Reject kings of all political stripes

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 12, 2025)

Well, that didn't take long.

A few short weeks ago, people who largely represented one political faction were protesting for "No Kings". Then, too many of those from the very same faction in New York City did a flip-flop and voted for a man who promises to act exactly like a king.

During his election night victory speech, New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani said, "We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about." This is real-world king-level stuff. His supporters didn't notice the contradiction within themselves, but were thrilled at the prospect.

Politics makes people stupid.

Apparently, those voters aren't opposed to kings at all. They just don't like Donald Trump being the president. Who knew? All of us did.

I'm on the side of "No Kings", without exception. I'm not only against kings and queens, I am opposed to the existence of presidents, prime ministers, Congress, governors, mayors, burgermeisters, and government bureaucrats. I am against anyone who rules over or governs others. If they do so in an authoritarian or tyrannical way, so much the worse, but this isn't necessary for them to earn my opposition. It doesn't matter who holds the political position; I am against the position existing and being held or used by anyone.

Still, I can't deny that some people are worse than others. The more they seek to run the lives of others, and the more power they seek for themselves or government, the worse they are. The more they micromanage rather than giving people a chance to solve their own problems for themselves, the more authoritarian they become.

Mamdani will prove something, for sure. "No problem too large for government to solve" is a call for limitless government power; "no concern too small for it to care about" is a promise to meddle in every private corner of your life. This is a pledge to be a tyrant of the worst kind. Yet, his victims cheered.

Will they ever be self-aware enough to realize what they've done to themselves? I doubt it. They'll blame the opposition political faction when things go badly under their new authoritarian tyrant. This is what voters normally do. The next time they have a chance, they will vote for another wanna-be king or queen and feel smug about doing so. Just watch. It's as predictable as the phases of the Moon.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Committed to Liberty

It's hard to find people who are committed to liberty.

Take "gun rights" people, for example. 

Too many of them are fine with other natural human rights being violated- as long as it doesn't affect them. You'll find many of them who support prohibition, "immigration" control, or cops. The number of them who are flaming statists astounds and disappoints me.

A lot of them even approve of background checks, the NFA, and government keeping "certain people" from exercising their right to own and carry weapons. I guess, as long as they have theirs, it doesn't bother them too much if government violates the rights of others.

Gun stores may be the worst offenders, since I suspect many of them like the fact that government is protecting their market share by regulating the crap out of guns, in clear defiance of the Constitution. I think it's some sort of "teacher's pet" power trip. They feel special, since they have a "license"... never mind it's for something no one can rightfully require a license for.

It's not any better with other liberty-oriented topics. Most people love what they love, but everyone else is out of luck. No support.

I do my best to surround myself- at least online- with people who do better. I'm happy to report that it works.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

Religious rights

Everyone has the right to practice their religion- or lack thereof.

Your right to practice your religion can't include a "right" to violate others. Not even if your religion requires it.

No one has the right to murder people over religion. Not because you believe your religion encourages or requires it, or because you don't like their religion.

If your religion actually does require or encourage you to kill people over religion, your religion is disease-spreading sewage oozing across the planet.

No one has the right to murder others, or to violate their life, liberty, or property in any way. Rights don't work like that. If your religion tells you otherwise, your religion is wrong. 

You might still be a good person, but it's in spite of your religion, not because of it.

And, if you imagine I'm singling out any one group, you'd be mistaken.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

Relationship Rules- town level

Our Relationship Rules:

