Frontiersman, December 1999

Notice:
This issue of the Frontiersman contains contact information that is out-of-date. For current contact information, click here.

Frontiersman, December 1999

The New Imperialism
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Recently, Serbian forces were attacking the people in Kosovo. Those people are ethnically distinct from the Serbians, and wanted their region to be independent. The Serbians wouldn't allow it. They destroyed houses, created thousands of refugees, and killed or wounded hundreds of people.
For some time now, Russian forces have been attacking the people in Chechnya. Those people are ethnically distinct from the Russians, and want their region to be independent. The Russians won't allow it. They're destroying houses, creating thousands of refugees, and killing or wounding hundreds of people.
In response to Serbian activity in Kosovo, NATO launched a series of brutal and destructive air attacks against Serbia. The action was praised as courageous and morally justified. Since then, the U.S. government has tried every tactic to force Slobodan Milosevic from office. Even today, it continues trying to interfere in the internal politics of Serbia.¹
In response to Russian aggression in Chechnya, a few politicians have asked the Russians to please stop killing people. There isn't any sign at all of any impending NATO action against Russia. The U.S. hasn't suggested that Boris Yeltsin should step down.
Why the different response to situations that are identical, in terms of so-called "human rights" violations? The reason is that NATO is willing to strut and thump its chest when the odds are 19 to one against a second-rate little country that can't defend itself but, when faced with a foe that might actually be dangerous, NATO suddenly has other, more pressing business, elsewhere. While some people will excuse this as justifiable caution, I can suggest a different motive. I believe that the attack on Serbia didn't have anything to do with "human rights" or justice. NATO intends to expand its own power and the fight with Serbia strengthened the alliance. A fight with Russia would certainly weaken it, and maybe destroy it.
NATO should stop insulting our intelligence with high-sounding weasel words about moral justification. It should stick to its original purpose of defending its member nations from aggression. It doesn't have any business dictating the morality, beliefs, internal politics, or behavior of other nations.

... and whining when China tampers with U.S. elections.

She Can, He Doesn't Dare
Sam Aurelius Milam III

"And one other note about the bombing of Belgrade during the war. The U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky was asked this week why negotiations with China about joining the World Trade Organization have dragged on for so long. 'What happened,' she said, 'is that men never ask for directions and mistakenly bombed the Chinese embassy, in Belgrade' ".

— ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, Wednesday, November 3, 1999

Well, I suppose it isn't really such an outrageous statement. I suppose that it wouldn't particularly annoy me, except for one thing. If a man dared publicly utter such a general criticism of women, he'd be denounced as a sexist pig. The news agency that reported the statement would be inundated by feminist outrage. Women can, with impunity, denigrate men in public, in whatever way suits them. A man doesn't dare make the slightest criticism of women for fear of political crucifixion.

Hypocrisy continues to be the foremost feminist accomplishment.

Notice
I didn't have space for Letters to the Editor this month. However, I'll provide copies upon request of any letters that I received and also post them on The Pharos Connection.

— Editor

Frontiersman@ida.net

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

December 1999

Page 1

The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Sam Aurelius Milam III

The Principles The Right to be Assumed Innocent

I need not prove my innocence. I must be assumed innocent.

Freedom from Self Incrimination

I need not provide information that might prove my guilt.

Burden of Proof

If someone believes that I'm guilty of something, then the accuser must prove it without my help.

The Right to Remain Silent

My refusal to prove my innocence cannot itself be used to support a presumption of guilt.

DNA Testing

The Right to be Assumed Innocent

I need not take a DNA test to prove that I'm not the source of any particular blood, hair, sperm, etc. It must be assumed that I'm not the source.

Freedom from Self Incrimination

I need not take a DNA test that might prove that I am the source of any particular blood, hair, sperm, etc.

Burden of Proof

If someone believes that I am the source of any particular blood, hair, sperm, etc., then the accuser must prove it without my help.

The Right to Remain Silent

My refusal to take a DNA test cannot itself be used to support a presumption that I'm the source of any particular blood, hair, sperm, etc.

"Lie Detector" Testing

The Right to be Assumed Innocent

I need not take a "lie detector" test to prove that I'm not lying. It must be assumed that I'm not lying.

Freedom from Self Incrimination

I need not take a "lie detector" test that might prove that I am lying.

Burden of Proof

If someone believes that I am lying, then the accuser must prove it without my help.

