave them this permission.

Funny thing, though: there is no hocus-pocus by which you can give someone permission to do things on your behalf which you-- as an individual-- have no right to do on your own. The myths saying otherwise are convenient for power-hungry bad guys, but lack any basis in reality or ethics. Now you know.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Newcomers bring change

There are things I don't like, but that I know I have no right to use force to prevent. A huge influx of migrants is one of those things.

This might be surprising considering I spend so much effort defending the right of people to go where they want, as long as they aren't violating anyone's property. And because I don't believe in government "borders". But personally, I'm generally against mass migration (and the conditions that cause it).

It's not even a matter of where those migrants originate.

I saw the damage done to Colorado by the influx of people from California. I don't think I could handle living in the place I love the most, not anymore, with the changes the newcomers brought. 

I think Texas faces the same risk.

The same could happen to any place that gets a large number of new people who don't value the things the current residents value. That's not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the current residents' attitude toward archation. 

Newcomers who love and understand liberty, even if the long-time residents don't, are a good thing for any population. 

If, though, the newcomers bring an enthusiasm for archation-- either through crime or legislation-- then they are a net negative. The place would be better off without them.

The character of the newcomers matters; government's opinion of them doesn't.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

Weapons are designed to save lives

Those who celebrate criminals get very upset that good people don't want to give up their weapons to make bad guys safer. 

The purpose of weapons in the average person’s hands is to save lives. It’s what they are designed to do.

Sometimes they accomplish this by taking the life of someone who is endangering the innocent.

This isn’t hypocritical nor does it bother me in the slightest.

Bad guys have the final responsibility in this situation. If they choose to sacrifice themselves to their greed and evil, we should support their choice.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

Not for me, but you go ahead

Recently, Smith & Wesson introduced their new rifle, the 1854. It's a modern lever-action rifle. This is one gun I have no interest in owning.

I'm sure this new rifle is a great gun in many ways, but it's not for me.  I love my more traditional lever-action rifles.

However, I'm glad Smith & Wesson is making this new rifle and I hope it sells well. I hope lots of people like it and want it. More guns in the right hands is good for everyone... except for the crooks and creeps among us. I can't bring myself to worry too much about their welfare.

Just because something isn't for me doesn't mean I'm going to try to keep others from enjoying it.

What other people like is of no concern to me, unless it violates life, liberty, or property. This doesn't. This is the heart of libertarianism.

This is a concept that it's obvious the "former libertarians" out there don't get. Probably because they are actively avoiding "getting it". Why? Obviously, it's because they want an excuse to violate someone in some way-- to do something they have no right to do-- but they don't want to admit (or feel like) they are the problem. So they grasp at "reasons". Some cite religion, some reference safety, some use culture, others find other excuses. It really doesn't matter what excuse or justification they torture a reason out of.

They are wrong. As wrong as it is humanly possible to be. But they'll gloat in their wrongness. It's quite the spectacle.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

When an "expert" at identifying cognitive dissonance falls into it

Scott Adams seems to harbor a deep-rooted hostility against libertarians. As do all who want to reserve the option of archating (and worshiping The State) without feeling like the bad guy.

Years ago he claimed to be "libertarian, without the crazy stuff"; and he defined the "crazy stuff" as anything that defined libertarians, which he has never understood. Let me say that again: All his anti-libertarian opinions show he doesn't understand the first thing about liberty, and it doesn't seem as though he wants to. It would destroy his bubble if he did, and it's easier to attack the straw men he creates.

A couple of days ago he went on a rather strange rant against comic Dave Smith, a political libertarian who is probably always more correct than Adams on the topic of government.

A few highlights from his video (you can watch the whole thing at the link above): “you don’t need a libertarian country”… "there never has been one and it can’t work"… “Argentina… to me that just looks like capitalism”.

Then we get to the part where he really went off the rails: “you can fairly easily trigger them (libertarians) into cognitive dissonance”.

To demonstrate his point, he showed the opposite happening. 

He quoted Dave Smith as saying, “Netanyahu did not sufficiently defend Israel from the October 7 attack and that perhaps that was intentional as well”. Adams says this is "too far", and is “mind reading”.

Sorry, Scott, your government supremacism is showing. You don't need to read any minds, just look at the actions taken.

