 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 506, February 15, 2009 "Let me begin with the facts."
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Letter from the Sam Adams Alliance Another Letter from Bryan Potratz with reply from Rex May Yet Another Letter from Bryan Potratz with reply from A.X. Perez Don Wilson informed us of a USA Today poll asking "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?" I clicked the link, and promptly voted "NO!" But not because I don't believe that every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon—rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, ANYTHING—any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. I do. It's a trick question. The Bill of Rights, particularly the Second Amendment, doesn't GIVE us anything. It affirms pre-existing rights. The distinction is important. Anything government gives, government can take away. The right of the people to keep and bear arms exists independent of any state edict. It is not subject to legislation, regulation, or proclamation. It is independent of citizenship. No emergency or terrorist act or crime affects it in any way, except to make its importance more obvious. It is inextricably intertwined with our right to life. Maybe it's time for everybody to re-read Neil's "Why Did It Have to be... Guns?" and "The Atlanta Declaration". As Neil said, way back in 1987, "Before I'm lying in a hospital bed with green tubes up my nose, before arthritis sets in and I have to do it on crutches, I intend to walk the length of Manhattan with a handgun on my hip, unmolested by parasites. I will not settle for less. Come along with me." Bill St. Clair
Please be aware that this appears to be a poll from November of 2007 Patrick
I can't believe this thing is still circulating. Did you look at the date? It was published on November 21, 2007. But to answer the question: No. The 2nd amendment does not "give" us any rights. They are the birthright of every human being. Susan Callaway, Editor
[Alas, I didn't look at the date—Editor] Don Wilson wrote [in part] USA Today Poll "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?" As usual, the poll is skewed. The latest results show:
Proving once again that polls are manipulated by the [willfully?] ignorant. Just once I'd like to see a libertarian opinion break the 5% barrier! John Taylor
I apologize for sending the poll link previously as I was a trusting friend and did not really read it at all I just forwarded the pertinent info from a friends email. I know that we should be ever vigilant for the traps of the people running polls and major news outlets and trusting a friend to only ask me to forward things he has really read is no real excuse. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."—Wendell Phillips Follow link but put on your chair safety belt first, and cover children's ears, set all food and drinks aside then watch "piece of...": Also follow the next link to find the "12 truths about legislation", an enormous number of freedom related quotes and insights. Don Wilson
 border="0" alt="Sammy Awards banner">Contest Deadline for the 2nd Annual Sammies Awards Has Been Extended The excitement surrounding the Sammies Awards has drawn an overwhelming response. AM560 WIND Radio in Chicago has added their name to the event, celebrities want to be part of the awards ceremony and most importantly, champions of liberty and economic freedom are sending in their contest entries at a pace we can barely keep up. has been extended to March 20, 2009. The Sammies were created to reward the hard and often unappreciated work of bloggers, filmmakers, open records champions and other government watchdogs committed to advancing freedom and economic liberty. Prize rewards range from $1,000 to $10,000. For entry, specific details and last year's winners, please visit the Sammies Home Page at www.samadamsalliance.org/sammies. Don't forget to check out the Sammies Awards promotional video on You Tube. If being recognized and rewarded for your hard work wasn't enough, the Sam Adams Alliance is excited to announce that our red carpet awards dinner ceremony will be held on April 18th at the exquisite Marriott Renaissance Chicago North Shore Hotel. Winners will be flown to Chicago to receive their well-deserved honors. Tickets for the gala event will go on sale February 17. Various attendance and sponsorship levels will be available so you can have a Sammies experience that will enhance your evening and fit your budget. Check out the Sammies Home Page at www.samadamsalliance.org/sammies for purchasing details. Because of activists just like you, the Sam Adam Alliance is having an impact on government accountability and transparency by utilizing new media tools. Please join the Sam Adams Alliance along with hundreds of freedom loving patriots, who are passionate about preserving freedom and economic liberty, at the Sammies Awards Dinner on the evening of April 18. Please help us by spreading the word about the Sammies Awards and take advantage of the extended contest entry deadline. It's time you were honored for your dedication to liberty. I hope to see you in Chicago. John Tsarpalas, President
The Criminal Classes In an earlier submission to TLE I commented that certain people are criminals because they choose to be criminals. For example, if marijuana was legalized some marijuana smugglers would cheerfully become legal importers, growers, and vendors. Others would turn to smuggling other drugs and if they were legalized would turn to selling contaminated drugs at a discount. Or else they can sink really low and run for office. Given a choice between going legit and turning to crime there are those who will always choose crime. Humans are predators. We spent hundreds of millennia learning how to hunt and kill. We are very good at it, more sharks, bears, crocodilians and other predators will be eaten by people than eat people. For a lot of that time we hunted in packs. And the first rule became, don't hunt your own. We expand that "own" to be members of our families to members of our clan. then tribe, then nation state, and hopefully one of these days the whole human race. It is imperative to leaders of criminal gangs, be they a family of cannibalistic bandits like the Beans of the Scots English Border, to Democrats using the Klan to chase off Black voters in the post Civil War South, to Adolph Hitler getting people to gas non Aryans for him, to Mullahs calling for Jihad against non believers to cops looking to seize property under civil forfeiture profiling members of certain ethnic groups. Jingoism, racism, and other bigotries are thus encouraged among members of the criminal classes and by criminal rulers of honest people. He's just an auslander, it's not like we're stealing from a real person. Criminals are real good at one of two things. They are able to overcome the inhibition against eating their own and/or are good at excluding people from that own. For some people it means a family. For others it is a race. For too many political and business leaders it means the rest of the people under their authority. Welcome to the world of the Res Nostra. A.X. Perez
"Digital TV is no doubt an improvement over analog, but forcing it on the nation at gunpoint—"for our own good"—is something I'd sooner expect from Nancy Pelosi. No wonder we're in such a mess.—L. Neil Smith" Dear Cthulu I hate disagreeing with you Neil... but I don't see ANYTHING good about this. The One Party State has set the foundations for being able to DIRECTLY control all non-web video mind rot—not just indirectly through the simpering TV Toadies. Almost by definition, Digital "Broadcast" can be controlled and manipulated—even shut off—in ways that Analog never could. No more "Pirate (regulation free) TV". No more "subversive" broadcasts. Anything the One Party State doesn't like gets scrambled with a simple push of a button. No "jamming" required. Just pure, unadulterated, government approved propaganda and mercantilism—with only the Fairness Doctrine and a Web Equivalent left to go.. Makes me even more glad I haven't had a TV since 1995.... Bryan Potratz
Sigh... Paleosarah as me all atl-atled... Is Firstman BoBo's Daley Chief of Rod going to speak to Spearchucker Control Inc? Bryan Potratz
To Which Rex May replied:  And now she's available as a T-shirt at
Rex May
 Just say "One Trillion Dollars" and imagine squinting through a gold monocle. It's that funny to me. The USA is BROKE! Where is this ridiculous sum of money coming from? I know all the shit about Keynesian debt instruments blah, blah, blah. When you have nothing, how are you going get your debtors to accept more nothing? The Government is about to write a bad check to a debtor and then tell the debtor they'll kill or imprison him if he doesn't accept their payment of nothing. Go read the fine print in the Stimulus Package. (Stimulus Package. That's what I used to call my shooting bag huh huh) That's what it amounts to. Any business that takes a bailout from the government and then wants to bitch about all the rules deserves to fail. This government is filled with tax cheats, adulterers, murderers and draft evaders. Fascist criminals. If you don't know it yet ya ain't payin' attention! On a lighter note, I got my first death threat on my Blog at onplanetdave.blogspot.com . I'm a little disappointed though as he didn't show up. Even with directions! I might have forgotten to tell him about the minefield at the bottom of the hill.... oops! Y'all take care, try not to care too much. Practice your point shooting and remember! Aim low and follow up. (Also published at onplanetdave.blogspot.com/2009/02/trillion-dollars.html) David Earnest
JPFO Follies... I'm sure many Readers got the same email from JPFO—I'll excerpt it here:
