THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 387, October 1, 2006
The Country We All Grew Up In Is Dead!
Send Letters to email@example.com
Re: "H.R. 6166 Military Commissions Act of 2006"
My heart is aching. Our founding fathers' great dream is dead. It took us only 230 years or so to kill it. Make no mistakethe terrorists didn't kill it. We did. Yesterday we proved we are a small frightened people who don't believe in the very principles this country was founded onwe threw this country's principles away in fear of a weak pusillanimous enemy. In doing so, we joined his ranks. We are cowards of the worst kindwe beat our chests and trumpet our superiority while throwing aside our beliefs in the assumption that by lightening our load we will make it to safety. But our beliefs are what gave this country strength; we threw away the best part of us. The mighty oak has been proven to have a hollow core.
We've also put a hex on our children and their children. They will be fighting a much stronger enemy. For every single innocent Muslim we capture and torture, there will be hundreds of enemies created. How many family members will those Muslims have? How many friends? Every one of them will hate us, as will their children.
This is my last post on this board. While there are lots of shiny honorable people here, there are others I've completely lost any desire to talk to. I've lost all respect for them. In addition, there's a fight out here in the real world that I need to become a part of. My time will be better spent in that fight. I urge all of you who are horrified by what this country has become to join that fight. Let's pull this beautiful country out of the gutter.
See also Claire Wolfe's Blog "Happy Dictatorship Day" entry
The Broach Goes On-Line
The Probability Broach: The Graphic Novel, the 2004 graphic adaptation of L. Neil Smith's classic libertarian sci-fi novel, will be presented on-line in its entirety as a serialization starting Wednesday, October 4, publisher Big Head Press has announced.
Illustrator Scott Bieser worked with Smith to present his 1979 prose story in full-color graphic form after several fans of both Smith and Bieser suggested the collaboration, Bieser recalled. The result is a 185-page story that is somewhat pared-down from the original but still carries all the important plot points and has been well-received by Smith's fans.
Big Head Press released the book as a trade-paperback in late 2004, and sales have been fairly steady through both the comics "direct market" and on-line retailers, according to Frank Bieser, proprietor of the company.
"But they could be better, and we have seen other publishers obtain greater visibility for their works and improve sales by making the content viewable on-line," Bieser said. He noted that the first 42 pages of the story have been viewable on-line for some time now but this will be a new "roll-out" of the story which is hoped to stimulate more attention.
The new "roll-out" will include a new forward to the story by Smith, who also noted that since this 1979 story predicts a version of the World Wide Web (called "the Telecom"), Broach will now have come full-circle, in a sense, with this Web presentation.
The story goes on-line with the first 47 pages on October 4, and then will be serialized at an average rate of 5 pages per weekly upload, each Wednesday, until the run is completed in the spring of next year. A button link leading to the story will appear on the publisher's main page at http://www.bigheadpress.com when the serialization begins.
I've been out of town and only now catching up on the past few issue of Libertarian Enterprise. I was glad to see El Neil promoting Alex Jones. Along with others such as Jeff Rense, he is one the courageous few exposing the real Truth behind the headlines. The Truth about the atheistic, secular, and globalist group(s) that are destroying America as they usher in the New World Order.
While you're visitng Jones' site, read about the Bohemian Grove where some of the most powerful men in America gather for occult, anti-Christian rituals and to make policy:
The current state of the Invasion:
Oh, I wouldn't consider you to be a bully, or your friends either.
What you did was quite well within reason, and the Libertarian ethos: You were protecting your own life. liberty, and property against damage.
Willful negligence is still an act of aggression on the part of the person who engages in such. It is tantamount to expecting everyone else to suffer for the lack of due considerationespecially where that lack of consideration will lead to loss on the part of someone else.
In my estimation, it was the individual you wrote of who is the genesis of government, for he is expecting you to do his bidding by taxing your own efforts, and not providing anything in return, except more of the same.
Dennis, & Ken
What's that old line?
Your remarkin part: "[...] it might be appropriate to level a charge of slander against my reputation..."
For your edificationand you might keep the following in mind for the futureslander is spoken, whereas libel is written. A really neat mnemonic for remembering that is: the words 'slander' and 'speak' both begin with an 's', whereas the word libel is written (on the line) and rather coincidentally, both begin with the letter (l).
Now regarding everything else?
The following observations by Sam Harris in the LA Times about certain lefties could just as easily be characterizing certain libertarians of the sort we often see writing for the likes of antiwar.com, lewrockwell.com and Libertarian Enterprise:
"My correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world--specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith. . . .
"A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world--for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a 'war on terror.' We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.
"This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy. . . .