Did the Israeli government impose anti-weapon legislation? Yes. They did. This is the opposite of "defending Israel" from such an attack. The residents were made easy prey for criminal scum so they'd be easier to govern. It was intentional-- legislation always is-- and it was demonstrably disastrous. Netanyahu and his minions are guilty, as Smith charged. Facts are facts, like them or not. 

Then Adams allowed it may have been intentional on Netanyahu’s part, to give him an excuse to destroy Hamas at the cost of losing a few hundred innocent people. Smith said this was a bad thing. Adams says if this was the plan, the plan worked. Adams wants to wait and see how it turns out, not considering the human costs in the present, because it might be worth the deaths and suffering in the long run.

Which is a typically disgusting example of pragmatism.

He asked, “Was I making a good point or not?” No, Scott, you were being evil and pragmatic. Slavery was very pragmatic. Democide is pragmatic. They both "work", from a certain point of view. You can excuse anything by saying it "works".

Then Adams starts slipping into his own trap.

Smith replied, “Adams sees no evidence an unprovable counter-factual wouldn’t be worse”. Adams claimed this was "word salad" because he couldn’t understand it. This is not the first time he's claimed "word salad" for something easily understandable by anyone without the motivation to be unable to understand it. I understood Dave's sentence, accurate or not. Yet he claims this shows Smith suffering "cognitive dissonance".

Scott is the one in cognitive dissonance. And can’t see it. Partly because he’s so brainwashed by statism. Partly because he’s being dishonest. Again.

He also claimed this sentence was a quintuple negative (demonstrating an inability to count to five). Maybe he has difficulty reading words-- he dislikes words and their definitions, anyway, calling that "word-thinking". How convenient for him. 

He then started trying to insult Dave Smith for not understanding costs and benefits. I guess Smith isn't pragmatic enough. Would Dave Smith refuse to consider the costs and benefits of slavery before standing up and denouncing it? I doubt it. Adams? I don't think he would denounce slavery if others hadn't already made it safe for him to take that position. Or unsafe to debate the costs and benefits before taking a position on it.

He kept calling Smith a progressive, even after initially admitting he wasn’t one. He then said libertarians and progressives were really the same thing because their ideas can't work in the real world. Well, not in the real world Adams promotes, where rights aren't real; only power matters. Where government can do anything it wants, using whatever excuse dumb people will accept.

It’s interesting to me that anyone who tries to ridicule the libertarian position has to either try hard to not understand or they have to lie. Or both.

Statism is stupid and evil. And statists seem to love acting patronizing to those who are smarter and more ethical than they are.  It's like a spoiled toddler being patronizing toward his dad.

When Adams is right, he’s right. When he’s wrong, it’s generally because he’s a vile statist who is suffering from cognitive dissonance while seeing it in everyone who disagrees with him.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

"Against violence"

Whenever I hear someone say they are "against violence" I roll my eyes. It's a reflex.

People who say they are against violence are not credible. They are probably saying that to sound "moral" to others who are equally ignorant. And they never seem to be against violence by government-- frequently they are big fans of that violence.

Often, they conflate "violence" (force) and "aggression" (initiated force). Those aren't the same thing. Aggression is something you never have the right to do, and violence is something you can have the right to do when it's purely defensive. 

So, when I hear someone say they are against violence, I wonder if they'd really stand by and watch an innocent person-- maybe a family member-- be attacked, or if they are lying and would use violence to defend the innocent like a decent person would do. 

I hope it's the second one. And I wish they'd stop bowing toward the vile altar of pacifism.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

They know what they are

I got a first-hand report from someone having to deal with government employees a couple of days ago. Just hearing about it makes me angry.

If I acted like a government employee I would be too ashamed to show my face in public.

Government employees like to be in your face, in your pockets, and in your business... as long as they feel safe. And it takes extraordinary measures to make them feel safe from their victims.

Government employees hide behind bulletproof glass and metal detectors.

They hide behind “laws”.

How pathetic!

Government employees are cowards. They instinctively know they are in the wrong; the bad guys. They are worse than useless, they are harmful. They'll never admit it openly, but their actions show they know the truth.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

Liberty takes more responsibility

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 17, 2023- For some reason I skipped posting this in its entirety when I should have. Sorry about the delay!)

