Big Head Press


L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 547, December 6, 2009

"The political tide is about to turn."


  Table of Contents Contents Next Next

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication


[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]


Letter from Gadget42

Letters from Jim Davidson and Chris Claypoole

Letter from A.X. Perez

Letter from Andrew G Eggleston Sr.

Another Letter from A.X. Perez

Letter from Jim Davidson

Letter from Don Wilson

Letter from Susan Callaway


Need help punching the mobocracy in the eye... please help us throw this new grenade of a book!

Just a quick note of thanks for your continued great contributions! please help us promote Starving The Monkeys before it is banned! seriously, if there was one current book that could be handed out to everyone... this is it....

Oh the shrieks of sheer horror and terror as the Mobocracy Looter Minions read about "their" loot and booty gravy-train ending soon... very soon....

By the time we were just a few pages into it we ordered a whole case of 24 from Tom and over half are gone already. We've asked those obtaining the book to also do the same if they feel so inclined and surely many will

Again, keep up the great work!

Brothers and Sisters in Liberty, Sons and Daughters of Liberty!

Sincerely,
Rob
gadgetfortytwo@gmail.com

www.starvingthemonkeys.com
voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.php
marcstevens.net
www.freedomainradio.com
Drive Encryption: Free Open-Source On-The-Fly Encryption—www.truecrypt.org
Email Encryption: GnuPG with Mozilla—enigmail.mozdev.org
Anonymizer: Incognito—anonymityanywhere.com/incognito/


Re: "Neither Machiavelli Nor a Sandwich" by Chris Claypoole

Dear Chris,

There is another idiom involving "sandwich" to refer to a person which might be of some interest to you. Several planned escapes from Soviet-era gulags involved planning by two or three persons who would "bring along a sandwich." Meaning another person who was not likely to survive the harsh conditions.

A mildly entertaining film on the topic is "Gulag" from 1985.

Regards,

Jim Davidson
planetaryjim@yahoo.com

To which Chris Claypoole replied

So, would that be a "cold cut" sandwich?

Chris Claypoole
igli1969@comcast.net

To which Jim Davidson replied

Got barbecue pit?

Jim Davidson
planetaryjim@yahoo.com

To which Chris Claypoole replied

Well, as a salesman, I have some experience at blowing smoke up someone's ass. In this case, it would be literally rather than figuratively.

Chris Claypoole
igli1969@comcast.net


The UN wants to spend 4 tetrabucks to six tetrabucks a year to help people adapt to climate change.

If global temperatures are going up, regardless of the degree of human causality, people will have to move inland as sea levels rise and/or implement flood control engineering projects.

Western nations have started to make or at least plan these changes. Ought to create a lot of construction and engineering jobs over the century. Many so called Third World nations cannot afford these activities.

Guess who is going to be expected to pick up the tab?

Our editor, publisher, and this author, and a large percentage of the American readers of TLE live well inland and well above the predicted rise in sea level (my home town is officialy 3700 abve sea level and I live in foothill maybe another thousand feet above that. Right now we are thinking "where's that damn global warming when you need it?" or planning to enjoy winter sports (in my digs we are experiencing second snow storm, admittedly light, in less than a week).

And we are expected to pay for islanders to relocate as their islands flood; or maybe don't, but we've already paid for the move so....

I am beginning to understand wny mountain folk don't care much for flat-landers.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com


Terrorist or Terrorized? The argument of Kenneth Gladney vs Ahmed Hashim Abed

Terrorist or Terrorized?

Kenneth Gladney vs Ahmed Hashim Abed
Protester   Terrorist
Passing out Flags   Killing Americans
Beaten by SEIU members   Beaten by SEAL team members
Charges pending   Charges leveled
No case pending   Case pending

How can we stand aside and allow a known terrorist, an enemy combatant during war-time, to press charges against our SEAL's for assault; while a young man in St.Louis is ignored for being assaulted by known thugs and thrown into the street?

How would anyone pretend to say that it is criminal to assault a known enemy combatant, and reconcile that it is okay to assault an American?

How would a person go about capturing a known enemy combatant without assaulting him?

How can the St.Louis District Attorney allow an American to be assaulted and not level charges against those who did the assault, when there is video evidence of the assault?

