ASSAULT WEAPONS AT LOGAN HERALD DEMISE OF AMERICA

Evil social fascist politicians eagerly affronted the sensibilities of
patriotic Americans by announcing that like other third-world
dictatorships, the airport that facilitated the deaths of more defenseless
Americans than Pearl Harbor would now declare war on honest citizens by
pointing loaded, silenced German machineguns at them, slyly claiming that
it's for "their own protection."

In what was cunningly described as a "pilot "program (like income
taxes), smiling evil social fascist politicians threatened to
unconstitutionally arm America's remaining airports with the symbols of
tyranny and oppression if they got away with it here.

The Draconian, dehumanizing "security" procedures in place at
airports can do nothing concerning terrorists, but are, in fact, designed
to break down our sacrosanct dignity and ability to resist tyrannical
"authority" in the exact same manner that the National Socialists
did so successfully in Germany.

Expect to hear, "Your papers, please," here in America soon.

They already have Nazi-style helmets and black SS uniforms, accompanied by
snarling German dogs.

By that time, you won't object to being placed in flying cattle cars,
either. Enjoy your trip.

When Hitler requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically
banned under German law, but powers Hitler claimed he needed to have to
deal with the 'terrorists,' the German People, having already sold their
souls to their self-delusions, agreed.

The temporary powers were conferred, and once conferred lasted until
Germany itself was destroyed.

Now the U.S. 'government' has requested temporary extraordinary powers,
powers specifically banned under Constitutional law, but powers the
'government' is claiming they need to have to deal with the 'terrorists.'

The American People, having already sold their souls to their
self-delusions, are agreeing.

The temporary powers recently conferred will be no more temporary in
America than they were in Germany.

The U.S. 'government' knows they rule what Jeffery Snider [sic] titled his
book, "a nation of cowards."

We're no longer free because too many people have foolishly traded their
actual freedom and liberty for the empty promise of temporary safety, since
the public fool -- er, "school" system refuses to teach Benjamin
Franklin's reasonable maxim, "They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety."

The Declaration of Independence teaches that: "'Governments are'
instituted among Men, deriving their just 'Powers' from the Consent of the
Governed," to "SECURE" Mankind's "inalienable
Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness," and that "whenever any Form of 'Government' becomes
destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute a new 'Government,' laying its Foundation on
such
Principles, and organizing its 'Powers' in such Form, as to them shall seem
most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey on January sixth 1816, Thomas
Jefferson said: "The functionaries of every 'government' have
propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their
constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the People
themselves."

In "The Papers of James Madison," June twentieth 1785, he said:
"The preservation of a free 'government' requires not merely that the
metes and bounds which separate each department of power may be invariably
maintained; but, more especially, that neither of them be suffered to
overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the People [i.e.,
the Rule of Law]. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed
the commission from which they derive their authority, and are tyrants. The
people who submit to it are [not] 'governed' by laws made... by themselves
nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves."

To the extent that each individual American allows this travesty to occur
in a public place such as Boston's Logan Airport, those same individual
Americans take on the personal responsibility for the inevitable end to
America as we knew it.

If we allow this criminal behavior on the part of evil social fascist
politicians to succeed, we empower them to impose greater unconstitutional
restrictions, like nationals ID cards encoded with biometric chips,
internal "checkpoints," raids and detention without warrant or
trial, and eventually, we'll finally allow public executions of citizens on
any pretext, "for our protection."

In the future, remember this article, because this was the event, the
"line in the sand," that should never been allowed to occur.

For your inaction today, your children will curse you -- more likely,
they'll be the ones who turn you in.

