From: WILLIAM ANDERSON

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 3:26 PM

Subject: Unlearned Rabbi Rages at Ratzinger

More Casuistry from Central Planners in the Matter of Terry Schiavo, RIP:

An excellent essay by Mark Steyn, who invoked Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau to drive home the distinction between the congenital statism of those who touted this “most grotesque judicial overreaching” and natural justice. Steyn wrote: “This is not a criminal, not a murderer, not a person whose life should be in the gift of the state. So I find it repulsive, and indeed decadent, to have her continued existence framed in terms of 'plaintiffs' and 'petitions' and 'en banc review' and 'de novo' and all the other legalese.

March 2005

February 2005

From Backtalk: Letters to Antiwar.com [Ann Coulter’s web manager is peeved about Lethal Weapons: Neocon Groupies]

February 28, 2005

Lethal Weapons: Neocon Groupies

We have someone constantly chasing Marsden around on our board who goes by the name of Dormy2. She has done nothing out of the ordinary on our forum at all, and I have no idea why she is being treated like this.

By the way, Ms. Mercer may have talked to Coulter's webmaster, but I am the owner of her official forum, and I haven't heard a peep about this, other than from disgruntled people who want to complain about Marsden. I don't know her from Adam, other than as a poster under another user name, but as long as she does nothing untoward on the forum, I have no reason to allow just another forum member to be attacked.

I'm really tired of this apparent vendetta against someone who has a small Vancouver radio show and who does nothing wrong while visiting Coulter's forum. If there's a problem, you are free to contact me with proof that she's a female Jack the Ripper or something; otherwise, I'd just find a new target.

~ Anthony B. Ford

Ilana Mercer replies:

This is too rich for words, sir. As I documented in my column, Marsden is a recently convicted stalker. Her résumé boasts another major "achievement": she attempted to destroy a young man's life by falsely accusing him of sexual assault and siccing the Canadian sexual harassment kangaroo court on him, in a case that "rewrote sexual harassment policy in Canada." Marsden has had nothing but positive reinforcement for what she did – she has never paid for what she did to her first victim, Liam Donnelly. But apparently, you, Mr. Ford, think nothing of falsely accusing a man of rape and reaping the publicity therefrom.

By your account, since she hasn't chopped someone into tiny bits, you consider her a victim of a vendetta.

I wouldn't worry too much about cleaning up your blogs or chat rooms – like all such forums, those are usually full of unsavory, self-important losers (I am here paraphrasing Miss Coulter, with whom I agree in this respect. See "On the Importance of Boundaries." She called these bloggers losers who sit around in pajamas all day.). However, I had approached Ms. Coulter's webmaster (Tom Scerbo) quite a while ago, to ask if she was aware that he had posted on her site columns by this notorious Canadian. Ms. Coulter's other front man's response was similar to yours: "We all have baggage, forgive and forget."

Since I take it you are speaking for Law-and-Order Ann Coulter, I thank you for seconding the official stance of the Coulter Web site with respect to those who violate the rights of others (but happen to be neoconservatives).

You'll probably be pleased to know that both of you (speaking on behalf of Miss Coulter) are at least as confused about ethics as Bill O'Reilly. He, too, mumbled something about the "personal attacks" on his Canadian commentator. (Of course, he would never have dared ask the opinion of one of the few principled men left on the Canadian Right. Like myself, Kevin Michael Grace has been quick to note the irony of soliciting Marsden's "opinions," such as they are.)

Apparently, you all "think" that to document a commentator's recent criminal conviction and history of aggression against innocent victims amounts to ad hominem.

So here's a 101 in ethics for neocons: perpetrating aggression against innocent victims is not in the realm of "her personal life" (O'Reilly's characterization); it's public, and it's germane to her credibility in all endeavors.

In any case, the Marsden peccadillo is just more evidence that neoconservatives scoff at all the things conservatives once valued, not least probity and upstanding character.

From: BR [This, from one of my WND readers.]

Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:04 AM

Subject: Syria Out Doesn't Mean U.S. In

 Dear Ilana,

We are not war weary in the United States. I agree with Ann Coulter. As to the part about converting them to Christianity, that is just what is going on in the Middle East and God is the One leading the charge.  

At some point in time, according to Isaiah Chapter 17, Damascus is going to become rubble. Somewhere in the 20s in Ezekiel, it says that Tyre is going to become a flat rock upon which fishermen dry their nets. I was reading portions of The Book of Jubilees over the weekend and in there it says ALL of Esau's descendants will be wiped out. I saw in the news today (or yesterday) that Iran had another earthquake.

Now is the latter days.  

Yours very truly,

—(Mrs.) BR

     Florida

From: Dirk Sabin 

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 8:08 AM

Subject: Broad Sides Report

Dear Ilana,

I did obtain a copy of your book and am reading it now....It is a pleasure to read someone clearly explaining the disjunction concerning "liberal" -"conservative" nomenclature. The National Review and Wall Street Journal...hell, nearly the entire media is so profoundly delusional and full of half-truths and pabulum for the mind. The level of historical illiteracy and the junk food nature of the mass media makes it entirely too easy for statist pimps like Rove and his perfect shill Bush II , to perpetrate their fraud on the citizenry of the erstwhile Republic.

It is a daunting thing though to attempt to repaint Lincoln in stark terms. His rhetoric is so beautiful and the abolition of slavery was such a good thing. It is interesting that his hero Clay, opponent of "nullification" and champion of "internal improvements," was a southerner as was Lincoln himself. Another interesting thing regarding spin is that early official documents referred to the conflict as "The War of the Rebellion"... It all points to the dire need to place the actions of a government within the context of the principles and traditions of the Framers/their Constitution rather than the mythology, personality and lofty rhetoric.

I just finished Fromkin's 90's book "In the Time of the Americans" spanning the TR to Wilson to FDR and Eisenhower years. On the eve of the First World War Fromkin asserts that the Republic had spent approx. $24 billion bucks to operate since its inception. We had a standing army of 20,000 largely employed in chasing Pancho Villa around northern Mexico. The World Wars changed this and once into the wars of the twentieth century, a different type of idealism asserted itself and the era of big government was born. Even then, old pictures show the Washington Mall lined with temporary structures during the FDR years, purposely designed as temporary so that they would not outlast the "current emergency". Even Democrats were aware of a need to check the Federal Beast. Would that this current government even attempted to provide lip service in this vein.

Greenspan is ably demonstrating his toad-like character, croaking in agreement with every breezy whim this dim-witted and petulant imbecile of a president spouts.

With every passing year, I believe the spark of the Revolution passes farther into the mists and it will soon be impossible to return to a forward path without huge dislocation and strife. Then again, the people of this fine Republic may snap out of it but, given that they exhibit all the clinical pathologies of the addict, I am less than optimistic.

I do believe you give the southerners too much credit as victims, for it is this new Dixiecrat, southern GOP that is hellbent upon erasing the lessons of Madison, Jefferson and Washington.

