[free-sklyarov] Feinstein is a socialist

sjh arya at ofhell.org
Wed Jul 25 12:57:49 PDT 2001


On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 02:08:26PM -0500, Joshua Gramlich wrote:
> Well, I cannot disagree that it seems more like a "Bush" law than a "Gore"
> law, but the distinctions betwixt the two are so limited these days (hence
> the Nader vote, I'm sure).  

Just to clarify.  NADER is the socialist.  Feinstein is a fascist socialist.  Nader, at least, would protect *some* of your human rights (although he would sacrifice all of your economic rights in order to do so).

I'm so sick of the media telling me I have to choose between my social rights and my economic rights.  I'd like to retain BOTH, as the founding fathers of my country promised all of us.

That's the only reason I can put up with all the criticism I get for "throwing away my vote" on a third party.  There might not be any chance in hell for a Libertarian president to get into office.  But at least I'm going with my conscience.

> I am particularly bothered by the thought that while the DMCA being
> anti-First Amendment is so obvious, there are so many politicos who cater to
> the big media cartels, that they disregard the Constitution of the United
> States.

I'm bothered by it to, though not surprised.  Democracy means we have the right to buy as many votes as we want; justice goes to the highest bidder.  What do they care about the Constitution anymore?  It doesn't benefit them to do so.  The US government has trained us to believe that we are not entitled to what we earn, by confiscating 40% of your paycheck, before you see it, to spend as they see fit.  If you choose to retain your income, and let them work their extortion all at once, at the end of the year, you then pay a "withholding fee" to compensate them for the interest that they *didn't* make on your income.  The US government has us convinced that they know how to spend our money better than we do.  They can plan for our retirements better than we can?  They can give our children better educations than we can?  They even eliminate the need for charity, with unconstitutional "welfare" programs.  I guess we should all be grateful that they're paying our unemployment benefits now.... although the economy wouldn't be in this state of disrepair were it not for Geniusboy GWB.

I hate to sound like I'm preaching.  But we all complain about one right, here and there, that the government's taken away... when we should be looking with a broader point of view.  The fourth and fifth amendments have been completely destroyed by Clinton.  The second amendment is granted to us as a "privilege" instead of an inalienable right.  Dmitry's case has shown us that the sixth and eighth amendments are completely disregarded by the judicial system.  But now that the first amendment is in question, we think some protests and boycotts are really going to make a difference?  Maybe I'm just naive, but I really don't believe that you can try to fix one, while ignoring the others.  It's all or nothing.

Yes, this is a shameless plug for the Libertarian party.  But no one else cares about the Constitution anymore....  If Libertarians made up half of Congress, the DMCA would never have passed; UCITA would have been laughed out; the RIAA and MPAA would not be running rampant across our rights as consumers.  That old, cliche analogy is true:  you can either put first aid tents around the bottom of the cliff, or you can build a fence around the edge of the cliff.  Vote out your so-called Republicans, vote out your so-called Democrats... don't vote for Nader's Watermelon communists (green on the outside, red all the way through).  We DO have a choice.  Please, stop fascism and socialism where they start:  at the polls.

-Sally




More information about the Free-sklyarov mailing list