Saturday, April 10, 2021

Fact checking a "fact check" on a fact check

Joe Biden said you can buy any gun you want at a gun show without a background check.

Fact checkers say Biden's wrong because dealers are still required to do unconstitutional (illegal) FBI background checks on all the guns they sell at a gun show.

Scott Adams "fact checks" the fact checkers by making the claim that Biden was right-- you can buy any gun you want at a gun show just by finding a private individual who is selling the exact gun you want. No background check.

Here's why Adams is-- yet again-- wrong on guns.

Do you know what kind of guns you can't generally get in a private sale at a gun show (or anywhere)? The newest gun model, in brand new unfired condition. 

You can get almost anything as long as you don't mind a used gun. You might even luck out and find an older gun in like-new, unfired condition, or a brand new model that someone bought but decided to not keep after firing a box or two of ammunition through it. But the chance of finding a brand new, unfired example of the newest thing is going to be as likely as finding a unicorn.

Do you know what other guns you can't get in a "background-checkless" private sale at a gun show? Anything illegally rationed by the 1934 NFA.

So, no, you can't buy any gun you want, at a gun show, without a background check. Joe Biden and Scott Adams were both utterly and completely wrong. Again. As anti-gun bigots and government-supremacists almost always are.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Friday, April 09, 2021

New flag review

I got a really nice endorsement for the Time's Up flags over at Guns, Fun, Food and More. Check it out!

Ol' Joe Bad'un's "executive actions" against gun owners

Domestic enemy and anti-gun bigot criminal Joe Biden (probably under the control of his emotional support pig*) has announced "executive actions" on guns. 

He lies and says it's about "gun violence". It's not-- it's about violating every ethical gun owner.

He lies and says this doesn't violate the Second Amendment; that no amendment is absolute-- what he means is that he believes no right is absolute. He's wrong. 

The truth is, rights can either be respected or violated, there is no third option. You can't really get more absolute than that. Whether or not a right is explicitly listed in a constitutional amendment is irrelevant (the Ninth Amendment covers all those, anyway). 

Yes, all rights come with responsibility, but he can't choose (or add on to) what that responsibility will entail. The responsibility remains the same, always: the responsibility to not archate. Nothing he can say or do can change this in the slightest way, and in fact, by doing what he is doing he has grievously violated his responsibility. He is stepping beyond what he has a right to do. He has become (well, he has been for decades) the aggressor. The bad guy. Much worse than any mass shooter or freelance murderer. 

He is taking sides with the mass murderers and freelance murderers who will be empowered by his actions. At your expense. This will cost innocent lives.

Remember, executive actions are not executive orders, executive orders are not legislation, legislation isn't law, and law can never violate a natural human right, such as the right to own and to carry weapons. If it violates a natural human right, it isn't law.

Not only that, he put a monstrous anti-gun bigot, with the blood of Waco on its filthy claws, in charge of the unconstitutional, unethical, and criminal BATFEces gang. This feels like a declaration of war to me.

You aren't obligated to comply with any of this, and you have the ethical right to defend yourself from those who try to impose it on you. No, it won't be safe or easy-- doing the right thing rarely is.

If you hold out hope that "good cops" will refuse to enforce his evil will, you are out of touch with reality. 

A better hope may come from the record number of new, first-time gun owners that have been created in the past year or so. I have my doubts that they just spent all that money to give away their new guns if/when ordered to do so. But you never know. 

This could be the dusk of some coming dark times, or it could be the dark before the storm that washes away evil parasites like Joe Biden. The way this goes is up to you and me.


*I apologize to the intelligent swine of the non-human variety. I am not the one who began the tradition of calling cops "pigs". Maybe I should have called her his emotional support Reptilian, instead. But, again, I prefer reptiles to things of her sort.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Thursday, April 08, 2021

Rights are individual

In the near future, it may become essential to understand this: Governments/corporations have no rights. None. Zero. Only individuals have rights.

The individuals in corporations/government have rights, but they have no right to violate your rights for the sake of their government/corporation (collective). 

Joining forces with other like-minded individuals who also want to violate your rights for their purposes doesn't manufacture this imaginary collective "right". Rights aren't additive-- two people don't have more rights than one has. That would just be an example of "Might makes right"-- might through superior numbers. Also known as democracy or mob rule.

This results in taxation, eminent domain, property codes, licensing/permit schemes ("vaccine passports"?), censorship, mask mandates, business shutdowns, or whatever some collective wants to do to you "for your own good" or for "the common good". None of it is even slightly legitimate.

This doesn't mean it's a good idea to give government the power to control corporations. It's not, just as it's not a good idea to let corporations control government. But I'd rather they be adversaries trying to control each other than allies conspiring to control me. I'd be content to watch them destroy each other. Yes, I realize the hardships that might create. I don't care.

When they join forces you get economic fascism. You get "private-public partnerships". You get cronyism. You get legislation that protects incumbents, the mega-corporations, and "the system" from anyone who might threaten their supremacy. You get corporations that cater more to the state than to the people who are their supposed customers. You get governments that favor the imaginary "rights" of corporations over the actual rights of the people. They both know who really butters their bread, and it isn't you and me.

