Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 385, September 17, 2006

"Libertarians are happy to have a dialog, even if people don't agree."

Letters to the Editor

Send Letters to
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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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 E.J. Totty

Letter from Dick Wetherbee

Letter from Curt Howland

Letter from Vern Trumbly, aka Herman Tumbleweed

Letter from Rick Fisk

Letter from Dennis Lee Wilson

Letter from Ben F. Irvin

Letter from Rick Vaughan

Letter from The Free State Project

Ron, & Ken,

Re.: "How to Best Herd Cats", by Ron Beatty

I like your thinking, insofar as people of a thought congregate together.

And, I would suppose that in the short term under the theme you suggest—not unlike as with the FSP, there might arrive a larger degree of individual liberty.

But, again, the devil is in the details: Who gets to say how much freedom, and will some majority determine the boundaries of individual liberty?

I will suppose that the day may arrive that you'll have more liberty than now.
I will also suppose that a consonantly antithetical day will also arrive, which pits the free thinkers against an ensuing majority of people who are less inclined to believe as you do now.

Classic case: California, or the US in general.
More to the point: Find one place on the face of this Earth, which has remained free since before the beginning of the last millennium. Not even Switzerland comes close—when you consider its political themes.

The problem with any such FSP idea is that it is both highly localized and subject to being easily subverted by an encroaching majority of people who don't agree with its premise.
No sooner will the dream be realized, than it will also begin to fade.

Keep in mind that the Supreme Courts of several of the states have ruled in such ways as to turn the precepts of their respective constitutions on their heads. All it takes is for one bleeding heart seeking a handout to complain to the fedgov —through the fed courts, and you'll have more government than you'd care to put up with, even if your new constitution forbids just that.

Your status then—as it is now, is at best ephemeral, when you observe the overall picture of history. So, I would urge only one thing: Don't speak too loudly—or lengthily, of what you have, lest those with an inclination towards reducing it be attracted.

The FSP speaks of building a Libertarian state. But again: The unsuccessful are attracted to success; the unsuccessful are largely lazy, and are disinclined to exert much of an effort on their own behalf, if only that that it is easier to syphon-off the wealth of others under the aegis of state power.
Ergo, although those of libertarian inclination might congregate in one place, and in the process become successful at their own business ventures, it follows that they will also attract the parasites of life in numbers greater than their own.

And then again, the children of people who had to fight for their freedom are not unlike 'rich' kids: They have no memory of what it took to achieve their status, and thus have very little respect for that—if any at all.

Remember that maxim of the successful:
When standing at the top of a mountain, don't yell about it, because soon enough there will a arrive a passel of punks intent upon standing where you are, shoving you out of their way, depriving you of both the view, and the ability to stand anywhere near where you once were.

And then there's this:

Kindest regards,

E.J. Totty

Re: "Letters from E.J. Totty and Jay P. Hailey"

The argument between Mr.Haily and Mr. Totty led me to reflect on a personal experience. A friend of mine rented a place on Boca Ciega bay. He and I and a couple of others began anchoring our boats in front of his place. It wasn't long before some other boaters noticed we had staked out a fine anchorage. In short order there were about 9 boats moored in a nice protected corner of the bay.

This was fine with us. We got along with the other boaters and watched out for each other's boats.

There was only one problem. There was one owner who would not anchor his boat correctly. We tried to teach him about putting out enough scope and about Bahamian style anchoring. He ignored us. Regularly we had to rescue his boat, if only to protect our own. We were never thanked or even acknowledged.

One day three of us found him on his boat. We told him as courteously as we were able that unless he learned basic anchoring skills, that next time the wind came from the north we would cut his anchor line.

He moved his boat the next day and I am not ashamed of what we did, but isn't this the way government starts?

We were bullies, perhaps with good reason, but bullies nonetheless.

Dick Wetherbee

In Letters to the Editor, Terry Lyon-McCarthy wrote:

"Liberals prefer TV and the movies: even more so than Conservative talk radio, their prefered medium is 100% one-way."

Exactly. Couldn't agree more. Exactly like public school, where the administrators even get to grade the ideas presented, and punish "thought crimes" at will.

On, Penn Jillette has said several times that they must be the only radio show where callers hang up on THEM. This demonstrates a substantial difference over even "conservative" talk radio.

Libertarians are happy to have a dialog, even if people don't agree.

Curt Howland

Dear Ken,

Re: "How to Best Herd Cats", by Ron Beatty

I am the Herman Tumbleweed forever immortalized in Ron Beatty's recent commentary on why it pays to be quiet about what you are doing in moving your folk to an area. I was both surprised and pleased that my friend chose to use me as as an example of attempting to get away from the rat race of highly populated areas and moving to "Podunk" Arkansas a place I used to make jokes and laugh about.