Mike Straw [mikestraw1{at}juno.com]

* * * * * * * * * * *

re: PAIN

In a message dated 05/11/03, MacGregor K. Phillips [mkp{at}topsecretcrypto.com]
http://www.topsecretcrypto.com> writes in a letter to the editor:

    re: PAIN http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe222-20030505-02.html>

>The article "Pain" by William Stone III hits the money right
on the head. >Until the average citizen feels the pain of repression he
will sit back and >be fat, dumb, and happy, and not care one whit what
is happening to the >country. Perhaps it is time for all
anarcho-capitalists to copy a page from >the book The Devil's Advocate
by Taylor Caldwell, [link removed] in which the >resistance fighters who
are about to be captured are rescued, given a new >identity as one of
the overseers, and sent out to repress the people even >more so they
will revolt and overthrow the evil dictatorship as soon as >possible. I
just do not know if I would have the stomach for it.

Regarding the above, one should also be aware of a technique related by
Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince" Chapter 7, (Bantam Classic
Edition, 1981, ppg. 31-32) used to seduce and reduce a province to peace
and sovereign authority. It part it reads:

"The Duke appointed for this purpose Messer Remirro de Ortega, a cruel
and resolute individual, to whom he granted the fullest powers. In a short
time this man [through excessive force and barbarity] brought peace and
unity to the province, thereby gaining fearful respect. Later, judging that
such excessive power was no longer necessary and fearing that it would
arouse hatred, the Duke established a civil tribunal in the center of the
province, presided over by an outstanding magistrate with a representative
from each city. Recognizing that past severities had generated a measure of
hatred against him, the Duke then determined to free himself from all
popular suspicion by demonstrating that if there had been any acts of
cruelty they had proceeded not from him but from his minister instead.
Having found an occasion to do this, one morning he had Remirro's body cut
in two, placed on view in the public square of Cesena with a wooden block
and blood-stained knife resting beside it. The horror of that ferocious
spectacle gave the people reason to be both shocked and gratified."

They loved the Duke as a savior, as Winston Smith loved Big Brother.

Dennis Baron [BludyRed{at}aol.com]

* * * * * * * * * * *

LIBERALIA

Doug Newman  writes in TLE#223
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe223-20030511-07.html>

<<"We are all liberals now"

Rush Limbaugh always tells us that two identifying characteristics of
a liberal are:
- An emphasis on symbolism over substance.
- An emphasis on feeling rather than thinking.>>

Rush is humorous (and makes half a point), but he wasn't thorough. I'd like
to offer a more serious way to distinguish between political philosophies:

Communists (left wing socialists) believe that we are born as identical,
blank slates to be shaped. They want to be the ruling elite that does the
shaping of individuals and, by extension, all of society. Because we, in
the socialist view, become what we are molded to be, our roles in life
should not determine our rewards. Therefore, the socialists feel justified
in forcefully redistributing (mostly evenly) all wealth and property.

Conservatives want government protection to keep the property and status
they have, even if they can no longer afford it. That means that they
oppose the sort of social mobility that would let them sink when they can
no longer earn enough money to maintain life style or earn enough respect
to maintain position. Inherited nobility is the epitome of conservatism.
The laws that D's and R's write to shield themselves from "3rd"
parties are conservative too. So are protective tariffs.

Fascists (right wing socialists), believe that we are what we are born to
be, and they want to be the ruling elite that divines the qualities of
individuals, shaping society to some ideal around that revelation. Like
communists, fascists want to redistribute wealth and status by force. This
is unlike conservatives who want to use force to keep things where they
are. However, unlike the "blank slate" that drives communists to
spread things somewhat evenly, fascists justify taking wealth and/or status
away from "inferior" people to grant to those they view as
"superior". Example: Woodrow Wilson, upon taking office, demoted
or fired all blacks, replacing them with whites, in what had been a fully
integrated bureaucracy under the Republicans.

Libertarians should already be familiar to all of you: We want to allow
wealth and status to flow freely from where they are being spent to where
they are being earned. Force should be used primarily to stop others from
attacking that freedom. Libertarians would organize (form government) for
that and the few problems that can't be solved without a consensus.

Anarchists don't even want a government for the few purposes that
Libertarians recognize.

Critical misunderstandings between philosophies:

"Liberal" once meant "promoting liberty". It still
means that in Britain. Since it was stolen and abused by socialists, it has
been corrupted. Because it is ambiguous in international discussions, I now
avoid the term except to revel its history, and I recommend that other do
the same. I am hoping that it will fall into disuse so that we libertarians
can reclaim and rehabilitate it someday.