So this is what it has come to? American Servicemen cannot capture a Terrorist who would do us harm without repercussions, but special interest Union Thugs can terrorize us at their will without repercussions. I'm behind the SEAL's on this one, they shouldn't be made to pay a price that they were not made aware of—that it was a potential threat to their careers and lives to follow orders and capture an enemy combatant—beyond the assumed dangers of the battlefield. In the same pursuit of justice, we cannot allow the St.Louis SEIU members to assault a man—who had no intention of doing them harm, who didn't know he was entering a battlefield—without repercussions. Most especially we cannot allow this miscarriage of justice to go on, in either case. The cause of the greater good can only be served if these two cases were reversed, if the SEAL team members were getting the walk for doing what was expected of them and the SEIU members getting prosecuted for assault and battery. When will we say enough? When will we storm the ramparts of Justice—at a slow and methodical, non-threatening pace—and remove our American Servicemen from harm's way? When will we stand in a unified chorus of disparate groups and say STOP?

We cannot allow these cases to write our future history of this great Republic. We stand at the threshold of a New World Order; and it is time for us to collectively turn away from that threshold and face the music of defying our tormentors and keepers. To stand defiantly in the face of a Socialization of our way of life and say in one voice—NO! Rage against the dying of light of Liberty my friends and Patriots, no longer can we stand quietly to the side, out of the way of "Progress"! This is not progress... this is regress and an abandonment of everything We The People stand for; the thief is in the house, 911 is busy, what are you going to do?

Andrew G. Eggleston Sr.
whitesage12@hotmail.com


Used to have two dogs I fed at the same time. Each would eat half her food, look up up and scurry over to the other dog's dish and finish it off.

A person who didn't know dogs, especially these two, would have thought "How cute, they're sharing." Wrong. Each dog was stealing the others food. Funny as all get out, and if amusing qualifies as cute, yeah I guess cute. It was still larceny.

I favor Netscape over Internet Explorer, or at least I did until AOL stopped supporting Netscape. However I am not blind to the fact that Netscape, which at the time had the majority share of users as an Internet browser, was a little hypocritical when they sued Microsoft for monopolistic practices, as AOL was when they bought Netscape to continue the suit.

Talk to a decent person who subscribes to socialism as a result of brainwashing and you will hear the same belief repeated over and over, "the rich got rich by by stealing from the rest of us." There are in fact examples (Enron and Bernie Madoff come to mind) to support his allegation. The problem is that socialists view all who prosper as being the same as these grotesque thieves.

The rest of the thought is that "therefor we have the right to steal it back."

Like a pair of dogs simultaneously robbing each others dishes, like monopolists turning to the government to enforce or help them create their monopolies.

Socialists often criticize Social Darwinists for claiming that they have a right to steal from "the lower orders." There are in fact some who have done just that. But we need to help our Socialist friends get past the belief that he who has and he who is getting does so by being a thief.

If rich punks claim the right to steal, and Socialist punks claim the right to steal y'all and I are going to be their targets.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com


Lending to banks

Dear Editor,

Rarely do I see a graphical representation of something that I've been writing about that so fully confirms my concerns about the increasingly denuded economy. Today was one of those times.

Federal Reserve
(click for larger version)

It is a stunning graphic, showing the two trillion lent to the banks by the Federal Reserve, plus their machinations and manipulations in other markets. The Fed has been buying up government agency debt (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, e.g.) and even Treasury debt when no one else does.

Good news for the price of gold. And the coming confiscation may be even sooner than I thought.

Regards,

Jim Davidson
planetaryjim@yahoo.com


The Power of a Badge

DEA officer stops at a ranch in Texas, and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, "I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs." The rancher says, "Okay, but do not go in that field over there," as he points out the location.

The DEA officer verbally explodes saying,

"Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me." Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removes his badge and proudly displays it to the rancher. "See this badge? This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish.... On any land. No questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear? Do you understand? "

The rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores.

A short time later, the old rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life chased by the rancher's big Santa Gertrudis bull....

With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he'll get gored before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs:

"Your badge. Show him your BADGE!"

Don Wilson
kalvanotherwhen@hotmail.com


The New AARP

Re: "Letter from Max Winkler"

I agree about the new AARP—I'm one of them, but I want to make it clear that even if:

... the Chairman understood it,—was passed by a Congress that had read it,—was signed by a President who didn't smoke,—funded by a Treasury Chief who payed his taxes,—overseen by a Surgeon General who was slim, and financed by a country that was rich as Oprah...

... control by coercive government would still be illegitimate.

Their hypocrisy is simply the icing on the cake. Their motives and intentions are irrelevant.

Susan Callaway
mamaliberty@rtconnect.net
Editor, The Price of Liberty


TLE AFFILIATE

Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest


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

Big Head Press