Donald Rumsfeld: Arch Terrorist

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:00:00 GMT
From the November 4, 2002 issue of Time magazine -
Perhaps I could be swayed into considering the possibility that President Bush is not motivated purely by politics if her were to insist that his daughters enlist in the military. -- Lynn Kurth

From tle:

"What if we adopt a new campaign against war with new theme: 'If we are going to end terrorism, let's start with housecleaning first!'"? -- Carl E. Mullin

From pournelle:

"And a few thousand dock workers can shut the country down. So could a few bombs in the harbors. The US no longer makes what it needs, nor do we have inventories of what we need. We are an imperial nation that requires a smooth flow of free trade from all parts of the world. Securing that may be more difficult than Washington believes." -- Jerry Pournelle

Kim du Toit - Gratuitous Gun Pic 11/03/2002 - The M1 Garand, "the greatest battle implement ever devised".

Chris Floyd at The Moscow Times - Global Eye -- Into the Dark - a peep into the U.S. administrations near future plans. It seems that Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Defense Secretary, is planning to do what he can to foment terrorist acts, so that he'll have an excuse to attack the countries "harboring" the terrorists. That's right, you or your loved ones may be killed by terrorists thanks to Mr. Rumsfeld. Note to terrorists. If you want to kill people, please start with Mr. Rumsfeld. Then take out Cheney and Bush. Leave my family alone. [market]

In other words -- and let's say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld's plan -- the United States government is planning to use "cover and deception" and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people. Let's say it again: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people -- your family, your friends, your lovers, you -- in order to further their geopolitical ambitions.

For P2OG is not designed solely to flush out terrorists and bring them to justice -- a laudable goal in itself, although the Rumsfeld way of combating terrorism by causing it is pure moral lunacy. (Or should we use the Regime's own preferred terminology and just call it "evil"?) No, it seems the Pee-Twos have bigger fish to fry. Once they have sparked terrorists into action -- by killing their family members? luring them with loot? fueling them with drugs? plying them with jihad propaganda? messing with their mamas? or with agents provocateurs, perhaps, who infiltrate groups then plan and direct the attacks themselves? -- they can then take measures against the "states/sub- state actors accountable" for "harboring" the Rumsfeld-roused gangs. What kind of measures exactly? Well, the classified Pentagon program puts it this way: "Their sovereignty will be at risk."


The Rumsfeld-Bush plan to employ murder and terrorism for political, financial and ideological gain does have historical roots (besides al-Qaida, the Stern Gang, the SA, the SS, the KGB, the IRA, the UDF, Eta, Hamas, Shining Path and countless other upholders of Bushian morality, decency and freedom). We refer of course to Operations Northwoods, oft mentioned in these pages: the plan that America's top military brass presented to President John Kennedy in 1963, calling for a phony terrorist campaign -- complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans -- to provide "justification" for an invasion of Cuba, the mafia/corporate fiefdom that had recently been lost to Castro.

Kennedy rejected the plan, and was killed a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but on a far grander scale, with resources at his disposal undreamed of by those brass of yore, with no counterbalancing global rival to restrain him -- and with an ignorant, corrupt president who has shown himself all too eager to embrace any means whatsoever that will augment the wealth and power of his own narrow, undemocratic, elitist clique.

The Libertarian Enterprise - Letter from Alobar - the "he needed killing" defense. I like it. [tle]

Patrick K Martin at The Libertarian Enterprise - Why I Will Not Vote! - Mr. Martin declares his independence from the tyrants who run the government. Bravo! I concurred with Mr. Martin for the last few elections. "Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards." said I. I have changed my mind for this election, however. I intend to vote, for the libertarian when there is a candidate, for the least likely gun grabber when not. I no longer consider that my vote means that I agree with the concept of voting on anything, but it's one way I can broadcast my opinion. I still completely agree with Lysander Spooner, that ours is a Constitution of No Authority. I signed no contract, hence I am not bound by anything in the Constitution. On the other hand, every elected official takes on oath promising to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." That oath needs one more clause, "on penalty of death."

This Tuesday, November 5, a very important event will occur in my life. For the first time since 1984, I will not vote in an election. I have never failed to vote before, not once. If I was eligible to vote, be it a general election, special election, primary, you name it, I voted. However, as of this election, and from now on, unless our political system changes, or unless I and/or L. Neil Smith stand for election, I will not vote.


