Back to the top

Letter from Thomas L. Knapp

Re: "Refugees" by Richard Bartucci

Richard Bartucci asks:

"Should we allow Syrian (and other Sandbox) refugees into these United States?"

Who's this "we" that Bartucci alludes to repeatedly?

He sure has a whole lot of restrictions he wants this "we" to impose on others—and, necessarily, pay the costs of imposing.

It seems to have something to do with his religious beliefs. Or, rather, his beliefs concerning a broad religious tendency he clearly knows very little about. If Bartucci wants to mistake one particular school of one particular sect for a religion with 1.x adherents, most of whom are not members of that sect, well, I guess his historical/religious illiteracy is none of my business.

Until he decides to start yelling that "they," and "we," should be forced pay the costs of that illiteracy, anyway.

Thomas L. Knapp
[email protected]

[ Like it sez in that book:

"Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every strategem (of war)".—Sura 9, verse 5 (Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)

Seems to be working so far!—Editor ]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

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

Back to the top

Letter from Bill St. Clair

Re: "Refugees" by Richard Bartucci

It was with great dismay that I read in TLE #849 Richard Bartucci's article entitled "Refugees". The first couple of paragraphs felt like satire, but the rest of the article remained serious about classifying immigrants to the US by religion and greatly restricting the civil liberties of those self-identifying as Muslim.

"Muslim women and little kids? Okay, but track them. GPS ankle bracelets on every one of them. Keep them aware that they're in the midst of infidels who KNOW what their "religion of peace" really means, and we don't trust them even the least little bit.

"Muslim males of military age (which I figure should be defined as 12 years old until they're at least twenty-four hours dead) either cannot be admitted or go straight into confinement under guard."

Am I to understand that it's OK for Mr. Bartucci to talk about closing the borders to Muslims, but not OK for Rex May to write cartoons about closing the borders to Mexicans? It seems to me that both are incompatible with the Zero Aggression Principle. Until force has been initiated, or credibly threatened, by an individual, retaliatory force is out of line. Mr. Bartucci is free to ban from his own personal property anybody he wants for any reason he wants, but he may not require me to do the same.

As for Jim Davidson's screed on why the Paris terror attacks were not funded by Bitcoin, well argued, but why should I care? Money is money. It is NEVER the fault of the money how people abuse what they purchase with it. It is entirely the fault of the abuser. I don't care how the attackers paid for their guns. Acquiring guns, and using them defensively is a human right. Using guns aggressively is a crime, no matter how they are obtained, no matter which fancy uniform, funny hat, or shiny badge the perp happens to be wearing, and no matter which direction he faces to pray.

Bill St. Clair
[email protected]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

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

Back to the top

Letter from A.X. Perez

Let's Not Kid Ourselves

Let's not kid ourselves. No gun control law could have prevented the San Bernadino Massacre. It is glaringly obvious that the shooters were Muslim extremists. If guns were totally banned and unavailable to honest citizens they would still have acquired their rifles, pistols, ammunition, and magazines through black market contacts, possibly from foreign governments.

Background checks would not have stopped them. Registration would not have stopped them. Gun free zones sure as hell didn't stop them. As mentioned above enforced total gun bans would not have stopped them.

Calling for additional gun control laws is a waste of breath. It was an act by dedicated terrorists. You know , the people "who hate us for our freedom" and who hate us just as much for looking away when they were denied that freedom in their homelands.

Let's not kid ourselves. The current misleaders of this country don't want to deal with this terrorism. They don't want to deal with the causes, they don't want to protect you from terrorism. They want you to be afraid.

They want you to be afraid enough to go along with gun control laws. They want you to be afraid enough to go along with the surveillance state. They want you to go along with militarized police who become an army of occupation. They want you to go along with foreign adventures that accomplish nothing except to provoke our enemies.

A.X. Perez
[email protected]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

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