• You can own property only as long as you use it the way I say. You won't build anything I don't want, and you have to get my permission to build anything at all or operate a business on it. And I may not give that permission. Also, you'd better keep your landscaping up to my standards.
• You can't rent a room to strangers unless you pay me for permission.
• You aren't allowed to open a business to make money unless you get my permission and pay me.
• I'll decide how you dispose of your trash and who is allowed to haul it away for you (unless you just toss it in the street, apparently). And if you throw trash away that I want you to send to a possibly fake recycling business, instead, I may punish you.
• You'll only use the kind of bags I allow you to use when carrying your purchased goods home.
• I'll decide what kind of noise I'll allow, and how loud it can be. You have to be quiet, but I can be loud enough to burst your eardrums, if I want. I may play favorites, too. My friends will be allowed to bother you all night long with noise, as long as they are my friends.
• You'll have to trim your trees for my convenience. Even if it makes them ugly or kills them. And there will be some trees I won't allow you to have growing on your property, if I decide they are invasive. Even if the trees I plant are just as invasive and harmful. The rules apply to you, not me!
• You have to pay me for everything you do. For everything you own. It's only right because I'll claim I provide you with "services"- which I'll claim monopoly power over. You don't want to be a slacker who doesn't pay for the services I provide, do you?
• One of those services is my gang of hired guns. More than I could possibly need, but as a show of force to keep you in line. Also, to indoctrinate children into believing in "Officer Friendly".
• If your child misses "too many" days at my indoctrination camp, I may rob you or put you in a cage until you change your wicked ways.
• You can only have as many pets as I say. You can only have the kind of pets I allow. And, since I don't know anything about animals or pets, the rules I decide on may not make any sense, but you can't complain or get me to change my mind. My power to control you matters more than anything else.

Your loving companion,

City Hall

Here are the federal relationship rules, and the state relationship rules.
Government is government, to a large extent. Many of these rules are imposed and enforced by multiple governments. All evil.
There's a lot of overlap. It's probably impossible to list all the rules every governing body dreams up, and fortunately, the local government doesn't inflict all these rules on those who live here. And, the specific rules they care about enforcing seem to change with the winds. 

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

If you don't speak to your cat about 'nip...

Who will? 

This is your cat.

This is your cat on catnip.

Any questions?

Yes, that's the cat I call MommyCat, who is the source of all the kittens I keep feeding, sheltering, and trying (and failing) to save. She almost always looks grouchy, but not when she's relaxing in her catnip patch.

-

Kitten rescue fund

Relationship rules- State level

Our Relationship Rules:

• You will not trade with others unless you pay me for my permission first, or you'll get locked in a cage. For some things, like alcohol and guns, you'll have to beg and pay me twice. (Because I don't like you having access to them, but I'm afraid you might throw me out if I flat out deny them to you.) And getting my permission means you'll let me nose through all your papers and harass your customers anytime I feel like it. You'll thank me for it.
  
  
• You aren't allowed to hire any help unless you pay them what I say. Or I'll destroy your livelihood and lock you in a cage
  
  
• Your car belongs to me, as demonstrated by the plate I'll force you to rent and affix to it, and you can only use it as long as I say you can.
  
  
• You won't travel faster in your car than some arbitrary speed I've decided on, or I'll stop, molest, and rob you. I might decide to lock you in a cage or kill you if I get scared. The same goes for wearing a seat belt.
  
  
• You must at all times carry the identification card I'll rent you, and you will not use your vehicle without it.
  
  
• You have to insure your car to my standards, and carry proof that you've done so, through those I've made arrangements with, or I'll take it from you. With violence if you resist.
  
  
• Your house and land will remain my property forever, which you can keep using only as long as you pay a yearly ransom. Your money is also mine, for you to use only as long as you continue to hand a percentage of it to me.
  
  
• You will hand your children over to my employees to be indoctrinated into believing I am good and necessary for survival. You will, of course, have to pay an excessive fee for this "service" or I'll take your property to sell to someone more compliant. I may also take "your" children and give them to someone else to raise. You must pretend I am educating the children.
  
  
• If I don't feel like others have strict enough rules against you owning, carrying, and using weapons of defense, I'll impose my own additional rules. You'll only defend yourself from others with my permission, which you'll never quite be sure of having. And, if you do, I'll steal your weapon and lock you in a cage, only letting you out if you can prove you didn't really mean it. 
  
  
• You are never allowed to use weapons against me, no matter how abusive or threatening you believe I have become. Or I will kill you or lock you in a cage.
  
  
• Certain plants can only be grown, sold, or consumed if I say so, and if I can find a way to get you to pay me. Otherwise, I'll lock you in a cage.
  
  
• You can only play games using money as a way of keeping score if I say so. And if I'm getting a piece of the action, obviously.
  
  
• I can make up any new rule at any time. I'll decide which rules I will enforce, and when.
  
  
• If you cross some imaginary line, any or all of these rules may change because you're now in a relationship with someone else.
  
  

This is kind of a joke, and kind of not.

I still like the format of the other list better.