The first 50 or so pages of your book met my expectations and I shall report back when I'm done. Keep pointing to the essential truths Ilana. The new American Statism and it's Corporatist-Statist-Religious aims are a perversion of humanity and a rebuke of the possibilities of the Republic—born of and altogether too typical of humanity, but a perversion of it, nonetheless.

Would that there were more like you.

—Best Regards,

    D.W. Sabin

From: Antranik

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Subject: A new, interesting reader from Armenia speaks of war, but also of June in his homeland, when the mulberries are ripe.

—ILANA

Dear Ilana,

War will definitely be bad news for us. With the Americans in Iraq it is already to close for comfort. We have a lot of trade with the Iranians so an American attack on Iran will definitely screw us royally here. The Azeris are already rattling their sabers and with an American attack on Iran I expect an Azeri attack on Nagorno Karabakh and a Turkish attack on Armenia, unless the Turks get pre-occupied with invading Kirkuk to prevent an independent oil-rich Kurdistan. It seems the vise is closing on us in any case. I am most grateful for one thing though:  as a soldier and freedom fighter in Nagorno Karabakh I get to fight for survival and freedom against an enemy that heavily outnumbers and outguns us (yet nevertheless, we kicked their butts outta town in the last war! :)  Were I in the American army I would just be mowing down innocent civilians and destroying someone's national infrastructure all in the name of preserving profits and power for the oil companies, arms dealers, and international banksters. At least here I can live a life that isn't meaningless and when the time comes, die with a clear conscience.

So I really hope you will be able to make it out here with your husband.  Best time is in late June when the mulberries are ripe. One very nice thing about Armenia is the very low street crime rate.  Out here a woman can walk in the city at any hour of the night and never have to worry about being mugged or raped etc.

Take care,

—Anto

From: SB

Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005

Subject: Ink Stains and Blood Stains

Bush, Blair, The Neocons at Fox News knew the inspectors had effectively disarmed Saddam and by knowing this it made an attack upon Iraq a reality with expectations of suffering very few casualties. One leading Neocon predicted a "cakewalk" in which our troops would be strewn with roses by the Iraqi people thankful for their liberation. We now know Saddam had realized he would be defeated and created a strategy of retaliation against the American occupying troops. For a full decade the Iraqis had suffered two wars by Bush, daddy and son, and the death of many thousands due to the genocidal U.S. sanctions. There was no way the Iraqis could successfully fight against ships lobbing shells at them from the safety of offshore or retaliate against planes dropping bombs on them from 30,000 feet above. But as Hitler discovered when he occupied Eastern Europe, insurgency against an occupational force is a natural outcome of war. Apparently our leaders never discovered this.

— SB

This is not a blog, but since I've made an exception for Kevin's quixotic quarrel with Fox "News" (scroll down), I'll certainly do the same in defense of Prof. Hans H. Hoppe:

From: Ilana Mercer
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 4:47 PM
To: 'harter@ccmail.nevada.edu'
Subject: Prof. H. Hoppe

Dear President Carol C. Harter,

Universities are supposed to contribute to the development of character in their young charges. All too often they prefer to breed spineless, spoilt youngsters, forever poised to receive offence and ever eager to deploy Soviet-style procedures to destroy careers and reputations.

The complaining student was offended by Prof. H. Hoppe’s comments about the connection between broad group characteristics and life styles and time preference. For his own sake, make the student apologize for his snide tactics and teach him to debate, not defame.

Respectfully,

Ilana Mercer

www.ilanamercer.com

An afterthought: The breakdown of civilizing social boundaries is near complete when law-abiding, upstanding adults are forced to grovel before petulant pipsqueaks. —ILANA

Canadian writer Kevin Michael Grace scrutinizes Fox News’ “poisonous post-modern philosophy.” Listen to Kevin’s CBC Commentary (or read the transcript), and make a point of visiting his blog. The Ambler has been cited in the Times Literary Supplement, no less.    

—ILANA

From Backtalk: Letters to Antiwar.com:

February 5, 2005

His Rhetoric, Our Reality

Dear Ms Mercer,

I totally agree with the statements you make in your "His Rhetoric, Our Reality" article. Bush is romanticizing imperialism, that's all there is to it.

What makes even less sense is the concept of forcing "freedom" onto the other people. How can somebody be forced into freedom (it's no longer freedom if it is forced)? And when I hear the rhetoric "they hate our freedom" I say that it's all nonsense. The precise reason they hate us is because we stick our nose everywhere.

Finally, you mention the causes that would be dishonorable to abandon. Arguments of the similar nature were made about Vietnam: "We can't leave now." The solution of the current administration is to stay on the "honorable" course, and let the blood of the Iraqis and the American soldiers flow.

Also I have a personal question for you. You seem to express a strong sentiment against the war in Iraq. As a Jew, it must take a great deal of courage. I get attacked all the time (I am Jewish), that being against the war in Iraq is being anti-Israel (since Iraq and Israel were not the best of friends). Many Jewish people support the war in Iraq (and the neocons behind it); do you believe that by opposing the war in Iraq we are (in a way) betraying Israel?

~ MG

Ilana Mercer replies:

Most Jews are leftists. As such, they are more inclined to vote for the Democrats, and thus, if anything, are more likely to be against the war. Jews are well represented in antiwar circles—I hear quite a few Jewish names among antiwar protesters. Tikkun and Forward have certainly not been on board with Commentary.

Opinions ought not to be based on who a policy benefits but on what is right. Injustice is not beneficial, although, even if it were one would be obliged to oppose it. (The Hebrew Testament repeatedly instructs, "Justice, justice you shall seek." The biblical narrator uses the verb "to pursue" – much stronger than "to seek." There is a reason he never shut up about justice, going as far as to repeat it twice in one sentence.)

The war is good for Israel? I doubt it. As I wrote in "Who's the Boss – Israel or the US?":

"It so happens that Israel, incorrectly, thinks that American foreign policy serves her well – although, arguably, for Israel to have endorsed the war on Iraq so enthusiastically is bad for a future Arab-Israeli relationship. As one who supports the Jewish state, but also opposes current American foreign policy, I would prefer to see Israel refrain from conflating America's unlimited worldwide war on terror with the narrowly delimited battle for survival that Israel has conducted since her inception. But once again reality bites. Israel is a small country that is necessarily dependent on a large state. It is Israel who is obliged to support the US and acquiesce to American foreign policies, not the other way round."

Since Israel is riddled with leftists, you'll find there a respectable opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

Of one thing I am sure: debate there would be more robust and open than here. The Hannitization of discourse would not be tolerated in Israel.

Lethal Weapons: Neocon Groupies

Ilana,

Just read your funny and right-on piece about neocon women from December 2004. I had to laugh at your insights into Coulter and gang. If it helps any, beautiful women aren't only in the GOP and DNC, but apparently the Libertarian Party as well! [I’m not a party member.]

