Previous

Contents

Next

Letters to the Editor

Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

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

Letter from A.X. Perez

Letter from Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger

Letter from Robert Gibson

Letter from A.X. Perez

Perspective

In July of 2010 La Linea, the enforcers of the Juarez Cartel, set of a car bomb killing four people. At the site of the bombing a note was left for the American DEA and FBI to investigate the connection between the Mexican Federal Police and the Sinaloa Cartel Little did they know.

As Congress investigates Operation Fast and Furious it turns out that Sinaloa Cartel was receiving weapons paid for by the FBI through an informant in the Cartel. Apparently AG Eric Holder is helping the Sinaloa Cartel.

Apparently Obama's Attorney General is an employee or dupe of the Narcotraficantes. Which makes President Obama a dupe of the Cartel that is wrecking Mexico.

Thought you'd want to see things in perspective.

A.X. Perez
[email protected]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Back to the top

Letter from Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger

RE: "Letter from Dana Majewski", concerning the AttackWatch button.

Satirical? Yes... and no. You have to peel back a few layers.

Outer skin: Yeah, I've been using it—sorta—satirically. Call it parody-punctuation for when I'm poking fun at the Obamas.

Inner layer: I swiped it from Keith Koffler at whitehousedossier.com, a conservative "journalist" who—on the stopped clock principle—at least tends to get a few things right when he's targeting Democrats and Obama specifically (tends not to notice when Republicans and "conservatives" do the same damned thing, though). His explanation is at [this link] .

Next layer: The Attackwatch.com report form redirects to barackobama.com. Domain registration records show both domains to be owned by "Obama for America".

Keep peeling: According to SourceWatch), Obama for America is "Organizing for America (OFA) is the rebranded successor to Obama for America, the election campaign organization for Barack Obama in 2008."

Core: Organizing for America is run by the Democratic national Committee.

The problem with attempting to satirize the Obama Administration and its tools is that pretty much any ridiculous thing you can dream up as a joke, they think is a dandy idea for reality. Without really digging into this, it appears the DNC meant this seriously; that is, it didn't start out as satire. They are that stupid and creepy.

Granted, there could be some registration spoofing going on there, to embarrass Obama and the DNC. But it still works—more or less—as satire.

BTW, Dana; that "another button" you seem to think I created to report Michelle Obama-related comments... is the same damned button directing to the same damned form. All I did was was increase the width attribute in the IMG tag. Not quite sure how you missed the rather crude and obvious joke (wide ass, wide button), or maybe you read something else into it.

Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger
[email protected]
Author: Net Assets, Bargaining Position,
The Anarchy Belt, The Anarchists
Site: www.bussjaeger.org
Blog: target="new">carlbussjaeger.blogspot.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Back to the top

Letter from Robert Gibson

Constitutional Conundrums

Re: "The Second Amendment: Does Anybody Get It?" by Russell D. Longcore
and: "Life, Liberty—then Property" by Bob Wallace

First:

Sv. Longcore's analysis of the purpose of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes a cogent argument that the reason it was adopted was to ensure the security of the independent states. This may have been true for some adopters, but I believe the purpose was even more radical than that. I think the reason it was adopted was to secure the freedoms of the individuals within the states. As Noah Webster noted, when a citizenry is armed it can resist the imposition of unjust laws because it will constitute a force superior to any standing troops which can be raised against it. A secure state inevitably loses its freedoms; no states were more 'secure' than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, but few would argue that they were 'free'.

I concur entirely with his contention that the effectiveness of a militia is contingent to a great extent upon its having a parity in technology with the regular forces of a nation. Tench Coxe expressed this when he stated that every terrible instrument of the soldier is the birthright of an American. The Supreme Court touched on this in its 1939 decision on the U.S. v Miller case when it found that the possession of a short-barreled shotgun was not protected by the Second Amendment because it couldn't see a militia use for such a firearm. Too bad Miller's lawyers weren't able to go to the War Department and find an officer to testify to the effectiveness of such guns in the trenches of Europe during the 'Great War'. Indeed, they were so effective that there are (possibly apocryphal) stories of the Germans summarily executing Allied soldiers captured while armed with such weapons. Oddly, in the ensuing three decades, this reasoning got turned on its head to the point that the Gun Control Act of '68 gave us the 'sporting purposes' test. Funny how that works.

Second:

Sv. Wallace cites the Constitutional phrase, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Of course, this paraphrase of John Locke's terminology appears not in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence. Still, sv. Wallace is not alone in this misapprehension. He is joined in it by many luminaries, not the least of which is Yale Law grad and former President BillyJeff Clinton.

Robert Gibson
[email protected]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Back to the top

TLE AFFILIATE