Anyone saying "corporations have a right to..." or "government has the right to..." doesn't understand what a right is.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Wednesday, April 07, 2021

NM fumbled on legal marijuana

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 7, 2021)

Leave it to government to fumble a chance to do the right thing.

New Mexico has finally decided to legalize Cannabis. This could have been a win for liberty, but they did it wrong. Instead of letting the market handle it, as they should have, they wanted to get their fingers in as deep as the rest...

Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Tuesday, April 06, 2021

I won't accept a "vaccine passport"

I'm already opposed to all forms of government ID. Why wouldn't I oppose "vaccine passports", too?

I realize that no one who makes these decisions is going to listen to a nobody like me. I'm not a government-supremacist so they wouldn't take me seriously even if they knew I exist and I agreed with them.

I wasn't around when most government "papers" were first issued, so there wasn't a lot I could do. They had already been accepted by most people and entrenched in the way things work long before I was born. Although it has gotten a lot worse during my lifetime.

But there aren't widespread vaccine passports yet, and I plan to be as non-compliant and obstinate as I can. And I plan to encourage non-compliance from others, as well. This seems the best opportunity for a clear line in the sand that I've seen.

Maybe, together, we can throw wooden shoes in the cogs. Even if we fail, at least we didn't go quietly.

If you have your reasons for supporting vaccine passports, I would like to hear them. 

I know some people are more afraid of Covid than I am, and there's nothing I can do about that. If someone doesn't see by now that the fearmongering was overblown, there's nothing I can say to convince them. 

But I am not obligated to arrange my life around their fears. Nor am I obligated to quietly comply with new government demands that violate my basic liberty. Not even through some imaginary "social contract" that seems to say anyone can do anything they want to me as long as they call themselves political "authority" and claim they are doing the bidding of society.

For a while at least, maybe vaccine passports won't be necessary when ordering groceries online for contactless drop-off. After the "Unclean" are no longer allowed in stores. So you won't be reliant on some passported person to bring you food. Yet. But eventually, that won't be good enough. They'll want to hurt those who don't comply. What then?

I've said for a long time that libertarians may be headed for a fate of being second-class residents, as the tracking demands get more numerous and more rigid, to a point where more of us simply can't comply. This is just another move in that direction. What are you going to do about it?


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Monday, April 05, 2021

Where property rights begin

Since the subject has been brought up again...

1- Things you might possess while in my house-- at my invitation-- that are none of my business unless you choose to make them so (regardless of whether or not I would approve of them if I knew they were there):

  • Bad unspoken thoughts.
  • Your pink thong underwear hidden beneath your pants.
  • The tattoo on your upper back, under your shirt, praising Satan or Jesus.
  • Your pocket Mein Kampf, Communist Manifesto, or US Constitution that stays in your pocket.
  • A non-contagious medical condition (broken rib, pacemaker, colostomy, etc.).
  • A baggie of weed in your back pocket.
  • Etc.

2- Things you might possess while in my house-- at my invitation-- that are my business (separate from the issue of whether or not I approve of them):

  • A sermon you feel the need to preach in my living room.
  • An Antifa shirt.
  • An unshielded vial of plutonium.
  • A parrot or monkey on your shoulder. 
  • A contagious disease.
  • The Cannabis you are currently smoking.
  • Etc.

Your bodily autonomy-- no matter where you stand-- is the beginning of property rights, but not necessarily the end. Hopefully, your property rights don't end there, but for some people, they do. These are the only property rights everyone has in absolutely equal measure. As with all other rights, they will either be respected or violated.

Sure, it is a bubble, but it is no more "magic" than the bubble of property rights surrounding your home and land or your private business. To seek to violate this right, on any pretext, is to enslave someone-- as happens to prisoners in government custody. Without these rights, there would be no such thing as "property rights" of any sort to be respected or violated.

You are perfectly within your rights to refuse access to your property if you can't respect the equal and identical rights of those you invite onto it to be secure and whole in their person.

If I invite you onto my property, I invite you with all your rights completely intact, no exceptions. No matter how many people disagree.

I'm not looking for approval or agreement; just explaining my view of the subject. Your view may, obviously, differ.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Sunday, April 04, 2021

You'll always offend someone

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 10, 2021)

The Righteous and Holy Arbiters of What is Acceptable now seek to cancel Dr. Seuss. This may be my final last straw with "cancel culture".

Yes, some of Dr. Seuss's illustrations look insensitive today because he and his drawings aren't from today, but from an earlier time. I seriously doubt he would draw them the same if he were drawing today. Even then, someone would be offended. 

His illustrations make everyone look ridiculous in one way or another. Even animals, plants, and gadgets. Most playful portrayals of people are inaccurate and silly. People have traits which will be exaggerated for effect, and people do dumb things which seem funny. Otherwise, what would distinguish anyone from the crowd? Why draw them?

If you eliminate all representations of people of other races (and cultures) which might offend someone, you can't complain if only one bland race is represented everywhere from now on.

Should we get rid of everything which doesn't fit how we imagine people should be portrayed? How rude will current illustrations and writings look in a few decades or centuries? Should they then get rid of everything from our era which doesn't live up to their new standards? Standards which may or may not be better? Do you believe hiding the past is ever a good idea?

