December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Parks and Guns
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've seen a couple of comments about my point about state-run parks not allowing guns in, which would seem to be an interesting case of the state limiting Second Amendment rights on territory it controlled. (I won't push this much further, as the state may also limit firearms in courthouses, in Federal buildings, and so on. Jusitifiably, I might add. But this does make the point that the state-as-employer or state-as-property-manager may do things that seem to directly limit constitutional rights.) Anyway, several comments have focussed on _little_ parks, those little patches of grass and winos and spent syringes in the nation's cities. What I was talking about were the biggies, like the Forest of Nisene Marks, right next to my house, starting on the ridge on the other side of the valley from me. Tens of thousands of acres....hundreds of miles of hiking and biking trails. Get caught with a gun in that park and face jail time. Of course, hikers and bicyclists sometimes get mugged, raped, and murdered in this park, so carrying a gun in one's fanny pack makes a lot of sense. "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6," as the famous saying goes. Interestingly for newcomers to the list, it was putting out this piece of common sense opinion that got me a threatening phone call from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office in the summer of 1995. Seems that someone read my opinions and contacted the authorities...a Sheriff's Deputy called to warn me that my opinion verged on the illegal (oh yeah?) and that he might send a "vehicle" out to my place to have a chat with me and check out my state of mind. When I said something along the lines of, "Fine, but call in advance, so I'll know it's your boy," he flipped out, started furiously typing on a keyboard (I could hear it), and said something like "That comment has been entered in your file as a threat against a law enforcement officer." At that point I told him that there was then no point in talking to him further, if my truthful comments were to be declared "threats." (I guess, as some have argued here recently, I was supposed to have said something like, "Thank you, officer, for pointing out the error of my opinion that hikers and bicyclists ought to take steps to defend themselves. I understand now that weapons are not to be owned or carried by citizen-units, and that a woman facing rapists on a mountain trail should simply dial 9-1-1 at the nearest payphone and wait for the police to arrive. I am sorry I expressed an opinion in these Beknighted States.") --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:55 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote: >William H Geiger writes: >> In <ocryb1c2i2u.fsf(a)ml.com>, on 12/23/97 at 10:30 AM, Colin Rafferty <craffert(a)ml.com> said: >>> Paul Bradley writes: > >>>> Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire >>>> someone for being jewish/black/homosexual??? > >>> Welcome to the 20th Century, moron. > >> Really amazing how many so-called "freedom fighters" become STATIST if the >> proper buttons are pushed. > >What are you talking about? > >Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression. You aren't being oppressed the other party doesn't want to interact with you, unless that party is government providing base services to all (e.g. police/courts/border protection). You *are* being oppressed if mutually consensual behavior is interfered with by others including the State. You *are* being oppressed if you are coerced into a relationship you don't want. An employer-employee relationship is like a marriage or any other arrangement between adults -mutually consensual. Colin, do you consider yourself oppressed when someone choses not to date you? What about a rejection by someone who takes out a public advertisement in the paper? Freedom is only tested when it hurts. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu "Windows 95 is a technologically complex product that is best left alone by the government..." ---MSFT Atty B. Smith

1 0

Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by Colin Rafferty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Honig writes: > At 12:55 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote: >> William H Geiger writes: >>> In <ocryb1c2i2u.fsf(a)ml.com>, on 12/23/97 at 10:30 AM, Colin Rafferty <craffert(a)ml.com> said: >>>> Paul Bradley writes: >> >>>>> Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire >>>>> someone for being jewish/black/homosexual??? >> >>>> Welcome to the 20th Century, moron. >> >>> Really amazing how many so-called "freedom fighters" become STATIST if the >>> proper buttons are pushed. >> >> What are you talking about? >> >> Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression. > You aren't being oppressed the other party doesn't want to interact > with you, unless that party is government providing base services to all > (e.g. police/courts/border protection). Actually, you can be. > You *are* being oppressed if mutually consensual behavior is interfered > with by > others including the State. > You *are* being oppressed if you are coerced into a relationship you don't > want. You are not being coerced into anything. If you don't want to serve food to Blacks, don't open a restaurant. It's your choice. By the way, you are also not allowed to dump toxic waste in your own backyard. Are you being oppressed? > An employer-employee relationship is like a marriage or any other arrangement > between adults -mutually consensual. In a fantasy world, it is mutually consensual. It the real world, it is seldom mutual. > Colin, do you consider > yourself oppressed when someone choses not to date you? What about > a rejection by someone who takes out a public advertisement in the paper? Nope. Of course, this has nothing to do with anything. > Freedom is only tested when it hurts. With freedom comes responsibility. Decency is one of them. -- Colin