The difference: you don't need to bleach and you actually have a brain! Coulter apparently was sick the day they taught the Constitution at her law school.

~ Chris Campbell

Ilana Mercer replies:

Dear Chris,

I'm glad "Lethal Weapons: Neocon Groupies" made you laugh. Ann Coulter? I regret being soft on her. She and the malevolent Sean Hannity were vibing again on Fox today. At the same time, CNN screened a program about the murdered, maimed, and mentally crippled American soldiers in Iraq. (If you want to learn anything about Iraqis under "freedom," I'm afraid you'll have to watch the Canadian Public Broadcaster.)

I'll say this: Coulter, in black leather, was dressed for the part. She looked like a character from a Leni Riefenstahl Nazi propaganda film.

Thanks to Lawrence Auster for mentioning His Rhetoric, Our Reality on his blog, View from the Right. I like the title of the Auster post: "Natural rights, Bush-style: their rights, our obligations."

I responded to her thoughtful essay with the following letter. (Note, were my comment system functioning, I would have put the exchange in the comment section. Before reading my response, of course, I’d recommend reading Ms. Mercer’s essay.)

What Van says applies, I would argue, not only to the intellectual worth of Malkin and other neoconservative female commentators, but, and with few exceptions, to most female commentators. Those in positions of power in their respective kingdoms (however insignificant the kingdom), be they liberal, neoconservative, conservative, paleo-conservative, or libertarian, prefer the not-very bright female who repeats partly-line and doesn’t make the tribe uncomfortable. Witness Maureen Dowd. She is widely praised—even hailed as a genius recently by Charlie not-a-genius Rose. About this woman’s simpering, cutesy prose the potent Camille Paglia had this to say: “Maureen Dowd—that catty, third-rate, wannabe sorority queen. She's such an empty vessel. One pleasure of reading the New York Times online is that I never have to see anything written by Maureen Dowd! I ignore her hypertext like spam for penis extenders.” Ditto. But, while Dowd is an icon, it took Paglia over a decade to get her tome published! I wonder why.

—ILANA

From: Van Bailey

Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 7:24 AM

Subject: Internment chic & Michelle Malkin

Hi Ilana,

Great piece on Malkin. Back in the mid-'90s, when I was a flack for a public-interest law firm that defended people victimized by unions, I had a phone conversation with her. (I believe she was then a columnist for a Seattle paper.) I had to explain the Wagner Act to her—she had never heard of it before—and how people in non-right-to-work states really are required to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

She didn't seem very bright to me.

In the years since, I've watched her star rise in the neocon echo chamber. (Aided, no doubt, by the fact that she's a woman and easy on the eyes.) I think two things explain her horrible new book. The first is her hatred of "undesirables." Although the product of immigrants, and not exactly a WASP from Cos Cob, she seems to take particular delight in denouncing "those people" for defiling the American Realm. It came as no surprise to me that she wrote a book defending concentration camps for "Japs."

The other reason is that Ann Coulter has raised the bar for "outrageous" right-wing chick pundits [Although, to be fair, Coulter, in Treason, at least had a defendable thesis—ILANA]. You've got to get even more extreme than Coulter if you want to stay on the cutting edge. Soon we should expect:

Laura Ingraham: Lynching: What Was the Big Deal, Really?

Mona Charen: Anyone Horrified By the Military's Cold-War Era Plutonium

Experiments on Unsuspecting Hospital Patients is a Commie-Lover

Monica Crowley: The Real Coverup: The Plumbers Didn't Break Into the

Watergate, and I Can Prove It

Peggy Noonan: How Ronald Reagan's Brilliant Iran-Contra Plan Brought Down the Soviet Union and Saved Humanity

Debbie Schlussel: Absolute Necessity: The Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty

Anyway, congrats on the Malkin-bashing piece. She's utterly loathsome.

—Van Bailey

Every column generates what I call a central stupidity. The following reader’s letter was one such example for Internment Chic. It's not relevant who was in those camps: Japanese, Caucasians, albinos, or Hottentots. Rounding them up was plain wrong.—ILANA

From: Eberhard F.

Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004

Subject: Internment chic & Michelle Malkin

In reviewing her book, which includes references to the internment of over 15,000 Europeans, you choose to only discuss the racist internment of Japanese. Let me assure you that Europeans were indeed interned. I was one of them interned on a warrant signed by none other than Attorney General Francis Biddle. I was 17 when arrested in my Woodward High (Cincinnati) classroom in March 1943. I was released in September 1947, well after the war was long over. Then I was 22.

I WAS INTERNED TOGETHER WITH JAPANESE IN THE CRYSTAL CITY INTERNMENT CAMP IN TEXAS. Incidentally, the US brought Germans and Italians from Latin America there for internment with us. We all celebrated the joys and benefits of that multicultural diversity in Crystal City Texas. [I hope the reader is being cynical. If so, good line.]

There must be an embargo to discussing the verity of European internment, while openly, loudly, and quite voluminously depicting Japanese internment. Why the secrecy, and/or the obfuscation? [None intended. See my comment above.—ILANA]

My only quarrel with internment is that it continued for two and one half years after the war ended, and that noted writers such as you cannot even discuss it when reviewing a book that does. [This is a red herring.—ILANA]

—Eberhard F.

From: Justin M. Stoddard

Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004

Subject: Internment Chic

Ilana,

Finally!  I've been following the reactions to this book in the blogosphere ever since its release. As far as I can tell, you are the first libertarian to address it [I don’t know about that; all I know is that as a libertarian, I had to address it. Malkin advances a thesis that causes a visceral reaction of nausea]. All the other sites I've visited have degenerated into positions of racism (if you are on the left) and national security (those on the right). You are the first person I've read who has put the whole argument into not only moral, but Constitutional terms [now that is probably more accurate].

One other thing: Michelle Malkin is a gun lover (she has stated so in several of her articles, and good for her). I wonder what her position would be if said Japanese-American citizens had practiced their second amendment rights to protect both their property and livelihood.

I can guess [see Cliff Beittel’s letter below for a hint]. That's why, in the end, Michelle is both a shill and a poltroon. Please, keep up the good work.

Best regards,

-Justin M. Stoddard

From: Cliff Beittel

Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 2:28 PM

Subject: Internment chic & Michelle Malkin

Ilana,

Great column on Michelle Malkin (which I found at Antiwar.com). Isn't Michelle Malkin the daughter of Filipino parents? Haven't Islamic terrorists been active in the Philippines?  Didn't Terry Nichols visit there repeatedly before the Oklahoma City bombing?  Shouldn't, then, all Americans of Philippine descent be interned for the duration of the war on terror? As Ms. Malkin said on Hardball (not an exact quote, but close), "Individual rights can't be allowed to interfere with national security."

Actually, I once considered myself a semi-fan of Malkin's (didn't follow her work closely, but enjoyed her occasional TV appearances); the Bush administration has revealed as the worst kind of statists many who talked a good game in opposition to the Clintons.

