New Fake Sam Sloan Posting and Doubts about Gary Johnson as a Libertarian

Sam,

Along with the important issues Marcy raises, your positive ideas on how to
stop the U.S. Govt from massacring innocent people in the Middle East.

Warm regards, Michael

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your passion on ending the ridiculous carnage! I have a thought I would like to share. I have always felt that rather than focusing on "foreign policy" or "non intervention" and other issues that deal with the war itself, a more effective way is to end the largess that war brings to the boots on the ground: free college, free health care, boot camp for the incorrigible, status, "thank you for your service" nonsense, 10-year careers with full pensions. There is no conscription these days. The killing is not done by "the government." It is done by boys and girls looking for the largess that the killing will bring. So I focus on the entitlements, the budget deficits, the freebies. We end the freebies, we end the wars as things stand today. Of course, if this strategy succeeds, we might see the resumption of conscription, and then time to start burning draft cards again!

Marcy

Hi Marcy,

In your reply, you said, partly,

I have a thought I would like to share. I have always felt that rather
than focusing on "foreign policy" or "non intervention" and other issues
that deal with the war itself, a more effective way is to end the
largess that war brings to the boots on the ground: free college, free
health care, boot camp for the incorrigible, status, "thank you for your
service" nonsense, 10-year careers with full pensions. There is no
conscription these days. The killing is not done by "the government." It
is done by boys and girls looking for the largess that the killing will
bring. So I focus on the entitlements, the budget deficits, the
freebies. We end the freebies, we end the wars as things stand today.

That was awesome! (Don't you hate how hackneyed that word has become?)
And I totally agree. You are certainly a fount of insightful ideas.
Indeed, you moved me to paraphrase the refrain of one of the most
popular barracks ballads during General Douglas MacArthur's days, which
he mentioned at the end of his "farewell address" to Congress: "Old
soldiers never die—they just return to collect veterans' benefits."

Marcy, on a more serious note, those "boys and girls" are, let's not
mince words, murderers. As such, those " 'thank you for your service'
nonsense," is certainly nonsense. Indeed, I hate how those murderers are
lionized, even canonized (as Reader's Digest tends to do), for how they
"serve our country to protect our freedom and defend the Constitution."
(Quick, get me a barf bag!) What's worse, those boys and girls don't
even realize how they're being used by politicians for their self glory
and aggrandizement. Which reminds me of the Vietnam War era. I remember
in 1970s NYC how construction workers violently attacked peaceful
Vietnam War protesters. The workers and their ilk then started to
self-righteously hold signs that said, "My Country, Right or Wrong,"
supposedly to show their patriotism and nationalism. If I could go back
to that time, I would love to stand next to those "patriots" and hold a
sign that said, "My Politicians, Right or Wrong!"

Anyhow, besides those billions in largess "that the[ir] killing will
bring," the costs of medical care to treat the mostly wounded boys are
astronomical. To wit: It seems that better body armor is provided to
protect the upper body, but when improvised explosive devices or IEDs
blow up under our boys, their torsos might be protected, but they often
face grievous wounds to their lower bodies, with legs blown off or later
amputated. And because of better MASH units and surgical procedures,
these wounded boys usually survive their wounds. The costs to treat
their wounds, and for rehabilitation and long-term care are
astronomical. These costs are paid for by We the People, who are, of
course, grateful for these "heroes" for serving our country and
protecting our freedom and the Constitution.

Do you remember "Gulf War Syndrome," those "mysterious" maladies and
ailments that veterans of the first Gulf War claim to suffer and which
cost and continue to cost billions to treat? I think there is now an
"Iraqi War Syndrome" which will cost further billions to treat and care
for. Unlike Gulf War Syndrome, Iraqi War Syndrome is real and not
mysterious. It seems that if a soldier survives an exploded IED with
minor or no apparent wounds, shock waves from the blast could still
travel through his nerves, up to his brain, with no apparent damage. The
damage, however, is delayed for weeks, months even years after the
occurrence. These subsequently brained damaged soldiers would need
immediate and long term care, which cost money. Thousands will or have
suffered from Iraqi War Syndrome, with its attendant huge costs to
treat. (Would it be churlish to say it would cheaper to let more
soldiers die?)