3 2

Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by Colin Rafferty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lizard writes: > At 12:55 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote: >> Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression. > How is someone 'oppressed' by my choosing not to deal with him for some > reasons, but not for other reasons? Either way, he does not get my services. > I refuse to hire you because you are black -- you are oppressed. > I refuse to hire you because you're an Aquarius and my astrologer told me > not to hire Aquarians -- you are not oppressed. > I refuse to hire you because you're a Republican and I'm a Democrat, and I > don't think we'll work well together -- you are not oppressed. > But in all cases, you are not hired. > Explain the logic of this to me. The logic is about patterns of discrimination of society and the State acting as a social engineer to remove the patterns. It is about basic human decency, and giving a person a fighting chance. If society, in general, discriminated against people with freckles, it is likely that it would be made illegal. > (Yes, it is perfectly legal to not hire someone based on star sign, > political affiliation, or having freckles.) > No human being has a right to compel service from another human being. No majority group has a right to discriminate against a minority. You prove that you know The Truth, and I'll prove that I know The Truth. > If I > do not wish to engage in trade with you, that's my right. Would you be less > oppressed if I just closed up shop and refused to trade with ANYONE? Oppression is done by a society. It can only be stopped by acting against the individuals in the society that are doing the oppressing. > The issue here is not expression, but association. That's a good point. However, the alternate doesn't have the same rhythm: Freedom of association is not the same as freedom of oppression. -- Colin

6 6

[Off topic]Discrimination
by Lizard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:25 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote: > >The logic is about patterns of discrimination of society and the State >acting as a social engineer to remove the patterns. In other words, rights belong to the collective, not to the individual. If I deny Joe Smith a job for an 'approved' reason (which still has nothing to do with his competence), then, too bad for Joe. But if I deny it for an 'unapproved' reason, equally unrelated to his competance, then I am denying the job to ALL people who share that trait, everywhere. That's a collectivist viewpoint. Either a person -- a single, unique, individual -- has a right to compel someone else to serve him, or he does not. The reasons for denying service are irrelevant TO THAT INDIVIDUAL. >It is about basic human decency, and giving a person a fighting chance. All of which is fine, but why should it be compelled? Didn't you once say that liberalism made the assumption that we were basically moral and should be free to act, rather than the conservative view that we were basically immoral and should be restrained? >If society, in general, discriminated against people with freckles, it >is likely that it would be made illegal. So what good does this do the person dicriminated against, if there is NOT a 'pattern' of it? He's still out of a job. This is the key point:It is the INDIVIDUAL that matters. >> (Yes, it is perfectly legal to not hire someone based on star sign, >> political affiliation, or having freckles.) > >> No human being has a right to compel service from another human being. > >No majority group has a right to discriminate against a minority. There are no groups. There are only individuals. A job, or an offer of goods or services, occurs between individuals -- not groups. If I am denied employment, YOUR bank account does not shrink. If you are granted a high paying job, I do not get rich. My hunger is not yours;yours is not mine. Further, every individual has a right to choose who they will and will not associate with, based on whatever criteria they wish. I don't date mundanes (non-fen). While the inability to have me as a boyfriend is no great loss, I am nonetheless 'discriminating' against a large %age of the female population (and 100% of the male population, FWIW). (Granted, a far larger %age of the female population discriminates against me, as they refuse to date overweight, unattractive, socially inept nerds. Whom do I sue?) > >Freedom of association is not the same as freedom of oppression. > Most people would claim not associating with me is liberating, not oppressing. How is person 'a' oppressed because person 'b' decides, for whatever reason, not to like them?

