Land of the Free

Land of the Free

If there were ever nonsense, this is it.

love the wrong person

Ask Kim Davis how that claim is working out. We have some way to go, but we’re not where we were as a society when I was young.

grow the wrong plant


refuse to fund wars

We do not allow people in this society, this country, to pick and choose which taxes they want to pay or to designate where their tax dollars go.  We have a system where we freely elect our representatives.  And before you start with the whole “the elections are rigged” crap, I give you Barack Obama (who didn’t have a chance as far as I could see) and from the other side,  the situation with Donald Trump (who is a national embarrassment).

If it was all “rigged,” then the riggers are bonkers and don’t seem to be able to agree on anything.

Nicole and Joe Naugler do not pay any income taxes at all because they do not file. Therefore, they have no say whatever in anything, frankly, and should just STFU.

cut hair without government approval

I had to read this one twice to figure what in the hell it was talking about.  Licensing for hair dressers.  Yeah. If I go have my hair cut, or styled, or colored, you betcha that I want to know that the person doing that knows what the hell they are doing. They are putting crap on my body.

There are public health issues involved.  But Nicole doesn’t believe that health issues are even issues at all, so naturally this wouldn’t matter to her.

neglect to pay your rulers

As I said before, Nicole and Joe Naugler do not file income tax returns and therefore do not pay any taxes and therefore need to STFU.

They aren’t my “rulers.”  I pay taxes to my government, which consists of representatives that are elected by me and my fellow citizens.

sell unprocessed milk

Go read a little bit about pasteurization and why we have it for milk, and what it was like when we didn’t have it, and how many babies died annually from contaminated raw milk. Read about how unscrupulous people would put extenders in the milk, like chalk.

Then go milk a cow. I dare you.  Go do it.  Take a container with you (and not a plastic crappy old cup, but a nice clean stainless steel container).  Clean the cow’s udder.  Take all the time you want.  Be sure to get all the shit off her teats, because cows lie down in it regularly.  Then milk with your hands that may or may not be terribly clean at this point.  Or use a milking machine, and hope to hell it was properly cleaned and that there are no little crannies with bacteria pooled in them. And when you’re done, strain the milk carefully.

Now, test the bacteria count of the milk.  See how contaminated it is. Let it sit in the refrigerator for two days and then test it again.  Gasp.

Then pasteurize your milk if you’re smart.  Or, if you’re not, use the raw milk and gamble.  Just don’t gamble with my family.

collect rainfall on your own property

This depends entirely on where you live. In some dry, desert areas, rainfall is considered a public commodity and has to be shared.  This is not unique to the American desert.  It’s also the case in other countries where water is scarce.

But hey, Nicole, you can collect all the water you want on your own property in Kentucky. Why don’t you do that, instead of getting Joe to go steal it for you?

open a lemonade stand without government approval

Yeah, let’s make a big deal out of this. Children want to open a little lemonade stand to make some pocket money and big bad evil government says they can’t without licensing.  And this is terrible.

But it’s also generally fixable without much trouble.  Every article I could find about this ended with a pretty decent resolution to the problem.

You do realize that if the state didn’t have laws about shit like this, Nicole would have her children offering lemonade for sale out in front of their business regularly.  They’d make it in white plastic buckets. I’d rather have some raw milk than a glass of that stuff.

So that’s the great list of Things You Can’t Do and Isn’t It Terrible.

Try living in Saudi Arabia and then come back to me with your bitching.  Or better yet, trying actually voting, Nicole, instead of just whining about “why can’t I do anything I want no matter what anyone says.”



Science is Hard

multips live longer
image links to source

This is just a share, of course, and lots of people share stuff without bothering to think about the veracity of the BS they have just shared, but Nicole is the focus of my attention on this blog, so here we go.

Two new studies suggest moms who have more kids may live longer!

Oh, my!  Isn’t that wonderful?  Wow, Nicole will live to be 110 at this rate.  Won’t she?  It says so, doesn’t it?  I mean, it’s an article on the internet, after all, from a site called “” (the people who put out Parents magazine.)  They aren’t targeting. . . you know. . . parents or anything.

I wonder if they would gleefully post an article like this one.

womens health
image links to source

I see this sort of thing all the time on social media, and that’s why I wanted to talk about it.  It’s not really the fault of the consumer.  It’s basically the fault of the so-called science journalists, who often know exactly nothing about science.

Nicole’s link goes to a report about two studies. Note first that the person who wrote the subtitle did use every weasel word known to man in it.  Studies “suggest.”  “May live longer.”  That’s good, but it probably isn’t enough.