"And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism."
You won't find scribblers like J. Raimondo, L. Smith, T. Knapp et al. discussing that evidence very scrupulously. You won't find them conceding the actual significance of world-wide rioting, threats and violence in response to cartoons (militarism?) and speeches (militarism?) and the like--the actual words and deeds and articulated goals, prolifically recorded, of those engaged in jihad. Why not?
Well, they can't. Not and maintain their delusions. If Islamofascism were an actual existing threat which it makes sense to combat, then "militarism" might be justified to oppose it. Then the arguments would have to be about how best to fight the war, not whether to fight the war at all. But this would contradict the anti-interventionist ideology being clung to as an article of faith. So the facts have to be ignored.
I hope this browser takes back some measure of privacy if millions start using it. Could throw some sand in the fascist gearbox.
A tweaked version of Firefox that makes Web browsing anonymous has been released by a group of privacy-minded coders.
Every few minutes, the Torpark browser causes a computer's IP address to appear to change. IP addresses are numeric identifier given to computers on the Internet. The number can be used along with other data to potentially track down a user, as many Web sites keep track of IP addresses.
Dr. Julius No
In a column he entitled "Will the Real Lady of Liberty please raise a Lighted Torch?" writer Dennis Lee Wilson took me to task for my views on immigration. I wrote that I favor secured borders (which in fact I believe to be not only highly desirable but constitutionally mandated); he said that such a viewpoint was both wrong and not Libertarian.
Mr. Wilson has every right to believe the former and to present his opposing viewpoint accordingly (which he quite thoroughly did). As for the latter, he himself noted that I'd never openly claimed to be a Libertarian. He's right; I haven't. (Mr. Wilson went on to say that he assumed that I must be a Libertarian because some of the things I write appear in The Libertarian Enterprise, though last time I checked I didn't find that to be a requirement. Perhaps he could direct me to the relevant portion of the submission guidelines).
I haven't claimed to be a Libertarian because I'm not. One of the reasons I'm not isn't that most of my views don't follow along pretty closely with the official Libertarian philosophy, but rather because a couple of significant ones don't. That being said, I do agree with some well known Libertarians, even where immigration is involved.
Congressman Ron Paulwho is nominally a Republican, but who has been a Libertarian presidential candidate and is certainly considered by most Libertarians to be one of "them"wrote in his weekly column dated September 18, 2006:
"The problems associated with illegal immigration will not be solved overnight, but we cannot begin to address them until we take the hard steps of securing the borders, rejecting amnesty, and reclaiming our right as a sovereign nation to control immigration without apology. "
Michael Badnarik, who was the 2004 Libertarian candidate for president and who is currently running for Congress as a Libertarian in Texas, said of immigration in an interview I personally conducted:
"So if you come to the United States with the intention of moving here, living here permanently, learning English, spending money, working hard, and becoming an American citizen, I'm all in favor of that. And there needs to be a clear, definitive path of how to do that. However, if you're just going to cross the border illegally disregarding the laws that we have in place, and you're going to march in the large cities, and demand that we turn our property over to you, that is not being an American. That is currently a non-violent invasion. And that is not something that I or Libertarians support."
In fact, the Libertarian Party itself isn'tat least not officiallyas LIbertarian as Mr. Wilson seems to think LIbertarians should be:
Libertarian Party Platform on Immigration (excerpts therefrom:)
Part of the problem: "A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked."
"The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property."
"Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. "
I freely admit I don't agree in entirety with the Libertarian Party platform on immigration, but I do note that even it contains some cautionssensibly, I thinkwhere open borders are concerned.
In the end, if I'm not Libertarian enough for some people, well, at least I'm in fine company (though I don't for a moment consider myself a peer of men like Rep. Paul and Mr. Badnarik who have effectively dedicated their lives to fighting for freedom).
I could go on to defend my stance on immigration some more, but I won't. Someone else wrote the definitive column on that subject that I can only wish I'd written. His name is Stephen Cox, and he's the editor of Liberty magazine. Mr. Cox wrote the illuminating "The Fallacy of Open Immigration" which was published at LewRockwell.com to which I only have one thing to say: Me, too.
As for the real Lady Liberty, Mr. Wilson, she's right here. I'd note that the "other" Lady Liberty, the one in New York which you so poignantly quoted, may welcome the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but nowhere does she say she welcomes the criminals, the terrorists, the welfare seekers, or the would-be conquistadors. Nowhere does she suggest that she would welcome those who would undermine the sovereignty, security, or society of the very country whose gates she lights. Nowhere does she suggest that anyone and everyone is welcome en masse without a hint of order to their entry. And neither do I.