The Right to Remain Silent

My refusal to take a "lie detector' test cannot itself be used to support a presumption that I'm lying.

Drug Testing

The Right to be Assumed Innocent

I need not take a drug test to prove that I'm not using illegal drugs. It must be assumed that I'm not using them.

Freedom from Self Incrimination

I need not take a drug test that might prove that I am using illegal drugs.

Burden of Proof

If someone believes that I am using illegal drugs, then the accuser must prove it without my help

The Right to Remain Silent

My refusal to take a drug test cannot itself be used to support a presumption that I'm using illegal drugs.

Airport "Security" Checks

The Right to be Assumed Innocent

I need not prove that I'm not carrying bombs or weapons. It must be assumed that I'm not carrying them.

Freedom from Self Incrimination

I need not provide information that might prove that I am carrying bombs or weapons.

Burden of Proof

If someone believes that I am carrying bombs or weapons, then the accuser must prove it without my help.

The Right to Remain Silent

My refusal to prove that I'm not carrying bombs or weapons cannot itself be used to support a presumption that I am.

Background Checks

The Right to be Assumed Innocent

I need not prove that I have a right to carry a weapon. I must be assumed to have that right.

Freedom from Self Incrimination

I need not provide information that might prove that I don't have the right to carry a weapon.

Burden of Proof

If someone believes that I don't have the right to carry a weapon, then the accuser must prove it without my help.

The Right to Remain Silent

My refusal to prove that I have a right to carry a weapon cannot itself be used to support a presumption that I don't have the right.

The Inescapable Conclusion

The Fundamental Principles of Liberty are general. They apply in all situations. Tyranny is the only exception. The Principles obviously don't operate in the USA. Obviously, the USA is a tyranny.

December 1999
Page 2

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

Frontiersman@ida.net

The War on Muffshots
Sam Aurelius Milam III

On November 10, Inside Edition ran a piece about women who're aghast upon learning that men will discreetly follow them on the street and secretly point hidden video cameras up their skirts. I don't know where those women have been, but men have been peeking up women's skirts and down women's blouses for as long as women have been wearing skirts and blouses. Most of us make the effort, although some of us are less discreet than others. I heard of a man who taped a $20 bill to the floor outside his office and watched for women to bend over to pick it up. Another man taped a mirror to the floor below his office partition adjacent to a female colleague's desk. Video cameras are a tactical variation but otherwise nothing new. Whether such peeking is good or bad is a matter of opinion, but it certainly shouldn't surprise anybody.

Another point that should be raised is that these women are utterly unaware that they've been videotaped. I'm reminded of the Indians who believed that their souls were stolen if their pictures were taken. The objections raised by these women are similarly puzzling. That is, how can they say they're harmed if they're utterly unaware of it and totally unaffected by it? Nevertheless, they're outraged and demand an end to their "victimization". OK, if they want to protect themselves they can easily do it. All they need to do is wear pants, long dresses, or bathing suit bottoms under the short skirts. Will they bother to protect themselves? Of course not. They'd rather demand that government do it for them by passing repressive legislation intended to regulate the behavior of men. Such legislation is now being enacted. Two states have already outlawed such videotaping. As of this writing, California is in the process of becoming the third. We can be sure that other states will fall in line because any man who dares opposition will be demonized as a pervert.

OK, maybe taking pictures up a woman's skirt is bad and maybe it isn't. We all have our opinions. However, just because something is bad doesn't necessarily mean that it should also be illegal. As long as it's possible for this particular group of "victims" to easily, effectively, and non-coercively protect themselves, then they don't need a police state to do it for them. Nevertheless, the War on Muffshots is under way. Soon, extra cops will be needed on the streets to conduct Muffshot surveillance of backpacks, brief cases, and baby strollers. We can have random Muffshot checks at work and our homes can be subject to Muffshot raids. Cops will be able to search motor vehicles, without a warrant, for Muffshot violations. We can have a Muffshot Czar. The Muffshot Enforcement Agency can train dogs to sniff for cassettes at airports and schools. Muffshot "busts" will be common. The courts can be crowded with plaintiffs claiming that their videotapes weren't shot from an illegal angle, but from a few degrees higher, while cops busily falsify the angle measurement data. The prisons can be filled with Muffshot violators serving three-cassette sentences. Vice squad women, sans panties, can conduct miniskirt stings, enticing men to videotaping they "probably would have done anyway" (the perverts!). We can have Muffshot turf wars and criminal gangs that sell Muffshot paraphernalia, including scratch 'n sniff screens, probably manufactured in somebody's bathtub. Legally registered video cameras will be required to have lens locks and be stored in child-proof cabinets, and anyone who wants to buy one will have to submit to a three day waiting period and a background check for a Muffshot history. Scratch 'n sniff televisions will be outlawed and TV screens will be routinely dusted for fingernail prints.