You continued:

Of course, if this strategy succeeds, we might see the resumption of
conscription, and then time to start
burning draft cards again!

Ending the largess to discourage voluntary enlistment would certainly be
good news. Resumption of conscription would also be good news!

Why did I say that?

In the thread, "Invertebrates at Public Health Dept. fail to stand
behind medical ca," on January 29, in message 21541, I told Starchild
that while the government often unconstitutionally enforce laws, the
laws themselves are written to not conflict with the Constitution. I
cited the use of "shall" in statutes, which most We the People would
ordinarily think means "must," when "shall" actually means "may." This
is because in American jurisprudence, "shall" must mean "may" if a
statute would conflict with the Constitution if "shall" were construed
to mean "must."

I then used sections from the "Draft Law" to show how "shall" was used
to seemingly convey to mean "must" or "mandatory," when "shall" really
means "may." Thus, as I showed TITLE 50, APPENDIX § 453 Registration,
a part of the "Draft Laws," which says:

"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title it shall be the duty of
every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person
residing in the United States, who . . . is between the ages of eighteen
and twenty-six . . . .to present himself for and submit to registration
. . .[my emphasis]."

". . . shall be the duty," must mean "may be the duty" because a
mandatory meaning would conflict with the 13th Amendment's prohibition
against involuntary servitude and the 14th Amendment's prohibition
against denying persons equal protection of the law. (What if the Draft
Law said only men of Portuguese or Balinese backgrounds must register?
Or, God forbid, what if the Draft Law said only black men must
register?)

So Marcy, as I told Starchild,you can now see that registering for the
draft to train for military service is statutorily a voluntary act.
Arguably, the government tries to bamboozle us on this fact. Still,
should conscription resume, no one should register because the law don't
require anyone to do so. It's really as simple as that.

On a related matter, according to a Wikipedia article, as of 30
September 2010, 1,430,895 people were on active duty in the United
States military, with an additional 848,000 people in the seven reserve
components. Of this total, 332,000 were enlisted in the Navy with 67,000
in the Navy Reserve.

(The article went on to mention this dubious honor: "The United States
military is the second largest in the world, after the People's
Liberation Army of China, and has troops deployed around the globe." You
can see this article and a breakdown of personnel by branch by going
here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces)

What's my point? Well, "Let's go to the Constitution," to paraphrase
Werner Wolf, the former WCBS-TV sportscaster. I direct you to Article 1,
Section 8, Clause 13 which gives Congress the power to "provide and
maintain a Navy." That's all well and good, since we need a Navy to
protect our coast from invasion, don't we?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12, on the other hand, gives Congress the
power to "raise and support Armies," but not maintain them. Indeed, this
Clause further stipulates that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

What do you make of that?

I leave you with that burning question.

And lest I forget, I thank you for your insightful idea to end the
largess to discourage voluntary enlistment to the armed forces (and thus
the killing) by our easily duped youngsters who are mostly brain damaged
by upwards of 12 years or more of government provided "public
education."

Talk to you.

Alton

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your passion on ending the ridiculous carnage! I have a

thought I would like to share. I have always felt that rather than
focusing on "foreign policy" or "non intervention" and other issues that
deal with the war itself, a more effective way is to end the largess
that war brings to the boots on the ground: free college, free health
care, boot camp for the incorrigible, status, "thank you for your
service" nonsense, 10-year careers with full pensions. There is no
conscription these days. The killing is not done by "the government." It
is done by boys and girls looking for the largess that the killing will
bring. So I focus on the entitlements, the budget deficits, the
freebies. We end the freebies, we end the wars as things stand today. Of
course, if this strategy succeeds, we might see the resumption of
conscription, and then time to start burning draft cards again!

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, drmedelstein.threeminutetherapy@

wrote:

>
> Sam,
>
> Along with the important issues Marcy raises, your positive ideas on

how to

> stop the U.S. Govt from massacring innocent people in the Middle

East.