There's a lot of overlap between the state's relationship rules and the federal rules. Some of the above could be added to the federal rules- and probably should be.

Here are the local rules.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

"Let me see your governing permit"

Any time someone tries to govern me, I feel like asking to see their governing permit. Of course, they can't because they don't have one.

"Do you have a permit to govern? Have you paid me all the required fees? If not, you're in violation."

Their "job" isn't evidence of a permit, or that they don't need one. A v*te or a "law" doesn't confer the required permission.

If they foolishly tried to use the Constitution, I'd point out that whatever they are trying to do isn't listed there, and thus, they don't have a permit for that. If hunting licenses were in any way legitimate, and they aren't, it would be like showing me a duck stamp to justify hunting bear.

I think a governing permit would require an annual renewal fee of twice the cost, to me, of the governing, including a fee for bureaucratic inconvenience and wasted time. 

Such a permit could be revoked at any time due to the appearance of abuse or the permit holder's attitude, with no refund of permit fees. Upon revocation, all tools of governance must be surrendered to me, to be disposed of as I see fit. Guns, badges, bank accounts, vehicles, offices, records/computers, phones... all handed over immediately. If they refuse to comply, the violators are declaring themselves domestic terrorists.

In reality, this is much too charitable.

But, of course, there can never be any such thing as a permit for something no one has any right to do, and no way to require a permit for things that are a natural human right.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

You don't want to be government's pet

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 5, 2025)

The SNAP crisis has shown a flaw in encouraging people to become dependent on government for anything essential. If you allow yourself to become dependent on government, it will own you.

Why would you do this to yourself? To your family?

This isn't only about food, but about a job, your personal safety, health care, or anything else you expect government to provide. Being dependent on government- something you have no real control over, and which relies on a steady stream of stolen money- is a terrible idea.

Pure self-sufficiency is impossible, but it should remain a guiding principle. It's preferable to not be a burden on others, but to be able to help them when you can. You can't do this if you are too dependent on someone else for your basic needs.

When you're dependent, the best case is that you'll be treated like a pampered pet. You may be taken care of, but you're not in control of your life or your destiny. You may be fed what someone else wants you to eat, and you may get neutered. Literally and figuratively.

The worst case is that you'll be treated like a slave. You aren't in control of your own life, but are under the control of people who don't care what happens to you. They may feed you as long as it serves their purposes and they can use you, but they don't care what happens to you if those purposes change. You're not important to them. You're fooling yourself if you believe you are; if you believe they really care more about you than about their power over you.

If you become dependent on someone else, you've given them the power to hurt you. All they have to do is withhold whatever you've come to rely on and use your anguish as a bargaining chip. Congratulations, you are now a political pawn to be used by political criminals to get whatever they want.

If you decide to riot or steal because of the situation, you've played right into their hands by doing what they were hoping you'd do. They might have said they don't want you to do these things, but they are lying. Your disruptive behavior gives them the excuses they've been hoping for.

I don't want you to put yourself in this position. Do what you can to cut the chains of dependence.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

The anger correlation

I’ve often heard Leftists claim that everyone to the Right of them is only "that way" because they are full of hate and anger (or are ignorant), but in my experience, that’s just not accurate. Or, at least not exclusive to one side.

I do believe, based on a lifetime of observation, that statism of any variety makes a person visibly less happy. It may be a function of going deeper in one extreme direction; those nearer the average may be happier. The people I know who are on the Right haven't been moving further Right, and are generally happier unless someone brings up one of their bonnet bees ("immigration", for example). 

And everyone is ignorant of most of reality, even if we prefer to believe otherwise.

I know one person who is exceedingly w0ke (although she'd deny it and claim it's not about politics), and she hates everything and almost everyone. The more angry she becomes, the further Left she seems to drift, or the further Left she gets, the more angry she becomes- it's hard to tell which way it goes. 

She’s very angry at the world. She only likes movies that depict torture and gruesome murder... or Marvel superhero movies. She only likes angry, screaming "music". She has no room for other opinions on anything, and no matter what you bring up that you like, she has to tell you how much she hates it.

