Games: Thugs 15, Morons 0
Sam Aurelius Milam III
When on Saturday, April 7, a Cincinnati cop murdered an unarmed citizen1, it wasn't really too much of a big deal2. Oh, the citizens were upset, but the city government didn't really care about citizens' opinions. Granted, the riots were an inconvenience, but they weren't really doing the city government any harm. However, when on Wednesday night, April 11, a Cincinnati cop was very slightly injured by gunfire (I'd guess that it was a stray shot from another cop), Mayor Charles Luken immediately sprang into action. He declared a state of emergency and imposed a nighttime curfew. City officials considered asking the state to call out the Ohio National Guard. Governor Bob Taft sent in an undisclosed number of Highway Patrolmen. Clearly, the minor injury of one cop is of much greater significance to city officials than the murder by cops of 15 citizens. As always, murder is permissible, just so long as it's committed by the government.
I'll admit that the cops are arrogant, brutal, vicious, hypocritical, merciless Gestapo-style thugs who should be hung by something small, delicate, and plural. However, I'm even more disgusted with the citizens. They were being killed by cops, yet they responded by vandalizing shops, kicking newspaper dispensers, overturning hot-dog stands, and attacking white motorists. Those were not the enemy. The cops were the enemy. I regard the citizens' responses as the cowardly acts of morons. If the citizens of Cincinnati believed that violence was appropriate, and apparently they did, then they should at least have tried to find the courage and the cunning to do it right. Their options ranged all the way from throwing rocks at the cops to renting a bunch of trucks, loading them with McVeigh cocktails, and eliminating all of the police stations in town. The decision was up to them, but if those riots were the best that they can do, then they are getting exactly the kind of police force that they deserve.
Nitwits in the News
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I noticed recently that some of the Negroes are still nagging about "reparations" for the unjust treatment of their Negro ancestors. As far as I can tell, the first injustice imposed upon those Negro ancestors was their involuntary transportation to this continent. That being the case, it seems logical that the first "reparation" should be free tickets back, for their descendants. That should resolve the "reparations" issue very neatly.
I saw a news report where some woman was complaining that women still get only about 70% of the pay that men get, for the same work. Well, after all, the women in the workplace cause twice as many problems as the men do. Logically, therefore, they should get half the pay. That considered, 70% seems like a pretty darned good deal. I think they should shut up and get back to work. Better yet, they could shut up and get back to the kitchens and the bedrooms. I just wish they'd shut up.
I keep seeing school officials wishing that students would learn tolerance, would stop being bullies, and would stop excluding "different" students from their friendships. Do you think the students might be learning from the examples of the officials? Do you think they might learn intolerance from "Zero Tolerance" policies at school, enforced conformity from dress codes at school, or bullying from authoritarian school officials?
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Most of the problems being touted as the legitimate concern of the so-called international community are not international problems. They are domestic problems in which outsiders insist on meddling for allegedly altruistic reasons. I believe that the true reasons for such meddling are not any more altruistic than such reasons have ever been. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me to discover that people are covertly encouraging the various problems, just so they can then use the problems as an excuse to create international agencies and promote their internationalist agenda.
The fact is that attempting to solve these so-called international problems by the establishment of international agencies is foolish. In
|order for such agencies to be effective, they
will need to be powerful enough to enforce their authority over any nation
or group of nations that might become recalcitrant. Agencies with
that much power will become far more evil and damaging than the problems
that they pretend to resolve.
If such international agencies were the only way to solve the problems in the world, then I would rather have the problems. On the other hand, I believe that if people really wanted to solve the problems, then they would find better ways to do it than the creation of such agencies. Instead, they use the problems as an excuse to promote international authoritarianism under the guise of anti-terrorism, opposition to drug abuse, prevention of "crimes" against women, alleged genocide, or any other excuse that they can discover or devise. The real agenda isn't solving problems. It is the establishment of a one world tyranny. The problems are merely the excuse.
Letters to the Editor
Keep on truckin'.
— John; Santa Cruz, California
Can I ride a train, instead of a truck?
— Sir Donald the Elusive
As I understood Steve's assessment of my position, he stated that I would claim a right to refuse the authority of legislation with which I disagreed, but would accept the authority of legislation that I liked. I tried, in my response, to explain the error of that assessment. Of course, a government incorporating such a system could easily be erected, if its contract provided that kind of jurisdiction of the legislation. One might call it a severable jurisdiction, in the sense that some legislation could be legitimately ignored without invalidating the authority of other legislation. The alleged contract by which the U.S. government is presumed to exist doesn't provide such a severable jurisdiction. Indeed, in its 14th amendment, that contract explicitly provides that citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. I believe that imposes implicitly, if not explicitly, a non severable jurisdiction, in the sense in which I'm using the word severable.
Given that provision of the alleged contract, it would be foolish of me to be a citizen of the U.S. government and then claim a right to selectively reject the authority of some of its legislation. The contract isn't written that way. Instead, I claim a right to refuse the contract, in its entirety. That is, I refuse to be a citizen of the U.S. government. That being the case, I don't refuse the authority of particular legislation. I refuse the authority of all of it, the good and the bad.
As I have said many times, once a man voluntarily becomes a party to a contract of government, then he is obligated to comply with the provisions of the contract. On the other hand, if participation is other than voluntary, then he doesn't have any obligation under the contract. Indeed, in that case he cannot even be called a party to it, strictly speaking, because the concept of voluntary participation is inherent in the definition of the word party.
My understanding of the theory of social contract is that a man always has the option to sever his obligations under a contract of government if the government violates the contract, even if participation was originally specified by the contract to be perpetual. In my opinion, and my opinion must be controlling in my decisions, the U.S. government is very seriously in breech of its contract. Even if it wasn't, I believe that the contract itself is invalid. Therefore, I have exercised my powers as a sovereign individual and terminated my voluntary participation. I am not a U.S. citizen any longer. The U.S. government doesn't any longer have any legitimate authority over me.
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
What do you call a place where all of the deer go to "relieve themselves"?
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 sources. 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