>
> Warm regards, Michael
>
> From: lpsfactivists
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:58 AM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: New Fake Sam Sloan Posting and Doubts

about Gary

> Johnson as a Libertarian
>
>
>
> Dear Sam,
>
> Sounds like your candidacy focuses on a lot of, as we say in

Spanish,

> "chismes," or "he-said-she-said." I do not think a political

audience larger

> than a circle of folks interested in "chismes" wold be be supportive

of your

> candidacy. Let us know your positive ideas on how to fix the

economy, how to

> deal with the Federal Reserve, how to curb the current trend toward
> warrantless searches, how to move away from the entitlement society.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marcy
>
> >
> >
> > > I was kicked off the ballot and
> > > an anti-Libertarian who is not even in the slightest way a

Libertarian

> > > and was not a party member became the "Libertarian Party

Candidate".

> > > This is purely because ..... he has had sex with fewer minors

than I

> > > have.
> >
> > There is irony in this particular sentence because the real

situation

> > was the opposite. The anti-Libertarian Candidate Warren Redlich
> > advocated reducing the Age of Consent to 13 years old. He also

posted

> > websites listing the 16-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin and the
> > 16-year-old sister of Brittney Spears, both of whom had given

birth,

> > as MILF (if you know what that means). This led Republican Dirty
> > Trickster Roger Stone to circulate a flyer stating that Warren

Redlich

> > advocated sexual intercourse with 13-year-old girls.
> >
> > Warren Redlich countered that he had never done it but he had

thought

> > about doing it and felt it should be legal.
> >
> > These are Libertarian positions but they do not put the

Libertarian

> > Party in the most favorable light.
> >
> > Warren Redlich has since moved to Florida (he was virtually

drummed

> > out of town) and has sued Roger Stone for libel and slander over

this

> > flyer that was posted on the internet. This case is still pending

as

> > far as I am aware.
> >
> > I am concerned that now Gary Johnson has stopped being a

Republican

> > Party Candidate and has shifted to being a Libertarian Party
> > Candidate. Since he is using Roger Stone as a political

consultant, I

> > think we should view Gary Johnson with caution.
> >
> > Here, I want to make it clear that I did not circulate that flyer

and

> > I had nothing to do with it. Roger Stone has accused me of

providing

> > the information used in the flyer. I did not do so. I had no

contact

> > with Roger Stone or anybody else in his campaign. I also agree

with

> > Warren Redlich that the ridiculously high age of consent of 17 in

New

> > York State should be lowered. Studies show that most girls have

had

> > sexual intercourse by age 17, so making this illegal does not

modify

> > their behavior and merely leads to disrespect for the laws.

However, I

> > believe that Warren Redlich showed poor judgment in naming by name
> > 16-year-old girls who had given birth by 16 and thus had had
> > intercourse by 15. He should have left the names of the girls out

and

> > he should not have revealed that he would like to have intercourse
> > with them.
> >
> > This is especially true since he was a practicing lawyer at the

time.

> > The local outrage over this is likely one reason why he left town

and

> > moved to Florida. He also embarrassed the Libertarian Party by

saying

> > this on his websites while he was the Libertarian Party Candidate

for

> > Governor of New York State.
> >
> > The current issue concerns Gary Johnson using Roger Stone as a
> > political consultant. Roger Stone is infamous for his dirty

tricks. He

> > falsely cites me as a source for his mis-information about Warren
> > Redlich. I was never a fan of Warren Redlich but I never said any

of

Chesterton said, "'My country, right or wrong' is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'"

(Attachment image001.jpg is missing)

(Attachment image002.jpg is missing)

"What if there was a war and nobody came." The question of the 60's is still true today

Marcy

The first use of this phrase came from a poem by Bertolt Brecht, written in the
1930's. If you read the entire poem, it has a very different sense from what
most people get from the first line.

What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why, then, the war would come to you!
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets another fight for his cause
Should take care:
He who does not take part
in the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle will not avoid battle
Since not to fight for your own cause
Really means
fighting on behalf of your enemy's cause.

I don't mean to say that I share the sentiment of this poem. But I find it
ironic that anti-war activists often cite this line without reading the entire
poem.

Les Mangus

Hi Les,

That is one interesting piece of information. Anti war folks like me are parroting what was originally another Saint Crispian Day type speech (well, passable comparison except that King Henry V was right in there with those he sent off to battle, not cozy warm at home).

Marcy