|
|
|
For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
The
other clipping, from the San Jose Mercury News, presented the article
Nation's
birthday a self-evident truth by George F. Will. The article
presented much the same analysis of The Fourth of July and the Founding
of America, by Peter de Bolla, as did the review in the
Wall Street
Journal. However, at least the Wall Street Journal review
referred correctly to the Continental Congress. George F. Will wasn't
that astute. In his article in the San Jose Mercury News,
he erroneously referred to the Continental Congress as the Congress.
The Congress and the Continental Congress are distinctly different bodies. The Congress didn't do anything at all on that day. It didn't even exist until early in 1789. To pretend that it was the Congress instead of the Continental Congress that voted on the Declaration of Independence is an error with Orwellian implications. By failing to make the distinction between the two different bodies, the error perpetrates the impression that the Congress has been here all along, that the legislative body that exists today has always existed, that whatever's true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. George F. Will moved even further than that into an Orwellian mindset. At the end of his article, he wrote this closing paragraph.
Orwell said it as well as that, or better.
So, we're expected to believe that, on July 4, 1776, this United States of America, the one that exists today, was created by an Act of its own Congress, which didn't exist until after the United States of America was created. The U.S. Constitution went into force on March 4, 1789. Yet, by an act of doublethink, the Congress already existed prior to its own authorization by the U.S. Constitution, and created the nation of which it was a part. Reality control is what it's called. In Newspeak, they call it doublethink. Choir Boy Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Don G. One fine morning, a priest took a walk in the forest. Beside a small stream, he noticed a sad looking little frog sitting on a toadstool. "What's wrong with you?" asked the priest. "The problem," said the frog, "is that I wasn't always a frog." "Really!" said the priest. "Please explain." "Once upon a time," said the frog, "I was an 11 year old choir boy. I was walking through this forest when I was confronted by the wicked witch of the forest. With a flash of her wand, she turned me into a frog." "Is there a way" asked the priest, who was a very sympathetic man, "of reversing the spell?" "Yes," said the frog. "If a kind person would pick me up, take me home, give me food and warmth, and a good nights sleep, then I would wake up as a boy once again." The priest picked up the frog, took it home, gave it food, and placed it by the fire. At bedtime, the priest put the frog on the pillow beside him. When the priest awoke, he saw the 11 year old choir boy beside him in his bed. "And that, Your Honor," said the lawyer, "is the case for the Defense." For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
Letters
to the Editor
Sam: RE latest newsletter online: "However, the slow accumulation of such lies, carefully orchestrated for the sake of political expediency, is a plausible notion." [Train of Thought, August 2008, pages 1-2 editor] Any piece of nonsense if repeated enough becomes orthodoxy. This is especially true of feminism. Look at how such nonsense as "one in four women are raped" and "women make 76 cents on the dollar to men", by being repeated endlessly, have become not simply widely accepted among the public, but also the basis for public policy. It might be worth an article examining the very Orwellian nature of feminism. Joseph; of Northridge, California
I've written a lot about the arrogance, the hypocrisy, the insensitivity, the repressiveness, and so forth, of the feminists. I don't think that I ever specifically mentioned them as being Orwellian. However, in at least one passage in 1984, Orwell did specifically mention women as being more susceptible than men to at least one aspect of Ingsoc.
I haven't taken any surveys but it's my impression that women have been the main force behind the anti-sex movement in this country. However, they haven't been trying to eliminate sexual behavior, but to control it. They haven't reasoned it out logically. It's a consequence of their genetic mandate to control men (From the Nesting Urge to the Wander Lust, July 2007, page 4). Sexual allure, pregnancies, and children have always been among their more effective weapons for that purpose. "If you really cared about the children then you'd blah blah blah!" and so forth. That's why women are so adamant about being in control of everything that has anything to do with sex, reproduction, or children. Whenever women get into politics, their mandate will inevitably result in a matriarchal police state. In recent decades, they've been accomplishing exactly that. They've used every conceivable twist on sexuality to mobilize government as their favorite weapon of intervention and control in all of our lives. However, by their success, they've shot themselves in the foot. They've traded whatever liberty they or we might otherwise have had in exchange for the security that they perceive to result from the control of men by government. However, security is merely the temporary condition that governments claim to provide while they're actually replacing liberty with servitude. The women haven't yet realized their error. By the time that they do, it will be too late. Indeed, it's probably already to late. As women understand it, there isn't any security anywhere, ever, nor ever will be. editor
http://voluntaryist.com/articles/115c.php editor
For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
Acknowledgments My thanks to the following: SantaClara Bob; Lady Jan the Voluptuous; my mother; Dewey and Betty; and Sir Donald the Elusive. editor
Things About Cops Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Don G.
Court Quotes From Humor in the Court and More Humor in the Court, by Mary Louise Gilman, editor of the National Shorthand Reporter. Forwarded by Don G.
Frontiersman Subscriptions and Back Issues Printed copies of this newsletter, either subscriptions or back issues, are available by application only. Cancellations If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, then print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You can also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me. 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, then I prefer cash, prepaid telephone cards, or U.S. postage stamps. For checks or money orders please inquire. For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID to receive it. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor
For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
|
|