Um... sorry... No. Please Aaron... if you can't espouse Freedom in all of its aspects, for all nonviolent humans, just stick to RKBA and don't talk about anything else. You will only confuse people. "Illegal aliens" are absolutely as "deserving" of all of the protections under the Bill of Rights as any other living person. What they, or any other persons are NOT deserving of is the "right" to Trespass and Despoil another's Private Property. Don't forget the sign: "Trespassers will be Prosecuted (and/or Shot)." It doesn't say "Scary Brown Illegal Aliens", it says TRESPASSERS. The Action, not the Person, defines the Crime. The JPFO is making a (the?) grave mistake of conflating two very separate issues: Criminal acts against Property Rights and Preexisting Human Rights as defined by the BoR. Frankly, if these folks crossed this guy's property WITHOUT damaging it or leaving any sign of their passage, he probably wouldn't care. I wouldn't. And if these same folks crossed the border without crossing his land he would have ZERO cause to complain. But what has happened here is the confusion of two distinct issues— the absurd claim that somehow being an "illegal" changes the righteous action of a man protecting his Property into a Civil Rights Case. Trespassing, Vandalism and Intimidation are Trespassing, Vandalism and Intimidation—regardless from which side of the border the invaders come. Bryan Potratz
To Which A.X. Perez replied: The day my younger daughter was born we found a little mojadito (wetback kid) sleeping under a tarp on our front porch as Irma and I were on the way out to the hospital. Not about to leave our three and a half year old and her fourteen year old aunt who was baby sitting with a stranger sleeping on our porch I told him it was the time the Migra (Border Patrol) swung by and got him moving on into a sleety, windy February morning. I knew I was doing right even though I felt like a bastard. It was a miniature of the tragedy of the border. I grew up in a neighborhood extending to the Rio Grande where illegal aliens came by on a regular basis. Some came to beg, some came to find work or passing through on the way to work, and some came to steal (Admittedly some came to do all three depending on opportunity). All were poor and desperate and I sympathize with their plight. That didn't excuse the thieves. Those who view other people as prey, be they Mafiosi, crooked politicians, or people who try to beat poverty by stealing from others are dangerous potential killers and should be treated as such. Issues of racism, border sovereignty, and the socialistic agendas of MALDEF are intertwined here. There is a huge difference between the standard of behavior people can expect from trained law enforcement agents dealing with one or two suspects on public land and those we can expect from one man facing a potential mob on his own territory. MALDEF wants to extinguish that distinction as well as that between public and private land and defending one's own rights and violating the rights of others. Anyone who chooses to be protected by and respect the rights of others under the American Bill of Rights, wants to make an honest living, and will live by the ZAP is welcome in my USA. Anyone, foreign or native born, who has no regard for others' lives, liberty, and property rights, or who treats others as prey, or wishes to finish the job of turning the American state from a tool of liberty to a tool of enslavement is not welcome by me in America. There's still a way to go on that last change, and hope of reversing it. Do mojados have and deserve the protection of the Bill of Rights in the US? Ya dambetcha! Does that mean private citizens have to give up control of their property to let a mixed bag of honest people forced to crime to try to survive and criminals using them as cover to sneak in to the US? I don't think so. However, as long as people who wish to exploit and enslave illegal aliens block meaningful and just immigration reform and socialist assholes like some members of MALDEF use this as an excuse to invert the meaning of the Bill of Rights these issues will remain confused. Al, aka A.X. Perez, aka Crazy Al
PS: Neil, if you would do me the courtesy of forwarding this to Aaron please. And later A.X. Perrez continued: Border Issue Landmine On the 10th of February 2009 Jews for the Preservation of Firearms (jpfo.org) published an article titled "Does the BOR Apply to Illegal Aliens" regarding the lawsuit against an Arizona rancher for violating a group of mojados' rights when he detained them for authorities after catching them trespassing on his land. Both Bryan Potratz and L. Neil Smith sent me notes commenting on this article. This letter raises several points. Does the Bill of Rights apply to illegal aliens? And the answer, to great fanfare, is yup. Indeed, the Bill of Rights merely guarantees rights that are inherently part of being human not granted by governments. The Federal government has been to get out of honoring it for years, and this effort must be discouraged. Arguments over whether mojados have these rights is just part of the battle. For years Immigration and Customs Enforcement have claimed that people are not protected by the Fourth Amendment until they have passed inspection to avoid having to get a warrant to search persons and vehicles entering the US for contraband or to detain suspected illegal aliens. This does not mean person s arrested in the US do not have protection under the Bill of Rights from mistreatment in the US by police officials. Secondly, does the Bill of Rights apply to a private citizen detaining a