Communists can't distinguish between libertarians, who want the freedom to
earn wealth and status, and fascists who want to take it. Therefore,
communists think that libertarians are "right wing".

Fascists and communists who succeed will spawn conservatives who erect
artificial barriers to keep what their forefathers stole. Similarly,
libertarians can spawn some conservatives defending wealth and position
that were earned. Socialists can't tell the difference, so they view
conservatives as either fellow or opposed socialists, depending on their
origins.

Meanwhile, conservatives born of libertarians fancy themselves libertarians
even if they've never learned our principles.

Communists, conservatives, and fascists, hearing only anti-government
rhetoric from libertarians, often confuse us with anarchists. This
confusion is exacerbated by the fact that, for similar reasons, many
anarchists are attracted to libertarian groups and then call themselves
libertarians even while promoting anarchism.
 
<>

No; I as a libertarian am happy to condemn fascists and communists as evil.
After all, they want to rob me and enslave me; isn't that evil?

Jeff Fisher [jeffryfisher{at}attbi.com]
http://jeffryfisher.net/

* * * * * * * * * * *

re: VOTE SWAPPING TO ESCAPE THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe223-20030511-01.html#letter4>

<>

Not a chance. That would be the most direct path to a military coup,
telling all those soldiers and sailors that they could no longer vote.

Frank Ney [n4zhg{at}icqmail.com]

- - -

JEFF FISHER REPLIES

Good point. Do you think the major parties would be bold enough to give
mail-ins to soldiers but deny them to the rest of us?

Jeffry R. Fisher [jeffryfisher{at}attbi.com]

* * * * * * * * * * *

NEW YORK TIMES RACISM LAID BARE

Media outlets nationwide are jumping on the story of recently fired
27-year-old New York Times reporter Jayson Blair, asking how the nation's
supposedly "most esteemed" newspaper could not only hire, but
tolerate for five years and repeatedly promote -- all the way to the
prestigious national desk -- a reporter whose well-known
"sloppiness" and factual errors are now revealed not to have been
caused by mere carelessness and incompetence, but by fraud: Blair
plagiarized current accounts from other newspapers, made stuff up,
and lied outright about locales he supposedly "covered" for the
Times ... but never even visited.

But where previously only one staffer was lying, the real crisis -- the
still unreported crisis -- at the Times actually originated on May 11.
Since that date, the entire Times senior editorial staff has engaged in
prevarication, as they repeatedly deny the reason Blair's flaws were
ignored is nothing less than racism: He was hired because he was black, and
the Times editors cast a blind eye to his errors and prevarications because
he was black, clearly implying, "What more can you expect from one of
HIS kind?"

Now, award-winning 30-year newsman Vin Suprynowicz, author of books
"The Ballad of Carl Drega" and "Send in the Waco
Killers" (with its legendary chapter of acid media criticism,
"The Courtesan Press: Eager Lapdogs to Tyranny") -- and editor of
the monthly newsletter "Privacy Alert" -- not only blows the lid
off the ongoing Times' double standard, but also asks whether the real
reason Jayson Blair was fired is simply because he proved to be less
sophisticated than his bosses in the Times' ongoing campaign to manufacture
and
manipulate the news.

You won't read it anywhere else, because no one else dares write it ...
and, of course, because since Aug. 1, 2002, more than 80 percent of what
Vin writes has appeared EXCLUSIVELY at Web site privacyalert.us (see
http://www.privacyalert.us/20percent.htm>.)

Read "Making it up as they go along: The New York Times fires a young
reporter for lack of sophistication in manipulating the news," RIGHT
NOW, exclusively at ...
http://www.privacyalertonline.com/Members/Archives/Columns/VIN-2003-0
5-17.htm>

Rick Tompkins [rick{at}privacyalert.us]

[See the "free" excerpt from Vin's article in this issue - ed.]

---