L. Neil Smith's
Number 341, October 16, 2005

 Tenth Anniversary Edition, Part 3 

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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. To ensure their acceptance, please try to keep them under 500 words. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear.]

Letter from L. Neil Smith

Letter from Scott Bieser

Letter from Susan Wells

Letter from E.J. Totty

Another Letter from L. Neil Smith

Letter from National SOS Radio Network


This is just too good to pass up. Will you please run this in TLE?



* * *

To: smith2004-discuss@yahoogroups.com
From: Travis Pahl <travis.pahl@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:38:30 -0700
Subject: [smith2004-discuss] Dept of Ed

I know this means nothing since the person who answered I am sure is just some intern or somethinig like that, but it is still fun to see them admit their dept has no constitutional authority to exist.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Department of Education
Date: Oct 13, 2005 7:59 AM
Subject: Where in the constitution does it authorize for a dept of education? I have s... [Incident: 051012-000221]
To: travis.pahl@gmail.com

Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it within the next 14 days.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.

To update your question from our support site, click the following link or paste it into your web browser. [link]

Where in the constitution does it authorize for a dept of education? I have s...

Discussion Thread
Response (Sharon Stevens) - 10/13/2005 10:59 AM
Thank you for contacting the U.S. Department of Education.

There is no authorization for the U.S. Department of Education in the U.S. Constitution. As you are probably aware, Congress established the U.S. Department of Education (ED) on May 4, 1980, in the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88 of October 1979).

For more information about the U.S. Constitution, please visit http://www.ed.gov/free/constitution/index.html .

Once again, thank you for contacting the U.S. Department of Education.


Sharon Stevens
Office of Communications and Outreach

Auto-Response - 10/12/2005 07:39 PM
Your question has been received. You should expect a response from us within 5 business days.

Customer - 10/12/2005 07:39 PM
Where in the constitution does it authorize for a dept of education? I have searched your website trying to find what part of the constitution justifies the department of education. I would have thought that would be at the very least in your mission statement. The closest I was able to find was... "The U.S. Constitution leaves the responsibility for public K-12 education with the states." from http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html


Sharon Stevens
Information Resource Center
Office of Communications and Outreach

Round Rock, Texas—Imagine a world in which Texas never joined the United States, NAZI Germany conquered England but was held in check by a nuclear-armed Irish Republican Army, the Catholic Church has moved its headquarters to Brownsville, Texas, and Mexico is ruled by a neo-Aztec emperor in partnership with French colonial bureaucrats-in-exile.

In this Texas-that-might-have-been, residents are required to have permits not to carry firearms. The Federated States of Texas includes most of what we know as New Mexico and Colorado, as well as Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, parts of Wyoming, Nebraska, and Missouri. Not to mention Alaska, Cuba, Liberia, Venezuela, Yucatan, Chiapas, most of Central America, and the Phillippines. Its currency is based on petroleum, and its limited government is financed entirely by a monopoly on garbage collection.

And in 1947, Texican President Charles A. Lindbergh was faced with a most amazing, and potentially world-changing, situation—reports of a flying saucer crash in far west Texas, near the town of Roswell.

Big Head Press announces plans to publish the first all-new novel-length story in nearly five years by award-winning sci-fi author L. Neil Smith, to be titled Roswell, Texas. Co-written by Wall Street Journal and National Review cartoonist "Baloo" (in his other identity as Rex F. May), and illustrated by Scott Bieser, the story concerns what happens when a special team of Texas Rangers races an array of spies, troops, and operatives of neighboring nations to the UFO crash site, and discover a truth even stranger than any of them could have imagined.

"As a graphic novel, Roswell, Texas will mark another first for Big Head Press: it will be the first BHP project serialized on the World Wide Web, with a printed version possibly to follow as market conditions permit," said publisher Frank W. Bieser.

"Current plans call for the first chapter to be uploaded to a new, completely revamped BigHeadPress.com site around February 1, 2006," said Scott Bieser, who in addition to being the story's illustrator is also Director for Big Head Press. Access to the site will be free, at least for a limited time, and will be supported financially by banner advertising and merchandising, he explained.

