Horrors!
This is an utterly terrifying scenario. And though I
know that some unpatriotic so-called "Americans"
dismiss it as unlikely, I believe, as you do, that we
must prepare for every eventuality!
It's true that Iraq and Afghanistan represent
potential threats, but Canada remains our most potent
threat. With huge oil reserves, a polity that is
critical of our President and his struggle to protect
us from evil, and large supplies of uranium, it's
quite possible that the Canadian Empire is developing
WMDs as we speak.
Considering that the Canadians once invaded our
democracy and burned down the White House, we cannot
be too careful. In addition, every year tens of
thousands of Canadian illegals stream across our
unprotected borders and take jobs in this country,
ensuring that their subversive views ooze like corrupt
maple syrup into the gears of our free society,
gumming them up.
We must attack, promptly!
Cheers,
Brian
--- Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...> wrote:
Dear Brian;
You mean you missed the Iraqi and Afghanistani
naval fleets disgorging tens of thousands of battle
hardened storm troopers from landing craft and the
tens of thousands of paratroopers from the skies
while their massive air fleets destroyed the CCI
infrastructure and the electric and water and
telephone networks through mass bombings and sowed
the tillable arable farmland with cluster bomblets
on both coasts? While massive armored divisions
sliced through the South West from Mexico attacking
Texas and Arizona and New Mexico and Louisiana and
across the Northern borders from Canada attacking
Seattle and Chicago and Detroit?
My goodness where were you while all that was going
on - didn't you see it reported on CNN or FOX News?
If you don't want something of THAT nature to happen
again we must defend our borders from mass
aggression by hostile enemies of freedom and liberty
and democracy and private property ownership.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
From: Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:36:32 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Brian Doherty on Ron
Paul
I'm often confused by this talk of "defending the
border." Are Mexico, Cuba, Canada or Russia massing
troops to come storming across the frontier?
Cheers,
Brian
--- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
> Is He Good for the Libertarians?
> Why some libertarians don't want to join the Ron
> Paul revolution.
>
> Brian Doherty | July 27, 2007
> Republican congressman from Texas (and 1988
> Libertarian Party
> presidential candidate) Ron Paul seems to be doing
> pretty good for
> libertarianism these days. He's gotten more press
> exposure and more
> Internet buzz than any libertarian movement
> political figure, and has
> done so outside the dead-end third party context.
A
> surprising amount
> of the attention has even been respectful and
> positive�and for a
> candidate as ignored and excluded as Paul, any
press
> short of a full-
> on hostile shredding is good news.
>
> Sure, he still has zero traction (well, 2 percent)
> in conventional
> polling. And any respectable reporter would sooner
> fail to check
> whether his mother loves him than neglect to
mention
> the apparently
> settled fact that Paul has no chance of winning
the
> nomination.
>
> But some Ron Paul Revolutionaries insist that the
> mainstream media
> are putrid corpses in brackish water, and
> conventional polls are for
> losers who still answer their landlines. Paul's
> support�by more
> postmodern measures�continues to grow. He's still
> the king of
> meetup.com, which does generate real-world crowds,
> and even real-
> world food drives. He's also the political king of
> YouTube (22,157
> subscribers). We won't find out for months if
these
> netroots measures
> mean anything in electoral terms. And that's just
> fine for a thrifty
> message-oriented candidate, who psychically
benefits
> from running
> (and builds up more fundraising resources for any
> future effort) even
> if he fails utterly with vote totals.
>
> This past Sunday he hit a political respectability
> jackpot, with a
> long, thorough, serious, and
critical-but-respectful
> profile in the
> New York Times Magazine. Most of the Ron Paul
press
> tells, however
> questioningly, of a politician dedicated to
severely
> limited
> government that doesn't want to interfere in our
> personal lives,
> doesn't want to investigate us and control us,
wants
> to abolish the
> income tax, and wants to bring troops home and
> dedicate our military
> only to actual national defense�a politician
against
> the federal drug
> war, against the Patriot Act, against regulating
the
> Internet, and
> for habeas corpus.
>
> Still, many libertarians are either ambivalent or
> actively unhappy
> with Paul's campaign and the public attention it
has
> gotten. They
> feel either that Paul is not libertarian enough in
> all respects, or
> are unhappy with linking libertarianism to certain
> aspects of Paul's
> rhetoric, focus, or past. You'll hear: If, after
> this campaign,
> whenever anyone thinks of libertarian, they think,
> oh, you are like
> Ron Paul?�will that be good for libertarianism in
> the future? And
> would you feel personally comfortable with it?
>
> One prominent version of Libertarian Ron Paul
> Anxiety comes via noted
> and respected anarcho-legal theorist Randy Barnett
> in The Wall Street
> Journal. Barnett has decades of hardcore
libertarian
> movement
> credentials behind him and is one of Lysander
> Spooner's biggest fans.
> (Spooner, the 19th century individualist
anarchist,
> famously declared
> the state to be of inherently lower moral merit
than
> a highway
> bandit.) But the mild obstetrician, family man,
and
> experienced
> legislator Ron Paul is too radical for Barnett in
> one respect�the
> respect that is key to most of Paul's traction to
> begin with:
> hisconsistent, no-compromise, get-out-now stance
> against the war in
> Iraq.
>
> Barnett is eager to dissociate libertarianism writ
> large from Paul's
> anti-Iraq War stance, claiming that many
> libertarians are concerned
> that Americans may get the misleading impression
> that all
> libertarians oppose the Iraq war�as Ron Paul
> does�and even that
> libertarianism itself dictates opposition to this
> war. It would be a
> shame, he suggests, if this misinterpretation
> inhibited a wider
> acceptance of the libertarian principles that
would
> promote the
> general welfare of the American people.
>
> This is doubly curious. First, because opposition
to
> non-defensive
> war traditionally is a core libertarian principle
> (to begin with,
> since it inherently involves mass murder and
> property destruction
> aimed at people who have not harmed the people
> imposing the harm) and
> is, in fact, the position of the vast majority of
=== message truncated ===