Most people don’t seem to want liberty. Many of them want freedom, but they aren’t interested in the responsibility that comes with liberty.

A majority want to feel safe and comforted. They want guarantees. They want the familiar, even when the familiar is guaranteed to be harmful to them. They don’t want the uncertainties that come with liberty. Uncertainties are a fact of life, like it or not.

Some of them would like liberty for themselves but are terrified of allowing others to exercise their own. “Liberty for me, but not for thee.” This tells me they don’t understand liberty at all.

I’m not just guessing about what people want; they’ve told me. Even most of those who express a general appreciation for the idea of liberty couch it with a “but.”

It’s why they balk at liberty and allow political criminals to retain power. It’s why they tolerate government officials who claim “Violence is a contagious disease” instead of tarring, feathering, and running these politically useful liars out of town on a rail.

It’s one thing to define words to make your meaning clear. We should all be prepared to do this. It’s a different matter to redefine words with the intention of confusing people for your own gain. I’d call this “fraud.”

To define words as the opposite of what they are generally understood to mean, in order to use your new definition as justification for violating people with tyrannical legislation, is one of the most common acts in politics. If people were more interested in liberty and truth, perhaps they’d stop putting up with it.

There’s a comfort in allowing someone else to make the decisions and bear the responsibility. I may not agree with this path, but I understand it. I see how seductive it can be.

That’s not reality, though. Or, at best, it is a distorted reflection of a faded and tattered version of reality. Without taking responsibility, are you really even alive? Without liberty, is life worth the effort? If you allow government to treat you as a naughty and stupid child, unable to run your own affairs without its overbearing “guidance,” what are you? Not a responsible adult, but something smaller and weaker. Something less.

As much as I dislike the politicians and their lackeys, I can’t blame them for taking advantage of an opportunity that has been handed to them. I’d love to see this opportunity retracted.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

A randomly armed society is a politer society than an unarmed one

Today— or yesterday as this posts— I was walking around among large groups of people in a sketchy area. Or, large from my perspective, anyway. 

Against my will and better judgment, but in service to familial tranquility.

I felt better when I realized that I wasn’t the only one armed; that I was undoubtedly one among many. This being Texas.

I know there are people* who would find this disturbing. I’m so glad I’m not one of them.

I'll always be sure the generally decent people vastly outnumber the scum. Even most statists are generally decent, if misguided.

Give me a universally armed society any day. And a randomly armed one until then.

-

*cowards and crooks and monsters, in particular

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

Seeing all sides; not buying it

I have the crippling ability to see both sides of many issues. "Seeing" isn't believing.

Recently it's the Texas government vs the US feral government issue. 

No, I don't agree with the feds; they are always wrong on everything, so don't think I ever side with them on anything, even if I'm inclined to agree on some minor point. They always screw it up somehow. Their institution shouldn't exist, has no right to exist, etc., and that's enough to invalidate their point, whatever it may be.

But the Texas government doesn't have an ethical advantage there. "States rights" is ridiculous because rights are individual-- states can't have rights.

Still, if the Texas government helps individual property owners fence off their land to trespassers, foreign (feds count as foreign) or domestic. they are doing the right thing (but with stolen money, so...). If they fence off "public" land, they aren't, since governments don't legitimately own anything. If you want the right to shut off access to the public, transfer ownership to an individual who has rights.

And if the feds trespass to take down fences on private property, they are no better than any other trespassing vandal.

I know people say "You can't have open borders [sic] and a welfare state" as though this justifies more government rather than pointing out what needs to be eliminated. Talk about hacking at the branches!

The same goes for the danger of new criminals coming into your town. You have the absolute human right to shoot anyone who violates your life, liberty, or property in a serious manner, if you can't get them to stop using less force. Government usually violates this right, to the benefit of criminals of every sort, but this doesn't justify more government; it invalidates another piece of government's pie.

What if these newcomers v*te for more socialism? Well, the current and recent v*ters don't have a good record on that anyway. Letting any majority have the power to violate your life, liberty, and property is so incredibly stupid, maybe you deserve to suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer, too.

And, I am absolutely 100% against government importing people from other countries. If a government imports people, it must be completely responsible for them, their care, and anything they do. Since taxation is theft, the money to cover the expense must come from the pockets of the politicians who implemented the program, and the sales of their assets.

