L. Neil Smith's
Number 370, June 4, 2006

"A Downright Moron"

Letters to the Editor

Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

HI Neil:

I've just read your article on "Ending the Warfare State". http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle368-20060521-06.html

It is a crime for any public official to stomp on someone's constitutional rights.

Title 18 US Code section 242

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

Of course, getting the 'King' to prosecute one of his men has always been a major problem.

Also, another problem is getting some actual respect for the Constitution Rights from the judiciary.

My understanding Is that no judge has been impeached and prosecuted for stomping on our rights since 1804.

Take care,

James J Odle

Re: "Letter from Kevin Van Horn" last issue

Dear Editor,

I gave several passages from Josephus as proof that Jesus actually existed, and you replied that "Much of the Josephus text is regarded as a later interpolation (a.k.a. 'hoax')..."

Sorry, but this facile dismissal doesn't hold up. "Much" is an exaggeration; "some" is more accurate. The fact of the matter is that I took care to quote only those parts considered genuine by most scholars, omitting those phrases that are probable interpolations. See http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/cruc-josephus.html (scroll down to "Antiquities 18: Chapter 3") for a discussion.

Kevin Van Horn

Re: "Christianity . . . the Mother of Harlots" by Russell D. Longcore

Although Russell D. Longcore makes some valid points about how churches in America have become subservient to the state, I have to object to this statement:

"Final nail in the Church's coffin is its desire . . . even its perceived entitlement . . . of tax exempt status in Amerika. Why should churches be tax exempt?"

A better question than "Why should churches be tax exempt?" is "Why should anyone be subject to taxation?" Taxation is theft, and it feeds the largest and most vicious criminal organizations on the planet. Anyone who manages to keep money out of the hands of the criminal gang in D.C. should be commended.

Kevin Van Horn

Letter from Mitch Wayne

In this week's edition of TLE you made the following statement:

"This issue we get threatened by PGP for printing an article in which Kate Graham expressed an opinion about them they didn't like. If it's not one damned thing, it's another! So let me apologize for any ruffled feathers, and we here at TLE sure don't want to cause any harm to PGP's reputation or income—although I'm pretty sure the people who read TLE are in the habit of thinking for themselves and don't take anybody's word on anything about anything. Anytime. Heck, we couldn't harm PGP's reputation or income if we wanted to . . . which we don't."

Ms. Graham didn't offer an opinion. She made a factual statement without a shred of proof. I would expect that as editor, you would at least have the intellectual honesty to note that point. It would also be nice is Ms. Graham had the humility to acknowledge her error. Unfortunately, she has not responded to any emails regarding the subject.

Mitch Wayne

Letter from Frank Ney

Re: "Letter from Brian Draves, General Counsel, PGP Corporation"

If they so vehemently deny that PGP does not contain a government back door, then why won't they release their source code for review?

Every other valid encryption program on the planet releases source code for peer review for this very purpose. It also serves to catch unintended bugs that may make such encryption ineffective. Claims of IP and industrial espionage are a cop out.

If Brian Davies is sure enough to file a lawsuit, then he should have no problem releasing the source code. The REAL source code. Programmers, sales drones, and lawyers can make all the claims they want. I know, I happen to be a programmer. The proof is in the source code.

And guess what? If Mr. Davies files a lawsuit against TLE for the article, I guarantee the first motion for discovery will be for the source code and all related version and revision histories back to Version 1.

Something tells me that PGP Corporation doesn't want that to happen. Proof being an absolute defense, and all that rubbish.

Frank Ney

Letter from Ed Carp

On Sun, 28 May 2006, space aliens made Frank Ney write:

> Every other valid encryption program on the planet releases source code
> for peer review for this very purpose. It also serves to catch
> unintended bugs that may make such encryption ineffective. Claims of IP
> and industrial espionage are a cop out.

What IP? PGP source code has been around forever. In fact, I'm running PGP 2.6.2 here that was cmopiled from source, then compared with Phil's executables to make sure it didn't have anything "interesting" added.