1 0

[fs] Contemporary Cryptology Book
by travish+cp-01＠dejanews.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found this at a local half-price bookstore. I purchased a copy for myself and was wondering if any of you wanted one. I do not intend to make any money off of this, I am simply doing it as a favor for fellow crypto-enthusiasts. I believe it would make an excellent companion to "Applied Cryptography". The tone is what you would expect from IEEE Press; more theoretical than A.C., not shying away from the discrete mathematics but without losing sight of the subject, either. There is some mention of the uses of cryptography applications like tamperproofing nuclear monitoring equipment, and other relatively cool stuff. It is apparently a brand new, undamaged book, sold for half price, or about $45. I'll sell it for what I will pay, plus s/h (your choice of carriers), plus COD charge if not prepaid. It is on hold for me until Saturday, so email me soon if you're interested. Here is the original blurb: http://www.ieee.org/ieeestore/compbk.html#pc2717 > An all-in-one guide to the science of information integrity... > > Contemporary Cryptology: The Science of Information Integrity > > edited by Gustavus J. Simmons, Sandia National Labs Albuquerque, NM > > This original source book covers all aspects of the subject with > emphasis on the cryptographic elements. In addition to being an > introductory guide to the latest developments, this volume provides > the engineer and scientist with algorithms, protocols, and applications. > > Copyright 1992/Hardcover/656pp > List Price: $89.95 > Member Price: $77.00 > IEEE Order No. PC2717-QAJ > ISBN 0-87942-277-7 -- Travis Hassloch / travish(a)dejanews.com / http://www.dejanews.com Deja News System Defenestration Group / "When news breaks... we fix it" PGP key C7FDD3D5 fgpt 7A 48 DD 46 E6 7F 11 E7 8F 7E 53 9A DF 33 9E FA

1 0

Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:37 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote: > >You are not being coerced into anything. If you don't want to serve >food to Blacks, don't open a restaurant. It's your choice. Where do you get the right to tell others how they can make a living? >By the way, you are also not allowed to dump toxic waste in your own >backyard. Are you being oppressed? I am not allowed to place toxic waste, or noise, where it can affect others; I can ingest toxins privately and listen to whatever music I like so long as you don't detect it in your backyard. >> An employer-employee relationship is like a marriage or any other arrangement >> between adults -mutually consensual. > >In a fantasy world, it is mutually consensual. It the real world, it is >seldom mutual. You prefer a shotgun or otherwise arranged marriage? >>> Colin, do you consider >> yourself oppressed when someone choses not to date you? What about >> a rejection by someone who takes out a public advertisement in the paper? > >Nope. Of course, this has nothing to do with anything. Private behavior is private behavior, and trade is a private behavior. >> Freedom is only tested when it hurts. > >With freedom comes responsibility. Decency is one of them. > >-- >Colin But obligate decency at gunpoint is not worth it. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu "Windows 95 is a technologically complex product that is best left alone by the government..." ---MSFT Atty B. Smith

2 1

Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by Colin Rafferty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Honig writes: > At 02:37 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote: >> You are not being coerced into anything. If you don't want to serve >> food to Blacks, don't open a restaurant. It's your choice. > Where do you get the right to tell others how they can make a living? I don't have that right. However, the Supreme Court has said that the Congress has that right. >> By the way, you are also not allowed to dump toxic waste in your own >> backyard. Are you being oppressed? > I am not allowed to place toxic waste, or noise, where it can affect > others; I can > ingest toxins privately and listen to whatever music I like so long as you > don't detect it in your backyard. Well, racism is hiring decisions is something that is detected in other people's backyards. That's why its illegal. >>> An employer-employee relationship is like a marriage or any other >>> arrangement between adults -mutually consensual. >> >> In a fantasy world, it is mutually consensual. It the real world, it is >> seldom mutual. > You prefer a shotgun or otherwise arranged marriage? I prefer a level playing field. >>> Colin, do you consider >>> yourself oppressed when someone choses not to date you? What about >>> a rejection by someone who takes out a public advertisement in the paper? >> >> Nope. Of course, this has nothing to do with anything. > Private behavior is private behavior, and trade is a private behavior. Not in this country. If you don't believe me, check out Article I, Section 8 for one explicit example. >>> Freedom is only tested when it hurts. >> >> With freedom comes responsibility. Decency is one of them. > But obligate decency at gunpoint is not worth it. It's called civilization. You should try it some time. -- Colin