Roswell, Texas will be illustrated in full color, and when completed "in late 2007 or so" will consist of 576 computer-monitor-formatted "pages," he added.

Big Head Press, founded in 2003, is a publisher of graphic novels, including A Drug War Carol and The Probability Broach: The Graphic Novel.

Scott Bieser
General Director
BigHead Press

*This is a very important question, and I hope all of you will answer it honestly.—Susan


This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision.

Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.



You are in Florida, Miami to be specific. There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster.

The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.



Suddenly you see a man in the water. He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. You suddenly realize who it is. It's George W. Bush!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him under forever. You have two options--you can save the life of George W. Bush, or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, documenting the death of one of the world's most powerful politicians.



Here's the question, and please give an honest answer:

Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?

Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, and John

To the readers: John Newby is editor of the Lone Patriot Web site. I wrote this to John, and figured that it deserved wider 'publication.'


Re.: http://lonepatriot.com/archives/daily_post/index.html#000088

What you have to say is quite relevant—especially in these troubled times.

I wish I had the time and expertise to assemble the arguments, discussions, and facts in the way that you do.

Maybe one day?

In any case, what prompts me to write is several things at your site in the latest sense: 10-08-005.

Much of what you discuss can easily be described as patently illegal, by way of understanding how the USC actually works—or should work.

Many of the latest laws and treaties are illegal for the simple reason that they have ignored the amendments.

Whenever someone discusses a treaty, the first thing I ask is: Does the treaty take into consideration all of the amendments?

The rub here—if there is to be one, is that unless an amendment very narrowly addresses a specific issue which has already been addressed within the original document of the USC, then the amendment modifies virtually everything within that original document.

For example, RKBA isn't addressed in any way in the original document of the USC, and neither is the matter of religion, or press, or speech—among other things.

So, the amendments therefore, and therefor, apply to every aspect of the precepts delineated within the original document of the USC. Or in other words, no matter what section of the original document of the USC, a general amendment must be read as applying to every aspect of whatever section, including Art. VI, Sect. 2.

Since federal law cannot overtake the USC—in any manner, fashion, shape, or form—because of Art. VI, section 2, of the USC, then any federal law which presumes to do so is illegal, and that goes for treaties as well.

Government cannot presume to take responsibility for citizens in any way, be it general, or even specifically— unless an individual citizen is has been legally determined to not have the capability to determine his/her own affairs.

Ergo, every law governing the use of whatever substance is actually illegal in its premise, by dint of the aspect spoken of above, and by way of the Ninth Art. of Amendment.

As an adjunct to just that point above, consider that in several cases brought before federal courts, it was stated quite emphatically that the citizen has no general right to any kind of protection to be afforded by whatever agency of government.

If that is the case, then the laws pretending to 'protect' the citizens from self-harm have no legal premise for existence, as the government is exerting force by way of the law, yet presumes immunity when real and dire harm is imminent.

It is illogical—and specious—for the government to say: 'You may not harm yourself,' and conversely say that 'we do not have to protect you.'

The treaty powers conferred to the Congress—under the original document of the USC, have all been modified by the subsequent amendments, and since no subsequent amendment has been ratified which emphatically states that the USG may ratify treaties inimical of individual rights enshrined by the amendments, then all treaties ratified which have not taken into account that aspect I mention above are essentially illegal constructs in law.

There is just one thing I would like to achieve—should I ever manage to have a site such a yours: Identify virtually every federal law which violates any aspect of either the powers conferred, or is inimical of the rights of the people—in whatever way.

What that would do is this: It would give everyone—who was interested, the ability to possess a list of grievances, hard and fast to discuss with anyone regarding the usurpation of powers not conferred, and the limitation of rights for which the USG has absolutely no authority to limit in whatever way—without due process.