> And guess what? If Mr. Davies files a lawsuit against TLE for the article, I
> guarantee the first motion for discovery will be for the source code and all
> related version and revision histories back to Version 1.

That's why I won't use a binary-only form of PGP (or gpg or any other crypto program, for that matter). I want to see that code with my own eyes.

Ed Carp

Another Letter from Frank Ney

On Sun, 28 May 2006 11:03:21 -0700, Ken Hagler wrote:

>on 5/28/06 9:58 AM, Frank Ney wrote:
>> If they so vehemently deny that PGP does not contain a government back door,
>> then why won't they release their source code for review?
> A quick search on PGP's site turned up this page:
> http://www.pgp.com/downloads/sourcecode/index.html

And they state clearly that they're only publishing the code that is subject to the GPL requirements. What about the code that they aren't required to publish? What surprises await for those who can't be bothered to compare a clean compile from their source code to the binary distribution? Does the published source code have any correspondence to the programs sold at retail or is it just a PR stunt?

This is why a lot of folks consider 2.6.2 the last "good" PGP around, and I'm not entirely sure they're wrong. Peer review is meaningless if you're not sure you have the full code set. The chain of trust was broken by NAI years ago, and like Smith & Wesson it's not going to be easy to earn forgiveness even if Phil Zimmerman is involved again. And if PGP Inc. wants their "peer review" source code releases to be taken seriously, siccing rabid lawyers on people expressing an opinion is not the way to go about doing it.

Safely lies in real open source. PGP no longer fits the bill IMO, which is why I'm using GPG.

Frank Ney

Another Letter from Frank Ney

On Sun, 28 May 2006 18:25:06 -0700, Ken Hagler wrote:

>on 5/28/06 5:57 PM, Frank Ney wrote:
>> And they state clearly that they're only publishing the code that is subject
>> to
>> the GPL requirements.
> They certainly don't state that clearly anywhere that I could see. Perhaps
>you're misunderstanding the reference to GPL'd source used in PGP Universal?

"As required by the GPL, PGP Corporation is making these changes available to the public. To download an archive containing all modifications made by PGP Corporation to software subject to the GPL please click on the following:"

That's pretty clear to me. "All modifications" doesn't mean "all modified source code required to create a functioning binary". Lawyers get paid to screw over people in this manner—its like stating a wish to a jinni, only worse.

Now it may be that you can download their stuff and in fact create a working binary. I'm away from my main computers this weekend, so it will have to wait for the week for me to try. Even so, it still boils down to trust.

Let me put it this way: Do YOU trust PGP Inc. to post source code that bears a one-to-one correspondence to the retail binaries being offered for sale?

Based on past history I do not. PGP Inc.'s publicity campaign boils down to "Trust us, we have Phil Zimmerman. Christ has risen from the dead and you can once again trust PGP." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. When you lose goodwill, you have to earn it back. You don't earn goodwill by sending out rabid lawyergrams. A politely worded rebuttal would have worked better.

The rabid lawyergram automatically invokes Shakespeare: "methinks the Lady doth protest too much."

Frank Ney


I appreciate your response and attention to this sensitive matter. The reality is that PGP software is an excellent tool for those that are concerned about ensuring the privacy of their communications. As stated in my letter, this is the very foundation of our company and the reason that the Twilight Zone article struck such a raw nerve. In the ongoing fight against the erosion of personal privacy, PGP is one of the "good guys". While PGP software has evolved to protect large-scale enterprise environments, we are still dedicated to servicing our core base of individual users that have supported the technology for more than 10 years. As stated in my letter, we go to great lengths to assure all of our customers that the software has not been compromised, including such atypical behavior for a large software company as publishing our source code.

While I appreciate the offer to include the links that refute the idea of a governmental backdoor, I do not believe this is an adequate resolution. As you can imagine, claims that PGP Corporation's products contain a government backdoor and that our code as been "broken", are very inflammatory and damaging remarks. The only viable solution is to remove the inaccurate reference to PGP software by eliminating the second sentence of that paragraph (which would then require the elimination of "however" in the following sentence). In the meantime, if you desire to publish a link on behalf of PGP Corporation, please do not publish my letter, but utilize the statement on our website that I referenced in my letter: http://www.pgp.com/company/pgpassurance.html. This statement is much more appropriate for dissemination to your reader base.