4 3

Re: Lock and Load (fwd)
by Bruce Balden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>It shows that a Communist rifle doesn't allow us the freedom to lock and load. > Having travelled in China extensively, I can tell you that there is not a great deal of "Communism", the way Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or even Mao might have imagined it. Historians of WWI will recall that US domestic politics included a faction that maintained that the two oceans were a natural protection against overseas aggressors and so involvement in the European war seemed pointless. Such people were called "isolationists", even though they were simply maintaining that the US simply **was** isolated. Anyway, China has had the Himalayas and huge deserts and the Pacific to protect it and was the same way. When technology changed that, all sorts of foreigners moved in. By the time the twentieth century arrived, Chinese were sick of foreign influence, and successive governments, Imperial (Qing dynasty), Guomentang (National People's Party = KMT), CPC (Communist Party of China), tried to kick everybody out. Mao's communism was, among other things, better organized, and at least kicked the Japanese, and later the Russians, out, making them great heros to the Chinese people for this alone. But now, after the Great Leap Forward, and other adventures, Chinese people including those within the Communist Party, have little more patience for socialism. State Owned Enterprises (SOEs), the core of communism, are being systematically privatized, with a final result expected to resemble modern Britain c. 1975 (before Thatcher), and they are engaging in extensive joint ventures with foreign firms. China can't drop the word "Communist" easily for political reasons, but "socialism with capitalist characteristics" is not readily distinguishable from Tony Blair's species of moderate European socialism. Similarly, the U.S. cannot admit directly that most of the Cold War military spending was essentially a form of disguised Keynsian economics, and that Grumman and friends were essentially state-subsidized if not state-owned ent erprises. Eisenhower figured out but few others did.

