Ignorance in Action
Sam Aurelius Milam III
As homosexual couples continue their campaign to achieve the "right" to "marriage", they display a disappointing ignorance. The fact is that they already had the right to marriage. What they're trying to achieve in its place is permission to engage in a regulated privilege authorized by the state, which is also called "marriage".
The incentives to pursue such an absurd goal are obvious, and certainly not accidental. Once people have been granted the authorized privilege of "marriage" they are given access to many secondary privileges. These secondary privileges include commercial, legal and medical benefits, as well as permission to produce children that will be recognized by the state as "legitimate". I suppose that last one is irrelevant to homosexuals. Nevertheless, all of those privileges are controlled by the state and denied to people who lack the enabling "marriage" privilege. People's acquired (or imagined) dependence on those various privileges gives the state a vast ability to use the privileges as a means to control the people.
It's a dismal situation that could be remedied, if people would only do it. Homosexual couples should stop demanding that they be allowed to participate in state sanctioned "marriages". Heterosexual couples should exercise the right that homosexual couples already had, and are trying to squander — an actual right to marriage, beyond the purview of the state, and free from restriction, regulation, and control by the state. Heterosexual couples don't need to ask anybody. All they need to do is forego the license and have a ceremony. If they lose a few privileges in the deal, then I think it's worth it. The acquisition of a privilege, however great, is never worth the loss of a right, however small, at least not in the long run.
|Uncommon Sense Gun Control|
Sam Aurelius Milam III
All over the world, there are nations whose governments are beset by armed radicals, armed revolutionaries, armed insurgents, armed resistors, and so forth, of every stripe. Most or all of those nations prohibit people from owning guns. What good have the prohibitions done? The answer is, none at all. The only thing they've accomplished is to make sure that the wrong people own guns, primarily cops, other criminals, and the aforementioned armed factions. The citizens are disarmed and at the mercy of everyone else, providing a dandy excuse for more cops. Things are headed in exactly the same direction in this country. If we want to avoid the kinds of situations that exist in all those other places that we see on the news, then we had better put an end to the stupid "common sense" solutions to the so-called gun problem, apply some uncommon sense for a change, and stay armed.
Gun Control, or Bucket Control?
— The gun wars: Who's right — Bill Clinton or the National Rifle Association?
Commentary, Post Register Sunday, April 30, 2000
For more information:
Letters to the Editor
A couple of months ago I wrote about a problem I was having collecting rent on a property in Fremont. Since then I have been working with the tenant (who is struggling for physical as well as financial survival) to resolve the situation in some way which minimizes misery to us both.
Recently a new factor entered the picture. I got a notice from a "Code Enforcement Officer (CEO)" stating that people were living in the garage at this property and in a camper parked in the driveway, activities which are prohibited by code sections ABC123 and XYZ789 respectively. Furthermore, if I didn't put a stop to these heinous crimes by a certain date, she would fine me $100 per day until I did. I discussed this with the tenant who showed me that he had dismantled the garage room, and assured me nobody was living in the camper.
About a week ago this CEO called me advising that my tenant was storing things (a large roll-around tool box and work bench mostly) within the 18X19 foot center portion of his garage, a crime proscribed by code section PQR654.
When I mentioned my problem collecting rent, she became very friendly and suggested her harassment of the tenant would help me. She wanted to schedule an inspection of the property by herself, a cop and me. I agreed to that without much thought (I was busy with other things at the time, and I didn't want to give her any excuse to single me out for further harassment).
Last Thursday we descended on these people (I had warned them in advance and they had spent a day sprucing up). The cop and the CEO bitch strutted through their home making snide comments about their housekeeping, etc., while I stood around feeling like shit. This exercise reminded me of my days in the military where pimply faced wimps periodically rummaged through my underwear criticizing my compliance with one mickey mouse regulation or another. Cuba is beginning to look better and better.