I've mentioned her before. I care what happens to her, but it's hard to have a conversation anymore, because she's getting more w0ke and more angry. Any conversation with her devolves into her expressing hatred toward someone or something after just a few minutes- not towards me, because I know what not to say, but it's ridiculous. I don't know if it's because she believes the world isn't going her way anymore (if it ever did), or just the stress of her job. Or if it's a result of taking herself much too seriously. She's just the most extreme example I personally know of, but there are others.

I would think she's an outlier if I weren't seeing the same thing in so many other places, from so many other people. I know another person (basically non-political) who believes anger "works" for her, and who is proud of it. Of course, there are those on the Right who obsess over the specific things that make them angry. And, I see online libertarians who wallow in anger, too. Usually, it's when they try to mix "Right" or "Left" into their libertarianism, but some genuinely seem to enjoy hating. 

What is going on here? Is there a pandemic of hate and anger? Where will this lead? It doesn't seem like it's going to turn out well.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice!

Government does NOT create rights

Claiming that rights are created by government and its “laws” is like claiming gravity is created by physics textbooks. That doesn't stop statists from making this claim. I've encountered two of them (example 1, example 2) making similar claims within the past few hours.

They really want government to be a god!

Then they'll respond that gravity exists whether textbooks exist or not. I think this is an attempt at the "rights are a human/mental construct" argument. Which, as you can see, doesn't really mean anything, since anything in the Universe (including gravity) can be dismissed as a mental construct that consciousness has created, if you really want to go that route. It changes nothing about how things work.

If they can believe government, or its legislation and documents, are the source of rights, then anything government does can be justified. And this seems to be their biggest desire: to justify something that is a violation of human rights but which aligns with their preferences. Both the Right and the Left play this game.

It can be anti-gun rules, "immigration", cospucking, censorship, prohibition, or any other Big Government policy. If rights come from government, government can change those rights on a whim, to empower itself to do whatever it wants to do. And the Constitution is obviously no barrier.

"Rights come from government" means the mafia makes the rules it decides apply to you, so who do you think those rules will favor? Same with government because government is a mafia.

If rights come from government, there are no rights. In which case, I'll still behave toward you as though there are, and if you try to govern me (which you have no right to do), I will destroy you, and your complaints will fade into the void.

-

Thank you for reading.
Hamsters is nice... I mean tips are...

Government is crime, not corruption

It's not corruption; it's government working EXACTLY as designed.

Government = crime = government = crime = government = crime = ...[infinity]

Not all crime is government crime, but all (political) government is crime- real crime: archation.
And all crime is the application of the political means (like government uses) rather than the economic means, so trying to make a meaningful difference is splitting hairs.

There;s no exception for government you like or policies you agree with. If it's a good idea, there are better (ethical) ways of doing it outside of government.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

Is "The Jerk" a Christmas movie?

This guy, parked on the street in front of the library during the Clovis, NM Christmas parade, is a jerk.

My little group of four tried to stand behind his vehicle (between it and another vehicle), and he said, "We're going to have a lot of people here. You can't stand here. You have to move."

We moved. It's not worth having some ignorant jerk shoot you for being where he doesn't want you to be, but he is a jerk.

We (and he) were on the crowded street. In a public place, Not on his property. We were not going to crowd him more than anyone else. We were no threat to him. But he decided to be a jerk. I noticed later that he didn't have any more (or fewer) people there than any other spot, plus it looked like the jerk had given up trying to assert his counterfeit property rights over the side of Main Street.

And here we are.

UPDATE:

Apparently, other people encountered this jerk as well, including a 14-year-old male he shoved out of the way. I've seen several reports from others who were there. Eventually, he's going to confront or shove the wrong person, and then be shocked at the consequences he reaps.

Relationship rules

I originally got this idea from the LP of Louisiana, and then I modified it a little. 

I used to print it out, fold it up, give it a little pocket wear and tear, and then casually drop it in public places. I don't know if anyone ever picked a copy up and read it, or what effect it had if they did. But I found it funny to think about. Maybe I'll start doing that again. Anyway, here's the note...

Our Relationship Rules: 

* You will not make money without telling me. 

* If you trade, you can only do so with my permission. 

* You will not own anything I don't approve of, or I'll lock you in a cage. 
* You will pay me a large percentage of your income, or get locked in a cage.

* If you do not pay me whatever I demand, you will get locked in a cage. 

* I will take your money as I see fit and spend it as I want. My friends will get a cut. 