When you're offended by something, it says more about you than about the person who did whatever offended you. Everyone is offended by something.

I'm a bit offended by statues of politicians or military figures, but I think it's important to not erase the signs of the past. The next generation could grow up imagining the past was exactly like the present, except for fuzzy notions of old technology. Why bother striving to improve if you can't see proof humans have improved throughout history?

I also find these calls to ban certain Dr. Seuss books offensive-- but since I'm an adult, I don't imagine I have a right to not be offended. Such a right can't exist. Everything is going to be offensive to someone.

I stand with Dr. Seuss. I stand with Lenny Bruce, Colin Kaepernick, Jordan B. Peterson, and even politicians who have offended someone at some time. To do otherwise will cripple civilization and paralyze us into inaction for fear that someone, somewhere, will be offended. Get over it and get on with life. Do something worthwhile. You'll offend someone. Do it anyway.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Saturday, April 03, 2021

Cops are dangerous drivers

A couple of weeks ago as I was taking my daily walkabout around this town, I came across a guy trimming a bush and I offered to help him carry the branches to the dumpster.

As we worked he mentioned that the police chief had told him to trim the bush because one of his officers (there are one or two-- I can't keep up) had almost had an accident coming out of the alley beside the bush-- it was blocking his view.


More than once I've almost been hit by a cop car zooming out of the alleys around town. I've had to slam on my brakes to avoid an accident. In places where there was nothing obstructing the view. This has happened when I've been a passenger, too. The cops believe they own the streets and they drive like it.

I believe the cops simply don't want to be held responsible for driving like angry drunks. Probably a cop nearly hit someone and chose to blame the guy's bush instead of his own bad driving.

I could be wrong, but from what I've seen, I doubt that I am.

Cops lie-- it's just what they do. Cops are scum; not the good kind ("rebel scum"), but authoritarian scum.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Friday, April 02, 2021

Kinderprison blues

My daughter is fighting to go back to kinderprison next year. 

She wants to be a part of the middle school girl drama that caused her so many problems over the past couple of years before Covid gave me the excuse to withdraw her from that mess. (Well, it gave her mom the excuse to finally agree to it.)

I've told her there are plenty of ways to get caught up in drama without being in kinderprison, but apparently, she also misses the lack of education that occurs there. It's easier to get by without even pretending to learn anything in the classroom than it is at home.

Somehow, 2 hours or so per day-- beginning at 10 AM or later-- spent on education is more burdensome than being dragged out of bed-- tired and groggy-- at 7 every morning to spend 8 or so hours on schooling. Something she has always hated and not been shy about saying so.

But now that seems better to her than the way she's been doing it?

It's frustrating.

Her mental and emotional health has improved dramatically since she got out. Of course, she gravitates toward online "friends" who bring heaps of drama of their own sort. Middle school girls are a big mess of toxic social contagions. But at least there doesn't seem to have been any bullying.

I'm opposed to simply saying "Because I'm the parent, that's why!" In this case, it's tempting. 

I've been considering some sort of binding deal to offer her. I still have time to work something out. I just hope it's something that doesn't make things worse.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Thursday, April 01, 2021

When "libertarian" gets tossed aside

It seems to me that whenever a person makes the decision to "identify" as a "right libertarian" or as a "left libertarian", their loyalty is never to the libertarian part.

I've watched it happen time after time.

As soon as they are forced to make a choice, the "libertarian" gets tossed aside in favor of the "left" or "right" statist or "social" position.

That seems completely backwards to me. Why keep the trash and toss out the treasure?


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Rebel, but make it responsible

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 31, 2021)

This past year has been hard on liberty. 

It started with world-wide government overreaction to a pandemic. This was still going strong when some focus shifted to choosing a politician to run your life. 

Recently, as the pandemic hype began to fizzle in many places and after most of the post-election drama had faded, the push to further violate your natural human right to own and to carry weapons was triggered by the horrible crimes of a few evil losers. Making good people helpless won't make bad people the rest...

Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Opposition, not fear

People-- smart people, especially-- can oppose something without being afraid of it. Fear doesn't have to be a factor.

I'm not afraid of anti-gun legislation, but I oppose it because it violates human rights.

I'm not afraid of vaccine passports (or driver's licenses), but I oppose them because they violate human rights.

I'm not afraid of snakes, but I oppose putting them in other people's houses without their consent because that would violate their rights. The people, not the snakes.

To imagine that opposition to something must be based in fear is rather ignorant. It may even be a case of projection.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Monday, March 29, 2021

Niche museums for oddball interests

The other day I again visited the International UFO Museum (and Research Center) in Roswell, New Mexico. It's kind of amazing to me that someone could make such a museum and that it stays so busy. But good for them.

I wonder how a Museum of Government (as I have discussed in the past) would fare. 

It would be hard to make it interesting for reasonable people and government-supremacists, alike. And you'd need both to make money on it.

I have lots of ideas for displays, though.

I can picture a diorama in the "Prehistory of Government" room showing some skin-clad fellows realizing it's safer to pose as Wise Men and protectors who are "owed" a cut of the hunt than it is to roam from tribe to tribe killing and looting, thus forming the first political government. 