1 0

ron paul for prez
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:42:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Patricia Neill <pnpj(a)db1.cc.rochester.edu> Subject: IP: An Important Recent Letter from Congressman Ron Paul To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com An Important Recent Letter from Congressman Ron Paul (Texas): Please forward freely! - ---------------------- Congressman Ron Paul House of Representatives 203 Cannon Washington D.C. 20515 TEL 202-225-2831 FAX 202-226-4871 Dear Friend: The other day, I made a huge "gaffe" on national TV: I told the truth about the crimes of the U.S. government. As you can imagine, the ceiling fell in, and a couple of walls too. Congressmen are supposed to support the government, I was told. Oh, it's okay to criticize around the edges, but there are certain subjects a member of the House of Representatives is not supposed to bring up. But I touched the real "third-rail" of American politics, and the sparks sure flew. I was interviewed on C-SPAN's morning "Washington Journal," and I used the opportunity, as I do all such media appearances, to point out how many of our liberties have been stolen by the federal government. We must take them back. The Constitution, after all, has a VERY limited role for Washington, D.C. If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited. That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us. Under liberty, we built the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most decent country on earth. It's no coincidence that the monstrous growth of the federal government has been accompanied by a sickening decline in living standards and moral standards. The feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill -- working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but otherwise entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and out-of-control leviathan that we call the federal government wants to run every single aspect of our lives. [Page 2] Well, I'm sorry, but that's not America. It's not what the Founders gave us. It's not the country you believe in. It's not the country I believe in. So, on that TV interview, I emphasized not only the attacks on our property, but also the decline of our civil liberties, at the hands of the federal police. There are not supposed to be ANY federal police, according to the Constitution. Then I really went over the line. I talked about the Waco massacre. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno claim those 81 church members, including 19 children, burned down their own church and killed themselves, and good riddance. So they put the few survivors on trial, and threw them in prison for 40 years. We're not supposed to remember that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- talk about an unconstitutional agency -- rather than arrest David Koresh on his regular morning jog, called in the TV stations for a big publicity bonanza, and sent a swat team in black masks and black uniforms to break down his front door, guns blazing. They also sent in a helicopter gunship, to shoot at the roof of a church full of innocents. The Branch Davidians resisted, and after a heartless siege of almost two months, and after cutting off food, water, and electricity, and playing horrible rock and roll through huge speakers 24 hours a day, the feds sent in the tanks to crush the walls of the church, and inject poisonous CS gas. Now, CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on Chemical Warfare. The U.S. could not use it in a war. But it could and did use it against American civilians. After the tanks did their work on the church, the place burst into flame, and all 81 people -- men, women, children, and babies--were incinerated in a screaming horror. Did some feds set the fire? Did the flammable CS gas ignite, since without electricity, the parishioners were using lanterns? Did a tank knock over a lantern, striking one of the bales of hay being used against the thin walls as a "defense" against bullets? or did the Davidians, as Clinton and Reno claim, kill themselves? A new documentary -- Waco: The Rules of Engagement -- may show, through FLIR infrared photography, FBI snipers killing the Davidians by shooting through the back of the church, where no media cameras were allowed. This film won a prize at the famed Sundance Film Festival. It was made by people who took the government's side, until they investigated. Whatever the truth, there's no question that an irresponsible federal government has innocent blood on its [Page 3] hands, and not only from Waco. And the refusal of corrupt and perverse liberals to admit it means nothing. In my TV interview, in answer to a caller's question, I pointed out that Waco, and the federal murders at Ruby Ridge -- especially the FBI sniper's shot that blasted apart the head of a young mother holding her baby -- caused many Americans to live in fear of federal power. Then I uttered the sentiment that caused the media hysteria: I said that a lot of Americans fear that they too might be attacked by federal swat teams for exercising their constitutional rights, or merely for wanting to be left alone. Whoa! You've never seen anything like it. For days, in an all-out assault, I was attacked by Democrats, unions, big business, establishment Republicans, and -- of course -- the media, in Washington and my home state of Texas. Newspapers foamed at the mouth, calling me a "right-wing extremist." (Say, isn't that what George III called Thomas Jefferson?) I was even blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing! And by the way, I don't believe we've gotten the full truth on that either. All my many opponents were outraged that a Congressman would criticize big government. "If you don't like Washington, resign!" said a typical big-city newspaper editorial. But the media, as usual, were all wet. (Do they ever get ANYTHING right?) The average Congressman may go to Washington to wallow in power, and line his pockets with a big lobbying job for a special interest (so he can keep ripping-off the taxpayers). But that's not why I'm in Congress. It's not why I left my medical practice as a physician. It's not why I put up with all the abuse. It's not why I refuse a plush Congressional pension. I'm in this fight for a reason. I want to hand on to my children and grandchildren, and to you and your family, a great and free America, an America true to her Constitution, an America worthy of her history. I will not let the crooks and clowns and criminals have their way. I'm in Congress to represent the ideas of liberty, the ideas that you and I share, for the people of my district, for the people of Texas, for the people of America. That's why I'm working to stop federal abuses, and to cut the government: its taxes, its bureaucrats, its paramilitary police, its spending, its meddling overseas, and every single unconstitutional action it takes. And not with a pair of nail scissors, but with a hammer and chisel. Won't you help me do this work? Not much of the federal leviathan