So, yes, I can see all sides, but I can also see the obvious nonsense embedded in the entire "debate". When you tolerate government, you're going to get outcomes like this. Maybe, don't.

Having the ability to think, even when you can see both sides, doesn't turn out well for government's position. Sorry, crooks, thugs, and other assorted authoritarians.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

A society that doesn't respect individuals?

You can’t form (or keep) a society without respecting the liberty of the individual. Every individual. 

You can’t have a society apart from individuals since individuals are the atoms of society.

Collectivists don’t like this reality. But that doesn’t change it.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

Ways to support what I do, if you think I'm useful

PayPal is the fastest way to get money into my hands. 

I love getting Bitcoin! 

bc1q7ww6gl66d4lya8y2pqmc2wdulrff7sxe7nanj6     (fresh address as of 11-20-2025)

I also have Cash App: $dullhawk

Venmo is also good, but slightly slower and more complicated.

I have a campaign on GiveSendGo to fund my ongoing project to help the stray cats around my house. 

If you'd rather send something in the mail, send an email to the contact email found elsewhere on the page and ask for my address.

I've edited this post to make it an aggregation of various ways you can help me and show your support for what I do. If that's something you want to do.

Please understand: I know my financial problems are 100% my fault and my problem. I made choices and I'm experiencing the consequences. You aren't obligated to help in any way, nor do I expect you to. If you'd like to help in spite of that, thank you so much!

"Hooray for our side!"

I know that a major reason I don’t get much support or popularity is that I won’t join one of the teams. 

To be popular, you have to be a team player, and not say things that go against that team's narrative. I don't do that. The teams are mostly wrong. On everything.

I'll never be popular as long as lies are such a major component of the popular narrative. It's a trade-off, but usually worth it. I still think the world would be better off if more people listened to me and those like me.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

I was wrong

I recently learned I was wrong (again). It happens.

I said the Texas government wasn’t allowed, by the Constitution, to control immigration. 

Thomas Knapp pointed out that the same clause of the Constitution that forbids the federal government from controlling immigration allows the states to regulate immigration into their states— if read in a certain way. I have read that clause many times, but was focused on what it did to the feds, blind to what it allows of the states.

He also pointed out that this doesn’t make it moral, just “constitutional”. The Constitution allows many unethical things.

I’m still opposed to authorization reactions to anything. I still believe private solutions are better. If property owners want to fence off their property they have the right to do so. Government, be it the Texas or federal, has no rights. None. It has power— the power to do wrong and get away with it.

I hate being wrong, but I learn more from being wrong than from being right.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

Civil war coming?

Is America heading for civil war? "Civil War 2.0"?

No. Not just no, but it would be impossible to have a second civil war.

That's because America has never yet had a civil war. Regardless of what your government-approved history course told you.

There was a revolution, following secession, in 1776; war between America and Great Britain— two separate countries.

Then in the 1860s, again following secession, there was a war between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America— two separate countries. Countries that Lincoln and other thugs wanted to force into unification.

A true civil war is when two factions are using military force and fighting for control of one government, and that hasn’t happened here. 

Any "normal" election is closer to a civil war than any war between separate countries is-- all that's lacking is the shooting, which I could see happening; you already have two opposing factions fighting for control of one government.

The situation between the Texas government and the US federal government won’t become a civil war. Even if it broke up the “united” States. 

Texas isn’t likely to try to take over and control the US federal government. I’m not sure what you’d call it if the feds tried to take over and control the Texas government, but it wouldn’t meet the criteria to be a civil war, nor would it cause one. Secession isn’t a civil war, nor can it result in one. 

If the current situation causes war, it can’t— by definition— be a civil war. Unless you torture, stretch, and twist the definition of "civil war" so that it can include the American "Civil War", which would be a dishonest and political thing to do. Even if a dictionary does it.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

New year time to accept reality

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 31, 2023)

There haven't been many years where, as New Year's Day approached, I thought "I'm glad I survived this one; I wasn't sure I would". This has been one of those years.

It was a year marked with unrelated random health emergencies, financial crises partly caused by those health emergencies, and general trouble.

I'm glad to see the year end and I'm hoping next year will be better.

If your past twelve months were rough, I hope the coming year is smooth sailing. If the past year has been good to you, I hope it was merely a hint at the great things to come.