Many people have asked why I moved from California, "the land of (extreme) opportunity", to the backwoods of the south central part of the country. The only answer I usually give is "It's not California", a place that has come to embody much, if not all, that is wrong with the country we who grew up in the fifties and sixties were taught to love. It is hard to love a place, which has become so warped and twisted as to be barely recognizable any more. The truth, however, is much harsher than that. I have come to believe that this country, the world in fact, is about to devolve into a protracted state of chaos. I have not the heart to tell people I meet locally that their comfy little world with their cell phones and fifty-thousand dollar SUV's is about to go away; that the real reason I came here was to prepare for that eventuality to the best of my ability, and so that my friends and family of choice can survive with me.

As I write this I have just finished reading the comments made Monday by Keith Olberman, one of the last of the "real and honest" broadcasters on earth.

I am astounded at the words of the man, not by their content to be sure, but that he had the temerity to actually say those things on the air. Hooray for what may well be the last act of honest journalism we may see for a long time. Kudos to the man who had the balls to say what he did about the state of the nation, the health of the republic, and the lack of leadership of self-involved, self-aggrandizing, pocket lining, sell-outs who have become the purported leaders of what was once a good place to be "FREE".

My impetus for writing this came, of course, from the fact that my friend stuck his neck out a bit and "advertised" where he, I, and a few others have chosen to make our stand when things in this country and the world go tits up on the prairie, so to speak. But it came also from the online discussion we had following us both having read Mr. Olberman's comments. We were discussing what truisms he had uttered. The following is the brief conversation we had by instant message:

Vern: Well that kinda puts it all in perspective and hits the shrub over the head.

Ron: And it's very true, too

Vern: Forcefully and baldly. What is so much wrong with this country. And the world for that matter.

Ron: The main thing wrong with this country is the type of people who become leaders.

Vern: Yep, the ones who lack any leadership ability at all.

Ron: 95% of politicians shouldn't be trusted to take out the damn trash.

Vern: Or to pick up dog shit off the street.

Ron: And for damned sure I wouldn't trust them babysitting, much less with running a government!

Vern: What ever happened to the citizen statesman?

Ron: I don't know, but what we have now sure as hell isn't working!

Vern: He died with the American Revolution. What a world we have created, eh?

Ron: Not us, so much as FDR and his socialist brethren, including that asshole Lincoln, going all the way back to Alexander Hamilton.

Vern: By "us" I mean the lackadaisical American Public. We have allowed the mundane, the corrupted-by-power-second rate scum who would never make it in the real world to become the so-called leaders of the formerly most powerful nation the earth has ever seen.

Now to be sure, I am no scholar and in fact never had the patience to finish college. I have only recently come to understand the Libertarian viewpoint and have made my life-style choices based on that. Which brings up a point of contention for me. When the hell did we start making "life-style choices"? It used to be that a person just lived the way they did, now we have the politically correct and overly refined language that to me sounds like the taste of most processed foods these day, bland and without any real substance. Is this really what America and the world we grew up in has come to? A world of pablum tasting food and language and entertainment and living? I choose otherwise. So here I am, in Podunk, and about as happy as I could be.

Basically I'm just an old country boy who lived too long in the city and has finally escaped. To be truthful, what got me to move two thousand miles from a plush suburban neighborhood to this lovely and semi-wild 20 acres was my wish to exit a marriage gone wrong many years previous. As I looked around for a place to go to, I was invited here by my friend. And here I am, fat dumb and happy in about as rural a setting as there is. I can walk about my property with a gun on my hip and no one says boo. I can work on my home to improve it and no one comes along to tell me I'm not doing it to some artificially imposed standard of aesthetic propriety. I can sit on my back porch and hear the cicadas and crickets sing in the evening and the tree frogs chorus as night falls, the owls hoot, birds sing, the neighbors chickens proclaiming whatever it is chickens proclaim, and play with my puppy not worrying that some fool from the local gooferment office of pet police will come along and tell me how I have to treat, restrain, and inoculate my dog. He's happy, I'm happy, the cats are happy, hell, the trees even seem happy.

So what does it all mean, that I accepted the invitation to move to the backwater of society? It means that I can live much as I wish to, prepare for what I see as the inevitable breakdown of that society, occasionally write something to entertain a few folks, and be friends with those who treat me with the same respectful way I treat them. The rest can, as they say in Britain, bugger off. I can sit back with my computer and read about those fools, and the tools of the current "leadership" secure as possible in my own little place of freedom and serenity. Here, I am as close to being truly free as it is possible to be in this country. Oh, by the way, the place next door is for sale if anyone is interested.


Vern Trumbly, aka Herman Tumbleweed

[And thanks to Vern for submitting his letter in .otd (Open Office Writer) format!—Editor]

It is one thing to disagree with my views, but it is entirely a different matter to misrepresent my views.

In the first of a series of letters addressed to Jay P. Hailey [1], E.J. Totty does the latter.

In the second spaced paragraph of the letter, E.J. Totty states:

Dennis Wilson appears to ague [sic] for keeping the current authority for government to exist: The US Constitution.

The above statement by E.J. Totty is FALSE.

The use of the phrase "appears to" is deliberately misleading. He KNOWS that the remainder of the sentence is FALSE; otherwise he would have used an actual quote from my writing. He is unable to quote anything that I wrote to support his false assertion, so instead he pretends that he couldn't understand.

Two spaced paragraphs later, Totty writes:

Dennis—it would seem, desires to keep the document around, and dance with the devil in its details, while attempting to 'fix' what's wrong.

Again, the above statement by E.J. Totty is FALSE!

Furthermore it is impossible to even seemingly conclude his assertion from my article [3] or my reply to his previous letter [2]. My views are the exact opposite of what he attributes to me.

Six spaced paragraphs later, besides again misrepresenting my views, he attributes a quote to me that I never wrote:

Insofar as Dennis is concerned: I do not take exception with him, but rather with his words. He—it would appear, seems to think that fixing what really isn't broken, is going to make things better. But that flies into the face of his own words: "To vote for a candidate is initiatory force."

Again, the above statement by E.J. Totty is FALSE, as is the attribution of a quote that I never wrote!

The quote MIGHT be from Jim Davidson's letter [6] wherein Jim says "As Dennis Wilson has pointed out, to vote for a candidate is initiatory force" but those are HIS words (accurately) summarizing my agreement with H.L. Mencken that "Every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods." [7] —which, of course, qualifies voting as initiation of force. Totty brings confusion upon himself regarding MY views of the Constitution because he still has not finished reading the article [3] about which he wrote his embarrassing criticism. [2]

Yet he found time to research and take out of context, the words "fix", "broken" and "Constitution" that were in my Aug 6th article about morality and anarchy [4] and my May 14th article about immigration [5] wherein I describe a thinking process I navigated before arriving at my conclusion, based largely on Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce, that the Constitution wasn't broken, couldn't be fixed and therefore should—as Jefferson says—be abolished. No sane person reading those articles and my later article about self government [3] could EVER mistake my conclusion for its opposite, which is exactly what E.J. Totty is pretending to do by using patronizing, noncommittal phrases like "it would appear, seems to think" instead of quoting me directly. For motives unbeknownst to me, he has selected isolated words and phrases and then attributed them to me while deliberately using them opposite to the context from which he took them.

Why another person who alleges to support the Non Aggression Principle (NAP/ZAP) would do this is incomprehensible, absurd and ludicrous, especially because we appear to have similar views regarding the NAP/ZAP, the Constitution and self-government. It is disappointing that he chooses to misrepresent my views even after my reply to his criticism [2].

From a rational man I would expect at the very least a public retraction and apology, but I have no indication that a rational man is attacking me. After rereading the confused, rambling rant that E.J. Totty wrote in his letter to me [2] and seeing this gratuitous misrepresentation of my views in his latest letter [1], I will not hold my breath waiting for a correction and apology.

If Mr. Totty's ramblings were likely to be taken seriously by anyone, it might be appropriate to level a charge of slander against my reputation for his apparent willful disregard of the truth. But as that seems highly improbable, I simply leave the facts in the care of the readers here, and move on.

Dennis Lee Wilson
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent

[1] E.J. Totty response to a letter by Jay P. Hailey, THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 384, September 10, 2006,

[2] EJ Totty's letter critical of my article ". . .to Institute new Government, laying its foundation. . ." [3] and my reply, THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 382, August 27, 2006,

[3] My article ". . .to Institute new Government, laying its foundation. . ." THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 381, August 20, 2006,

[4] My article "A personal journey from Objectivist morality to political "anarchy" by way of L. Neil Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent!" THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 379, August 6, 2006

[5] My article "Ask the Right Question" THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 367, May 14, 2006,

[6] Letter from Jim Davidson, THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 383, September 3, 2006

[7] "H.L. Mencken on Liberty and Government" By Gary Galles

Why Dennis Lee Wilson should give a Shiite about "The Great Islamic Threat" debate 

By Ben F. Irvin

I notice that Dennis has decided to take what started as a discussion of Islam on the Free Wyoming Yahoo list and turn it into a public diatribe aimed at me personally. Since he has chosen to make this a public discussion, I feel I should respond publicly and set the record straight. By the way, in regard to his use of the word "Shiite", I would like to note that his entire article was posted on the Free Wyoming list as originally written, including the word "sh*t". His use of "sh*t" was replaced with "Shiite" only in subsequent posts.