Best,

—Cliff Beittel

York, PA

From: Ed

Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004

Subject: Article on MM - 8 27 04

Dear Ilana,

Thank you very much for the great article on Michelle Malkin.  She clearly was engaging in a propaganda attack against the Japanese American using similar tactics employed by Michael Moore. She had not done her homework. She is a disgrace to the Conservative movement (I am a Goldwater/Reagan/Founding Fathers Conservative).

Again, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

—Ed

 I’ve published this many approving letters because it is gratifying to discover that many conservatives are repulsed by the Malkin book and by the subversion of what they perceive as conservatism.—ILANA

From: David Colton

Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 6:13 AM

Subject: Internment Chic

Ilana:

As a lifelong conservative and activist during the Reagan Revolution, I write on behalf of my family to thank you for your column regarding Malkin's "book."

My mother's family was sent from Oregon to Minidoka for internment. My grandfather was a local civic leader and counseled cooperation both out of loyalty to the U.S. and in the hopes that cooperation would lead to reconsideration of the decision further down the road. (My mother, born in the U.S., never harbored any bad feelings about the internment and later proudly served as Assistant Dean of the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. State Department for 20 years).

The flaws in Malkin's "book" you note so well aside, I am grateful that many conservatives [and most libertarians, I am sure] who stand on solid principles articulate why Malkin's vision does not speak for conservative values, articulate sound security policy, and actually undercuts the very rationale for why we are defending our freedom today.

Your views make a difference and your voice has an impact.

On behalf of all of my extended family, again, thank you. [This means a lot to me.—ILANA]

—David Colton

From: Kathryn, a Your Page regular contributor

Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004

Subject: Malkin's Mad Mad Mad World

Hi Ilana,

Well, what's up with Malkin? Her book is a post hoc justification for one of the bigger public policy blunders (read: "abomination") of the U.S. government in modern times. Sometimes I wonder whose side she's really on…it cannot be "the People" or "unalienable rights," or as you mentioned, that pesky unalienable right that is currently being viewed as more of a concept—"due process."

The dangers inherent in her diatribe are really countless—there's so much dissent to ferret out. Did I say dissent? I meant danger...dangerous killers. My neighbor has sorta brownish skin, and listens to Blink 182 while he's out there weed-whacking his lawn. He has suspicious looking friends with stickers on their cars that literally insult our wonderful president! Good thing the nice folks at Homeland Security were more than happy to talk to me on the phone for 45 minutes and take a report on him!!

You know, the all-seeing, all-knowing prophet of truth and justice, John Ashcroft, says there are a lot of dangerous folks out there waiting to terrorize and kill us. They question the whole income tax system (and have the audacity to put it all over the Internet); they are fed up with the courts too. Let's put these people in a cage before they do something really bad and stir up the rest of the sheeple.

Well Ilana, I gotta go clean off my binocular lenses. The people across the canyon from me are from Canada, and they just don't look quite right, you know what I mean? I heard they liked that Fahrenheit 911 movie so I'm doing my part as a good American and keeping my eye on 'em.

Take care,

—Kathryn

    San Diego

From: Evan W. Steeg 

Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 8:08 AM

To: jfarah@worldnetdaily.com

Cc: imercer@worldnetdaily.com; vday@worldnetdaily.com

Subject: Kudos for Ilana Mercer

Dear Joseph:

Some positive feedback this time … Good on ya for bringing Ilana Mercer into the WND fold.  I don’t always agree with her slant on things – indeed sometimes, I confess, I can’t even identify it – but her style and content are usually fresh and thought-provoking.  Most columnists today are so in thrall to a particular ideology – or even to a particular candidate or party – that I could write a software program to take news stories as input and spit out the pundit’s next column.  Ilana is the rare exception that proves the rule.

  I’d say the same for Vox Day, though I’ve only read two of his columns so far. 

One of the ironies with which you will have to contend as head of WND is this:  The “independent” (rightist) internet mediocracy that started out as a plucky, free-thinking David against the mainstream Goliath has been a victim of its own success.  A cranky, monolithic inflexibility is setting in, perhaps out of a perceived desperate need to get behind the struggling Rove-Bush juggernaut and push. 

I urge you to keep diversity alive, support the Mercers and Days, and let us continue to hear the voices of libertarianism, of principled non-interventionism, and Buchanan’s paleo-conservative challenges to the neo-con party line.  (And – what the heck – perhaps you’ll feel secure enough at some point to allow a “liberal” opinion now and then as well).

PS. Ms. Mercer, I look forward to reading your book.

Regards,

—Evan

Evan W. Steeg, Ph.D.

From: Sean Cunningham

Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 6:29 AM

Subject: Compete, Don’t Kill [On socialist Canada, the reader makes some interesting points. I thought I did know Canada, but, clearly, the U.S. is changing so rapidly in its accelerated statism, that Canada must be reevaluated in relation to the U.S.—ILANA]

Hi,

You don't know Canada.  We have a confederation; our provincial parties cover a spectrum more left AND right than yours; our federal parties include the Marijuana Party,The Rhinos, Social Credit, Greens, New Conservatives (who recently won a nine fold increase in seats), Yogic Flyers, Marxist-Leninists and Bloc Quebecois. Our governing Liberal Party is fiscally conservative; our deficit is gone and our debt is being paid down.

We chafe at America's unwillingness to compete.  From our standpoint, America views Canadian success in your markets as proof of unfair practice, as in softwood lumber or steel. No indoctrination against competition is practiced here [Well, there was certainly a negative attitude toward competition in my daughter’s school.—ILANA]

We have freedoms you don't. I can grow peanuts anywhere they'll take; no countries are forbidden me, nor any websites or radio stations.  An objective observer might conclude that America is the more socialist. [Canada still out-taxes the U.S. And as for environmental regulation; look at a resource-rich province like British Columbia. It is now virtually dead largely because of environmental prohibition on mining, logging, and other exploration. Canada has huge potential; it can awaken from its socialist slumber. That it doesn’t conduct wars is also very beneficial to the economy.—ILANA]

Sincerely,

—Sean Cunningham

Mimicking O’Reilly, readers often refused to get beyond their limitations and their dislike of France and Germany and kept on about the motivation behind these nations’ decision not to aid in invading Iraq. Inferring motivation is O’Reilly’s domain and isn't relevant to the argument. The most important thing to look at is that the leaders of “Old Europe,” on the facts and the logic, did the right thing in terms of preserving the lives and property of their people. If someone does the right thing, even if it is for the wrong reasons, the rest is ad hominem.

On a positive note, letters about the “Kill Bill” column were overall quite good. There was very little of the old neocon cussing. I think the ideological descendants of Trotsky are running out of steam.—ILANA

From: Reichel, James J

Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004

Subject: He Contorts, I Decide

France and Russia opposed the Iraq invasion for two reasons: the money owed to them, and that little detail of the modern, i.e. post-ban weapons that they provided to Saddam.  NOT because they were “smarter.”

