A humorous glance into the future? Maybe…

Assuming there is still an advertising industry, fedgov or State governments, and radio/TV/internet in a decade or so, a nameless friend suggests you might hear or see this advertising:

Radio/television ad script, dated 30 July 2033:

Did you or a loved one take the COVID-19 Vaccine back in 2021 or 2022?

You may be entitled to financial compensation from the manufacturers and the United States Government and its successors. According to the New International Court of Justice and Reparations, you may seek justice for illnesses caused by the deadly effects of the so-called COVID-19 vaccines. Regardless of your Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or Veterans Affairs disability and death benefits, approved or denied, you may be eligible for compensation if you suffered from from any of the following illnesses: (listing redacted, refer to latest news threads for a current updated listing.)

Pause to think and grin, eh?

Posted in Fiction, Nathan's Rants, Short Takes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Responsibilities and rights: living free and the 4th Amendment

In response to Rob Morse’s commentary recently on how to defeat evil (see here), there was one comment that struck a chord:

Douglas Edward Evans: “I took a solemn oath to defend the constitution of the United States… and the 4th Amendment clearly states ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.’

“Does that include breaking into my home and threatening me, my family, or my material possessions? Since no one has relieved me of my sworn oath, I highly suggest that you do not break into my house to see first hand if I still consider the US Constitution and my solemn oath to defend it permission to stop you mercilessly. Unlike many cops and most politicians, I take my oath seriously.”

We need to ask ourselves if this makes sense. Not just those of us who have made a promise to “defend the Constitution” but all of us who believe in liberty and believe that we are to love others.

Continue reading →
Posted in Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Guest commentary: should we stay or should we go?

Rob Morse recently published this at his website, Slow Facts. It is very much worth sharing, and asking outselves these questions. Starting with How should we stop evil?

Rob: I observed an advanced training course for armed defenders in school. Some of the problems these defenders wrestle with are beyond what most of us have to consider. On the other hand, some of their concerns are the same as ours whether we own a gun or not. 

Most of us don’t expect to face a threat today. Everyone performs better if they have thought about an emergency before the problem is staring them in the face. One solution doesn’t work all the time. Here is where our ordinary concerns overlap with armed defenders in school.

Everyone wonders what to do. Should I try and escape, should defend where I am, or should I advance?

-Is it acceptable to defend your family at home? Let’s say you are in your bedroom at night. You are woken up by the sound of someone breaking through a window in the center of your house. Should you leave your room or lock your bedroom door?

We face a similar question over and over. What is the safest thing to do?

Details matter, and in this case your young children are in the next bedroom down the hall. You grab your gun, your phone, and your flashlight. You put yourself at the end of the hallway between the bedrooms and the center of your home. You call 911 and ask for help.

If you don’t have a gun, then you’re going anyway with whatever you can grab. Yes, a golf club is better than nothing, but isn’t it better to be prepared with effective tools instead of improvising in the middle of the night?

-Would you defend an innocent person in public? Suppose you are in a restaurant and you see a customer with a steak knife threatening the young hostess. The hostess has her hands up and retreats behind the bar. The attacker chases her and the young woman is cornered. She uses a plastic serving tray as a shield to put something between her body and the attacker’s knife.

You are eating by yourself. You are also carrying your legally concealed firearm in your purse. You grab your gun and approach the attacker from behind. You present your firearm and order the attacker to put down his knife. He lays down the weapon on the bar and lies down with his hand out above his head. The waitress climbs over the bar and runs into the kitchen. The manager says that the police are on their way.

There is no legal obligation to get involved, but most of us want to stop a young woman from getting murdered.

-Would you protect family and friends in public? Let’s imagine that you are at the local shopping mall with your 12-year old daughter and her best friend. You hear gunfire echoing across the central courtyard of the mall. You grab the girls’ hands and pull them into one of the shops. You work your way to the back of the store and ignore the sign that says “Employees Only”. You move into the storage area behind the shop. From there you move into the utility hallways that run behind the stores. You exit at one of the outside service doors and head into the parking lot. You call 911 when you’re well away from the building.

You never thought about grabbing the gun in your purse because there were more important things to take care of. Right now, the important things are hugging you and you’re hugging them back. You remind your daughter’s friend to text her mom.

-Would you defend innocent lives at church? You volunteer once a week to watch over preschool children during church service. You are also part of the church safety team. The early service ended a few minutes ago. You are working with two 13-year-old assistants as parents come to pick up their children.