Dennis' post on the Free Wyoming group was written in response to a post that I generated entitled: "Islam: The third rail in libertarian debate". It was my contention that some libertarians will not discuss, in any manner, the political or social aspects of Islam, and that those who do will be mindlessly attacked. In his own awkward way, Dennis has proven my point. He seems more than willing to debate socialism, fascism, Bushism, Zionism, libertarianism, or any other philosophy, for that matter, save Islam. He seems to take offense to the idea that Islamic ideology should be debated at all, and this is the source of the temper tantrum TLE readers were treated to in last week's issue.

Such irrational behavior is very similar to old leftist views concerning cultural relativity; i.e. the idea that no one culture is better or worse than any other. It is unusual for a libertarian to hold such a position; for, libertarianism itself rose out of a partciular culture, and thus, according to his logic, should not be debated or valued above any other ideology.

Once again, the topic being discussed on the Wyoming list at the time Dennis posted was political Islam. For starters, it was determined what Islam is not.

Islam is not:

1. A race
2. An ethnic group/culture
3. A region
4. A language
5. A nation-state

Islam is a philosophy with a clear political and social agenda, both of which are described in detail in Islam's holy book: the Koran. Unlike most other major religions, there is no separation of chuch and state under Islam. Indeed, the Prophet Mohammad himself made it clear that Islam is a complete social, political and religious package—not a single Muslim cleric would deny this.

There are now three million Muslims living in the U.S. (several times the number of either big or small "L" libertarians), and the goals of Islam are already beginning to impact traditional views concerning the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. Like it or not, political Islam is here, it has a definite political agenda, and it is endeavoring to see its philosophy imposed upon all Americans. For this reason, I thought it would be enlightening to discuss Islam's political agenda. This discussion was geared toward Islam's impact in the United States only, and had nothing to do with international affairs or the U.S. government's involvement in them. The point of the exercise was to get a rational discussion going among libertarians concerning Islam's political viewpoints and goals. Apparently, this was more than Dennis could handle. He opted not to debate, but rather chose to leave the list and rant elsewhere.

Now to address Mr. Wilson's issues:

    >> *Being an afficionado of puns, I would like to publicly thank Ben Irvin, monitor of the Yahoo group "freewyomingproject" for the idea of replacing the word "sh*t" (asterisk included) that appeared in my original title, with the much better, much more punny "Shiite". <<

Well, we were debating Islamic philosophy, which includes the Shiite branch, not manure. That is yet another reason for the change in headers, other than the obvious reason.

    >> I suppose responding to selected sections made it easier for him to conveniently ignore things to which he could not respond (i.e. create a straw man), and blocking further posts from me prevented any embarrassing questions from me about what he did it. <<

The entire "sh*t" that Dennis posted was reprinted in my rebuttal to him, nor was the original Dennis "sh*t" piece moderated when it went out to the list. I just felt that others who might wish to join the list, and who might review the old headers, might not like the "sh*t" header he posted. Not all potential Wyoming libertarians are in to vulgar, junior high slang.

    >> I can only conclude that something in my message was seriously incompatible with his glorious admonition "Let the debate continue; but, on topic: Islam". <<

Again, Dennis, your entire article was posted and reposted. Only the word "sh*t" was changed. You left the Wyoming group because you can't tolerate a rational debate of Islam's political ideology, which reinforces my "third rail" analogy. I would encourage you to post again on the lists where the debate is occurring instead of taking cheap-shots in another format. As any Wyoming cowboy might tell you, Dennis, buck-up and be a man. We are all waiting on all six Montana and Wyoming lists.

    >> Unfortunately, bashing Islam and bashing dissenters seems to be a popular theme in today's U.S. culture. Because of that, I decided to present to a wider audience, my views on why I think the entire public debate on "The Great Islamic Threat" is a Red Herring that diverts our attention from a closer, more real and immediate threat. <<

Neither Islam nor dissenters were bashed in the discussion you refer to, unless, of course, scrutiny and criticism constitutes "bashing" in your book. This is just another lie. You simply did not wish to debate political Islam, and thus created strawmen to debate instead. So-called "Red Herrings" and any other topic should be open to debate in a rational forum. You were totally unable to debate Islam, because you haven't the slightest idea about its religious, political, or social beliefs. Instead, you made wild statements that have nothing to with Islam, engaged in character assassination, and then stormed off in a huff when all did not meekly agree or submit to your diatribe. You never once discussed Islam, not on any of the numerous western lists you belong to, nor in your TLE piece. You preferred to scream at any and all who dared bring up the subject, as if they had committed a form of heresy.

    >> First, let me make it clear that what Ben did was NOT censorship. Censorship is a term that is reserved exclusively for government action that is backed by armed force—such as Lincoln used against Northern newspapers that disagreed with his policies. That discussion board is Ben Irvin's property and removing posts that offend him is his prerogative. <<

As it happens, I do not own the Free Wyoming Project, nor did I write a single word of the group's description. Indeed, I was not even a moderator until a few weeks ago when the owner requested my help. Dennis well knows this. What upset Dennis was my mentioning that about half the items listed in the group's description are incompatible with Islamic philosophy and practices. As Dennis hasn't a clue about what American Muslims believe, he was unable to respond in a rational manner. He is more than welcome to rejoin the debate though, if he can handle open discussion about a topic that needs to be discussed.