E.J. Totty

Some of you may remember that the first time I ever addressed the Eris Society (twenty-odd years ago, at Karl Hess's urging), it was about my idea—meant jokingly, to begin with—about freeing the Iranian hostages by threatening to drop aerosoled (and pasteurized) hog urine on Tehran from specially converted B-52s.

As usual, I was a couple of decades ahead of my time ...


L. Neil Smith

"National SOS Radio Network" ready to start, based on millions of FRS "Family Radio Service" radios already in use plus 675,000 ham radio operators across America.

"National SOS Radio Network" provides instant, reliable, emergency communications for everyone. Designed to eliminate communication breakdown as occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Ready to go into operation immediately across America.

HARTFORD, CT (PRWEB) Oct 6, 2005—In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it's become clear that a major contributing factor to the tragic loss of life was the near total breakdown of communication systems. Once electricity, telephone, and cell phone services failed, people were unable to let rescuers know of their dire situations—and died as a result.

What could be a simple, instant, and virtually zero-cost solution?

"Establish a National SOS Radio Network (www.NationalSOS.com)," says Eric Knight, CEO of UP Aerospace, Inc. (www.upaerospace.com). "There are millions of 'Family Radio Service' or 'FRS' radios already in use by the public for camping, boating, and hiking, and there are 675,000 licensed ham radio operators in America—people renown and prepared for emergency communications. The output frequencies of FRS radios are easily received by the radio gear ham radio operators use daily. That's the magic link in this emergency communication strategy."

Knight went on to say, "The best part of a National SOS Radio Network is that it wouldn't require new laws or any new legislation whatsoever. It could go into effect, today. Once the ham radio community is made aware to listen for the public's emergency broadcasts on an FRS frequency, the national network will be up and running. It's as simple as that."

Knight has been a ham radio operator (KB1EHE) for over 30 years. To help spread the word about his idea to fellow hams, he said he plans to approach the Amateur Radio Relay League ("ARRL", www.arrl.org), the national membership association for amateur radio operators. Knight said, "The ARRL is a wonderful organization. They knit the ham radio community into a network that fosters education, technology experimentation, and emergency preparedness and assistance. With a positive word from the ARRL, the National SOS Radio Network could spring to life immediately."

FRS radios don't require an operator license, can be used by anyone of any age, and are available for as little as $14 at all large retailers, such as WalMart (). FRS radios can broadcast 2 to 8 miles, depending on terrain. And there are ham radio operators in nearly every community in America. (To see how many ham radio operators are in any city or town, visit www.qrz.com/i/names.html and type in a zip code.)

According to Knight's proposed National SOS Radio Network plan, ham radio operators would rapidly relay the public's emergency needs to local and state authorities—such as police and fire departments—as well as to national rescue and relief agencies. As a natural extension of the National SOS Radio Network, all elements of government could also incorporate FRS radios into their communications systems—for direct, immediate links to the public's emergency situations.

"In times of public crisis, the basic recommendation is for citizens to set their FRS radios on Channel 1 and transmit their emergency needs, and for ham radio operators to tune their receivers to 462.5625 MHz, the frequency that corresponds to FRS Channel 1," said Knight. "Specific operational details will evolve as the National SOS Radio Network gains awareness. To get the ball rolling, we've posted some operational ideas on a Web site we created: www.NationalSOS.com. We look forward to the ARRL's ideas and feedback, too."

"With the simple addition of a low-cost FRS radio to an emergency preparedness kit, a family in distress could literally reach out to the world—and get the help they need," said Knight. "I can't imagine a more powerful tool that could save so many lives."

"The National SOS Radio Network blends very well with the overall mission of UP Aerospace," Knight added. "It's all about broader public access for a variety of services. We pride ourselves on providing low-cost access to space—particularly for the nation's college and university students. Likewise, through the National SOS Radio Network, the public can have immediate, life-saving access to emergency and rescue resources. It's truly a public service. We're not looking to profit from it. It feels great to play a role at the grassroots level of America's communities."

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!

to advance to the next article
  Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 341, October 16, 2005