The United States government, and all of its various subdivisions, on the state, county and municipal levels will do with me as they will, provided they have the physical power to do so, but I will no longer volunteer to assist them. I will not vote, and thereby legitimize their illicit rule. I will not participate in the jury system, I will go when summoned, I will sit if empaneled, but I will not vote for a verdict, any verdict. The purpose of a juror is to protect one's own rights by protecting the rights of one's fellow citizens, well the government no longer recognizes my rights, so I have nothing to protect. I will seek to avoid assisting the government in any way, and I will only submit to the minium extent necessary to prevent my arrest, and only when I cannot avoid compliance entirely.

Vin Suprynowicz at The Libertarian Enterprise - Searching the Land for a Pro-Gun- Rights Judge - TLE printed this in the 9/16 issue, but it's still worth reading, or re-reading.

Compare this to Chairez, who answered "opposed" to every piece of proposed gun control legislation on the GOA questionnaire, and who favors "Vermont- style legislation that would eliminate all requirements to pay fees and register gun owners and simply allow law- abiding citizens to carry firearms openly or concealed (at the individual's discretion) for any reason except for the commission of a crime."

Isn't that pretty radical, I asked Chairez, who won the $3,000 Curtis LeMay- style 1911 Colt .45 custom-built by CCS Guns at the Friends of the NRA banquet here at the Elks Hall in Las Vegas back on Sept. 6?

"It's like Hugo Black used to say," Chairez explains. "The Bill of Rights, those are absolute rights. It says 'Congress shall make no law,' and that means no law, and it's the same thing for the Second Amendment. The rules have to be absolute, bright line rules."

Dennis Kabaczy at The Libertarian Enterprise - Responsibility - "Just following orders" was not a valid defense for German guards. A little over a week ago, one of them, now 79, was deported. Mr. Kabaczy hopes that Amerika's crop of jack-booted thugs will also be held responsible once the wars on drugs and guns are declared unconstitutional. Me, too. [tle]

Mark Lamoree at The Libertarian Enterprise - Last Friday - A friend of Mr. Lamoree asked a security guard to keep an eye on his car in the parking lot so that the shotguns in the trunk would not be stolen. He was forced to remove his truck from the parking lot. Mr. Lamoree uses this as a basis for talking about the morality of guns. [tle]

It is impossible to talk rationally about firearms with someone who starts from the premise that guns are inherently evil.

Any meaningful attempt to repeal the host of silly laws passed by the anti-gun lobby must be preceded by a meaningful attempt to educate people about the true nature of guns. They are not evil. They are tools, and their existence is morally neutral. Morality refers to actions, and comes into play only in discussions of how guns are used. A person using a gun to defend his family has done something morally good. A person who uses a gun to rob a store and kill the owner has done something evil. The guns themselves have no moral status.

Rachel Lucas - Dear Mr. Moore, You are a Stupidity Supremacist - Ms. Lucas responds to another of Mr. Moore's missives, attempting to "offer up a helping of Clue™." Hehe.

"Obviously, you couldn't care less. Because to you, The Gun is supreme -- and wherever it is used to kill multiple people (preferably at a school), there shall we find you gloating about some misbegotten right you think you have to own a device that is designed to eliminate human life."
Does someone have a copy of the Constitution they could loan Mr. Moore? I think he forgot about that pesky Second Amendment. You know, the one that specifically says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But nevermind that. Let's gloat over some dead bodies. I just know that Mr. Heston sits around, watching the news and waiting for "school shootings", so he can plan his next gun celebration. That's what I do.

Perry de Havilland at - Perry de Havilland - the U.S. and Great Britain are certainly not as bad as Iraq, but they're cut from the same cloth. Well written piece. [samizdata]

Karen Tumulty and Viveca Novak at Time - Dodging the Bullet: Even in the wake of the sniper slayings, Democrats are shying away from gun control - And Time, of course, thinks this is a bad thing. I sent the following email:

Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 16:41:23 -0500
From: "Bill St. Clair" <>
Subject: Letter to the editor

Dodging the Bullet

Charlton Heston is way too pessimistic. If anyone tries to take MY guns, I'll pry HIS gun from HIS cold dead hands.

Bill St. Clair

Lance Gay at Knox News - Mandatory sentences under fire - judges don't like mandatory sentences. And what's to like? 15 years for possessing a single .22 rimfire round? Talk about your cruel and unusual punishment. [market]

Add comment Edit post Add post