    >> What IS improper and offensive to me is his decision to ANSWER an altered version of the removed post, knowing full well that I could not reply without first seeking his approval. <<

Another lie. Dennis was privately advised to change his header from the implied "shit" to "Shiite", or to use some other word that might rise above the level of adolescent fart jokes. I answered his "sh*t" post and it was reprinted in my rebuttal. If this wasn't good enough, all Dennis had to was resubmit his original post with one word in his header changed. He knows all of this, but for reasons of his own, decided to run away and attack elsewhere.

    >> Fortunately, in what remains of a free market, there are other alternatives available for my views. <<

Dennis is free to post anything he wants on any Western lists. The problem here is that he couldn't take the heat of debate, and simply ran away from the playing fields of ideas when he knew nothing about the topic under discussion. I moderate and/or own several Western lists he is on, and have moderated Dennis only one time over the years. He was asked to change one word in his header, and to repost. Apparently, that was more than he could bear.

    >> The Libertarian Enterprise is one of the best. <<

However, I notice that Dennis chose to use my suggested "Shiite" instead of his vulgar old Anglo "sh*t" word.

    >> What follows is my original, unaltered posting, (except for a couple of typographic fixes) which starts with quotes from Ben Irvin's posting that effectively hijacked his own stated purpose for which his discussion group was created. Why I don't give a sh*t about "The Great Islamic Threat" debate. <<

Again, this has been posted on the Free Wyoming Project list several times, and Dennis is free to post it again if he uses a more appropriate heading.

Dennis lists an abbreviated description of freewyomingproject:

This group is for everyone interested in peaceably maximizing freedom while minimizing government in the great state of Wyoming. Everyone means everyone, without regard to race, creed, national origin, religion or lack thereof, gender, sexual orientation or disorientation, rich, poor, young, old or any other irrelevant trait, even sweet transvestites from transsexual Transylvania are welcome and encouraged to join.

Then Dennis adds:

    >> As long as this site is already hijacked from its original purpose, I'll put in my penny's worth of bilge. <<

Nothing in the Free Wyoming description prohibits debate on Islam or any other political philosophy. No Islamist or Muslim has ever been denied membership in the group. So what is his rational complaint? Perhaps, Dennis sensed that devout Muslims might take offense to sweet transvestite transsexuals from Transylvania. If so, that is a topic for discussion, and hints that perhaps political and social Islam really does need to be debated. I would think that Muslims would object to about half of those that are welcomed in the group's description. However, again, none have ever been denied membership to any Western group, at least to my knowledge.

Dennis concludes his Free Wyoming Project list debate on TLE by writing, my response that is very similar to what I posted to his comments on the free Wyoming Project list, and which he refused to answer on that or any other Western list.

    >> Here it comes again, the latest "warning" of The Great Islamic Threat! <<

Another Dennis strawman. He invented "The Great Islamic Threat" phrase so that he could avoid discussing political and social Islam, which was the topic at hand.

    >> Of course, "they" have been trying—unsuccessfully—to conquer "us" for approximately 1200 years, but that need not deter the issuing of yet another "warning". <<

The topic was Islam itself, not "warnings" concerning it. Dennis is making wild charges and creating strawmen for his own delight. Once again, the topic at the time was a discussion of Islam as practiced in America, and how its social and political agenda may or may not impact American political life and libertarian beliefs. We were trying to rationally and logically determine if there was anything in Islam that just might be incompatible with libertarianism (think: establishment of Sharia Law to replace the U.S. Constitution and all state constitutions, etc.).

Why can't Islam be debated on the Free Wyoming list, just like any other political and social philosophy? Indeed, all are waiting for anyone to discuss, debate, praise, or convert to Islam and its ideas. Islam deserves to be defended on this list. Defending Islam doesn't mean trashing other groups (they are not the current topic); but, openly debating and explaining fundamental Islamic political and social positions (i.e. honor killings, role of women, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc.).

    >> After all, how could the government in DC justify its existence if there were no threats from which to "protect" us while taxing and enslaving us? Gee, I miss the cold war with Russia. Say, weren't those Islamic types around during that time? How come they only became a threat when the Russian threat collapsed? <<

Again, Dennis goes off-topic to debate something totally unrelated. Neither the federal government, nor how many kangaroos can fit inside a Honda Civic, was the topic of discussion. Political and social Islam as practiced in America, and whether it is great, bad, or neutral to the libertarian concept of liberty, was the topic. Dennis chose not to address the real topic; for, it is indeed the third rail of libertarian debate, and perhaps a bridge too far for him to handle.