* You will not leave my property without my permission. 

* If you attempt to leave my property after getting my permission, I will grope you while bystanders watch before I decide if I'll allow you to go. 

* If you want friends to come over from another place, they must get my permission first. I will grope them. If they are someone I don't approve of, I may put them in the cage or send them back home without letting them see you. 

* You will let me listen in on your phone calls, texts, emails, or any other communications. You will let me bug your computer and watch you and listen to you through its camera and microphone, even if you're not using it. 

* I will monitor your every movement by tracking your cell phone. 

* I will ask you to publicly show your approval of me from time to time. If you don't, my friends will visit you at home and confront you in public, demanding you make this show of loyalty. If you don't do so to my satisfaction, I may put you in the cage.

* If you try to defend yourself from my henchmen, they will kill you- or put you in the cage if you survive.

* If you resist being locked in the cage, I will kill you.

* I will change these rules in my favor whenever I feel like it, and there's nothing you can do but beg me not to. 

* If you complain about any of the above, it's a sign you don't love me, and I may lock you in the cage to teach you to respect me. 

Your loving companion,
The Federal Government of the United States of America

Here are the state-level rules and the local rules.

-

Thank you for reading.
Toss a few million dollars my way- I won't tell.

Using the wrong tool for the job

Nothing is solved with a stricter government response. 

At best, the problem just gets shifted sideways. A new problem is created that distracts from the old problem, without making the old problem any better. This gives pro-government extremists a new excuse to impose a government response to this problem.

Government is the wrong tool for the job of solving problems. Every time. Without exception.

Can you see why it's an endless cycle? Can you see what the only rational response is? Hint: It's not a government crackdown or a new "war on ... whatever".

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are appreciated.

Legal orders vs Ethical orders

Statists are very concerned about whether orders are "legal". They are somewhat less concerned about whether orders are ethical (or "lawful" in the historic sense).

I don't care a whit whether orders are legal. I only care whether they are ethical.

Many great evils are legal. 

If you follow legal orders, you're as likely to be committing wrong as right.
If you follow only ethical orders, you may be in legal trouble, but you're not the bad guy in the dispute.

Political criminals write legislation (which they'll call "laws"), making evil "legal", and then give orders to their minions based on those evil rules. That doesn't make the orders right, nor does it make following those orders ethical. It means if you follow those orders, you're committing evil alongside those who wrote the legislation and those who gave the orders. They are the bad guys and you are assiting them in doing wrong.

Don't do that, regardless of where your political loyalties lie. That's a doomed path.

-

Thank you for reading.
Help me stack Sats.

This isn't way things have to be

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 29, 2025)

I've discovered that telling people what kind of world you want to live in doesn't get through to anyone. It's not enough to describe a world where everyone is free to live in liberty without waiting for permission from sociopaths who imagine they have the right to run your life. This doesn't resonate.

Perhaps it would be better to describe the world I don't want. The world I'm not willing to tolerate.

I don’t want to live in a world where the government isn't afraid of the people. I don’t want to live in a world where police are allowed to act like the masters over a population of slaves who either comply instantly or face death. I don’t want to live in a world where politicians are able to do whatever they want and the people feel they must obey them.

I don't want to live in a world where politicians and their enforcers decide what rights we have, and how those rights can be limited, rationed, or licensed. Where we are expected to thank them for not doing worse.

I don't want to live in a weird upside-down world where governments pretend to have rights; where individuals are only allowed to have privileges as long as they don't scare or inconvenience the politicians and bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, this is the world we have been dealt.

What can be done about it?

First of all, realize this is backward. Nearly every political question has been turned on its head. It's not possible to get things more wrong. This can't be an accident. Someone has done this on purpose, and they are not on your side.

Second, don't pretend this is the way it has to be; the natural order of things. It's not. It's artificial and harmful. It makes society sick by harming individual liberty. Things can be better.

Third, know you don't have to put up with it. You have the rights, the authority, and the ethical foundation- everything they lack. Let them know you know. Tolerate them only as long as they are tolerable. Ignore them when they aren't. Defy them when they leave you no choice.

It will be costly, but not as costly as continuing to let them control and consume your life. Plus, no matter what it costs today, it will cost more tomorrow if allowed to continue. If you value liberty, this is your mission.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Observing feral humans in the wild

I have a sockpuppet X account that does nothing but serve as a backup in case I get banned again. I don't follow people on it, nor do I post or comment. I just use it to observe.