Well, it might not get quite that silly, but even so the entire coercive so-called "common sense" methodology of the wars on drugs, cigarettes, fireworks, pornography, domestic violence, guns, smog, terrorism, drunk driving, male-only institutions, abortion, child abuse, dolphin abuse, and every other reformer's repressive agenda can now be applied to the Muffshot War, thanks to a bunch of women who refuse to act like adults and take the simple precautions by which they could protect themselves. In the end, they will have created thousands of times more victims, of far worse atrocities, than they would ever have numbered themselves, even by their most exaggerated claims. You know the most ironic and predictable part? When they're done, we'll still take a peek whenever and however we can. Nothing they do, however outrageous or irresponsible, is going to stop it.

Frontiersman@ida.net

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

December 1999

Page 3

Frontiersman
479 E. 700 N.
Firth, Idaho 83236

Jurisdiction
MUST
be voluntary.
The alternative is
slavery.

Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Dear Buck

What do you think about the recent spending bills?

— Interested Voter

Dear Interested Voter

I've heard of 'em. I guess they made 'em so them spendin' caps wouldn't look like beanies.

Acknowledgments
• My thanks to Sir John the Generous http://www.jwebster.com/, and Sir Donald the Elusive for their contributions.
• My thanks to The Affiliate, http://www.the-grand-barn.com/, of Vankleek Hill, Ontario for regularly printing reviews of the Frontiersman.

— editor

Sightings
Source Unknown — forwarded by Sir John the Generous
(from Tech Support):
Tech Support: "How much free space do you have on your hard drive?"
Induhvidual: "Well, my wife likes to get up there on that there Internet, and she downloaded ten hours of free space. Is that enough?"

o o o o o

Induhvidual: "Now what do I do?"

Tech Support: "What is the prompt on the screen?"

Induhvidual: "Enter Your Last Name."

Tech Support: "Okay, so type in your last name."

Induhvidual: "How do you spell that?"

Frontiersman

Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.

Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.

Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other publications. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.

Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.

Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and U.S. postage stamps. I will accept checks or money orders only by prior arrangement. I don't accept anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor

December 1999
Page 4

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

Frontiersman@ida.net

— end of year 6 —

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

PDF Version of This Letter to the Editor

Back to the Beginning of This Issue

I received the following letter to the editor in response to the November Frontiersman and didn't have enough space in the December Frontiersman to print it.

Dear Sam --
The Reform party continues to magnify the barrenness of the US mainstream's political & cultural landscape. What more convincing proof of the need for revolutionary change in US society could there be than the non-existence of viable potential leaders for an alternative party within the pale of the mainstream itself? What more convincing proof could one ask of the mainstream's inability to regenerate itself from within, exactly because it has expressed its oppressive character by shutting out all talents but the (often unintentionally) comical? Buchanan? Trump? These are the only saviors this once great society can produce? Even the media, formerly pushing these monstrosities of contemporary mainstream culture exclusively, is starting to grasp the damning implications, & is desperately suggesting that Perot run again in his old age, or that Ventura run prematurely. I can only suggest that Ventura now try to get maverick Republican Gov Johnson of NM to join Reform & run for president. Johnson is libertarian in tendency, favoring low taxes & marijuana legalization. He has little future with the Republicans as he cannot run for another term for governor due to term limits. As a Reformist, he could run for president, speak out against the drug war on the world stage, very possibly take 5% of the vote away from drug hypocrite Bush, & very possibly become one of Reforms first senators ... I also suggest that Ventura further turn the tables, trickster-wise, on Trump by appealing to Maria Maples to run for a seat in the House. This would be a more appropriate way for her to combat Trumpism than by airing dirty laundry. In her pursuit of wealth & sexual freedom (at the ski lodge, on the beach -- classic moments in US history) she truly embodies libertarian values.

— Elliot; N. Merrick, New York

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue