Down With Power Audiobook!

L. Neil Smith’s THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 899, November 20, 2016

If the Trump Administration can just
learn to leave everybody in America
the hell alone, it will go down in
history with the greatest of them.

Previous Previous          Table of Contents Contents          Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Bookmark and Share

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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 A.X. Perez

Letter from Jim Woosley

Letter from Jeff Fullerton

Letter from T.J. Mason

Letter from J. Neil Schulman



Letter from A.X. Perez

Ya Cheated Fair and Square

I despise Donald Trump. He is not a good person. I will spend his entire presidency waiting for him to “make his move,” cash in the con he’s run on his followers and the American people. Yet I keep finding myself compelled to defend his victory in the 2016 election.

In the old TV Series The Adventures of Briscoe County Jr. one character says of the protagonist, “Ya cheated me fair and square.” Many of Hillary Clinton’s followers feel that Trump cheated by winning the election in the Electoral College even though Clinton won the popular vote. Possibly, but he cheated fair and square under the existing rules. What I think of the Electoral College system instead of direct popular election is not relevant. I will note that the Constitution can be amended. I will also note that the electoral college as it currently exists empowers the states and the states would be foolish to amend the Constitution to call for direct election. This is a matter to be settled in Congress and state legislatures.

Trump was criticized for saying he would not accept the result of the election until he was sure that the election was fair. Now Clinton’s followers are trying to overturn the result of the election, a result that is fair under the existing rules of the game. They are calling for an ex post facto change to the rules of the game of electing President of the United States of America. Of course, once you do that you go to a system in which there are no rules on how one becomes President, which means power is seized by brute force.

Power seized by brute force is called tyranny. Perhaps Ms. Clinton’s followers are willing to start down the slippery slope leading to tyranny. I am not. Perhaps Mr. Trump will turn into a tyrant in office. The tools to stop him without opening the door to even greater tyranny are in place.

Then again, perhaps maybeso many of those calling for trashing the existing system believe they are the ones who control the brute force to impose what they imagine would be a benevolent tyranny on America. With any luck that is true will remain one of the unanswered questions of the ages.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author

Back to the top


Letter from Jim Woosley

Thought for the Day

…actually, thought for the ten days since the election:

Most people have not been taught to use the three pints of convoluted, electrochemically active gray fat that lives inside their skulls.

Jim Woosley
Jimwoosley@aol.com


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author

Back to the top


Letter from Jeff Fullerton

Hillary Loses — Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead — YouTube

An even better one!

Jeff Fullerton
born2bewild1962@gmail.com


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author

Back to the top


Letter from T.J. Mason

Re: “Moronic Idea of the Week” by L. Neil Smith

In response to “Moronic Idea of the Week,” I submit this (edited for publication anonymity) email exchange from the day after the election:

 
++++++
 
Received from a correspondent in a message dated 11/9/2016 11:18:44 A.M.    

    If Hildabeast hadn't loudly chastised Trump for his statement concerning
    "challenging results", she might have requested recounts - and possible won
    some of them.

    http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

    8NOV2016:  A deplorable victory.

+++
 
My reply at 08:50 PM 11/9/2016:
> Actually, I don't think so - or that the Democrats will make a big 
> deal about her winning the popular vote.
>  
> I'm comparing two web sites with "day after" numbers - numbers that
> are not completely consistent, but anyway...
>  
> http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
>  
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters
>  
> HRC's national margin is currently 220,000 votes. Her margin in 
> California, which put her over the top (NYT says 100% in, Fox 
> says 68% in) is 5,482,000 - 2,996,000, or just over 10X the 
> national margin. 
>  
> What fraction of that margin in California could be proved to be 
> illegal voters?  If even 10% of her margin (not the total vote) 
> is thrown out as being due to illegal voters, Trump wins back 
> the popular.
>  
> Second, the only two "swing states" where Clinton might successfully
> challenge Trump are Michigan (Trump leads by 12,000) and Pennsylvania
> (Trump leads by 68,000). A challenge is not likely to turn up any 
> significant miscounts - but how much voter fraud might be discovered?
> And what happens if the discovery leads elsewhere?
>  
> Bottom line, I think Trump comes out ahead if Hillary asks for a 
> recount.
>  
> +++
>  
> Reply by Correspondent at 11/9/2016 9:08:18 P.M.
>  
> MI:  HUGE urban populations, a HUGE democrat "machine"
> PA:  Huge urban populations, a HUGE democrat "machine"
>
> Both have a history of fraud, so you may be correct. 
>  
> ++++++
>  
> Further discussion:
>  
> In any event, the Democratic Party does not seem to be a "party" to 
> this effort to question the electoral college  and the ballot box; 
> it's a "grass roots" - or in this case, perhaps a "gaga roots" - 
> effort to make an argument the Party would probably prefer to avoid.
>  
> One writer 
> (https://accordingtohoyt.com/2016/11/10/this-was-my-first-election-e-marshall-hoyt/)
> posits that the Dems were so confident of victory that they didn't 
> put their vote fraud machine in place this election. With all due 
> respect, there were too many indicators otherwise - once again, 
> multiple ballots delivered to registered Democrats in Colorado; 
> the 10,000 absentee ballots that the elector in Broward County, 
> Florida was caught preparing a couple of nights before the election,
> the continued disenfranchisement of our men in uniform overseas, 
> vans of voters photographed moving from poll to poll, and last, 
> but not least, the perpetual vote fraud machine by which California
> grants driver's licenses with automatic voting rights to illegal 
> (or to be politically correct, I would say in this case "otherwise 
> undocumented") immigrants.
>  
> I believe Hillary lost for three reasons:
>  
> 1.  Sanders supporters and minorities who supported Obama, making 
> up together more than half of her base, stayed home in droves.
> The "Never Trumpers" (as opposed to the "he wasn't my first choice,
> but I'll support him against HRC" voters) were never more than 5-10%
> of the Republican base, and virtually all of those who changed their
> minds at the last minute did so in his favor because of HRC's negatives.
>  
> 2. Gary Johnson wasn't a libertarian, and William Weld wasn't even 
> in the same country as libertarians, so this year I think they 
> attracted about equally from HRC and Trump (as opposed to the 
> Libertarian candidate mostly attracting from Republicans as in the
> recent past.)  Certainly the only person I know whom I've been told
> voted for Johnson would otherwise have voted for HRC. Stein also 
> attracted by far her biggest vote total, and virtually all of her 
> votes came from HRC. (The limited down ticket mostly drew from Trump,
> though it had a negligible effect on the outcome.) If it HAD been a 
> two-person race, HRC would probably have won, adding Stein and half 
> of Johnson's total to her tally, unless their excesses over their 
> historical party performance had stayed home as well. (What makes 
> this particularly amusing is the rumors that HRC helped sponsor 
> Johnson in one of her attempts to spoil Trump.)
>  
> 3.  Last but not least, while there are indications that the polls 
> were already tending to Trump ahead of the event, the FBI's last 
> minute announcements reminded people of HRC's crimes and accelerated
> the trend. This is particularly true in so much as it appears that 
> the Democrats didn't have any last-minute "October Surprises" to use
> against Trump to counterbalance. HRC is attempting to blame Comey - 
> and I don't see how he keeps his job after this in either event - 
> and it's very possibly true that his announcement that he was 
> reopening the investigation jelled just enough sentient in the 
> closer swing states to have made the difference. But the bottom 
> line is that if she hadn't used the illegal personal mail server 
> to conduct public business, and cross-contaminated the mail stream 
> with classified material, the whole issue wouldn't have affected 
> the campaign.
>  
> (Two additional notes on that.  One, the FBI has only reported on 
> the suitability of bringing charges against HRC for mishandling of
> classified information. There has been no discussion of other 
> possible charges - mishandling of federal records, destruction of 
> federal records, and evidence of "pay for play" involving the 
> Clinton Foundation and State Department, among others. Second, 
> Comey's determination of "no reasonable prosecutor" is an 
> intentionally vague play on words. It doesn't mean "there is no 
> evidence of a crime," - in fact, many people stated that his July 
> 5th announcement was ringing indictment of crimes committed. "No 
> reasonable prosecutor would..." bring charges against a political
> candidate in the middle of an election year over classified emails?
> put his life and his family's life's in the Clinton crosshairs in 
> the middle of an election? There are, of course, other ways to parse
> that possibility.)
>  
> Despite the (predictable, and predicted) protests and riots going 
> on (not to mention the millions of melting "snowflakes" who have 
> lost their opportunity to be martyrs for the cause without even 
> realizing that martyrdom was their historical role), all evidence 
> is that we can look forward to a peaceful transition of power and 
> an Administration that, while more liberal than libertarians or 
> conservatives might prefer, will have a much stronger tendency to 
> support individual rights, particularly the 1st and 2nd Amendments,
> than HRC would. (One report I've heard is that Trump is intending 
> to actually put more meat back into the 10th Amendment. That is a
> stonishing news.)
>  
> ++++++
 