Another where they are arguing that only they and their henchmen should be carrying stone-tipped spears, while everyone else is only allowed a sharpened stick-- upon their approval, of course. For "safety".

Maybe the statists would come for the laughs, unknowingly wallowing in their ignorance. As long as they paid the admission fee, they can laugh all they want. The joke is on them.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Sunday, March 28, 2021

'Law enforcement' not what we have

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 3, 2021)

A couple of local sheriffs claim to be concerned that new legislation makes "law enforcement" [sic] the enemy. If so, they don't understand the nature of legislation.

Legislation always makes someone the enemy. Both those harmed by the legislation-- and make no mistake: all legislation harms some innocent people-- and those who enforce that legislation.

If policing were limited to law enforcement, they would only be the enemy of actual bad guys. When they act as legislation enforcement instead, they've chosen the position they say they don't want to be in.

"Don't hurt people or take their stuff" is the extent of real law, which true law enforcement would stick to. If someone enforces harmful legislation, which is everything else, they're on the wrong side and already the enemy.

Real law respects people's natural right to their body and all the products of their body. Legislation pretends someone else has a right to control what others ingest, how they earn money, how much of their money they can keep, and what they do with their property.

No one has a right to cross the line drawn above. Majority opinion or legislation can't create such a right. Enforcing such legislation or otherwise violating natural human rights is what makes someone the enemy, no matter how they excuse their behavior. It's no different than someone who was drunk claiming this is why they aren't responsible for an accident they caused.

Actual criminals violate real law while also violating legislation. Fake "criminals" only violate legislation. It's the difference between mala in se (actually wrong because it violates others) and mala prohibitum ("wrong" just because politicians say so). If law enforcement existed, this is what it would be limited to. But there is only legislation enforcement-- mostly chasing those who have broken worthless legislation based on nothing more than politicians' opinions.

Maybe they would claim this also coddles real criminals, but it doesn't. Real law enforcement would not protect actual criminals from their intended victims by enforcing legislation. This would do more to fight actual crime than posting a cop at every intersection would; turning New Mexico into a police state.

It seems legislation enforcers care most about legislation when it hurts them more than it hurts other people. They'll try to frame it as a danger to "the public" too. I'm not buying it. I can't fault them for a natural human desire to protect their position, though.

Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

I never want you to be at a disadvantage

"Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless."

I don't know who first said this, and as with most quotes, it doesn't matter; it is true regardless. 

Maybe there's never a danger of you being helpless-- you could defend yourself with a chair or other improvised weapon. But to me, that's not good enough. I don't want you to be at a disadvantage against a bad guy. I want you to have the advantage, but if that's not possible, at least have the possibility of being adequately armed. 

Any legislation or policy which makes this less likely is evil. I would never support such a thing.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Saturday, March 27, 2021

"The right to v*te"

It seems a lot of people these days are very concerned about a supposed "right" to v*te. They either freak out in fear that this "right" is being withheld from some people, or they fear that if too many other people do it, it diminishes the value of their "legitimate" v*te.

I don't believe any such thing as a "right to v*te" exists, but even if it does, it's going to have very firm limits that most of its advocates aren't going to like.

If there is any such thing as a "right to v*te" it can't include a right to violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else by a majority. 

That means you have no right to encourage politicians to tax anyone, to ban the ownership or carrying of any sort of weapons, to take someone's land and put a sports complex on it, to force people to place their children in a kinderprison, to criminalize the manufacture, sale, or use of any substance-- to do anything in any way that violates natural human rights to life, liberty, or property.

And in today's world, that's about all any election-- a statist mob ritual-- is about. V*ting is the foundation of democracy, and democracy is mob rule; might (through superior numbers) makes "right".

The rights of the masses do not outweigh the rights of the individual. Not even if it's a trillion to one.

You have no "right" to gang up to violate rights you don't care about or that you don't like.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Friday, March 26, 2021

"Cool-looking" stuff encourages crime?

Scott Adams suggests that getting rid of "cool-looking" guns would make it less likely that evil losers-- the only kind of people who commit mass murder-- would commit mass murder. 

These evil losers might enjoy imagining themselves-- according to him-- carrying out their massacre holding a weapon that they think looks cool. Maybe even dying with it in their hands. If they didn't have cool-looking weapons to wield, they would be less likely (he guesses maybe 5% or so less likely) to go through with their attack. Why bother if they can't look cool doing it?

Can you see the errors in his thinking?

The coolest-looking gun I own is my original Winchester 1894... at least in my opinion. Or, maybe it's my Hawken rifle. I guess it depends on my mood. The point is, "cool-looking" is always subjective-- it can't be otherwise.

And why only guns?

Would it be a good idea to get rid of cool-looking cars to reduce speeding and traffic fatalities? Again, what is cool-looking? 

My coolest-looking car was my 1975 Citicar-- not exactly a speed machine. And, most people didn't think it looked the slightest bit cool. But I did. (Evidence that I was never cool.)

Maybe get rid of the kind of houses that successful politicians/criminals like and that unsuccessful ones aspire to, to reduce the motivation to commit crime. 

Criminalize clothing that is frequently preferred by people who choose a life of archation-- black hoodies and business suits, for example.