    >> In reality-where I live, the multiple Tyrannies in DC and my state, county and city are much closer to me and have more direct control over my actions, my property and my life, than any real or imagined Islamic threat. I'm sure that our masters in DC, et al, would like to have us think that "only they can protect us", (like the NORAD stand down on 911?!) if we only give up our freedoms and pay our taxes. <<

Debating the philosophy of Islam has nothing to do with the above... start another header topic, and many will probably join in the discussion. I agree that all are very important and need heavy discussion, and such topics are debated thousands of times per day on all libertarian lists. It seems to be Islam that is seldom debated by those same libertarians. Why is that?

    >> Unfortunately for them, I have already seen that DC operates by >honoring itsConstitution,murdering its own citizens (Ruby Ridge, Waco and probably even OK, NYC and the Pentagon), illegally disarming citizens in DC itself and allowing it to happen in New Orleans, and "creates liberty" in Iraq by >sending troops(training them?) to kick down doors and kill civilians while bombing >wedding parties in Afghanistan. <<

Again, this has nothing to do with analyzing Islam. For the record, I agree with most of the above; however, why should this eliminate a discussion of Islam? It may even hint that this is all the more reason to discus the topic.

    >> I would never "convert" to Islam nor live under it,—and the same goes for ANY of the religions. But, as Scott pointed out, we are surrounded by religions that have more immediate power to harm us than does Islam. <<

How many Americans have been murdered in the name of God, over the last ten-years, by religious fanatics who were not Muslims? There must be a few, and they could be discussed at another time, particularly if they have a political and social agenda that involves me.

    >> I think Islam is a much lesser threat to me and to what I hold dear. Of course, your mileage may vary. Perhaps you live closer to the Middle East Islamic countries, rather than in North America where I live. <<

Does that mean that it can't be debated? Even if Islam is no threat to anyone's right to life, liberty, and property, why is it exempted from an open discussion...if for no other reason than to show all that Islam is indeed a religion of peace? By the way, I live next to a state where six people were shot and one murdered in the name of Allah just last month. When Mormons, Sikhs, or Sun Dancers start killing people in America and around the world on a daily bases in the name of god, I'll be the first one to debate the Book of Mormon, the Sikh holy books, and Native American religious practices and their political and social agenda.

    >> What will it be next month, the Indians (in India) or the Chinese, the Canadians especially those radical French-Quebec secessionist!), those descendents of unruly, religious and militant Irish, Scottish or English immigrants-or maybe even the Russians, Germans, Italians or Japanese again? <<

I see no reason for giving any political idea a free-pass. By all means, debate any of them! By the way, India is a country and not a political philosophy; the Chinese are an ethnic group, not a political philosophy, as are most of the other groups you listed; and the French secessionists have never made a threat against my personal liberty. However, I assume that French secessionist politics are not beyond discussion on a libertarian list?

Islam is a political and social philosophy that is also a religion. It is not (take note):

1. An ethnic group/culture
2. A region
3. A race
4. A nation
5. A language

Indeed, most Arab Americans are not Muslims, for, they got out of the Middle-East seeking freedom when the getting was good. America now has more non-Muslim Lebanese than Lebanon. Most Muslims world-wide, are not Arabs.

    >> (See how easy it is to dream up threats once Libertarian principles, especially the open border principle is abandoned? I'm sure I left out some group as a possible threat? Eventually one of the imagined threats will get around to including you!) <<

Because you can dream up a thousand and one phony threats, does that automatically eliminate Islam or any other group, nation, or ideology as a genuine threat? You're taking a relativist position which means all political ideologies are equal. Strange for a "libertarian" to advocate such a position. May it be debated? :-)

    >> Consider what would really happen if we simply withdrew from the Middle East and decided to BUY their oil instead of steal it (what a novel, capitalistic idea!!). We would spend money and getting useful oil, instead of spending money for military occupation, which destroys very expensive equipment and buildings and wastes the lives of Americans who should be living them in America instead of losing them in some sh*t hole in the Middle East. <<

American foreign policy has nothing to do with discussing Islamic political and social beliefs. I was against Bush's every move in Iraq and even Afghanistan. Again, the issue is Islam, and not foreign policy.

However, your comments concerning how the oil-producing Islamic nations are kept poor because we steal their oil, was indeed reality-based. :-) Is that why political and social Islam in America cannot be debated?

    >> The Islamic militants would CONTINUE fighting amongst themselves just like they have done for decades. Remember the Iraq-Iran war? The Iraq-Kuwait war? The Syrian-Palestinian-Lebanese wars? If you have been paying attention, you know that in Iraq itself the most violence today is between the Sunni and Shiite factions—even with >easy U.S. Christian targets readily available. <<

I totally agree. That's why if we pulled out of all land wars in the region, the children of Allah would soon slaughter themselves silly. Still, America now has over 3-million Muslims, and it would seem that this is all the more reason to debate political and social Islam. However, we could do like Lebanon did and wait and see if Islam is bad for the richest Arab nation on earth (circa 1950 when non-Muslims were 65% of the population). However, I think that it may be time to debate political Islam in America and see how compatible it may or may not be to liberty, or even the quest for liberty.