Please let me know if you will accommodate my request above.

Brian Draves

[Offer? That was no offer, that was a description of what I did.—Editor]

Re: "Letter from Brian Draves, General Counsel, PGP Corporation"

Mr. Draves,

Clearly you either have no comprehension of the ideals of freedom which are reflected in Mr. Zimmermann's commitment to privacy as a fundamental right which led to the creation of PGP, or as a hired gun, you are ethically required to represent the corporation regardless of the principles involved.

Your response to misinformation was not simply to correct that misinformation, as one would expect of someone representing a corporation whose ideals were rooted in free exchange of ideas without having to worry about a government sticking it's nose into everything. Your response was precisely the opposite. Because you took offence at something someone wrote, you seek to drag into the matter the very organization Mr. Zimmermann's product was designed to protect against, the government and its courts.

The reputation of PGP Corporation is not owned by PGP Corporation. It is owned by each and every person who has any dealings with PGP Corporation. What I think of PGP Corporation is not something for you or anyone else to decide, Mr. Draves.

Had you stopped your letter prior to issuing your threat, not only would that have restored any loss in reputation the article instilled in me (for the record, there was none—I try to keep current in encryption, for myself and for my clients) it would have augmented the positive reputation I had for PGP Corporation, Mr. Zimmerman and the PGP product. Since you did not, however, and resorted to threats which, if pursued, would be enforced with potentially lethal violence, and for nothing more than correcting an erroneous statement, I have an entirely different opinion of PGP Corporation at present—that of a thug, indifferent to the moral and ethical concerns inherent in using violence and threats to solve problems.

I demand from you an apology for implicitly threatening the editor with a lawsuit. Failure to do so will result in the irrevocable loss of any and all positive feelings I have towards PGP Corporation. I will immediately remove PGP from my computer, and terminate my subscription to a product supplied by what I had formerly thought a company firmly rooted in the defense of freedom, and opposition to tyranny. I will further counsel competitive products and discourage the use of PGP products for any of my clients seeking encryption.

Please confirm your intention to comply with this demand and resolve this issue amicably.

Best regards,

Stephan Jerde

Re: "Letter from Frank Ney"

"To put it in terms sports fans can understand, placing Barbaro into the Triple Crown is the equivalent of taking a 15 year old halfback from Nyskauna High School to start first string for the Giants. It just doesn't work and you're likely to ruin the athlete in the process. "

There is nothing wrong with allowing a fifteen year old halfback to play pro-football. Is the individual human or horse capable of doing the job? If he is, hire him.

Judging humans by age has always seemed wrong to me. Laws based on age are wrong. Using age is just a legislative convienence based on something pulled out of thin air (and fat butts). It simply makes writing laws to control people more easy for them to write.

Judge individuals as individuals. Whether they be horse or human, some stand out, mature before others, and should not be legislated into mediocrity. They should be applauded and rewarded for their greatness, not deprived of greatness because of their age.

I really only have issue with the authors analogy. I know nothing about horses. But, in my time, I have been both young and sane (and both at the same time on good days, back then, heh. ), so I take reactionary issue with laws based on age.

Some laws based on age are good, a pedifile analogy could have worked better here. But, I'm not comfortable with articles here that suggest, in general, in any way, that age based legislation is a good and non-evil concept.

Adam Harris

Is how everyone wants to comment upon The DaVinci Code—the movie and book; no one bothered to comment on CDC's decision to start calling all non-sterile women "pre-pregnant".

To me this is tantamount to the CDC deciding the only value for women is whether or not they are yet (Some are still pre-pubescent girls.) or still (Some may have had hysterectomies or reached menopause.) fertile.