Where does this silly line of "reasoning" end? It ends as it begins-- with violating people's right to private property based on what others believe they don't "need".

Decent people aren't going to intentionally violate others. Evil losers might. How cool a person believes a particular tool looks isn't the issue, and can't really be controlled by fiat. 

If you eliminated all the "cool-looking" guns currently available, some other commonly available gun would become the new "cool" one-- as would some other tool if you were magically able to eliminate all guns. You'd be trapped forever chasing the next cool thing in a futile attempt to make evil losers stop being losers who commit evil.

Should we give up everything we like the looks of in a doomed attempt to discourage bad guys from violating the innocent?

Or, you know, would it be more effective to make it OK again to defend yourself and others from all evildoers, no matter what tool they prefer?

You know my position.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Thursday, March 25, 2021

It's official. I'm balanced.

A few days ago on Twitter, it was all the rage to check to see how "balanced" you are, as far as whether you only get your information from a part of the political realm-- "right" or "left"-- ignoring the rest of it.

I've advocated balance from time to time, and always considered it a good idea. It seems (at least on Twitter, according to Ground News) I practice what I preach. Honestly, I don't see how the results could have been any more balanced.

Of course, when it says I "interact" with those "news" sources, it means I poke them and ridicule them when they say stupid, government-supremacist things. I may be balanced, but I am always biased for liberty.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Never give anything to government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 24, 2021)

It is disappointing to read that the Bill Dalley windmill collection-- which had been entrusted to the Roosevelt County government-- is being split up. Let this be a lesson: if you want something protected and preserved for the future, don't give it to a the rest...


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Mass murder at Boulder's King Soopers

It's hard to avoid falling into conspiratorial thinking when mass shootings happen anytime the anti-gun bigots of government need them to happen.

Like, do these evil losers get their marching orders directly, or do they just know instinctively when to "go hot" to advance the anti-gun agenda?

How much do you want to bet the Boulder King Soopers was a designated slaughter zone? Has anyone seen a photo of the "We don't care if you die" sign by their door?

Some want to say that the cop being killed shows guns wouldn't save anyone. But, an evil loser is naturally going to target the one person he knows for sure is armed first. Then he's free to kill uninterrupted. A universally-armed population would have solved that problem before it even began.

It sickens me that someone could murder that many people without being shot dead in the act by 4 or 5 bystanders. But this is the world anti-gun bigots and their legislation have worked so hard to create and perpetuate. 

As always, the problem was too few guns, with the evil loser having the advantage. But anti-gun bigots want to double down and make this the guaranteed default-- by legislation, everywhere. You can't fail harder than that. They are literally siding with potential mass murderers, making it safer for them to commit evil. 

I've been part of more than one universally-armed society. An armed society IS a polite-- and peaceful-- society. Not, as the anti-gun bigots fear, one where everyone is afraid of everyone else. Maybe one where everyone respects the rights of everyone else, for sure. One where people who might otherwise feel the "need" to violate others are now afraid to do so. Not a bad thing in any way.

A lesson here is that, anytime anti-gun legislation is at the top of the agenda, don't go anywhere unarmed. A mass shooting is coming soon. Maybe more than one. It probably won't happen in your presence, but no one can guarantee that. "It can't happen here, now, to me" is delusional thinking. Be ready. Unlike the anti-gun bigots who blame guns, I want you to be safe, prepared, and responsible. I don't treat you like a somewhat stupid, naughty child.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Legislation-- Ideas so "good" they require threats

One difference between me and any statist is that, when I think something is a good idea, I'm not willing to force everyone else to go along. 

I believe almost everyone should own and carry a firearm with them everywhere they go. (Even those who I don't believe should do so shouldn't have anyone forbidding it.) 

However, I would be opposed to legislation forcing people to own and carry a weapon if they don't want to. I am just as opposed to this as I am opposed to legislation limiting who can own and carry a weapon or where weapons are "allowed" to be carried.

For the same reason, I'm in favor of people deciding for themselves, based on informed consent, whether they will take a vaccine or wear a face mask. I am opposed to these decisions being forced on anyone.

The only force I'm in favor of is that used against those who archate-- defensive force is a good thing.

Let the market of ideas work. If your idea is good, let it spread organically, not by mandate. If your idea is so "good" you have to force people to go along, it was never a good idea.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Monday, March 22, 2021

Worrying about the wrong things

My parents seem to worry a lot about "illegal immigrants", just as FOX News tells them they should. They manage to bring this up in conversations that seem (to me) to have nothing to do with the topic.

Usually, I just sit and stare when they go off on that tangent-- at least until I have had enough.

They imagine that this category of people doesn't "pay" taxes, which is ridiculous, but if it were true (which it isn't), good for them! I don't want anyone to help fund my arch-enemy. If you manage to avoid being robbed, who am I to object?

They complain that they are coming here for "free stuff", without realizing that the problem is offering the "free" stuff (which was stolen from others) to anyone, not the people who take what is offered. If you put out a bird feeder, you're an idiot to complain when it attracts birds. End the handouts, completely, and then no one will come here to get them.