If you actually read the article, you’ll discover a couple of things.

The first study consisted of a whopping 75 women.  Furthermore, these 75 women came from two villages in Guatemala.  Can anyone say “no diversity”? What are the odds that these women were related to each other, pray tell?  I would discard such a study just on that one fact alone.

But, as is often the case, the researchers themselves, who might be actual scientists, are aware of the limitations of their own studies, and went to some trouble to express at least one reservation. They may have expressed others, of course, but we only know what the “science writer” chose to tell us.

quote from article
image links to source

It takes a village.  Not a garden shed with no help from anyone, except begging on the internet,  because liberty.

The second study involved a wider population (much larger) but is really about twins.

But while we’re at it, go read the second article. Nicole, you especially need to read it.  However, I can almost guarantee that you will not.

So, I’ll quote a little bit for you.


Note that the scientists here also use qualifiers (or what I think of as weasel words):  “Might be,” “contribute greatly.”

prenatal care

What the first article doesn’t tell us is anything about prenatal care and management of pregnancy.  It just went into some indications that if you are lucky and survive having a bunch of babies, then you might live a bit longer than some woman who had no children at all.  Maybe.  If  you live in a village in Guatemala.  Maybe.

But both of the articles we’ve looked at here are basically clickbait.

When you’re looking for the real skinny, it’s a good idea to look for stuff straight from the scientists’ mouths.  It’s not as pretty to read, of course, and sometimes they use big words, but you get better information.

Mothers who’ve had a lot of babies.  The technical term for that is grand multiparity. Parity refers to pregnancy.  Multi, of course, means multiple.  And grand is defined as more than 7 pregnancies.

Nicole Naugler is a grand multip.

grand multiparity
image links to source

This is from the National Institutes of Health. You’ll notice if you go over there that there are no ads.  It’s not clickbait. It’s a far better source than some articles written by “science journalists” who may or may not ever have had a science course higher than high school biology.

What you see is called an “abstract.” It’s a bit like a summary (not exactly, but that’s a close enough for our purposes).  However, if you happen to be rabidly interested in the subject, you can click on the PDF link to the right of the screen (on my computer anyway) and download the whole thing.  It consists of eight pages, full of tiny writing and some sciency-looking graphs, and a comprehensive list of resource materials.

And their conclusion?


Having multiple babies is risky.  Having multiple babies with no prenatal care, with no medical management of labor, in a garden shed is Russian roulette.

It’s Not a Militia

Joe Profile

This is one of Joe’s profile pictures. Behind the yellow and white transparency, the green shield is the logo of something called the Emergency Response Team, or ERT.

Before going any further, I want to talk about about a different organization, CERT (or Community Emergency Response Teams).

First off, notice that the other group basically copied the name, leaving off one letter.  Can’t imagine why.  The second group, CERT, is sponsored by FEMA.  Yeah, the ebil gubmint.

I have been through CERT training. The idea is this: in a disaster situation, the first responders are really your neighbors, or members of your family. And one of the real problems posed by these types of situations is that quite often, those well-meaning self-sacrificing first responders get themselves into a big pickle because they don’t know how to do what they are attempting to do. They mean well, but have little to no knowledge. CERT gives them the knowledge, not only about what to do, but equally important, about what not to do.

I did CERT training in a little remote village (quite literally on the edge of the actual, real wilderness and not Louisville) where the possibility of being cut off from any sort of professional help was a very real one. CERT training was vital to that community. They continue with it today, and I hope to hell they never need it.

Joe is the national recruiter for ERT.  National. The person asking this question lives in Arizona.


Oddly enough, the ERT has a Facebook group devoted to “prepping,” you know, all that homesteady, self-sufficiency, off-the-griddy stuff, and Joe is not a member.  I suppose he doesn’t want to share that much.

Joe’s ERT is a sort of quasi-military, “we’re not a militia but really we are,” “the gubmint sucks dirt,” kind of imitation of CERT.

Here.  Read what they have to say about themselves.

mission statement

Everyday Americans.  Isn’t that nice?  So is CERT.

. . . many other patriot groups. . .

Ah, so ERT is a “patriot group.”  That’s just another word for “militia.”

What follows is some gobbledygook  about “meeting objectives” (undefined), and then some stuff about “incidents.”  I rather loved the bit about “natural,” and “man-made” and then “other.”  What, exactly, would be “other”?

Anyway, their goal is to “serve others.”  I’m not sure doing exactly what. They don’t really say.  They do carry on about training, but don’t say what that means (how much you want to bet that “training” involves guns?), but it’s all sort of vague.

