fact that you spelled out aptly that his trial & conviction affair is a huge crime in itself & opens the door about all the way like never before. I personally think the attorneys who prosecute such cases (including Stella et seq), & including the judges (=attorneys) who allow them to proceed, deserve their “Ceausescu Moment” in the public square. But
not likely to be seen here, although the days appear to be coming
when we’ll see a lot of that for the good people who don’t deserve it. —F. L., a prisoner
Dear Sam,
Hello, I pray you are well. As always, your Frontiersman, August ’22 was a good read. In your article, “The Middle Way”, you state in regards to the “pro lifers” and “pro choice activists”, “The activists on both sides ... want the government to use its powers ... to impose their views on their opponents.” I disagree. When Roe v. Wade was around, all it did was make the option of abortion available to all women in every state. If pro lifers got pregnant, they could choose to have the baby or not.
With Row v. Wade gone, pro choice women are being forced to carry, in some states, even if it means carrying the rapist’s baby. Now, pro lifers have a choice still. Pro choice especially poor ones who can’t afford to travel, don’t have a choice.
So, who’s forcing their views....
And as for F. L. [name withheld], asking if I’m watching the news in regards to Republicans claiming critical race theory is being taught in schools. There is a high school in Texas who is banning from their curriculum “Catcher in the Rye” by J. D. Salinger, and “Of Mice and Men” by Steinbeck
because their school board is saying the books teach C.R.T. Bullshit
is what it is ....
Any who, Sam, I’m praying for your A.C. because I know how muggy and humid and hot Georgia summers are.
Be well, —S. H., a prisoner
The pro life people want to forcibly control the pro choice people by preventing them from getting abortions. The pro choice people want to forcibly control the pro life people by preventing them from enforcing their morality. It doesn’t matter that the behavior in question is different on one side than it is on the other. What matters is that the people on each side want to use the power of the government to control the people on the other side. They are all, thereby, increasing the power of the government.
Also, the pro life people do, indeed, lose their
choices when abortion is prohibited. Before such prohibition,
a pro life woman could still compromise her beliefs and get an abortion. After prohibition, she no longer has that option, just like the pro choice woman no longer has that option. The prohibition controls both of them, whether or not the pro life woman would have refrained from getting an abortion anyway. They’re both still controlled and the government still gets stronger.
The debate about whether or not Critical Race Theory should be taught in the government schools is a good example of
wasting effort on the wrong issue while distracting attention from
what’s really important. The important point is that the students
are compelled by the threat of force to attend schools that are
government-controlled monopolies. Instead, parents should have
the absolute right to decide which school their kids will attend,
or if the kids will attend any school at all. Anybody should be able
to start any kind of school that he wants to start, and teach anything
that he wants to teach, with or without the approval of the government.
Then, what is or isn’t taught in a particular school wouldn’t matter.
The parents could choose whichever school suited them, or no school at
all. As I’ve previously noted, when free public education
becomes mandatory public education, then education becomes brainwashing.
It’s the same in every police state. —editor
Don’t let the bastards get you down. Source:
Unknown —J. M., of Victorville, California
The statement is a translation into English of the mock-Latin phrase “Illegitimati non Carborundum”.
Because of the use of the word Carborundum, an industrial abrasive,
a better translation would be “... grind you down”, or “... wear
you down”, instead of “... get you down”. I’d previously
believed that the phrase was originated by Admiral Hyman G. Rickover,
but Wikipedia claims otherwise. See the Wikipedia article.
I tend to avoid using the phrase because of the pejorative meaning of the word “bastard”. I believe that the construed or alleged misdeeds of a child’s parents don’t justify diminishing the legitimacy of the child. Of course, that’s entirely a restriction on my own usage. I’m not proposing yet another stupid political correctness restriction on everybody. People should be free to hold their own opinions, and to use the phrase or not, as they choose.
Maybe we can try to make things better by setting a good example. —editor
Greetings to you
Sam,
... Thank you for keeping the Frontiersman coming to me I am grateful! I asked [name withheld] to send you some money at the Page 2 | Frontiersman,0c/o 4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507 http://frontiersman.org.uk/ | October 2022 |
|