You hear screams from a nearby building. You also hear gunshots. You shout for people to come inside and to get out of the open walkway. You lock the door to your room. One of your assistants moves a piece of paper to cover the window in the door. The other assistant closes the window blinds. You send and read texts from your church emergency number. They confirm that those sounds were gunshots and that someone is hurt. They order a lockdown.

You move people into the hard corner of the room. You get one of the parents to help you push a desk in front of the door. Your gun stays in its holster because you don’t have a target that needs to be shot. You remember to pull the medical kit from one of the shelves and you hand it to your assistant.

It takes time until you’re given the signal to open the doors. Some of the parents are upset. Some of the children are crying. You listen to them and you’re glad they are all alive.

-Would you defend innocent lives at school? You work in the front office at an intermediate school. You are also part of the school’s security and medical response team. You are at your desk when you hear raised voices coming from the reception counter. You get up from your desk as an adult man shouts and runs out of the office and rushes his way into the school. He didn’t identify himself or sign in. He pushed through the security door as someone else was coming out.

You don’t recognize the intruder. The receptionist is already on the radio announcing that there is an unknown intruder in the school. You follow him.

The intruder leaves out the back door. You hear gunshots and run to catch up. You see a wounded teacher and student as you step outside. The radio says that a stranger is beating on a classroom door and demanding to be let in. Because school is in session, all the classroom doors are locked. You work along a chest-high wall towards the classroom.

You take a few more steps and see the attacker at the classroom door. You see that he is armed. You present your firearm around the edge of the wall. You shoot until the attacker drops his gun and falls down. You call the office and tell them that there were shots fired. You ask for a medical team at the back of the administration building. There is still work to do.

—

Some of us are more prepared for violence than others. At one extreme, we have professionals who train constantly. Unconcerned citizens are at the other extreme. Some of us take the contradictory position that there is no evil in the world, and if there is evil, then it is someone else’s responsibility to take care of it for us. Most of us are somewhere between those extremes.

Most of us want to protect the innocent. The volunteer school defenders I saw had recognized that their kids were at risk. They trained to stop an attacker and to treat the injured until outside help arrived. They practiced and tested themselves so they knew what they could do.

What we should do depends on our obligations, our skills, and our opportunities. As ordinary citizens, we defend ourselves several thousand times a day. We defend our families at home and in public. It is a series of small steps to defend the children we love at school.

~_~_

Please share this article with a friend who questions armed defense.

The class I recently observed for school staff was part of the FASTER program in Colorado. Some of the examples I presented here were from my self-defense gun stories podcast and from other training classes. RM


TPOL afterword: This 1300+ words is longer than usual for both Rob and TPOL, but we thought it best to not split into two commentaries. What Rob talks about here is a subject that every person needs to address, whether you are in frontier, rural, suburban, or urban areas, whether you normally carry, or not.

Posted in Guest commentary, Ideas for liberty, Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

School avoidance and anxiety “disorder”

Fewer and fewer students (grades PS though grad school) seem to be allowed a break from being confined to government-run tax-funded schools or their private equivalents. (That is, the bootlicking privately-funded schools that are still in essence controlled by government agencies.)

But theoretically, we are near the middle of the “summer vacation” period when children were allowed to be children and not inmates. When older students (high school and college) had time to earn some money, make their own choices as whom to associate with, and didn’t have to bow their heads (and bend the knee) to authoritarian teachers, staff, and administrators.

Who could possibly imagine that most PS-grad students are really NOT there in those classrooms of their own volition? Perhaps us at TPOL and our readers?

No one could seriously imagine that modern American and border-jumper youth would even think for a split-second about skipping school, being truants, dropping out, or blowing off classes. After all, their future is in large part dependent on how well educated they are. How much they know.

(Yes, we here at TPOL understand, all too much, that government-run, tax-funded schools do a very poor job of educating people today. Indoctrinating? Yep. Educating? Please. But go along with the myth for now.)

Continue reading →
Posted in Commentary on the News, Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The FedGov, schools, religion, and free trade

Publisher’s Note: this is a rewrite and republication of the commentary “Federal government good at micromanagement but…” published on 17 May 2023. For some reason (please tell us), very few readers thought that commentary was worth their time (and for that we apologize). We wish to point out some important things to consider for lovers of liberty on these issues, so we are rewriting (and apologizing).