They also imagine that Creepy Joe ("See, I can still walk!") Biden has opened the gates to anyone, when that's not even close to true. He has just renamed Trump's (and all previous presidents') policies to sound "gentler". "Kids in cages" has become "Kids protected in migrant facilities".

I don't advocate for "open borders" because I don't believe in government borders at all-- open, closed, or with a doorman. I believe in private property rights, and the right to defend yourself and your property from ALL violators, regardless of where they were born or why they imagine they have a right to violate you.

"But they'll all v*te Democratic!"

Yes, migrants-- if they get the chance-- will v*te for whoever treats them better. (Or whoever they imagine treats them better, as the case may be.) Whose fault is this?

If the Grumpy Opposition Party (GOP) turned the tables and treated migrants better than the Democrats do, what might happen? 

But why not simply admit that rights and liberty are never legitimately up for a v*te? No matter how many would v*te them away.

No one can v*te away your rights if your rights are never negotiable. This just shows why democracy is illegitimate, even when you call it a republic. Political government is always going to lead to the same place, and it isn't a good place-- it's a place where natural human rights get ignored and the supremacy of the State is beyond question. 


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Sunday, March 21, 2021

Start getting prepared for emergencies

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 24, 2021)

I thought the past year had taught people to be prepared and less dependent on rescue by others. It seems I was wrong.

This has been quite the year for "preppers". Just one crisis after another, with the recent cold snap and power outages the latest chapter. If you're still not a prepper, you have no one to blame but yourself when you get caught off-guard by the next event. You've had plenty of warning, and you've seen that politicians aren't able to save you, even if they wanted to.

If I seem to harp on this topic, it's because I care about your safety and comfort.

During the recent cold spell, I heard personal stories from people who huddled in their cars for hours trying to stay warm; of school buses being distributed and parked in neighborhoods as emergency shelters from the cold; of burst pipes and house fires.

People died from carbon monoxide poisoning because they didn't understand how to safely stay warm when the grid is down.

We were lucky in this area. This time.

People have an individual responsibility to be prepared for storms, record cold (and heat), and power outages. It's not all their fault, though. They've been lulled into a false sense of security.

There's another lesson which seems obvious to me: It's a terrible idea to allow government to grant utility monopolies, decide energy policy, and otherwise interfere in the energy market. When this happens, you get blackouts at the worst possible times.

Instead of government dictating how energy will be produced and distributed, there should be a market providing it. If government gets involved, there is no market; only politics. Central planning doesn't work. At least not to the advantage of the people. There isn't enough flexibility and innovation that way.

You'll become reliant on too few options.

Central planning works well in the short term for politicians and their cronies, though. That's why they won't willingly let go. The people will have to take it away from them if anything is to change in a meaningful way.

What should have been a learning experience will probably result in no change. The wrong people are being blamed and the wrong people are being asked to save us from next time. No one is looking in the right place for the solutions.

If nothing else, follow FEMA's advice for the emergency supplies they recommend at It's a start.

(Added: Do I think FEMA is legitimate or credible? Nope. But this was written for "Themasses" who read the local newspaper. At least the FEMA supply advice won't hurt them, and would make them more prepared than otherwise.)

Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Creative boredom

People differ. This is why "one-size-fits-all" mandates and legislation never fit all.

I've always found a little bit of boredom to be essential for my mental health. Not the toxic kind of boredom, such as what I experienced in kinderprison classrooms, but creative boredom. The kind of boredom that, when it happens, allows you to do whatever comes to mind, eagerly, to relieve the boredom, without feeling rushed or like you're neglecting something else. And without someone screaming at you to pay attention, get to work, and stop daydreaming.

Call it free time, with no plan and no guilt.

If I have a dozen projects nagging for my attention the only kind of boredom that strikes is the destructive kind.

But if I have nothing to do, and there's nothing I feel I should be doing, my creativity can flow.

I've had too little of the good kind of boredom recently. I used to have tons of it. My wikiup and tipi area was where a lot of it happened. It was a daily mental vacation, and I miss it. (I've been trying without success to find a replacement for years now.)

The past couple of months have been unusually hectic-- tons of projects and "obligations" in various stages of completion with no time to take a breath. 

Usually, when I'm doing some mindlessly repetitive task I get bored and can at least think. That hasn't been the case with these projects, probably because they've required too much thought and attention. They've drained my brain and my body.

I have an art project I've been needing to work on (for my dad's birthday), but without time to get bored, it just hasn't happened. It's not something I can just decide I'm going to do, like a physical or mental task-- if I do it this way it would be a failure because of a lack of creativity. I have to have time to get bored enough to get creative.

I also find it harder to let my mind come up with blog posts and newspaper columns if there's no time for my mind to wander. Recently, because of this, I haven't had time to tone down my newspaper columns for "public consumption" as much as I normally do. Not sure if that's good or bad.

So this next week, I have declared my very own "No projects week". Maybe it's my spring break. Yes, there will probably be blog posts-- if I let my mind wander, they just come to me whether I want them or not. But I'm not going to be forcing anything. I plan on boring myself into creativity and hoping it recharges my batteries.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Saturday, March 20, 2021

I hate when the evil loser survives

If you are an evil loser who murders people, I don't care extra about your victims if you did it because you hated their "race", sex, or religion (or lack thereof). I don't care about them less if you had no insane "reason" behind your aggressive act.