large group of potentially dangerous (as in deadly) intruders? Actually no, a whole different set of laws applies, the BOR only applies to actions by the government and its agents. That said, private citizens are bound by decency and law to treat people they are detaining for the authorities decently. However there is a big difference in holding one burglar at gun point with a cop five minutes away and controlling a potential mob. Whether the defendant in this case exceeded these limits is something the courts must decide. I am inclined to take the defendant's side pending evidence. Thirdly what is the difference between a person defending his property and a nation state enforcing his property rights? If existing immigration law was being enforced in a manner that was aimed at securing the border that would be a relevant question. Instead, at least here on the border, it seems the immigration law is enforced in a manner that guarantees cheap labor without proper protection from exploitation while creating a network that could potentially be used by terrorists and is used by mob muscle and slavers to sneak in and around the country. That said, I leave the question to be dealt with by smarter people (are you listening smarter people?) Fourthly, deliberately or not, the plaintiffs' representation, MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund) are blurring the difference between a man defending his property from trespassers and racist jerks acting out their bigotry, between private property and public land. This is attempt to destroy property and self defense rights can not be allowed to stand. Whoever wins this case, it represents a multi-prong attack on the freedom and dignity of the people of this country, citizen, legal resident, and yes even the illegal aliens living among us. A.X. Perez
You guys hear about this new gun registration bill? excerpt from:
"This bill isn't being covered in print or on TV, but the argument over "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009" (HR 45) is building steam, and could become quite a distraction. "It is named for Blair Holt. Holt, the 16-year-old son of a Chicago police officer, was killed in 2007 while shielding a female classmate during a gang-related shooting on a Chicago city bus. "It was introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat. According to Wikipedia, Rep. Rush went A.W.O.L. from the Army in 1968, and founded Illinois' Black Panther Party. In 1969, he did six months in prison on a firearms conviction. "In my opinion, Rep. Rush is exploiting Holt's heroism and death. By naming the bill after Holt, he increases his popularity in his district, and he creates a situation where those representatives who respect the right of the people to keep and bear arms have to vote against a bill named for a hero/victim. "The bill would require individuals to obtain a federal license before they could possess a firearm. It would require the registration of all firearms, and for the owners thereof to report the sale, transfer, loss or theft of a firearm to federal authorities within 72 hours. The license would be a photo ID, complete with thumbprint, would be accompanied by training requirements and fees, and could be revoked for any number of reasons. The bill also provides criminal penalties for those in violation." The above comments written by Kevin Hargis. Jim Davidson
To Which L. Neil Smith replied Go now and read the TLE articles about the National Recall Coordinating Committees, and getting rid of Rahm Emanuel. It;s time we all stopped whining and began to act. L. Neil Smith
To Which Jim Davidson replied: I read them, and I responded on The Libertarian Enterprise yahoo discussion list that I'm happy to collect funds. [Reprinted in this issue as Article No. 7 -- Editor] In a bit, I'll be able to match the first $500 donated. Jim Davidson
To the Editor: My recent letter, "Will Obamacare Be Fatal To Your Health?" has been confirmed by an article written by Betsey McCauley, former lieutenant governor of New Jersey titled: 'Ruin Your Health With The Obama Stimulus Plan'. See the Bloomberg.com article for all of the details. I have tried to tell you, people, that ObamaCare will be fatal to your health, but not enough you would listen. Now we will all find out—the hard way! Marc V. Ridenour
I had a debate this afternoon with a Moslem lawyer, who believes that attacks on her religion should be made illegal. As usual in these cases, the Beeb gave her three times longer than it gave me. She was allowed to insist that, despite all the injunctions about smiting and slicing, the Koran was a book all about peace and love and little hugs. When I was allowed on, I said that if she wanted to live in an Islamic state, she should go and live in Iran or Pakistan. Being a woman lawyer, she might get the occasional bucket of acit thrown in her face, but she'd never have to put up with another attack on Islam. At this point, the debate was ended. You can hear the debate at: [THIS LINK] (.mp3 file) Sean Gabb (away from home computer)
TLE AFFILIATE
Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!
|
|
|
|
Contents
Next