—James J Reichel

EMC(SS) USN, ret.

From: A. Morrison

Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 10:03 AM

Subject: He Contorts, I Decide

During the Cold War, The Soviet Union installed puppet governments in countries like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, and Poland. Whenever the citizens of those countries rose up in rebellion against the Soviet occupation, the puppet installed government would "invite" Soviet tanks and troops to crush these rebellions. Russian troops would march in and restore “order” through mass bloodshed, preserving their power over that country and its population

Now we see the United States doing the exact same thing in Iraq

Iraq has become our "satellite" possession, done in the name of extending our control and influence. Rightwing neo-cons are nothing but warmed-over Bolsheviks and their brain-locked hypocrite followers think this is a form of payback for 9/11. The Soviets also believed that since the Germans killed millions of their people, they had a right to seal off the East Bloc in the name of "security".

—A Morrison

Los Angeles CA

From: Gilbert B.

Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 8:10 AM

Subject: O’Reilly vs. Krugman

Madam:

I enjoy reading your editorials.  You are direct and have the ‘audacity’ to cite facts, some of which I learn first from your writing.  I am more of a Constitutionalist than a Libertarian so I suspect we disagree on quite a bit.

I agree with your criticism of Keynesian economics and Krugman. I agree with your point that Republicans are profligate spenders and Bush has done nothing to stop it.  I disagree with you on Iraq, but much of that debate is impossible to have in the correct context since Bush did not heed my advice —yes I wrote him on this point—and ask Congress for a declaration of war.

I disagree with your assessment of France and Russia that their leaders kept them out of Iraq out of wisdom.  I believe it had more to do with greed and the desire to continue their highly lucrative role in the oil for food fiasco.

Best wishes,

—Gilbert B.

    Texas

From: Dale A.

Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 8:33 AM

Subject: He Contorts, I Decide

Ilana,

I just read your article on WND regarding Bill O'Reilly's "debate" with Paul Krugman. It was right on! I sat in amazement as O'Reilly turned red with anger and Tim Russert did nothing to control the tirade!

How he (O'Reilly or FOX News for that matter) can claim to be "Fair and Balanced" is beyond me!

Another one to keep your eye on is Sean Hannity. His temper follows along the same lines as O'Reilly’s. Neither knows what else to do when confronted with facts that differ from their opinions.

Keep up the great work.

—Dale A.

From: sj

Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 6:46 PM

Subject: O'Rowdy

Dear Ilana,

    You nailed him, but I won't even comment on the idiot O'Reilly, other than to say, if he grew up somewhere other than on one of the coasts where the closest guys get to being real men is watching a John Wayne movie while drinking a wine cooler, he'd be a lot different a man.

Out here in the small town flyby country where I grew up, if a guy was as  big a blowhard as O'Reilly, he'd get hit up side the head a few times, until he learned to talk polite and in turn.

As to your mention of Fox hyping false readings on Geiger counters to relay the idea that here was evidence of WMDs, yes and no. No, of course there weren't WMDs, but yes, there could have been positive Geiger counter readings. In the first war and in this one, we have been using depleted uranium tipped ammo and bombs. Heavily attacked areas are literally glowing with happy juice.

    As per returning caskets, the fact that thousands of soldiers from both Iraq wars have developed horrible immune system and respiratory damage from the radiation and anthrax shots forced upon them, has been covered up by our honorable government. Many soldiers have died from this, not to mention the hundreds of Iraqi babies stillborn or with extreme deformities.

    But none of these things matter to a buffoon like O'Reilly, and all the other sycophants who are so in love with being on the side of those in power, they become blind to reality and humanity.

I'm outta here,

—skip j

From: James R. Jarrett

Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 6:52 AM

Subject: Vote and Die

Ms. Mercer:

It has been some time since I last contacted you. In the interim I have enjoyed the stimulation of reading your articles on WND. I am often in partial disagreement with your positions, but I am seldom in disagreement with the logic and sequence of the support you offer for your positions. It simply reaffirms that rational, intelligent people  can arrive at disparate conclusions when presented with the same information.

I have always been, since a young man, an ardent opponent of democracy and a rabid supporter of a Constitutional Republic. We have nothing resembling a Constitutional Republic in this once great nation, but we are experiencing the chaos of noisy, emotively based democracy that Jefferson and others warned us against so long ago.

As a 10 year combat decorated Special Forces (Green Beret) veteran, I am filled with grief that in 1945 I was born into a still-great county, but will depart at some not terribly distant point from a country that is merely powerful.

Do keep up your work, though you are a voice crying in the wilderness.

Strength and Honor,

—James R. Jarrett (ABD-ph.d. MS, DABFE, DABLEE

United States Army Special Forces Association

Special Operations Association

Randy Barnett, a friend, and one of the truly brilliant libertarian intellectuals, comments on the Volokh Conspiracy in response to Libertarianism & Foreign Policy: A Reply to Randy Barnett —ILANA

The Volokh Conspiracy

Friday, July 30, 2004

[Randy Barnett, July 30, 2004 at 3:07am] Possible Trackbacks

Ilana Responds (and more):

Always thoughtful and provocative, Ilana Mercer takes up the challenge of how Libertarianism does have foreign policy implications in her column, Return to Reason, on WorldNetDaily. (In the process she both ridicules antiwar Libertarians and the war in Iraq at the same time.)

Along the way, I learn that she had previously made the argument I advanced in my article, Constitutional Legitimacy in the Columbia Law Review and in Restoring the Lost Constitution;

''From the fact that many libertarians believe ... that the state has no legitimacy, [they] arrive at the position that anything the state does is illegitimate ... Consider the murderer who, while fleeing the law, happens on a scene of a rape, [and] saves the woman ... Is this good deed illegitimate because a murderer has performed it?"

The logical error in Lawrence’s good letter was repeated many times in long (much less courteous), convoluted, and pompous missives from libertarians. (I chose to publish the nice note.) Of course libertarianism is the quintessential moral political philosophy. But libertarians reject the initiation of violence against a person based on a moral transgression other than a violation of property rights (this includes a property right in one’s person). These two statements are not mutually exclusive. You would not initiate force against anyone, however immoral, unless they were violating your person or property. This, again, is a highly moral position, but it rejects the initiation of force on the basis of morality. —ILANA

From: Lawernce S.

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004

Subject: Libertarianism

Dear Ilana,

You wrote: “Nonetheless, since it is a political philosophy concerned with the justified use of force (based on property rights and not morality), libertarianism offers an organizing first principle from which clear – if broad – policy prescriptions can be derived.”

I have to disagree with your statement that libertarianism deals only [emphasis added; this is nowhere in the column] with property rights and not morality. Because libertarianism incorporates the ideals of an aggression-free society, self-ownership and free choice, morality plays a big part. Libertarians are basically saying that people should not physically hurt or aggress against another human or group of humans [unless they have been aggressed against. Libertarianism is not pacifism, which is deplorable. —ILANA]—fairly Christian in concept.