But they do repeatedly try to distance themselves from the stereotypical idea of being a  militia group.

 no politics

There’s a good bit of this sort of thing. It’s not a militia.  If you’re anti-government, you’re in the wrong place, they say.  (But Joe is in it up to his little eyeballs, so WTF?  He embodies the term “anti-government.”)

And it’s not political. They tell you it’s not.  I even highlighted it so we’d all know it.

country sinking

From their Facebook page, which I have to assume is run by the guy who runs the website, or at least with his approval.

Does that sound political?

Obama bad

What about this?



Um, I hate to tell you, but that’s political.

tyrant coming

And who would the “tyrant” be?  The one who is coming?  President Obama, maybe, who is “shredding the Constitution”?  You know, to get your guns?  Or maybe the Muslim terrorists?  Who knows?

These guys, though, are absolutely selfless.

even strangers

They’re here to “serve others.”  And sometimes, they might even help a stranger.

But it’s not a militia.  Nope. Not.


He’s a Minuteman, the modern kind.

Who were the real Minutemen, pray tell?

Minuteman definition

So, the real Minutemen were under 25 and chosen from the militia for their physical strength.

Like this?


Fear not, America.  Joe Naugler, that intrepid Minuteman, is on high alert.

Misleading Mistake

Nicole's post

Just looking at this in passing, doesn’t it appear that Nicole has gotten 10K “likes” on something and is sharing the good news?  And doesn’t it look like she’s saying that she intends to “grow the page” and generate content for her blog?

With a little thought, it becomes apparent that this is on a personal page and there’s not any way to collect “likes” for such a page, but then what does it mean?  Why did she put this up?

If you click on the words “life event,” you’ll see that it’s not her life event at all.

psychologic anarchist

It comes from a page about some goofy anarchy thing.

I suspect that Nicole was actually just wanting to share the meme because she doesn’t like any “group” to have the means to inflict violence on anyone.

But that’s not how it looks. It looks like self-promotion with a silly meme below it.

Attribution is important.  Nicole tends to ignore it.  I guess she’s too busy putting her ridiculous little watermark on all her photos because she’s such a world-famous photographer and all that.  You know, so she gets attribution.

A Little Bit of Housekeeping

I did a little re-arranging this morning.

A reader expressed having a bit of difficulty navigating the blog, and I felt that if that reader was having a problem, maybe everyone else was too, so I changed some stuff to try to simplify it.

The menu at the top of each page represents broad categories, like “Homesteading” or “Government.”  If you click on one of those pages, you’ll get a short overview of the basic subject, and down at the bottom will be a link to further pages that go into more detail.

That’s actually the way it’s always been, but because of the way I had those sub-pages set up, this reader was having a problem finding them.

It should be far easier now.

HOWEVER, in doing this, the change necessarily changed the direct URL for a few posts, including the latest one about the police. That means the link is broken.  However, that latest post (“Police”) is the first thing on the home page.

I’m sorry if this results in any confusion.  That video is so enlightening that I wanted to be sure people could find it without a problem.


Joe and Nicole don’t like the police.  They really, really don’t like the police. I cannot find a single hint of anything positive in what they have to say about the police.

And before I go any further, I am aware that of late, the subject of police brutality has been out there front and center repeatedly. I am not insensitive to those legitimate concerns.

Lots of my friends on social media post memes and videos and stuff about police overreach. Doing so doesn’t mean that those folks hate policemen, or despise law and order.

However, they do not post meme after meme after link after link, by the dozen, ranting on the same theme: The Police Are Bad.

Right now, in my files, I have screen shots of 25 different memes, links, videos that Nicole has posted in the last few days.  I haven’t been saving them for long—just a few days. She is fixated on this subject.  Cops Are Bad.

Here’s a sample.

Nicole Cop Block

I don’t know if Nicole actually wrote the stuff above the link (she often quotes without attribution), and I didn’t bother to dig enough to find out, but the final sentence is telling.

Stop allowing any group of people to have authority to inflict violence on others.

Sounds innocuous, doesn’t it?  Especially when you see it right above a couple of photos of people beaten in the face.  I mean, why not?

After all, in England, the police don’t have guns as a routine thing. And I would actually agree that our American police force has become way too militarized.  But to assert that “no group of people” should ever have authority to “inflict violence” on anyone else is a bit of a stretch.  What about Joe and Nicole Naugler and those guns they have at their garden shed at the ready?

Are Joe and Nicole Naugler members of a “group of people” (those who own guns) who shouldn’t have authority to inflict violence?

What Nicole is suggesting is that we shouldn’t have any police at all of any sort.  She’s saying that when you call 911 because there is a guy breaking into your house to kill  you with a machete, there should be no one at all available to “inflict violence” on him.

And notice where she got this link:  a Facebook page called “Cop Block.” A whole lot of her anti-police vitriol comes from that page.

Nicole Cop Block 2

I actually looked this up, and no, April, it wasn’t because of anyone “cut(ting) into their revenue stream.”  There were good reasons that had to do with public safety.  Look it up.

Cop Block doesn’t appear to be anything more than a “I hate the police and want you to hate them too” sort of thing.

Joe is equally bad although he doesn’t post as much shit publicly as Nicole does. This bit is from a discussion about a police officer killed in the line of duty. There is nothing in the record that would suggest that the officer in question did anything except his job.

death of police officer

The man he’s talking with is not exactly a flaming liberal. He’s a Kentucky attorney who is very Republican, very right-wing, and very evangelical Christian. Yet Joe goes full bore Godwin because cops are always bad and get exactly what they deserve when somebody kills one.

So the question arises: Did Joe and Nicole become this cynical because the evil police came out to their wilderness estate and took their children?  Or have they been reading way too much Cop Block-type propaganda and gotten cynical, and thus precipitated the very incidents they think are bound to happen?

This is from August, 2013, way before Sheriff Pate entered the story.

It’s a ten-minute video, but worth watching.  Nicole and Joe think this is  interesting and informative and that people should see it, so she has it up on her YouTube channel.  I find that really amazing.

Pay attention, not so much to the part where the police officers try to reason with them, but the parts where there are no officers present.  Notice how Joe, especially, talks about the police.  They are talking like this in front of their children, doing a little “unschooling,” and teaching them how to dismiss society’s authority figures, and how to be a complete asshole.

UPDATE (Jan 9, 2015:

what is jobThis is from a conversation on Nicole’s Facebook page.

It’s enlightening to read the whole thing. Her perception of what police do, why we have them, what their job description is, all of it, is. . . well. . . interesting.

By Nicole’s standards, if a nurse comforts a dying patient, that’s just the nurse being nice, but it’s not part of the job description.  If a checker in the grocery store says something nice to your child and makes him laugh, that’s just her being nice. That’s not part of her job.

I wonder who Joe and Nicole would call if somebody broke into their business and ransacked the place?  I wonder if Nicole is aware that law enforcement officers in Kentucky have to pass CPR training and are expected to use it if necessary as part of their job?  I wonder if she’s aware that in the event of natural disaster, police officers are expected to know what to do, not to “enforce laws,” but to save lives?

But the larger point here is that, as we’ll go into later on, Nicole basically doesn’t believe there should be any police officers at all, because she doesn’t believe there should be any laws, or at least not any that she doesn’t expressly agree should exist.

It’s an interesting take from two people who threaten to sue people over and over again.

And another UPDATE: Many thanks to the person who shared this with me.

Want to see what law enforcement officers deal with as part of their job?

Here you go.

Pioneers. . . of Truth

Nicole OP

Generally speaking, most people share stuff on Facebook that strikes a chord with them, or that they think is cute or funny (cat videos), or interesting or informative.

So, I am going to assume that Nicole thought this was at least worth reading.

We are some of the first people to explore a way of being that is not premised on survivalism as our operating principal (sic).

What?  Read that again.  I’ll wait.  Who is “we”?  People living in 2015, as opposed to people living in 1715?  Or people living in 2015, as opposed to people living 25, 000 years ago?  Jeff Brown doesn’t say.

But he mentions “career paths” and “life partners,” and that would imply at least some modernity.  I suspect he’s not comparing “people living in 2015” to hunter-gatherers.

But anyway, all that mattered to these other people, from this unknown time, is that they survived. What was for dinner.  And now, it’s all different. We don’t give a shit what’s for dinner.

So because we don’t give a shit anymore about dinner, we can think about lofty things like “living from our truth” (whatever the hell that is), from the “soul outward” (because nobody ever thought or talked about souls until 2000 or thereabouts).

And this has resulted in a “profound consciousness shift on the planet.”

And Jeff and all folks like him are “pioneers of truth,” with nobody to follow.  That’s why this whole thinking thing is so hard. Nobody ever, ever had to do it before.  You know, about having meaning to your life, or about taking control of your own destiny.  Stuff like that.  Nobody.

Oh.  Except. . .

“First say to yourself what would you be; and then do what you have to do.”
Epictetus (C. 55 – C. 135) Greek Stoic Philosopher

“Take charge of your thoughts. You can do what you will with them.”
Plato (428-327 BC) – Greek Philosopher and Prose Writer

“Learn what you are and be such.”
Pindar (522-438 BC) – Greek Poet

“Our life is what our thoughts are make it.”
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180) Roman Emperor and Stoic Philosopher

“What we are is what we have thought for years.”
Gautama The Buddha (560-480 BC) – Indian Spiritual leader and Founder of Buddhism

“As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”
Solomon (10th Century BC) – King of Israel & reputed author of Biblical Books

I guess they scribbled down those thoughts while scrabbling about hunting for dinner.  History, like math and English, is hard.


Blessed Little Wilderness

joe wilderness

They’re not misleading anyone.  Their land and all around them is very much wilderness.

And it doesn’t matter what language you use to describe yourself.  Hell, I’m the Prime Minister of Germany.  I just blog in my spare time.

Note: “. . . so on and so forth”, Joe. “Fourth” is a number.

Click to enlarge the thumbnail. It’s okay to laugh.


Google Earth
image publicly available via Google Earth

Please notice the property next door to the Blessed Little Homestead. See the cleared fields?  See the house?  Notice that you could easily walk from the Homestead to the neighbor’s property, and in fact, your “free-range” goats and dogs and chicken could quite easily wander over there, often.

Want to see the house closer?  Okay.

next door
Google Earth – it’s not “stalking”

This “wilderness house” has not only a paved front walkway, but a paved driveway.  That is not gravel. It’s pavement ( I checked).

But the best thing is the pond   in-ground swimming pool in the backyard.  Imagine that, right there in the middle of the wilderness.

I bet those folks have electricity and running water.


Grave Repercussions

Marx grave

First, Nicole quoted Hannah McCoy’s comment without attribution (quotation marks, or something else to indicate that she didn’t write that paragraph), but that’s just a bit of a quibble because I’m not letting her get away with shit due to this.

But oh gee, there’s a fee to visit the cemetery where Karl Marx is buried.  How awful.  The implication made in this silly post is, of course, that communism doesn’t work somehow because of fees.  Or something.

I admit that this piqued (for Nicole: sparked) my interest, so I looked it up.

Turns out that Karl Marx is buried in London’s Highgate Cemetery.  It is, in fact, a private cemetery (not state-owned) which is really sort of interesting. The cemetery opened in 1839, partially because at the time, burial plots were attached to churches and unable to cope with demand. Remember, in England, the Church of England is state-supported.  It’s a completely different system than we have here in America, so it behooves us to exercise caution when making comparisons.

The people who started the cemetery were not “marx (sic) enthusiasts.” Karl Marx was 21 years old then, and nobody had ever heard of him.

Marx died in 1883. It seems that he’d already bought a plot in the cemetery as he made his own final arrangements (an admirable thing, by the way). Why he chose that cemetery is anyone’s guess, but mine would be that he preferred that to being buried in some church-connected graveyard.

The cemetery occupies 37 acres of land and has 170,000 bodies buried in it.  Only one of those is Karl Marx.

Another is Douglas Adams, who wrote A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and who I admired greatly.  George Eliot is there, as is Charles Dickens’ wife (he’s buried in Westminster Abbey). Christina Rossetti is buried there (if you haven’t read her poetry, do so right now-here’s a sample).

The cemetery has to be maintained.  The alternative is to let it fall into disrepair and have trash strewn all around the place, and have the pond turn into a scummy mess, and allow animals to just roam at will. Somebody has to do that maintenance, and that somebody has to be paid.

Generally, in this country, cemeteries are private and maintained by a trust that uses the funds generated by selling plots.  I have no idea how this works in England, but I would assume in a similar manner.  Why this seems to have been inadequate, I can’t say, but I can guess that perhaps the fees generated were simply not high enough to create enough interest income to pay the higher wages that exist today.

Marx’s grave seems to be the one that attracts the most visitors. It’s also located in the older part of the property, and it’s the most prone to vandalism.  So prone, in fact, that the cemetery has had to insist that visitors be accompanied to visit it.  Somebody has to pay for that person to accompany those visitors.

As one Marxist put it:

“Marx believed that labor should be rewarded, he didn’t believe that you could achieve a classless society simply by refusing to pay for things,” he said.

“He wasn’t a hippie, let’s put it like that.”

And that’s your little history lesson for today. See, a real homeschooler would take that stupid little post from Facebook and turn it into a actual lesson.  Maybe get a copy of the Hitchhiker’s Guide and do some reading.  Or just read some of Rossetti’s poetry, much of it suitable for children being raised in the country.