Okay. Sure. I get that the CDC is not advocating—yet—forcing fertile women to live by its 'health' and 'nutrition' guidelines to ensure the healthiest and happiest babies. But can that be far behind? Just look at how the CDC decided to make a big deal against gun ownership. "Guns cause crime, don't you know." And sure as shooting, there will be some yahoo, 'conservative', pin-head politician taking this CDC stance vis-a-vis 'pre-pregnancy' as a moral obligation to enact pregnancy protection laws.

C'mon. Get with the program people! Am I the only one who actually read Hope?

Derek Benner

RE: Letter from Kevin Van Horn

Kevin wrote:

"Now this is just downright silly—and I'm speaking as someone who doesn't believe there is a god. If we were to apply the same standards of evidence that a historian would use to determine the existence of, say, a Zoroastrian religious figure, the various epistles and gospels of the New Testament, along with the various apocrypha, would in themselves be considered pretty strong evidence that the man existed. Heck, nobody mistakes the Arthurian legends for anything close to accurate history, and yet historians are agreed that "King" Arthur did, in fact exist.

The Jewish historian Josephus—born in 37 AD—mentions Jesus and several other New Testament figures."

To begin with I know of no consensus of Historians on the actual existence of a real King Arthur. In fact most Historians agree there never was such a person. Some Historians believe there may have been a flesh and blood character (not an actual King) around which the legends grew but most that I've read agree that there is no reason there should have been (legends can grow just fine without an actual person at their center) and there is no real evidence of any such person.

I also know of no Zoroastrian religious figure for whom there is ample evidence of real existence. Likewise a host of other mythical figures such as; Hercules, Moses, Gilgamesh, Osiris, Deganawidah, Thor or Rip Van Winkle, just to name a few.

As I believe the editor already pointed out the entries in Josephus' history regarding "Jesus the Christ" are accepted by even the most faithful Bible scholars, today, as likely interpolations perpetrated by early Church founders. Eusebius, to be exact. Eusebius was one of several early Christian founders who believed it was perfectly acceptable to lie if it furthered the Church's agenda.

If there was a real flesh and blood person around which the myth was built (and there's absolutely no evidence that there was) we can say at least two things about him unequivocally. First we will never know anything about who he really was or what he really said as any evidence was lost centuries ago to the exigencies of myth building. Second he never did or said anything noteworthy enough to bring him to the attention of any contemporary Roman, Hebrew or Egyptian Historian, Scholar or Scribe. Not one word was written, contemporary to Jesus given lifetime, about any person resembling the legend. The myth itself is full of inaccuracies, inconsistencies and factual errors.

Ironically you said you don't believe in a God yet there's actually more evidence for life after death and the existence of God (circumstantial and anecdotal as it may all be) than there is for the existence of an historical Jesus.

Douglas Lockhart

The libertarian web community's newest networking tool—a politically specific social bookmarking site—debuts today at www.freedomSLUT.com.

"Get your mind off of smut—it's not slut, it's capital ess ell ewe tee" says Thomas L. Knapp, one of two bloggers behind the effort. "For Sites, Links, URLs and Tags." But, he admits, he intends to capitalize on the acronym in advertising and promotion.

Knapp, publisher of libertarian sites Rational Review and Kn@ppster, and Brad Spangler, who blogs at BradSpangler.Com and consults for several movement sites and organizations, developed freedomSLUT on the open source Scuttle platform and plan to promote it to the libertarian community as a resource for "finding or flogging" anti-state, pro-freedom bloggage, news and commentary.

"The net is in continuous transition," says Spangler. "A tool pops up in a discrete community, spreads to the broader web, then gets specialized again. Social bookmarking started out as a tech/geek thing, then went pop, and now we're bringing it back to a specific group whose members will find it extremely useful."

freedomSLUT allows for private and public bookmarking, and offers browser and blog template tools to make sharing links easy and convenient.