As for the war in Iraq, it is wrong on many fronts. We were neither attacked nor threatened by the government of Iraq. But North Korea, for instance, has threatened the U.S. continuously and we had done nothing. Why?

The ethical point: governments should neither interfere with the peaceful lives of citizens in foreign nations nor with its own citizens. Our nation has been relatively free for over 200 years, and during that time, almost every nation had had a dictator, king or tyrant. Why did we fail to attack most of the world to set their citizens free? Napoleon attempted to do this in Europe. It appears we are destined to follow Napoleon’s steps.

—L.K. Samuels

From: Wright, Chuck

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 10:07 AM

Subject: Your Page comment

Ilana, I hope you don’t think this a gratuitous comment but reviewing your bio reminds me of what my son (active duty Army) and myself (retired Air Force) were fighting for!  Keep up the good work and I’ll be sure to read your book.

—Chuck Wright

Telemetry Products

Nova Engineering

Cincinnati

From: joe silverman

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004

To: Libertarianism & Foreign Policy: A Reply to Randy Barnett

Ilana,

Your discussion (and Randy’s) seems a bit arid given the current situation.

If a despotic state invades its neighbors, slaughters some of its own population, supports international terrorism in various ways, and vocally

threatens the Great Satan (i.e., USA), must we wait for the bomb to be dropped by the despot (or their irresponsible associates)? if not, then

under what conditions can one attack before being attacked?

—Joe

For more about this bogus war, go to my War & Terrorism archive. I’m tired of repeating myself. —ILANA

From: Johnson, Michael W

Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004

Subject: U.N. on the Wrong Side of the Fence

Dear Ms. Mercer,

It's not surprising that the ICJ ruled for barbarism and against civilization. That's the sort of ruling one expects from the ICJ. Why get your shorts all in a knot over it? After all, the ICJ's rulings have considerably less force behind them than the threats of a seven-year-old schoolyard bully. I expect that you're sufficiently bright to ignore orders from a court that can't send marshals to arrest you, and I'm certain that Ariel Sharon is. Would that all attempts at world government were as contemptible as the ICJ.

Regards,

—Michael W. Johnson

From: Charles T.

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004

Subject: Thomas Jefferson vs. the Libertarian Party

Ms. Mercer,

Great article on WND. I will vote Libertarian but I think their position on immigration will turn away most voters.

For more liberty, vote Libertarian.

—Charles T.

Foster City, CA

From: James Korman

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004

Subject: Thomas Jefferson vs. the Libertarian Party [Thanks James for reminding me of Mises’ perspective.]

Ilana,

Good article.

Mises wrote that immigration and the welfare state are mutually exclusive, and that unlimited immigration can only be permitted in relatively unsettled/uninhabited environs.

Voegelin opined that society is not a suicide compact. Each of these thoughts seems to reign supreme in our utterly depraved civilization.

From Plato: "Those who seek power should not be allowed to attain it.”

Regards,

—Jim Korman

From: Robert D.

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004

Subject: The Libertarian Party  

I am a proud member of the LP and have been for many years, but I have always been against this one issue of open borders. The LP allows one to disagree—i.e., pro-life vs. pro-choice—on issues, but it is the only party I can support.

—Robert G. D.

From: Jim S.

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004

Subject: Thomas Jefferson vs. the Libertarian Party

Ilana,

You say that the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate refuses to see the perils of free, unfettered immigration. The reality is that as long as the USA is relative to other countries a desirable destination people will come here. [So what?] If people think they will improve their opportunities by coming to America they will. Nothing short of a North Korean policy of shooting people attempting to cross our border will stop people from coming here.

Perhaps you refuse to see the realities of the immigration situation. Yes, millions of immigrants enter the USA each year. Most do not come to wage war. [Perhaps, but “the reality” is that most DO come to wage welfare.] Most get jobs and contribute to the vitality of American society. [How so? Immigration policy costs American workers $2,600 a year .] 

What a libertarian government would offer is an end to big government: no government safety net, no government welfare, and no government schools. Would such policies encourage or discourage immigration?

—Jim S.

So why doesn't the LP oppose free immigration until it can dismantle the free-loader system? The outrageous fact is that the LP supports free immigration NOW; it supports wealth transfer, among other injustices wreaked by current immigration policy. —ILANA

From: Dr. Robert Payton 

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 3:13 AM

Subject: Thomas Jefferson vs. the Libertarian Party

Dear Mrs. Mercer:

I find it surprising when Americans are "surprised" by the opinions of the Founding Fathers. When one uses the term American it evokes two mental responses: a person that speaks American English, and a person of European descent.

It doesn't evoke images of Hispanics, "African Americans," or American Natives. The latter, for instance, are part of a separate nation: the Indian Nation. Hispanics are associated with Mexico, Latin America, and the Conquistadors, not AMERICA.

To be more specific, the noun American is evokes several specific peoples: Anglo Saxons, Scottish, Irish Celts, and Dutch. Every cultural root of "American" culture is planted firmly and squarely in the ancient oak groves of the British Isles.

Our culture always derives back to the Pilgrims in every historical analysis. The Pilgrims are the prime example, and the cultural ideal, of what the settling of America was about.   Unlike the money hungry, lazy, quarrelsome rabble of Jamestown, the Pilgrims had good relations with Native Americans, paid off all their debts to their sponsors to the penny, and set the model for the country’s origins. Furthermore, the Pilgrims came here for absolutely pure religious reasons: to avoid severe persecution, and to evangelize the natives of America. The Pilgrims saw themselves as the Spiritual Children of Israel coming to the New Jerusalem ... the Promised Land. Every other group that settled the New World, particularly Hispanics, raped and pillaged the countryside, and came here more out of greed than anything else. (An exception is Christopher Columbus, who, according to his writings, wanted to evangelize West India.)

Anyone who strays from this cultural fact, history, and influence, does not understand America at all. Those who deliberately deny the truth are trying to rewrite history like all good communists rewrite history.

—Dr. Robert M. Payton

From: Purcell, Jaime  

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004

Subject: Thomas Jefferson vs. the Libertarian Party

Howdy! Ms. Mercer:

Regarding your Thomas Jefferson vs. the Libertarian Party essay: amen.

I have a friend that is a Libertarian party member. I repeatedly tell him that, until all the roads and parks become private property and the Welfare State is dismantled, open immigration is nothing but a transfer of my resources to the State.

If the LP would come out and state that on principle, it stands for open immigration, but due to the current political situation, and until the Federal government is reined in, the LP will close the borders (northern and southern), the LP would siphon many Republican votes away from the GOP. The LP would also probably take votes away from the Constitution Party.

The other issue is the “War on Drugs.” The LP needs to simply stick to the 9th and 10th amendments and the abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The LP needs to stick to these general principles, and not go sticking the finger into the eye of drug legalization.