One common thread I noticed running through all the troubles this past year was that government never made any situation better and seemed actively determined to make each of them worse in some way. Often, in multiple ways.

I can't figure out why anyone would want to keep this parasitic institution around. It's like insisting you need your alien brain slug and don't want anyone pointing out the harm it's doing to your health. It's a net negative in your life and for society and you don't need it (but it spends a lot of your money trying to fool you into believing you do).

If this thought offends you or hurts your feelings you might need to realize reality doesn't care about your feelings. Reality simply is, whether you like it or not.

A new year is a great time to decide to accept reality anew. Work with how things are, and if you don't like them, see if you can do something to change the way things are and will be into the future. Change is going to happen; see if you can guide it.

This is what I do. Most people act as though government is a concrete thing with rights or authority. This is the reality I have to work with. I do my best to point out to these people that the emperor has no clothes. They can believe me or they can continue to live in a fantasy world-- it's not something I control.

What I can do is keep telling the truth, hoping it makes an eventual impact. Making a better future than might otherwise be. The Universe doesn't care if anyone has a good year. It's our job, as humans, to help each other have the best year possible. Telling the truth is a good start.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Invasion?

Is Texas experiencing an invasion? Does the "invasion clause" of the Constitution (Article IV, section 4) mean any "invasion" or does it only apply to a military/paramilitary invasion? 

It seems that Texas Governor Abbott did one thing right. I'm going to assume he searched the US Constitution, looking for some legal way to stop "immigration" or to close "the border", and since that's not in there, he found a different path. His only hope was to claim an invasion was occurring.

Is it true? Is this honest or is it a typical political lie?

Honestly, I can see both sides. 

Dictionary.com defines "invasion" as:

1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army. (emphasis mine)
2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.

If the people coming here were shooting or machete-ing their way into Texas the first definition would fit. "Entry, plus enmity". Since they aren't, you'd have to be able to read their minds to see their motivations; there are no overt signs they are entering as enemies. Ignoring any counterfeit "laws" regulating "immigration" doesn't meet the criteria.

You could argue some unknown number of them are entering to form or join "sleeper cells". If so, the proper way to deal with that is to encourage the entire American population to stay armed and ready to defend life, liberty, and property from any enemies, foreign or domestic, at all times, everywhere they happen to be. In other words, ditch every single anti-gun rule on the books and all anti-defense legislation. Anything else is equivalent to mass murder, even in the best of times. It is a crime against humanity in the event of an invasion.

If definition #1 fit the situation, the best thing government could do would be to get out of the way. Let the militia handle it by repelling or shooting any combatants encountered. The most legitimate thing the National Guard could do in that case is to hand their weapons over to the militia. (For all the dumb statists out there it needs to be pointed out that the National Guard is NOT the militia, but came along much later.) Maybe they could pass out water bottles and provide medical care, too. All other branches of government military need to stay out of the way unless they are willing to do the same. The government's military isn't a help.

It would be easier to apply definition #2 to the current situation. The case could be made, even if I think you'd have to be collectivist to make it. I could be persuaded by this definition, at least in some individual cases. Cases requiring an individual response and solution.

My 1949 edition of Funk & Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary includes a third definition of “invasion”:

“3 Encroachment, as by an act of intrusion or trespass…”

"Encroachment"? "...to advance beyond proper, established, or usual limits; make gradual inroads". Who gets to define "proper"? "Established" by whom and by what rights? "Usual limits"? It opens a lot more questions. But I can see how it might fit the circumstances... if looked at in a certain way.

If anyone— migrants, border control, Texas cops, federal troops, or whoever— is trespassing on private property they are subject to consequences. If they die, oh well. 

Unfortunately for borderists, the US government does not own all the land inside the “borders” it claims. Crossing government "borders" to enter “public” (government) land (or entering a government building on January 6th) is not trespassing in any real sense. There is no legitimate rightful owner to violate.

Crossing a private property line is another matter.

If, as I’ve heard, the razor-wire fences in question are on private property with the consent (or at the request) of the landowners, then the feds need to back off. If they refuse, I don’t care what happens to them. “S, S, & S”, as ranchers say. And good riddance.

No matter how you want to define "invasion", an authoritarian response is never the right way to go. More government power and control is never going to improve the situation. Let the people handle any problem, if there's a problem.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this