I don't care if you did it because you imagine they slighted you in some way that a rational person wouldn't even think of considering.
I don't care if you did it because of an addiction or any other mental or physical problem.
I don't care if you did it because people-- who were not your victims-- bullied you.

I don't believe in "hate crimes". You did what you did, and that's all that matters. People who are murdered but don't fit into a government-favored category are still just as dead, and their murderer is still equally evil.

The thing I always hope for is that you don't survive your attack, either at your own hand or at the hand of an intended victim or a rescuer.

I would have wanted one of your potential victims to have splattered the walls with your blood and brains. 

No, I don't want the Blue Line Gang to arrest you and cage you; both the gang and your caging financed by stolen money. That just victimizes more people, adding to the number of your victims in a huge way. That some pathetic people imagine that people like you justify taxes, cops, and the state just makes you that much more disgusting.

No sympathy from me.

All the above comes with a necessary caveat: I know the national mainstream "news" business lies, and I know government employees (cops, etc.) lie. Both lie routinely to make an event fit their narrative, so nothing I have heard from any of them about this event is necessarily true. There's your grain of salt.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Thursday, March 18, 2021

Asbestos and guns

Asbestos is something which protects people from certain dangers, but is also inherently dangerous-- especially if mishandled. However, the greater danger comes from trying to remove it.

Guns are similar in some ways.

Guns are something which protect people from certain dangers, but they are inherently dangerous-- especially if mishandled. However, the greater danger comes from trying to remove them.

It's interesting that some people recognize the truth where asbestos is concerned, but ignore or deny the truth where guns are concerned. 

In fact, one such person wrote an entire book about misguided fears where he pointed out the facts about asbestos, but then prattled on and on about how "the real danger" to us was the availability of guns. With issue after issue, if there was a way he could find to blame "the availability of guns", that's what he did. It was awkward and kind of dumb. Politics had caused brain damage and he didn't realize it. His brain damage made him anti-science.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Wednesday, March 17, 2021

Gun owners' rights in danger

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 17, 2021-- Just to be clear, in spite of the headline, no one's rights are in danger; everyone's liberty [the freedom to exercise our rights] is in danger. Rights exist no matter what.)

Congress has begun another epic crime spree: they are passing new anti-gun legislation and plotting more in the near future. If any of this legislation passes, President Biden will sign it-- he's been bigoted against gun owners his whole political career.

More dangerous than the legislation itself is how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE)-- a bureau which violates the Constitution by existing-- may interpret and enforce the rest...

Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Time's running out on Time's Up flags

If two Time's Up flags sell in the next week, they will remain available for at least another month. Just so you know, in case you haven't gotten yours yet.

I have to sell 2 per month or I lose money on the listing, and I haven't sold any during the past month. The 23rd is the deadline. It's up to you.

UPDATE: They'll stay up for another month, at which time I'll post another reminder (or repost this one). Thanks!

Monday, March 15, 2021

Live long enough to be a curmudgeon

My dad has occasionally said he's glad his dad didn't live to see how the world has gone. He died in the late 1960s, only a couple of years older than I am now.

He was rabidly "conservative"-- in many of the worst senses of the term. He would have hated even how leftist the 80s were, compared to his comfort zone. I would probably have had a hard time getting along with him had he lived until I was older.

I don't want to become that way. But I will speak up.

Yes, I hate how some things are going-- I despise "w0keness" with a passion when it clashes with individual liberty-- which it usually does. I dislike how political everything has become, and I understand why politics causes divisiveness-- it can't be otherwise. I hate that human rights are always on the chopping block built of "equality" (or worse, "equity"). I hate how popular communism has become-- while mostly being called something else. I hate how people seem to imagine you have to choose between being a socialist and being a copsucker, when the two have more in common with each other than with me.

But I don't want to ever be the person someone else is glad didn't live to see...whatever happens to society. I'm willing to keep pushing for liberty against all tyrants and karens as long as I can, even if it means I've become a curmudgeon.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Sunday, March 14, 2021

Politicians responsible for much loss

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 17, 2021)

It's so nice of New Mexico's political overlords to allow businesses to re-open a bit-- until they change their minds again. We should gather in the frozen fields and sing hymns to their glory. Wearing two or three masks each, obviously.

If you don't praise the bully when he beats you slightly less, you're ungrateful.

The past year has been very educational. I have learned people will tolerate anything, on the flimsiest of excuses.

They will allow politicians to destroy their businesses, cripple their social lives, dictate what they wear, and imprison them in their own homes without even a show trial, as long as there's a new cold virus for justification. Unbelievable!

I can't even blame one political party over the other-- they are both guilty. This was sold to the public as "Science!" and no one wanted to appear to be against science. Yet, when even the tiniest bit of politics is mixed with science, you've tossed science out the window. You're left with only politics.

America will never get back the liberty it lost to the politicians and politicized experts over the past year. Sure, the restrictions will be scaled back temporarily-- as permitted business re-openings have shown-- but politicians have seen what they can get away with. Next time they'll test their limits again. Each time the liberty they allow us to have back will be slightly less than it was before. Incrementally you will be enslaved, and most people won't notice until it hurts them, personally.