I will vote for the Constitution Party, even though I have no clue as to why they are so fixated on the Panama Canal.

Deo Vindice

—Mr. Jaime Purcell

From: Dan L.

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 3:05 AM

To: letters@worldnetdaily.com

Subject: Thomas Jefferson vs. the Libertarian Party

Dear WND letters editor,

It's fantastic to see such a positive and helpful article by Ilana Mercer regarding the Libertarian Party (LP).  It's strange, though, that she picked the following quote from Jefferson to highlight a supposed flaw in the LP's immigration policy:

"If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements ... “

That seems to exactly mirror the LP's position: when people come here for the welfare state ("extraordinary encouragements"), we are against it.  So we favor ending the welfare state.  But if they come to work hard ("of themselves"), society benefits and Jefferson was acknowledging this ("they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship"). 

I don't understand the voter who is tired of big government, likes 98% of the Libertarian platform, and then throws away their opportunity to express that agreement.  No party agrees with you 100%.  Vote Libertarian and send a clear and convincing message to Washington that you want LESS GOVERNMENT.  No other party is consistently for smaller government.  No other vote makes this statement.

We can work out the immigration issue later, when actually getting a Libertarian elected is more realistic.

—Dan L.

San Diego, CA

[Immigration is THE dilemma facing Americans. Because of propaganda, in which the Libertarian Party is complicit, Americans, the reader included, remain oblivious to the enormity of the problem.—ILANA]

From: Johnson, W. Michael  

Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 7:48 AM

Subject: 'Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation' [The reader is mistaken: most reasonable libertarians don’t have a problem with the prohibition of lewd acts in public. Whatever property is in government hands should be managed like private property. One would not condone the acts described by the reader on one’s front lawn, so why allow them in public spaces?—ILANA]

Dear Ms. Mercer,

Your column today illustrates my principal complaint against libertarians: they never seem to let reality interfere with their philosophy. I admit that I've never read Rand and probably won't bother. I did catch a few minutes of the movie "The Fountainhead" one night when I was suffering from insomnia. I'd always been a fan of Gary Cooper, so I thought it would be OK. Wrong! The dialog was stilted and downright ridiculous. Even the nearly illiterate Ernest Hemingway wrote better dialog.

For all your vaunted intellectual prowess, neither you nor Rand has figured out that, if privacy is the hallmark of civilization, then laws prohibiting certain sexual acts between consenting adults are necessary. Laws against sodomy are necessary so that nice ladies like you can take their kids to the park without having to explain what those two naked guys are doing in the bushes. Laws against prostitution are necessary to prevent hookers from parading on your street, doing car tricks in front of your house, and making disparaging remarks about you in the presence of your children while soliciting your husband. Laws against pornography are necessary to prevent pornographers from thrusting their smut into your face at every turn. Privacy must be forced upon some people.

No one ever expected that the laws against sodomy, prostitution, and pornography would end the practices. They merely kept the practitioners from doing it in the road and frightening the horses. In other words, the laws enforced that hallmark of civilization, privacy. The libertarian (or perhaps I should say libertine) tendency in laws regulating sexual conduct has made the majority of us less free, and our society less civilized.

Regards,

—Mike Johnson

From: Dave

Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004

Subject: 'Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation'

Firstly, I wanted to thank you for your weekly columns. I greatly enjoy reading your writing style.

Second, I had a bit of a problem with the notion that you were presenting a falsified piece of information, namely the alleged fact that homosexuality is genetic, or pre-disposed. I wanted to show you some information that proves otherwise (especially since there is still no proof that homosexuality is genetic). The contending information can be found at - http://www.narth.com. They have many articles that deal with homosexuality, especially about the politics thereof.

The reason why I bring this up is because I am 24 years of age, and I deal with SSA (same-sex attraction). It's something that I deal with everyday, and I'd rather not have the world and certain organizations telling me how to live my life. One thing that I love about the libertarian philosophy is that it allows an individual to pursue his or her own dreams. Right now, my dream is to be able to be healed from my homosexuality and not be told I can't because of fallacious information.

You may also want to check out Vox Day's blog. He had a good pin-up from the Evangelical Outpost that showed good ties between the homosexual agenda and fascism.

—David

[My answer to David: I did not say anything about a gene. I said homosexuality was innate. Having known many homosexuals, including my own sister, as well as having studied some about sexual identity at university, I think that the evidence supports this contention. Innate, as far as I know, doesn’t mean genetic. Why am I not surprised to hear popular writers promoting conspiracy theories about homosexuals. Conspiracy thinking is the refuge of the feeble minded. In any case, I respect David’s struggle; he must do what he thinks is best for him.]

GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE. Or so it seems. (Cynicism alert: An editor at a national newspaper informs me I’ve been way too subtle and lady-like here.)

1) My July 2, 2004 column, Israel: Island of Justice in the Middle East, followed the decision of the Israeli High Court to force the Israeli government to re-draw sections of the wall because these violated, to quote the column, “a standard designed to ‘strike a balance between security and human rights.’ The column starts by pointing out that such a decision—the specter of a “supreme court rul[ing] against the state”—could not have happened in the neighboring countries, including the Palestinian Authority. I upheld Israel as an “Island of Justice in the Middle East” in that, to quote, “despite a ceaseless terror campaign against its very existence, Israel remains a country under the rule of enlightened Western law.” To fortify my point, I galvanized another of the court’s “exceedingly progressive ruling on the vexing topic of torture.” I was, as always, careful to quote my source on that decision: Alan Dershowitz.

In his July 4, 2004 column (I am on his distribution list and he on mine), Lorne Gunter, Columnist and Editorial Bd. Member, National Post, Columnist, Edmonton Journal, writes: “Court ruling proof of Israeli democracy: This couldn't happen in neighbouring states, where courts are not free.” Gunter goes on to point out that, “This is a remarkable sign of how civilized, humane and just a society Israel is,” in that it “permits ‘the enemy’ to bring petitions to its courts alleging human rights violations, its courts heed those complaints and order the government to change its ways and the government complies.” Gunter also mentions that “the same Israeli court … outlawed the use of torture by Shin Bet, Israel's security service, when interrogating terrorist suspects.”

2) In my January 16, 2004 column, “Border Invasion At Home, Border Betrayal Abroad,” I wrote:

“Inviting an invasion by foreigners and instigating one against them are two sides of the same neoconservative coin.”

In his January 25, 2004 column, Steve Sailer, columnist for VDARE (and on my distribution list) wrote:

“…neoconservatives of a generation ago have been jostled aside by lesser figures whose outlook can be summed up as:

Domestic Policy: Invite the World!

Foreign Policy: Invade the World!”

So if anyone needs proof of the existence of "mental telepathy," there it is.