Web sites mentioned in this release:

Rational Review—www.rationalreview.com

Thomas L. Knapp

Hello TLE—

Here is an interesting website—NRA is generally a VERY flawed organization (esp. when contrasted to the JPFO) however they are sometimes on track see below:


I am sending the 3 letters out today (2June2006) along with the following addition:


1 June 2006


For years, Americans' tolerance of your socialist agenda and totalitarian policies has been misunderstood as apathy; and our patience with your inefficient and genocidal interventions has been mistaken for weakness. This is a flaw in your decision loop that will cause great disruption* if you do not change.

Attempting to disarm Americans is a 'tripwire' issue. Naturally, not all 50 million Responsible (i.e. Armed) Americans are unified in this, however, if only 2% of us will not go along with your Nazi-like agenda, it will be one million people (who shoot a lot) vs. what ? the UN troopies? or american troops... if they would go agin' there own kith and kin (won't happen... and if by some 'magic' our own troops forget their Loyalty Oaths we still have them out numbered 10 to 1).

It comes down to a very simple problem—people like you and yours (big city leftists and east/west coast pseudo-intellectuals are committing the psych sin of 'projection' and it will screw you in the end. As near as I can tell, people like you think that political hay maybe made on the backs of an inoffensive, impotent minority (much like the Jews of the 30's in Europe). You believe that this agenda to create a nation of victims dependent upon the False Idol of your socialist super state is possible because of what you see in NYC, or LA, or in DC... but those places are not America... America is what you never see—it is what you and your ilk call 'fly over' country or 'trailer trash' land populated by what you refer to as joe-six-pack or Nascar dads... or as I like to think of it; the place where all the food, water and generative power come from.

Around here we call it 'Home' and those people you marginalize are my friends, neighbors, kin, people I have served with, people I hunt with, people I care for & people who are armed and unhappy. While we are Inoffensive now (that is our choice... for now); we are not impotent nor are we marginalized (it only seems so for your skewed 'citified' perspective) in this country we are the Majority. We are the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution, Children of our Heavenly Father who has set this land apart for our Freedom & Liberty... Come take them if you can... but know this: there shall be no king in this land and our Constitution and Bill of Rights will be Restored and Enforced. These events have been foreseen by the prophets and will come to pass.

I am very sure that you won't understand this (maybe 'cannot' is a better word ) and if you could comprehend what you are doing you would keep on going—people like you are fundamentally broken inside. Your souls and minds are corrupt and diseased... This need to control and hurt others masks your own inability to control your own inclinations towards self destruction. I write this to tell my countrymen and compatriots that they are not alone. That I, one of many, am willing to tend the Liberty Tree and I and my family will fight against any who would attack our Rights, Liberties, or our Freedoms.

I am really only writing this for personal reasons—I want to have a clear conscience when your thugs attempt to enslave Americans... I will have done all that I could to save you from yourselves.

Molon Labe—
Scott A. Campanaro

PS—Please do not write me back—if this letter has enlightened you then simply shut the doors and disband the U.N.! Remove yourselves from our soil... do it now while you still can... while we will still let you... Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Scott A. Campanaro

* in the world you inhabit—I reckon for us it will just be a time in which the status quo changes forever—and, you know, it is about time!


Now, fellow TLE readers, I do not think that this is doing any good—except to me and mine. I would like to think these thugs will get 'it' and stop... realistically I know that it will not happen and we will be faced with a most 'interesting' future... so keep those 600m 7.62 skills up and below is a PT goal to shoot for—@ 44 y.o. I am at about 80%—by the end of summer it should be 100%+ (been a long snowy winter :-).

Remember: it is our Destiny as a people to destroy tyrants... on our soil... and to be a beacon of liberty... everywhere!


  • Be able to swim at least half a mile or more;
  • Be able to run at top speed two hundred yards or more;
  • Be able to jump over obstacles higher than your waist;
  • Be in condition to pull your body upward by the strength of your arms, until your chin touches your hands, at least 15 to 20 times;
  • Be able to dip between parallel bars or between two chairs at least 25 times or more.

  • "If a man can accomplish these things," Liederman said, "he need have no fear concerning the safety of his life should he be forced into an emergency from which he alone may be able to save himself."


Scott A. Campanaro

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!

to advance to the next article
  Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 370, June 4, 2006