— Steve; Fremont, California
Suppose you're walking down the street & you see a woman with a really nice ass, & you feel an urge to fondle it. You're a sociopathic libertarian. You have no conscience. What stops you? Are you so paranoid that you figure that, this being the US, there are probably half a dozen undercover police & secret police near by who will see & arrest you? If you have no free will, no conscience, no rational or irrational fear that there are a half a dozen spies watching,
|how do you explain the restraint the feminists
refer to? Bill Clinton was fool enough to believe the US is a free
country, & consenting adults could have a private affair without the
US government & media making a planetary farce out of it for a solid
year. Nothing like it had happened before in the history of the solar
system, so how could Clinton, a rational person, have predicted it?
The Monica farce demonstrated that US society's corruption has finally
led to absolute, idiotic insanity. I don't know how any supposedly
scientifically-minded person could possibly try to put any other spin on
it — that it was Clinton, rather than his persecutors, who was acting a
The US government is also based on the Declaration of Independence, which encourages revolution in the face of repression. If people don't have the courage to follow the Declaration, it's not because they're following the Constitution. No one is.
The US police state was not created in order to protect children. The story is that it was created to protect you from bad people like Fidel Castro & John Gotti & Mr & Mrs Ramsey & myself, & to protect you from yourself. The reality is that it was created to protect robber barons like Gates from those of us they rob. Children per se have little to do with it. Children are enslaved by the police state simply because everyone is enslaved by the police state.
If black people hadn't been brought here, where they have to struggle for the value of their own labor, they would be in Africa struggling against Westerners for control of their own land, as in Zimbabwe, & everywhere else that the government happens to be controlled by the CIA. Western management of people's lives in the Third World, & Western management of people's lives in the West, is always a blessing, when one understands that the relative incomes of slaves in hell is a relatively insignificant thing. It's true that CIA management starves the Third World more efficiently than it starves the US — but not for lack of trying — if the Reagan legacy had continued as they wished, you'd be starving too by now. As it is, even Clintonism is not real enough to hold off the collapse for much longer.
— Elliot; N. Merrick, New York
Your expectation that a man would want to fondle the hypothetical woman that you mentioned in your example reveals your tacit acknowledgment of our true sexual nature and validates my theory. The fear of being punished in some way is why most men would refrain from doing it. That fear also explains the "restraint" imposed by the feminists and validates my allegation that they demand the repression of normal male sexual behavior. While men are thereby held strictly accountable for every possible aspect and consequence of their behavior, women aren't expected to be responsible at all for any of the consequences of theirs, however provocative it might be. I've even seen news reports of women who demand the "right" to walk down the street topless without suffering any consequences. Your hypothetical woman with the "really nice ass" doesn't have to display it in such a way as to provoke the fondling that you suggested. If she does anyway, then why shouldn't she, rather than the man, be accused of sexual harassment? The answer, of course, is that feminists don't want equal rights. They want all of the privileges and none of the responsibilities. Equal rights aren't even in their agenda, because rights are inseparable from responsibility. More fundamentally, maybe we should be asking an additional question. Maybe we should be asking why either behavior, her provocation or his response, should be viewed as harassment.
It is inconsistent to claim, all in the same statement, that Clinton is both a fool and a rational person.
Your statement that the U.S. government is based on the Declaration of Independence is incorrect. It's a little bit like claiming that your marriage is based on your grandfather's birth certificate. Indeed, the U.S. government doesn't have anything to do with the Declaration of Independence except that the Declaration of Independence preceded the U.S. Constitution in a sequence of events. The fact is that the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution reversed most or all of what the Declaration of Independence accomplished. I suggest that you read my article "Are We Ready for Independence Day?", in the June 1998 Frontiersman, and my essay "In Search of the Supreme Flaw of the Land: Perpetual Union", available upon request.
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Have you ever tried to get in touch with your feminine side?
Darned right I did, but she wouldn't allow it 'til we was married.
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