THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 224, May 18, 2003
YOU CAN'T WIN?
ASSAULT WEAPONS AT LOGAN HERALD DEMISE OF AMERICA
Evil social fascist politicians eagerly affronted the sensibilities of patriotic Americans by announcing that like other third-world dictatorships, the airport that facilitated the deaths of more defenseless Americans than Pearl Harbor would now declare war on honest citizens by pointing loaded, silenced German machineguns at them, slyly claiming that it's for "their own protection."
In what was cunningly described as a "pilot "program (like income taxes), smiling evil social fascist politicians threatened to unconstitutionally arm America's remaining airports with the symbols of tyranny and oppression if they got away with it here.
The Draconian, dehumanizing "security" procedures in place at airports can do nothing concerning terrorists, but are, in fact, designed to break down our sacrosanct dignity and ability to resist tyrannical "authority" in the exact same manner that the National Socialists did so successfully in Germany.
Expect to hear, "Your papers, please," here in America soon.
They already have Nazi-style helmets and black SS uniforms, accompanied by snarling German dogs.
By that time, you won't object to being placed in flying cattle cars, either. Enjoy your trip.
When Hitler requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under German law, but powers Hitler claimed he needed to have to deal with the 'terrorists,' the German People, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions, agreed.
The temporary powers were conferred, and once conferred lasted until Germany itself was destroyed.
Now the U.S. 'government' has requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under Constitutional law, but powers the 'government' is claiming they need to have to deal with the 'terrorists.'
The American People, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions, are agreeing.
The temporary powers recently conferred will be no more temporary in America than they were in Germany.
The U.S. 'government' knows they rule what Jeffery Snider [sic] titled his book, "a nation of cowards".
We're no longer free because too many people have foolishly traded their actual freedom and liberty for the empty promise of temporary safety, since the public fool er, "school" system refuses to teach Benjamin Franklin's reasonable maxim, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The Declaration of Independence teaches that: "'Governments are' instituted among Men, deriving their just 'Powers' from the Consent of the Governed," to "SECURE" Mankind's "inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," and that "whenever any Form of 'Government' becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new 'Government,' laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its 'Powers' in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
In a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey on January sixth 1816, Thomas Jefferson said: "The functionaries of every 'government' have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the People themselves."
In "The Papers of James Madison," June twentieth 1785, he said: "The preservation of a free 'government' requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power may be invariably maintained; but, more especially, that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the People [i.e., the Rule of Law]. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are [not] 'governed' by laws made... by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves."
To the extent that each individual American allows this travesty to occur in a public place such as Boston's Logan Airport, those same individual Americans take on the personal responsibility for the inevitable end to America as we knew it.
If we allow this criminal behavior on the part of evil social fascist politicians to succeed, we empower them to impose greater unconstitutional restrictions, like nationals ID cards encoded with biometric chips, internal "checkpoints," raids and detention without warrant or trial, and eventually, we'll finally allow public executions of citizens on any pretext, "for our protection."
In the future, remember this article, because this was the event, the "line in the sand," that should never been allowed to occur.
For your inaction today, your children will curse you more likely, they'll be the ones who turn you in.
Mike Straw [email@example.com]
Regarding the above, one should also be aware of a technique related by Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince" Chapter 7, (Bantam Classic Edition, 1981, ppg. 31-32) used to seduce and reduce a province to peace and sovereign authority. It part it reads:
They loved the Duke as a savior, as Winston Smith loved Big Brother.
Dennis Baron [BludyRed@aol.com]
Rush is humorous (and makes half a point), but he wasn't thorough. I'd like to offer a more serious way to distinguish between political philosophies:
Communists (left wing socialists) believe that we are born as identical, blank slates to be shaped. They want to be the ruling elite that does the shaping of individuals and, by extension, all of society. Because we, in the socialist view, become what we are molded to be, our roles in life should not determine our rewards. Therefore, the socialists feel justified in forcefully redistributing (mostly evenly) all wealth and property.
Conservatives want government protection to keep the property and status they have, even if they can no longer afford it. That means that they oppose the sort of social mobility that would let them sink when they can no longer earn enough money to maintain life style or earn enough respect to maintain position. Inherited nobility is the epitome of conservatism. The laws that D's and R's write to shield themselves from "3rd" parties are conservative too. So are protective tariffs.
Fascists (right wing socialists), believe that we are what we are born to be, and they want to be the ruling elite that divines the qualities of individuals, shaping society to some ideal around that revelation. Like communists, fascists want to redistribute wealth and status by force. This is unlike conservatives who want to use force to keep things where they are. However, unlike the "blank slate" that drives communists to spread things somewhat evenly, fascists justify taking wealth and/or status away from "inferior" people to grant to those they view as "superior". Example: Woodrow Wilson, upon taking office, demoted or fired all blacks, replacing them with whites, in what had been a fully integrated bureaucracy under the Republicans.
Libertarians should already be familiar to all of you: We want to allow wealth and status to flow freely from where they are being spent to where they are being earned. Force should be used primarily to stop others from attacking that freedom. Libertarians would organize (form government) for that and the few problems that can't be solved without a consensus.
Anarchists don't even want a government for the few purposes that Libertarians recognize.
Critical misunderstandings between philosophies:
"Liberal" once meant "promoting liberty". It still means that in Britain. Since it was stolen and abused by socialists, it has been corrupted. Because it is ambiguous in international discussions, I now avoid the term except to revel its history, and I recommend that other do the same. I am hoping that it will fall into disuse so that we libertarians can reclaim and rehabilitate it someday.
Communists can't distinguish between libertarians, who want the freedom to earn wealth and status, and fascists who want to take it. Therefore, communists think that libertarians are "right wing".
Fascists and communists who succeed will spawn conservatives who erect artificial barriers to keep what their forefathers stole. Similarly, libertarians can spawn some conservatives defending wealth and position that were earned. Socialists can't tell the difference, so they view conservatives as either fellow or opposed socialists, depending on their origins.
Meanwhile, conservatives born of libertarians fancy themselves libertarians even if they've never learned our principles.
Communists, conservatives, and fascists, hearing only anti-government rhetoric from libertarians, often confuse us with anarchists. This confusion is exacerbated by the fact that, for similar reasons, many anarchists are attracted to libertarian groups and then call themselves libertarians even while promoting anarchism.
No; I as a libertarian am happy to condemn fascists and communists as evil. After all, they want to rob me and enslave me; isn't that evil?
Not a chance. That would be the most direct path to a military coup, telling all those soldiers and sailors that they could no longer vote.
Frank Ney [firstname.lastname@example.org]
- - -
JEFF FISHER REPLIES
Good point. Do you think the major parties would be bold enough to give mail-ins to soldiers but deny them to the rest of us?
Jeffry R. Fisher [email@example.com]
NEW YORK TIMES RACISM LAID BARE
Media outlets nationwide are jumping on the story of recently fired 27-year-old New York Times reporter Jayson Blair, asking how the nation's supposedly "most esteemed" newspaper could not only hire, but tolerate for five years and repeatedly promote all the way to the prestigious national desk a reporter whose well-known "sloppiness" and factual errors are now revealed not to have been caused by mere carelessness and incompetence, but by fraud: Blair plagiarized current accounts from other newspapers, made stuff up, and lied outright about locales he supposedly "covered" for the Times ... but never even visited.
But where previously only one staffer was lying, the real crisis the still unreported crisis at the Times actually originated on May 11. Since that date, the entire Times senior editorial staff has engaged in prevarication, as they repeatedly deny the reason Blair's flaws were ignored is nothing less than racism: He was hired because he was black, and the Times editors cast a blind eye to his errors and prevarications because he was black, clearly implying, "What more can you expect from one of HIS kind?"
Now, award-winning 30-year newsman Vin Suprynowicz, author of books "The Ballad of Carl Drega" and "Send in the Waco Killers" (with its legendary chapter of acid media criticism, "The Courtesan Press: Eager Lapdogs to Tyranny") and editor of the monthly newsletter "Privacy Alert" not only blows the lid off the ongoing Times' double standard, but also asks whether the real reason Jayson Blair was fired is simply because he proved to be less sophisticated than his bosses in the Times' ongoing campaign to manufacture and manipulate the news.
You won't read it anywhere else, because no one else dares write it ... and, of course, because since Aug. 1, 2002, more than 80 percent of what Vin writes has appeared EXCLUSIVELY at Web site privacyalert.us (see www.privacyalert.us/20percent.htm.)
Read "Making it up as they go along: The New York Times fires a young reporter for lack of sophistication in manipulating the news," RIGHT NOW, exclusively at ... [ link]
Rick Tompkins [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Search Amazon.com for ANY Book