An MSN story appeared on 15 MAY 2023, explaining how Uncle Joe’s Regime is coming out in favor of religious freedom in public schools.

Now, we here at TPOL are as always highly critical of ANY presidential regime, as we see “massa” as being noting but a (supposedly) elected tyrant, and mostly a front-man for the powers-that-be.

So to us, this is just more confirmation of the same-old-same-old malarky.

As the document is described by the usual regime shill, it reminds us of the insanity called “Free-trade agreements” which take thousands of pages of detailed instructions that are supposedly necessary to have free trade between people and companies in various countries.

Continue reading →
Posted in Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Private property rights?

Are government agencies and politicians at least destroying private property rights in the States? Are the courts helping them to do this, or acting to prevent that destruction? Is there even a God-given right to private property? Is private property protected by the Constitution?

These and many other questions are being asked today, perhaps more than ever. But they have always been an important facet of human society and how far governments do and should go, vis-a-vis private citizens and their activities.

A recent Washington Examiner news story proclaims that the current SCOTUS is slapping down local governments that trample property rights.

Continue reading →
Posted in Commentary on the News, Ideas for liberty, Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

How much punishment for murder?

In Nebraska in 2023, apparently, the punishment for murder and other crimes is 90 days in jail and 2 years probation. For which the judge has been condemned by woke regressives because the judge was too harsh.

As we understand the report originally in the Omaha World Herald, the teenager killed her unborn child by taking abortion pills obtained by the teen’s mother. At the time of the killing, the child was at 30 weeks gestation – just 9 weeks short of usual time of birth. After the dead child was expelled from her body, the two women then tried three times to dispose of the corpse. They did so ultimately by burning the tiny body and burying “the thing” (their words in text messaging) in a shallow hole in the backyard.

Continue reading →
Posted in Nathan's Rants | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

SCOTUS in the crosshairs

Recent Supreme Court decisions have raised both hopes and fears in many factions of American society. It is clear that deciding vital but highly divisive matters is one of many factors continuing to weaken American society and ramp up tensions and anger in the Fifty States. Some of those include the very recent decisions on ending affirmative action programs in educational institutions, and the freedom of speech decision rejecting Colorado’s effort to mandate speech on a website designer. While both of these decisions have energized the activists and partisans on both sides of the issues, the Nine Nazgul have put themselves into the middle of issues which are hotly contested and argued, even fought over. This has been made worse by a growing willingness of media (of all types) and all political points of view to just flat-out lie about the decisions, and use those lies to speculate in ways that are often beyond belief. (We note that such a position seems to have been the intent of the Founding Fathers in creating and implementing the Supreme Court in the first place. Or so many argue.) As a result, as with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the demands to “reform” SCOTUS have grown louder. Let us look at the Colorado decision. The Nazgul have upheld the right of the web page designer to not be forced to produce web page designs which support and promote causes and viewpoints which she believed wrong and immoral. So, the State of Colorado was denied the power to force her to speak out, even in commercial art and design and speech to advocate for – or even tolerate – ideas which she believed was wrong. Specifically, because of her religion. The State of Colorado (and apparently Uncle Joe’s regime) argued that she was denying fundamental human rights of the homosexual people who wanted her to do this. That in essence, she was the one denying the would-be customers’ human rights. Specifically, the right of free speech. Therefore, the State government claimed that she was discriminating against the would-be patrons. Denying them the right of free expression. Because they were homosexual. To lovers of liberty, this seems an example of governments saying that some people’s rights are more important than letting other people have rights. To the “progressives” (regressives), this is the way that things have been done and must continue to be done. Especially those who advocate for special privileges for certain groups. This is, of course, anything but new. There is always some conflict involved in exercising our rights. This is normally (past and present) settled by determining if there is actual physical or economic harm to one or another party of the conflict. This is in keeping with biblical and libertarian ideas: do unto others as you would have them do unto you: do not act aggressively against others. Common sense, but not to modern regressives. We have fought versions of this battle for more than a century in this nation. And the baggage is still with us. (A topic for another time, perhaps.) Is it not reasonable, even logical, to understand that the broadly-recognized “right of association” means that the “right to refuse to associate” is a necessary inference? Does it not make sense that the universal “right of free speech” must include a “right to not say something” to be effective? Despite the first piece of logic, the FedGov and States have long denied people – especially businesspeople – the right to deny service to a person based on certain physical (and even mental) characteristics and practices. The claim has been that such refusal to provide service causes harm – physical and economic – to the person denied service. (And increasingly, “emotional” harm.) So association can be coerced in the interests of government (which claims to run “society”), Are we at TPOL wrong to believe that this is seen as wrong by libertarians? The opponents of the SCOTUS decision claim that the ruling allows businesses (and others) to discriminate against people because of what the rejected people are. They proclaim it is a step to returning the LQBTQ+ community to second or third-class status. To allowing some people to again discriminate by refusing any and all service to whomever they want to reject “for religious reasons.” This does not match what we understand of the Nazgul decision, good or bad. It is not that the Supremes are “allowing” businesses to refuse to do business with certain people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. (“Discriminate.”) Rather, the decision denies State governments any power to force businesses to provide any service or product (goods) that they believe is wrong (immoral). Provide to anyone! It is not the sex or other characteristic of the would-be buyer that is at issue, but rather the goods or services that they want, that is the deciding factor.