What I observe has taught me some things.

First, it has taught me that no matter how bad the political Right is- and they are bad- the political Left is orders of magnitude worse.

Since I don't interact, I get a good sampling of posts and comments from all ideologies on that account; my "for you" is almost entirely Leftist posts. The Left is far and away the worst people among a nasty crowd. 

They can't talk about something important without lying. Even if I'm inclined to agree with them in principle, they ruin it by lying. They threaten anyone who dares to disagree with them. They are far more aggressive, on average, than the Right. They are ruder than the Right.

Sure, there are exceptions, and this is my subjective observation based on what I end up being fed by the mysterious algorithm.

Again, the Right are often wrong, but they generally seem to be nicer people than those on the Left- until you figure in their cop/military worship. Better adjusted, less angry, and less crazy. I kind of wish it weren't so, because I want to side with the Left when they point out ways in which the Right is wrong. And, I still do, but it feels icky when I see what kind of people they are beyond that one dimension. Sure, it sometimes feels the same way to side with the Right when they point out how wrong the Left is. Neither side seems able to see beyond their politics into what's true and right.

It's simpler if I can just see them all as statists who hate/fear liberty. Which they are. But it's also delusional to not notice the differences, subtle and overt.

It has also taught me how much of a bubble my real X account is in. I'm protected from many of the most toxic statist "opinions" by who I follow and who I choose to interact with. This makes it more enjoyable, but it gives me a false sense of the world. Just a quick visit to the silent account breaks the illusion.

-

Thank you for reading.
Toss a pile of doubloons my way.

Who is the problem?

 

Jews are not the problem. 

“Blacks” are not the problem.

“Immigrants” are not the problem.

"White" men are not the problem.

Landlords are not the problem.

People who choose to violate life, liberty, and property are the problem, no matter what category one might place them in.

If anyone chooses to continue to be a part of any group that is based on violating others, as a condition of belonging, even if they don’t personally participate, they are the problem. This could be a career, a religion, or a culture.

If someone is trying to make someone else the problem, based on something besides individual behavior, they are not helping. They are making the problem worse by causing a distraction.

-

Thank you for reading.
Toss a few million dollars my way- I won't tell.

The symptoms cluster and lead to a diagnosis

People who believe Americans own "too many guns" are usually the same people who believe the Covid lockdowns "saved millions of lives". It isn't a coincidence.

You really can't communicate with people that stupid (or brainwashed). The best you can accomplish is to point it out to observers.

And, isn't it strange how these beliefs cluster together? You already know which other baseless beliefs such a person is highly likely to hold. They are all symptoms of a political disease: Leftism.

The political disease of Rightism has its own cluster of symptoms; you know what they are. 

Of course, one lone symptom isn't enough for a diagnosis, but if you get two or more, you can extrapolate to know what the problem is with stunning accuracy. It works nearly every time.

On the other hand, maybe the Rightism and Leftism are only symptoms of the disease of Statism; each with its own cluster of sub-symptoms.

Self-responsibility is the cure, but it looks unappealing to the chronically ill sufferers who would benefit the most from a big dose.

-

Thank you for reading.
Toss a few cents my way.

Statism is a tragedy

Many of the events that attract media attention are simply gang warfare, gang vs. gang, and since I belong to neither gang, I don't really care. None of them are "our" teammates.

I don't want innocent people hurt or killed or otherwise violated, but innocent people don't violate life, liberty, or property (fundamental human rights). Many times, I don't see an innocent person where others seem to. 

Often it's a matter of consequences: Do certain things, and you increase the likelihood of certain bad outcomes. Crying about it afterward doesn't change anything. If you don't like getting zapped, don't stick your tongue in a light socket.

I wish the gangs would keep it between themselves and leave the rest of us alone. But they can't seem to do that. They will lie and claim to be on my side, but I know it's a lie. This is why I can't get too involved in the drama surrounding some of these events that I'm told are VERY IMPORTANT for me to get worked up over.

Statism is a tragedy. It would be weird if it didn't lead to more tragedy every time it is applied.

-

Thank you for reading.
Toss breadcrumbs to me.