—ILANA (July 4)

From: Michael Strikmiller

Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:55 AM

Subject: Self Defense: A Universal Right (On thugs in government and on the streets)

South Africa and Crime:

Thanks to Jimmy Cater and other American Presidents with the blessing of the UN, the boycott of South Africa turned a beautiful and prosperous nation into a third word dictatorship. Too bad.  It is a sin the whole world is responsible for. As a youngster I wanted to visit to countries, especially South Africa and Australia. With the socialist and Marxist in control of these two countries I now want to visit neither.

The United States is quickly becoming the next Socialist/Fascist nation on the planet. It just depends which party is in power. If the United States doesn't wake up soon we will have the same problems as in South Africa and Australia. The thugs will not only rule the government but the streets as well.

By the by, a .45 cal model 1911A1 is by far your best bet as a home defense and personal carry tool. Springfield Armory has a good product as well as Para Ordnance. So do many others.

Respectfully,

—Michael G. Strikmiller, REM

Read the latest news on the topic, reported by the (gleeful) BBC, only a week after “Self Defense: A Universal Right” was written. —ILANA

From: The in-laws: They and so many other South Africans are the heroes of, Self-defense: A universal right

Sent:     Friday, June 25, 2004 3:36 AM

Subject: Crime Stats in South Africa

Dear Ilana,

I cannot get any information on any crime stats for you – there is a complete moratorium in place. Locally and internationally.

We contacted the DA this morning (Tony Leon’s Party) and they phoned us back – they are not allowed to have any crime stats although they have attended various Law Enforcement meetings but have been informed that no stats are available to them or anyone else.

(I did introduce myself to Tony Leon one day at the Waterfront [that used to be my favorite shopping centre; what chic and style it had before “freedom” came … in droves … and with a couple of bombs too]—he was just passing by, but I felt I had to speak to him. I told him to “give them hell,” to which he replied he was doing his level best to do just that. It’s a one-party dictatorship here and will remain so – any opposition is fighting shadows unfortunately.)

A complete blackout is in place, as our “esteemed leader” (!!!!!!!!!!!) does not want the international community or locals to know that they have literally no control over crime in SA – we are being fed a diet of “all is well and under control.” We get no coverage at all on TV or radio or in newspapers, however, we know that things are bad. But as long as the African is being told by Mbeki that all is well, he believes it because it’s being fed to him by an African. We however know otherwise.

It’s a bit like living on an island or in a bubble – no news of the outside world at all – it’s as if it did not exist – the media coverage is of rugby, cricket, and how we are all working together.

Much love  

—Mum & Dad

P.S. It would appear that the UK also favors the criminal. [There is an essay in my book about the prohibition of self-defense in the UK.] We do get the gist from UK newspapers: they have workshops for muggers, informing them how violent they are “allowed” to be when mugging – it’s all out of control.

Dave Kopel, the prolific 2nd-Amendment scholar, mentioned he’d give this column a plug on NRO's, "The Corner." Thanks.

From: D. B. Ajupe

Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004

Subject: Self-defense: A Universal Right [The UK and the US are not far behind South Africa. The difference lies not so much in the degree of rights violation by government, but, rather, in crime statistics: the UK and the US have much less crime than SA does.]

I agree that the ANC is wrong denying the right to self-defense. But how is this different from, say, England, or Washington D.C. or New York???  Seems I just read of a New Yorker jailed for shooting an intruder, not because he did something wrong, but because he used an unlicensed weapon. 

—DB

From: Larry & Sue

Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004

Subject: Have you considered a .45?

Dear Ilana,

I would humbly suggest that you try out a Colt (which are not as good as)/Kimber /Springfield Armory etc. .45 pistol. With a pair of Laser Grips laser sights from Crimson Trace, you would have more rounds, faster firing rate, and better ballistics. The .357 has a tendency to pass through creeps and endanger others. The good old .45 (flying ashtray) hollow point has tremendous stopping power and is famous for one-shot drops [nice expression.] The .45 is more fun to shoot when practicing, because the mechanism that facilitates the auto-reloading absorbs some of the recoil. 

Glad to see that you are armed and dangerous. I feel sorry for your family and wish they could follow you here. Seriously, we will be in trouble here in the U.S. soon also, so another suggestion is that it would also be good to live in a smaller town, have a garden, have some like-minded close friends, and a good shotgun and rifle. Don’t forget: practice-practice-practice! We are not “black helicopter paranoids” to see the writing on the wall. It only takes a little study of history to see what happens when Humanists and socialists take over a country.

Take care,

—Larry and Sue

Readers had a great deal of information for me about fire arms. Thanks to Neil for telling me that “the .357 is also available in six-shot and seven-shot models;” and to m. r. o’donnell who reminded me of the benefits of the wonderful sound, in the dead of night, made by a shotgun being cocked … music to an intruder’s ears. —ILANA

From: m. r. o'donnell

Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004

Subject: Self-defense: A universal right

Ms. Mercer,

What an excellent – if horrifying – piece you have written regarding the pathetic situation in South Africa. The silence of all the liberals who “facilitated” the Marxist take-over of that beautiful country is deafening.

I pity anyone living in South Africa.

Mbeki is a monster.

You also exhibit excellent taste in your choice of bedside hardware. [LOL] May I suggest you give serious consideration to supplementing your handgun with a loaded shotgun – the best close-in home-defense weapon known to man (or woman)?

Regards,

—m. r. o’donnell

From: K., David

Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004

Subject: On being a sheep or a wolf

Ilana,

The choice is clear:  your in laws need to go underground in order to be able to purchase guns. In this country, before the right to carry became law in many states, there were many people like myself that carried regardless of the law. If caught I would be a criminal but then again the odds of that were worth taking the risk. My life is worth it, same as anyone’s on this planet.

I’ve also learned this the hard way: If I had to kill an intruder, I would not report it but take the body and bury it in the remote woods of the… [Omitted for the reader's safety <g>] The reason is I do not believe anybody has the right in a grand jury to judge my actions in defending my family, let alone make me face wrongful death lawsuits by the family of the perp. If you ever have to use your weapon, your life will become a nightmare even if justified because of our laws especially civil court. [My emphasis]

Point is, your in-laws have to make the same decision I did years ago to ignore the government. Besides, it’s every person’s God-given right to self defend and I worship god not my government. Who do the politicians think they are? They all have body guards and protection. Our lives are worth as much as theirs [I beg to differ: much more] although their behavior tells me otherwise. I’m usually a law-abiding citizen, but there comes a time one must question the government’s laws or motives and decide to be a sheep of a wolf. Long ago I decided to be a wolf. Your in-laws must do the same or flee their homeland for safety [so many of my readers were not hip to the fact that people can’t just immigrate; our immigration laws don’t exactly favor white, non-welfare dependent folk, who would never dream of relying on taxpayer’s largess].

I’ve been to South Africa several times before and after Mandela got out, and I can say that if I lived there, I would not sleep well at night without the means to defend myself. On one motorcycle tour we even had a guide armed to the teeth to protect us because of our skin