Back to the top

Letter from Jim Davidson

Dear Editor,

In his recent excellent essay “Califucknia” El Neil writes, “The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the individual and civil liberties of minorities of all kinds against the malign will of the majority.”

No, I’m sorry, that’s simply not true. If the Bill of Rights had been designed to protect those freedoms it lists, and the ones not enumerated but included by reference in the Ninth Amendment, as Neil very well knows, there would have been an enforcement clause allowing any American to kill anyone in government found violating the terms of the Bill of Rights. I’m sure Neil knows as much because I seem to recall he has strongly advocated enforcement. But I’m old and remember a lot of old web sites. Like this one.

Whether my proposed enforcement is too stringent, or lacks oversight, the point is, the Bill of Rights was not designed to protect freedoms. Rather, in my view, it was clearly designed at the time to ensure the ratification of the constitution itself. Indeed, a great many anti-federalists were quite concerned about the sundry provisions of the constitution which centralised power in one giant huge and growing monstrosity, and insisted that without provision for a bill of rights, they would work tirelessly to prevent its ratification.

Sadly, as we have all seen, constitutions and bills of rights, in their actual operation, never limit government power, never protect individual liberty. Instead, such documents only give the appearance of doing so, all the while those with political power arrange things to advance their grasp on ever more power, while feathering their nests and those of their cronies.

I have become increasingly certain that only the abolition of government can bring about the abolition of slavery we all seek. Taxation is theft, licences are extortion, and the health of the state is endless war. My goals for 2017, as they have been for some time, are: free the slaves, stop the wars, end the state. At which point I’ll work on my hotel in the Moon.

Regards,

Jim Davidson
[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 Ann Morgan

Dear Editor:

I would like to offer my humble observations on the immature and undignified behavior of numerous democrats in this country following the recent election.

In the eight or so weeks since the election, we have seen frantic efforts, shifting from one focus to the next, by protesters and the media to get Hillary into office, despite the results of the election. First they went sobbing to the Electoral College to “vote for Hillary”, then they wanted a “recount”, then they claimed that the Russians “hacked the election”, then they then they went back to sobbing to the Electoral College again.

None of the above got the result they wanted—Hillary as president, and if you ask me, it was ultimately counterproductive. Even if it HAD gotten Hillary into office, it still would have been counterproductive. I will explain why:

Donald Trump (and mind you, I am no fan of him, either), at least had the maturity and wits, when immature people were committing racist acts in his name, to tell them to “Knock it off”.

Hillary Clinton did NOTHING about the immature tantrums thrown in her name. By her silence, she gave her tacit approval to behavior which—at best—is that of a 3 year old throwing a tantrum and screaming: “Waah! I didn’t get my own way!” and in many ways, is like that of a furious monkey throwing feces at everything possible, to see if any of it will stick, and not caring that half of it ends up on themselves.

IMHO, even if their HAD been something screwy about the election, in the absence of any actual proof in hand, the Democratic party would have been better off sucking it up for the next four years, and having Hillary tell the tantrum throwers and the media to “Knock it off” rather than convincing the entire country that they are the party of “WAAH! We didn’t get our own way!” and throwing feces. That is what the American public is going to remember four years from now. You can tell a lot about a leader, by observing the behavior of those who follow them, and most people do not want to be led by someone whose followers consist of immature toddlers and apes.

Even worse than the fact that Hillary has ruined her own reputation by showing that her followers consist of those who behave like furious toddlers and apes, is the fact that given that Hillary did not decry them, she has shown she is willing to accept power gotten by ANY means, including as the end result of a series of tantrums. Someone willing to accept power not by law, but as a gift from a mob is NOT someone I would trust—ever. And far worse than the effects of the tantrums on ruining her reputation and that of the democratic party, would have been the fact that if the tantrums had succeeded in putting Hillary into office, it would have moved this country far along the path from at least nominal rule by law, to blatant rule by mob. This is not a good idea, as exemplified by a famous scene from the play “A Man for All Seasons”:

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

Hillary and her followers were willing to “cut a great road through the law” to get after the “devil” Trump. This country should never allow anyone of any political party willing to do that into any office—for our own safety’s sake!

Ann Morgan
[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 Jeff Fullerton

California’s New “Hot Air” Obsession: Cow Farts—Breitbart

This was linked to the Brietbart article on the infamy on top of infamy that El Neil found too disgusting to talk about at length in his “Califucknia” article. I can understand why after reading about this on top of a job destroying $15 per hour minimum wage that even my uncle; a lifelong democrat and true believer in FDR and the New Deal would call insane.

California definitely is the land of fruits and nuts and their State House has turned into the biggest purulent boil in the known universe after the United Nations and the E.U. If we’re lucky they might capture enough cow farts to blow themselves to kingdom come!

It is kind of tragic to me because I lived there for two years—tationed at March AFB—when it was still the land of John Wayne and Cal Worthington and a great place to visit and a cool place to be from. And a nice climate too.

Such a shameful waste of it all.

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

Calexit Now Please

California has hired Eric Holder to represent them in cases against Donald Trump. (See [this link]) Yep, claiming to want to protect undocumented aliens from being unjustly deported, specifically Mexican Undocumented aliens, they have hired the murderous anti Mexican Racist who at the very least stood by and allowed the Mexican drug cartels to acquire semiauto rifles and other weapons to murder Mexican police and civilians just to see where the guns would turn up and at the worst abused his office to make war against Mexico. I understand that he is being hired at the behest of so called Chicano leaders in the Legislature. I say he is being hired at the behest of vendidos who are good with a man who murdered their hermanos.

Gracias a Dios que vivo en Texas aparte de esos cabrones. Anyone who is confused into thinking California liberalism has anything to do with defending liberty needs to cut back on the ganja they re consuming.

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

Letter from Charles Heller

Re: “Life and Death in Today’s Chicago” by L. Neil Smith (this issue)

Neil,

762 dead out of 4378, is is fairly consistent with the national ratio of death to wounding, assuming that most of those are by handgun. If you factor in that some may have been by rifle or shotgun, the numbers are, pardon the pun, “dead on.”

Only about ‎15% of people in U,S. shot with a handgun, die. It’s about 17% for knives.

Charles Heller
[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

Previous          Contents          Next