would be left, if I [Page 4] had my way. But you'd be able to keep the money you earn, your privacy would be secure, your dollar would be sound, your local school would be tops, and your kids wouldn't be sent off to some useless or vicious foreign war to fight for the UN. But Jefferson and the other Founders would recognize our government, and our descendants would bless us. By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with NOTHING. Recently, I asked a famous Republican committee chairman -- who's always talking about getting rid of the IRS -- why he engineered a secret $580 million raise for the tax collectors. "They need it for their computers," this guy told me. So the IRS can't extract enough from us as it is! The National Taxpayers Union says I have the highest pro-taxpayer rating in Congressional history, that I am the top "Taxpayer's Best Friend." You know I won't play the Capitol Hill games with the Capitol Hill gang, denouncing the IRS while giving the gestapo more of your money. or figuring out some other federal tax for them to squeeze out of you. I also want to abolish the Federal Reserve, and send Alan Greenspan out to get a job. The value of our dollar and the level of our interest rates are not supposed to be manipulated by a few members of the power elite meeting secretly in a marble palace. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, pure and simple. The only Constitutional money is gold and silver, and notes redeemable in them. Not Fed funny money. Without the Federal Reserve, our money could not be inflated, at the behest of big government or big banks. Your income and savings would not lose their value. Just as important, we wouldn't have this endless string of booms and busts, recessions and depressions, with each bust getting worse. They aren't natural to the free market; they're caused by the schemers at the Fed. President Andrew Jackson called the 19th-century Fed "The Monster" because it was a vehicle for inflation and all sorts of special-interest corruption. Let me tell you, things haven't changed a bit. I also work to save our schools from D.C. interference. Thanks to the feds, new curriculums not only smear the Founders as "racist, slave-owning elitists," they seek to dumb down our students so they will all be equal. "Look-say" reading and the abolition of phonics has the same purpose, and so does the new "fuzzy" math, in which there are no right and no wrong answers. That must be what they use in the U.S. Treasury! It's certainly what they use in the U.S. Congress. [Page 5] But ever since the beginning of federal aid to education and accelerating with the establishment of the rotten Department of Education, SAT scores have been dropping. Schools, with few exceptions, are getting worse every year. To save our kids, we must get the sticky fingers of the feds off our local schools, and let parents rule. That's what the Constitution says, and the Bible too. And then there's my least favorite foreign topic, the UN. World government is obviously unconstitutional. It undermines our country's sovereignty in the worst way possible. That's why I want us out of the UN, and the UN itself taking a hike. After all, the UN is socialist and corrupt (many votes can be bought with a "blonde and a case of scotch," one UN ambassador once said). It costs many billions, and it puts our soldiers in UN uniforms under foreign commanders, and sends them off to unconstitutional, undeclared wars. When Michael New, one of the finest young men I've ever met, objected to wearing UN blue, he was kicked out of the American Army. What an outrage. Not one dime for the UN, and not one American soldier! Not in Haiti, not in Bosnia, not in Somalia, not in Rwanda. I know it's radical, but how about devoting American military efforts to defending America, and only America? Such ideas, said one newspaper reporter, make me a "maverick who will never go far because he won't 'go along to get along.'" Darn right. What does "go far" mean? Get a big government job? The heck with that. And I won't sell my vote for pork either. When I walked through the U.S. Capitol this morning, I got angry. The building is filled with statues and paintings of Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founders. Those great men sacrificed everything to give us a free country, and a Constitution to keep it that way. When I was first elected, I placed my hand on the Bible and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's exactly what I'm fighting for. But such ideas drive the liberals crazy. That's why I badly need your help. I've been targeted nationally for defeat. The Democrats, the AFL-CIO, the teachers union, big business PACs, the trial lawyers, the big bankers, the foreign-aid .lobbyists, the big media, and the establishment Republicans want to dance on my political grave. The Fed, the Education Department, and the UN are anxious to join in. They can't stand even one person telling the truth. And they're terrified when that truth gains the people's support. Right now, four well-funded Democrats are competing to try to beat me, and a Republican is rumored to have been [Page 6] offered money at a secret meeting in Mexico(!) if he would try to knock me off in a primary. Won't you help me stay up here to fight? Frankly, I'm in trouble if you don't. My Texas district has 22,000 square miles (not a misprint). I've got to travel all over it, set up small offices to be manned by volunteers, advertise, pay phone bills, and distribute video and audio tapes to the people to get around the big-media lies. As I know from my last election, which I won by the skin of my teeth, the media will carry any smear, repeat any libel, throw any piece of mud, no matter how untrue. In fact, the less true, the more they like it. They are determined to silence me. But you can help me overcome all this. Together, we can beat the bad guys arrayed against our country and our freedom. We can support the Constitution. We CAN win. Your generous contribution of $25 or $50 would be great. $100, $250, or even $500 or $1,000 would be magnificent. Of course, any amount would help, and in return, I will keep you up-to-date on this fight as a member of my "kitchen cabinet." What great men founded this country. What great people have carried on their fight. That fight is not lost, not if you will join it. Washington, D.C., is a loser, but among the people, our ideas are gaining EVERY SINGLE DAY. Keep the tide turning in our direction. Please make your most generous contribution. Join this fight for the Constitution, and stop those who want to rip it up, and throw it in the Potomac. Together, we can join the Founders, fight. Together, we can make history. Sincerely, /s/ - Ron Ron Paul U.S. Congressman P.S. Without you, I may be lost, and they'll be breaking out the champagne in D.C. PLEASE, DON'T LET THIS FIGHT FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND LIBERTY FALTER. HELP ME WIN IT. ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** http://www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0