    >> And here is another consideration: any military Islamic invasion (if it ever happens, after they finish killing each other) will face the same problem that the Japanese identified and feared: an American with a rifle behind every blade of grass. (And that is the same problem that the US military is facing-and losing—while trying to"occupy" Iraq, where there is more sand than grass). <<

Again, Islam is a political and social philosophy, just like Nazism, Communism, and other political 'isms'. If, in 1940, you were informed that America had 3-million card-carrying Nazis, wouldn't you at least want to discuss their politics and how it may or may not impact Wyoming politics? If so, why not Islam?

    >> I came to this discussion group to learn more about how to free myself by moving to Wyoming. Bowing down to DC and hiding under the bed from imaginary threats is not what I expected to find. Can we get beyond this and actually embrace the original purpose of this group? <<

Again, I agree with your quest for liberty and desire to procure freedom from D.C. in Wyoming. However, for the 14th time, I fail to see why that quest precludes a discussion about political and social Islam in America and Wyoming, as there is evidence to suggest that Islam in America may pose a threat—a decidedly non-imaginary threat—to the very things you seek to achieve.

Dennis if he wants an open debate is a member of numerous Western list groups. He should debate this issue on those lists, rather than go into backstabbing on a non-Western and non-list, online magazine.

Thanks, Dennis; you've proven my point that Islam is truly the third rail of libertarian debate, and is the lone exempted political and social philosophy. This attitude among people who tout themselves as intellectuals is truly sad.

Ben F. Irvin

The 9/11 anniversary has come and gone—not a word of this in the MSM. Nothing even from the Blogosphere. Has it all been stuffed down the Memory Hole?

I can't believe everyone is ignoring this.

The Clinton Dems are screaming bloody murder about the "Path to 9/11" and want it killed before being aired.

They are saying it is all a lie, which, if history is any guide, means it is very close to the embarrassing truth.

What is being forgotten by everyone is that the Clinton White House was coming down firmly on the side of the Muslims in the Balkan War. To my understanding of the conflict, Kosovo was historically a Serbian area, but had been undergoing a great deal of Muslim immigration, much as we have been suffering illegal immigration by Mexicans across our southern border.

Ultimately, the population became majority Muslim and the KLA, the 'Kosovo Liberation Army,' (or UCK in their own language), started a guerilla war against the Yugoslav government, which was at that time, predominantly Serb.

I admit that I am not completely familiar with all the history of the Balkan crises, since there were several parties involved as the old Yugoslavia was tearing itself apart after the fall of the Soviet Union.

But importantly, the consensus was that the KLA was comprised of Muslim terrorists, thugs and largely funded by drug trafficking. Why Clinton would side with such terrorists against a national government is beyond me.

It is generally believed that the news coverage, citing massacres, genocide in the form of ethnic cleansing, was highly inaccurate and heavily skewed against the Serbs, while white-washing the war crimes of the KLA.

I don't have a direct line to the Balkans to confirm some of the links I've included for you below, but it does seem to invite investigation, particularly at this time just before the 9/11 anniversary.

I only came across these links because I am researching the area for a screenplay I am writing. Perhaps you can do something—such as expose some of the secrets that Sandy Berger may have been stuffing into his socks, or what is alleged to be contained in 'the Path to 9/11."

Obviously the Clinton Dems want to keep this from the American people. You seem to be very good at pissing very bad Dems off—but for very good reasons.

Sic'em boy, sic'em.


Rick Vaughan


KLA, Al Qaeda and Bill Clinton

1. Commander Kosovo- Abu Sayyaf Al Aaeda linked terrorist that recieved his nickname by fighting "the cause" in Kosovo with the KLA.

2. Interpol testified before congress on the KLA-Bin laden links... "In 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from theinternational heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden.

Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Djihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict. In 1998, the KLA was described as a key player in the drugs for arms business in 1998, "helping to transport 2 billion USD worth of drugs annually into Western Europe"

3. Wall Street Journal—""For the past 10 years, the most senior leaders of al Qaeda have visited the Balkans, including bin Laden himself on three occasions between 1994 and 1996. The Egyptian surgeon turned terrorist leader Ayman Al- Zawahiri has operated terrorist training camps, weapons of mass destruction factories and money-laundering and drug-training networks throughout the Balkans."