Yet that is not what media and advocates (seemingly on both sides of this issue) are spouting. They are wrong and poisoning the discourse.

Consider this example. A vegan Quaker woodcarver refuses to make a wooden stock for a woman for her .30-06 hunting rifle. Why? Because he is both a pacifist and believes that eating meat (or animal products) is wrong. He is willing to make her wooden carvings of animals, or wooden plates, or even doorbells. But she wants a rifle stock. She files a civil rights complaint. So the State of Mind takes him to court claiming that he is denying her his services because she is a woman?

Maybe that is too complex a comparison, but it seems to us that the SCOTUS decision is a proper one and will not lead to all the horrid things we are reading.

What it might lead to is reduced power of government to coerce us – to force us to do things that are against our beliefs. Now, wouldn’t that be a shame?

Posted in Nathan's Rants | Leave a comment

Why we can’t have nice things…

Americans, like most folks, like nice things: houses with running water and flush toilets. And heat and air conditioning. And the freedom to travel by auto and plane – and even train and bus. We like meat and veggies and fruit year round. We like not having to raise our own chickens and veggies and such. And many of us are willing to work to earn moola to pay for these things.

But there are a lot of people who don’t like most of us to have nice things. Who either don’t think we should because we are not the elite like them. Or because they envy us. Both of these groups have political clout and use various ways to deny as many people as possible the nice things we once took for granted. Political power comes out against many things.

Particularly when it comes to what we need to have to build and use nice things. We call that infrastructure and the powers-that-be and the wanna-be types go after that viciously. Regarding that side of things, we read this. Front Page Magazine decries the environists who have created and support a racket involving environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, and millions of pages and billions of dollars of paperwork consuming years of effort in which nothing is built.

The more environists can prevent infrastructure from being built, the less ability we have to produce nice things. So we suffer for their religious beliefs.

(We call these people “environists” because these so-called “environmentalists” have replaced reason and rationality and mental exercise with lies, emotionalism, and screaming. (If not violence.) Their mental facilities may still be present somewhere in their head, but they are disused – possibly atrophied.)

As a result, FPM’s article explains, projects are never built all too often, despite billions of dollars spent on studies. There is always something that is “discovered” or “suspected” that environists and their instigating and money-grubbing, unscrupulous attorney and political friends can use to delay, deny, and in some cases actually destroy the project. Their tactics vary but are all too predictable: wildlife habitat, water quality and/or quantity, dust, smoke, noise, traffic, or a dozen other reasons.

Continue reading →
Posted in Nathan's Rants | 2 Comments

Pondering our military in AD 2022/AL 248

This month marked 50 years of not having a military draft (conscription) in these united States. At age 18, our publisher was one of the last to receive a lottery number for potentially being drafted, though since he had already enlisted and was in the Corps of Cadets of Colorado School of Mines, he didn’t pay any attention and does not remember the number.

Ending the military draft after nearly 60 years was a bright spot in the history of American liberty. Conscription is an evil which by its very nature corrupts and perverts a nation or nations who claim to be free and value liberty. In the case of the American Union, it was even vastly more hypocritical and condemning: Congress and Lincoln establishing the draft in a war that was supposedly (as the song goes) being fought to set men free should cause our gorge to rise. (The Confederacy, we note, did the same thing – hypocritical as well as it expanded the boundaries of slavery to many more people.)

Continue reading →
Posted in Nathan's Rants | 4 Comments