If you think I disliked people who use politics against their fellow humans before, that was nothing compared to how I feel about them now.

Even though I lost most of my income over the past year, due to other people losing theirs, I fared better than many people did. I was ready for supply chain disruptions. Other people weren't. Many people may never recover financially, and those who harmed them-- just as surely as looters or arsonists would have-- will never be held accountable.

It's a shame the practice of tarring and feathering politicians has gone out of style. Otherwise, I don't think politicians could have gotten away with what they did to America over the past year.

We'll have to wait and see where this goes. Unless America changes direction completely and Americans start to value liberty again, it's not going to go well.

Thank you for helping support
Browse my TeeSpring shop

Is your compliance all used up?

I think the government overreach of this past year drained my "compliance bladder" of all its stored compliance fluid. I'm pretty much empty now. At least for nonsensical (or what I see as nonsensical) stuff.

I know some people have feared that humans are being trained to be compliant over the past year, but I wonder how many recoiled the other direction. There's always an opposite reaction and unintended consequences.

It's difficult, because I do try to respect store managers' signs requesting (or communicating the state's demand to wear) masks. But recently, I've been forgetting more and more. I just can't care anymore. Not even a little. I never cared much to begin with, but what little I did care has been used up. They pushed too far and too long.

As I've said from the beginning, I'm agnostic about the masks. Yeah, they may help a little in some way. Probably not enough to justify being a karen about them. And making them mandatory was pure evil. Masks aren't my line in the sand though, especially since I kind of like their "facial recognition" defeating utility.

The state on one side of me has ended all Corona mandates--the state on the other side of me still has all the silliness in force with no end in sight. But a lot of businesses still demand masks even though they aren't forced to do so anymore. Like the caged bird that doesn't realize the cage is gone.

I never "social distanced" other than staying away from those who were trying to do so. I've done as little as possible to accommodate the Branch Covidians. I have observed and learned from their behavior, and have taken measures to protect myself from their craziness.

I just can't see myself going along with any new orders-- regarding anything-- unless a Blue Line Gang thug is looking at me. Then I might, to avoid being murdered.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Friday, March 12, 2021

Invalid claims on you

If you imagine government's claims on you are valid because of maritime law, birth certificates, social security cards, the Constitution, lords and feudalism, the US being a corporation under obligation to the monarch of England (or the Rothschilds), or anything of that sort, then you are free to believe it. 

But none of the claims on you are valid regardless of what you believe. You have just fallen under the spell of government-supremacism. Who has the right to decide such things? Where does this authority come from?

I'm not with you on this runaway train. I don't care what any government believes now or believed in the past. I don't care what agreements between governments say. To believe in any of that requires a belief that political government is legitimate and I don't-- I can't-- believe that.

Yes, I realize delusional people will act on their beliefs to the contrary. A crazy person might also shoot me because he believes I'm a dinosaur, but that just means he's crazy, not that he's right.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Thursday, March 11, 2021

The Dr. Seuss divide

I would really like my readers to weigh in on something. Something that I'm not sure I'm right about.

The newspaper editor disagrees with me about the Dr. Seuss situation. His take: "... I think [the Dr. Seuss company] ha[s] been unfairly criticized. End of the day, they made marketing decisions they think will increase sales. God bless profitable America."

Thomas Knapp lumped those like me (and Claire Wolfe) who don't think this was a good move with the "deplorables".

If the company (corporation?) did this to boost profits, I hope it hurts them financially in the long run. I don't want censors to prosper, especially when they make their decisions based on "someone was/might be offended". It doesn't matter to me if they had the "legal right" to do what they did-- that's a statist notion.

I think this shows the flaw with IP generally and with copyright, specifically. 

Dr. Seuss didn't make this decision about his works, someone else who was entrusted (by whom?) to manage his legacy has decided to vandalize it, instead-- in my opinion. 

If they won't publish those books, I think it would be perfectly ethical for someone else to publish them-- especially if they used some of the profits to support causes Dr. Seuss would have supported. I can't imagine him supporting cancel culture, but maybe he would have-- I know he was a flawed human being.

But what do you think? Is this something they have a right to do and I am being anti-market if I object? Which side of the divide do you find yourself on?


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Tuesday, March 09, 2021

Do you believe government has rights or authority?

If you believe government has a right to do anything, you are a government-supremacist.

If you believe government has authority to do anything, you are a government-supremacist.

Individuals-- and only individuals-- have rights. A group of individuals has no rights that each individual doesn't already have. More rights can't be created by banding together with others. 

Only someone who imagines that government is superior to the individual could believe that a government has the right to do anything to any individual. Such a description fits a government-supremacist-- they believe government is superior to the individual. To them, government is supreme.

Authority, when used to talk about government, is not real. The belief that political authority is real qualifies as a superstitious belief. The Most Dangerous Superstition, according to Larken Rose-- and I agree. 

Only someone who considers government superior to the individual could imagine that such a group has authority to violate the natural human rights of any individual. Such a person would necessarily imagine government is superior to the individual. To them, government is supreme.

Do you believe government has rights or authority? If so, why? How would you explain and justify these beliefs?


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two