4. Yossef Bodansky( Director of the House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism )- "The mujahideen established close relations with the key clans from the Drenica area in central Kosovo, the birthplace of the UCK, including Suleyman Selimi, "the Sultan," who comes from this area and is commander in chief of the UCK forces inside Kosovo. In these operations the mujahideen have already demonstrated their fearlessness and all-out commitment to the Muslim population." "It was not until 1995 that the Clinton administration was forced to start pursuing the Islamist network in the Balkans. Not quite a month after the Dayton accords had been signed in November 1995, an influx of Iranian arms came into Bosnia with the apparent tacit approval of the administration, in violation of U.N. sanctions. While publicly pressing Bosnian President Alia Izebegovic to purge remaining Islamist elements, the administration was loath to confront Sarajevo and Tehran over their presence.

Islamist infiltration of the Kosovo Liberation Army advanced, meanwhile. Bin Laden is said to have visited Albania in 1996 and 1997, according to the murder-trial testimony of an Algerian-born French national, Claude Kader, himself an Afghanistan-trained mujahideen fronting at the Albanian-Arab Islamic Bank. He recruited some Albanians to fight with the KLA in Kosovo, according to the Paris-based Observatoire Geopolitique des Drogues.

Macedonian_News_Service] Digest Number 218

The Clinton administration expanded this use of Al-Qaeda in Bosnia. In 1994, Osama himself "allegedly visited Alija Izetbegovic in Sarajevo. Bin Laden was issued a Bosnian passportthrough the Bosnian Embassy in Vienna in 1993." During the Bosnian War, "these mujahedeen offensives were launched in conjunction with massive US and NATO bombings and strategic air strikes" against the Bosnian Serbs. After Bosnia, it was on to Kosovo. The United States "gave considerable assistance to the Kosovo Liberation Army—a Muslim terrorist group financed by the Third World Relief Agency, through which bin Laden and others funneled $350 million—and its twin, the National Liberation Army in Macedonia." In Albania, Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) training camps were "run by Osama bin Laden, and various other foreign mujahedeen" and also by the "CIA and British intelligence...while the CIA seems to have provided monetary support." While the National Liberation Army [NLA] spread their "jihad" to Macedonia, the CIA & MI6 already had "their own offices, that is, departments for cooperation on the Interior Ministry premises." Some Macedonian intelligence officials are directly "on the CIA's payroll." "
Edited by BlackJade on 05/01/05 07:56 PM.

Very long URL

bin Laden Supplied KLA During the Kosovo War

Interpol believes that Osama bin Laden is linked to Albanian gangs who have taken over a growing web of crime across Europe. The investigations into organised crime links with his terrorist network also show that Mr bin Laden supplied one of his top military commanders for an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict...

The Macedonians say the Bush administration has shown little interest in pursuing links they have uncovered between al-Qaeda and groups allied with Albanian separatists, who continue to foment trouble in northern Macedonia with frequent incursions from neighboring Kosovo. Macedonian intelligence has been in regular contact with the CIA and the FBI. Both have been supplied with details of the al-Qaeda relationship with militant Albanian nationalist groups in neighboring Kosovo, which is under U.N. protection, and Macedonia, which was spared a civil war last year following NATO brokering a peace agreement between the majority Macedonians and minority ethnic Albanians.

Intertwined Albanian groups in the region, most of them closely aligned with organized-crime syndicates, have as their objective the carving out of what they call "Greater Albania" an area that includes 90,000 square kilometers (36,000 square miles) of Kosovo, Greece, Macedonia, Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro.

Hijackers Connected to Albanian Terrorist Cell
By Bill Gertz, The Washington Times

"Islamic radicals, including supporters of bin Laden, have been supporting Albanian rebels fighting in the region, including members of the Kosovo Liberation Army. Intelligence officials have said there are reports that KLA members have been trained at bin Laden training camps in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and his Islamic extremist group, al Qaeda, are the main suspects in last week's terrorist attacks. As of last year, the group operated a residence in Tirana, and the CIA has been pressing Albania's government to expel all associates of the Islamic terrorists."

Source: The Washington Times, September 18, 2001;

Search the archive

See also

By Marcia Christoff Kurop, Wall Street Journal Europe "The overnight rise of heroin trafficking through Kosovo helped to fund terrorist activity directly associated with al Qaeda. Afghan-trained mujahideen settled in the Balkans around 1992. Recruits were brought into Bosnia by the ruling Islamic party of Bosnia, the Party of Democratic Action, from Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan... They were all given journalists’ credentials to avoid explicit detection by the West. Others were married immediately to Bosnian Muslim women and incorporated into regular army ranks."


"The Bosnian Embassy in Vienna issued a passport to bin Laden in 1993, according to various reports in the Yugoslav press at the time. The reports add that bin Laden then visited a terrorist camp in Zenica, Bosnia in 1994. The Bosnian government denies all of this, but admits that some passport records have been lost."

Source: Wall Street Journal Europe, November 1, 2001;

Search the archive

See also

This and many more entries at:

War Pics

FSP News for September 2006 is now on-line at

Free State Project

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 385, September 17, 2006

Bill of Rights Press