Rule of Flaw

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

I
have no particular use for George W. Bush, let me make that "perfectly
clear", right up front. I am not now nor have I ever been a
Republican, even when I campaigned hard for Barry Goldwater back
in 1964.

However
I do have a reason that's unimpeachable (if you'll pardon the expression)
for disliking the slimy gang of collectivists to whom my mentor,
Robert LeFevre, used to refer as "Socialist Party A."
They don't like the rules when the rules don't serve their purpose.
We all feel that way from time to time. But when the rules don't
serve their purpose, they expect everyone else to let them whine
their way out of them.

We
saw this phenomenon at work all throughout the eight miserable years
of the Clinton regime. The President (the Democratic president,
that is) couldn't be tarred and feathered and driven from office
for the high crimes and misdemeanors (including sexual harrassment,
theft, graft, influence peddling, perjury, obstruction of justice,
blackmail, treason, rape, and mass murder) that no one really bothers
to deny he committed.

His
wife, the Woman with One Eyebrow, couldn't be jailed for her various
low crimes – accepting bribes disguised as investment advice, conducting
public meetings in secret, concealing evidence connected with a
homicide – because, well, because she's the Woman with One Eyebrow.

Of
course the reason they offer, loudly, incessantly, for why the rules
others follow shouldn't apply equally to them is that there's a
"greater cause" to be considered. What they won't tell
you is that the "greater cause" they have in mind is seizing
absolute ownership and control of your life and all the products
of your life. Adolf Hitler slaughtered millions in that "greater
cause", so did Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Pol Pot. Waco
Willie and his culture-genocidal hordes simply aren't about to let
a silly thing like the United States Constitution stand in their
way, let alone a little statute here and there.

Their
attitude toward the proper outcome of the election of 2000 is exactly
the same as their attitude toward, let's say, the Second Amendment.
Despite their egalitarian rhetoric, they hate, loathe, and despise
the distributed power that ownership of personal arms bestows on
each and every one of We the People, so they want us all to ignore
the clearly written prohibition on any government interference with
the unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right
of every man, woman, and responsible child to obtain, own, and carry,
openly or concealed, any weapon – rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun,
anything — any time, any place, without asking anyone's
permission.

A
Republican victory, however slim it turns out to be, thrusts a big
stick into their bicycle spokes, and they know it. Having suffered
nearly a decade of Clintonism – due to the cowardice and hesitancy
of "Socialist Party B", the Republicans – advocates of liberty
of every stripe are highly unlikely to tolerate such failures of
resolve any longer.

They
understand that it was the Milquetoast tactic practiced by the George
Bush Junior campaign that brought about the sorry mess of November,
2000 (just as it brought about the well-earned defeats of George
Bush Senior and of Robert Dole). They will run away with a victory
now, realizing, at long last, that the task before us is not to
feebly defend ourselves from each socialist assault on our lives
as it's contrived in Congress or the legislatures, but to undercut
every move the enemies of liberty can make with a single sweeping
strategy: demanding stringent, swift, and energetic enforcement
of the Bill of Rights.

Socialist
Party A understands that, too, which is why it's trying to steal
this election at any cost. Their present contention is that our
lives must be totally re-engineered not only for cripples and illiterates,
but that the electoral process itself is fatally flawed if it fails
to accommodate the hopelessly stupid. Yet if it weren't the infamous
Palm Beach "butterfly" ballots, rest assured, it would
be any other excuse they could think of. Just like you, I've seen
those ballots (they were used in my home state for years). Anyone
confused enough to mess up a ballot like that – and then complain
about it – is admitting publicly that he (or she) has the intelligence
of an eggplant.

Which
pretty much accounts for their choice of political parties. My answer – if
they want to play like that – is that anyone who can be confused by
such a ballot is clearly disqualified to vote, and that anyone who
voted for Albert Gore should be disqualified on the same grounds.

Another
thing: in any conflict between the electoral vote and the popular
vote, there is no popular vote. The system as it exists was
developed to allow a loose confederation of equal sovereign nations
to choose a single leader, a confederation all but destroyed by
a fascist dictatorship in the 1860s. For the last 140 years, decent
individuals in this civilization have been struggling to reestablish
that loose confederation. Abolishing the Electoral College is a
step in the wrong direction.

The
claim that the election of 2000 proves that each of our votes counts
is untrue. If the Democrats have their way, it will have proven
only that the whining of 19,000 morons outweighs the best efforts
and most reasoned opinions of the millions who are forced to pay
for their upkeep.

November
14, 2000

L.
Neil Smith is the author of 21 pro-freedom novels including The
Probability Broach
and Forge
of the Elders
. His first non-fiction work, Lever Action
will be released by Mountain Media in February, 2001.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare