Neil --

I found LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE # 44 so inspiring that I just fired off the following to my represenatives, then passed it around to everyone I know to use as a template for their own broadsides to their representatives. (Marilyn Manson and goth music, my ass!) Thought you might enjoy it.
-- Yael

Dear [Representative -----]:

Like most other Americans, I was utterly appalled at the massacre that occurred at Columbine School in Colorado the other day. But I was just as appalled at the ghoulish glee with which the Clinton administration leaped on the incident, using it to attempt to further their agendas of (a) taking away from all Americans not part of the government itself any and all means of self-defense, and (b) distract the citizens of this country from the shennanigans of President Clinton and his administration and the damage they are doing to us all, including his latest blunder-filled adventure in Kosovo.

This is very interesting in light of the fact that that horrible incident at Columbine did not in any way look like the act of deranged and criminal adolescents. Too many things about it stink to high heaven for any thinking American to accept at face value the media's and the government's spin on it. First, it was just a little too convenient for the Clinton administration -- whose spin-doctors went into action almost immediately afterward with their cries for nation-wide gun-bans and all the rest of it. So quickly did the administration respond in that way to the incident, in so smooth and well-choreographed a manner, that it was clear that that "response" had to have been planned for some time before the incident happened. It was too slick, too smooth, too professional to have been thought up within an hour or two, on the spur of the moment. The claim that it was spontaneous plays about as true as a busted guitar with three strings missing. So how come the Clinton administration had that "response" to the incident all ready before it even occurred?

Second, there was the little matter of the pipe-bombs and other equipment, excluding the firearms, the boys supposedly carried into the school to blow it up, all of which would have been far too expensive and inaccessible for a a few disturbed adolescent boys to acquire on their own. Boys of that age and socioeconomic class might well have access to information about such things and how to use them from numerous sources, e.g., the World Wide Web, but acquiring them is another matter. They didn't, couldn't have acquired all that materiel on their own. They had help in doing so, help from adults with a lot of money, adults who knew how to use such things, adults who themselves had to be professionals at the game of terrorism, not amateurs. Banning guns wouldn't have stopped that, because the adults would have been able to provide the guns no matter what should that have been necessary, just as they provided the materiel to make the pipe-bombs and other demolitions equipment. So who were the adults, and what was their agenda? Those adults have never come forward to claim responsibility, so it was a covert op, a black op, the sort of thing a government would do in order to be able to use the results to manipulate public opinion -- which is exactly what the Clinton administration is doing right now.

Third, the psychology of the actions of the boys themselves defies any natural explanation. Drugs can't account for it, even drugs plus insanity, not by themselves. Drug-crazed adolescents could not, under their own initiative, have done what those two boys did in such an effective and well-coordinated manner. Crazed, I will give you. Drugs, I will also give you, at least that it is possible. The way the boys laughed like lunatics while cutting down so many of their schoolmates and others, then killed themselves, is not something indicative of sanity, by any means. But if they were that crazy, they couldn't have pulled this off on their own. Somebody had to point them in that direction and trigger their massacre-cum-suicide at just the right time, and that means programming, not to mention covert handlers. So who did the programming, and who were the handlers? (And there is the little matter of the fact that the boys, who had been arrested some time before for a crime, had been considered reformed and sane enough to be released again to the community by the police in their area before this incident occurred. Maybe the police aren't the doddering fools that the Clinton administration would make them out to be. Maybe they were right -- and these boys were deliberately turned, programmed and drugged to do what they did, by covert handlers because they would never have done it under other circumstances. And isn't it convenient to be able to pin this horrible crime on "emotionally disturbed youth criminals"?)

Fourth, if just a few of the students, teachers, or staff members present at the time had been armed with loaded firearms in good working condition and knew how to use them and were willing to do so in order to prevent harm to themselves and their charges, they could have stopped the incident cold before it even began with a few well-placed shots. In the inner cities, incidents this bad never happen at schools, because it is common knowledge that at least some gang members present on campus carry and can use firearms, and that anyone attempting such a massacre in one of those schools would be shot down by students and/or staff or faculty before they could get started. Monstrousness like this somehow only happens at upper-middle class schools, and escalates to the degree this one did at only those schools where no one is prepared to take the would-be terrorists out of play before they can hurt or kill people. Sure, there are shootings in inner-city neighborhoods and at inner-city schools, but always they involve at most just a few people and are quickly stopped, and where gangs are strong the gangs generally move to prevent the carnage before it can really get going. Not so at upper-middle class schools and in upper-middle class neighborhoods, where most people seem to have forgotten that it is the right and responsibility of citizens to prepare themselves in the most appropriate ways possible to defend themselves and their loved ones from violence. There was no one there at Columbine school to stop those boys before they could hurt anyone with the only effective, appropriate tools for the job, firearms. Why not? Because Colorado, like so much of the rest of the nation, has bought the Clinton administration's line that firearms are always bad, and that using them in self-defense and defense of others is "violence" and "evil." The citizens of that state themselves are at least as guilty of what happened at Columbine as anyone else was, because they have voluntarily given up both their right and their ability to defend themselves at need from actions of this sort, and have no right to point the finger of blame at anyone but themselves for the Columbine massacre.

Obviously, banning guns isn't going to protect the citizenry from violent crime. Quite the opposite, as even the most die-hard Clintonian Democrat can see by now. So why is the Clinton administration so hell-bent on disarming us all? Not to protect us from violence. Rather, obviously, it is to render us helpless in the face of the sort of tyranny that administration would like to enforce on us all.

Just as obviously, the incident at Columbine School was engineered beforehand to give the Clinton administration the opportunity to use it as an excuse to continue destroying the Bill of Rights and establish a totalitarian government over us all. Like the murder by fire of the Branch Davidians by federal agents in Waco six years ago (and if you don't think it was murder at the hands of the government, I invite you to watch that most enlightening film, WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, which aired on HBO last Monday at 6:30 p.m. EDT), the bombing of the A. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City four years ago (which a number of courageous, intelligent, and discerning people in the United States Air Force have conclusively demonstrated could not have come about in the way the government claims it did; had to have involved at least two explosive devices and perhaps a third planted within the building itself rather than outside it; and involved high-power incendirary devices available only to governments rather than fertilizer bombs), the use of missiles on a baby-aspirin factory in the Sudan last year ("Wag the Dog"), numerous school massacres in the last few years, and even the fatal shooting of a Metro bus driver here a few months ago (they took four slugs out of his body, but only two were fired at him from within the bus; who was responsible for the other two, and where did they come from?), the Columbine school incident was just a little too convenient for President Clinton and his spin-doctors. Further, all such incidents have had an air of unreality to them, a Hollywood slickness that screams "programmed," as if the incidents had been choreographed beforehand by a team of writers and handlers, rather than being carried out by "lone terrorists" on the order of the Unabomber or some other lunatic.

Like many other citizens, I don't buy the government line on the Coumbine school massacre, [Congressman/Senator ----]. Instead, I urge you to do all you can to block any attempts by the Clinton or any other administration or anyone in Congress or the Senate to try to destroy any part of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd amendment. And please make it known that, also like many other Americans, I think Clinton is about as fit to lead this country as Caligula was the Roman Empire, for the same reasons. The man is a monster, not to mention an ambulatory abomination, and that we still tolerate his presence in the White House says some very terrible things about what has happened to us as a country.

-- Yael Dragwyla, 13410 Greenwood Ave N, # 203, Seattle, WA 98133

Back to the Letters Page