CODA #1:  After sending this around, my original correspondent 
responded:
 
    "... all evidence is that we can look forward to a peaceful 
    transition of power..."

    With that, I must disagree.  That is not the game plan of the 
    current group which calls itself the Democrat Party, and I 
    could make an argument that they are collectively "useful 
    idiots". 

    You know I'm not a fan of "conspiracy theories", but that 
    doesn't mean they don't exist; many of use would call it 
    "strategic planning", and IMO that is exactly what is 
    happening.  The objective is clearly global "governance", 
    and is likely the mission of a number of people fit for 
    villains in an Ian Fleming novel.
 
My response:
 
I was thinking in terms of Trump, and of the news coverage so far, 
but I don't disagree with you. 
 
++++++

Coda 2:

Since completing above, I've been reading Sarah Hoyt's latest post and the comments thereto, and her last thought and the relevant comments have bearing on Coda 1:

https://accordingtohoyt.com/2016/11/11/i-will-post-later/

++++++

Coda 3:

Infowars reports on Monday11/14 as follows (see on Drudge Report in the morning):

http://www.infowars.com/report-three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

The author cites a report by the web site votefraud.org. This site redirects to the web site

http://electionnightgatekeepers.com/

which provides further detail on the election night vote fraud scheme, as they perceive it. I do not immediately find the 3 million number on their web site, for what it's worth, but they do suggest that total fraud including electronic balloting could be much greater than just the 3 million votes Infowars cites for illegal aliens.

I do think the number is very believable, and if true would give Trump a popular vote margin on the order of 2.4 million votes. Again, this explains why the Democrat party insiders are doing nothing more than grousing about Hillary's "popular vote" margin and leaving it to the "useful idiots" to take action - response to any action they take would potentially reveal the extent of the vote fraud operation.

Respectfully,

T.J. Mason
tjmason@oneamericanvoice.me
TW: @oneamericanvoic


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author

Back to the top


Letter from J. Neil Schulman

Re: “Trump Asked For Advice” by Cathy L.Z. Smith

I wrote at https://apply.ptt.gov/yourstory

The Bill of Rights must be the Supreme Law of the Land with no loopholes, and in particular the Ninth Amendment must be enforced so that all rights, powers, privileges, and immunities of the individual person be restored. Powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal government—any area of jurisdiction not explicitly found in the Constitution, which includes education, health care, regulation of drugs or pharmaceuticals, agriculture, housing, manufacturing, and political control of scientific research—must cease. The Federal Reserve Act by which fiat money is issued to finance government spending must cease. The invasion of privacy of the income tax return must cease. The government collection of private information without a warrant as described in the Fourth Amendment must cease. The prosecution of people who refuse to give information to law- enforcement authorities in violation of the Fifth Amendment must cease. The persecution of government whistleblowers who report crimes by those in government, the military, and the intelligence agencies must cease. Anything that violates the rights of the individual as stated in the Declaration of Independence must cease.

J. Neil Schulman
jneil@jesulu.com

http://www.AlongsideNightMovie.com
http://Facebook.com/AlongsideNightMovie
http://Twitter.com/AlongsideNight

http://www.LadyMagdalenes.com
https://www.facebook.com/ladymagdalenes/

Blogs: http://jneilschulman.agorist.com
http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com

The World According to J. Neil Schulman

Facebook
Friend
Twitter
YouTube
Amazon
LinkedIn
Google+
Wikipedia
IMDb


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author

Back to the top


This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)

TLE AFFILIATE

Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest


Previous Previous          Table of Contents Contents          Next Next

Big Head Press