Maybe the lawyer in Pennsylvania wasn't telling you the whole story. Believe this or not: In the past year, I have written to the White House, to the CIA chief, to the the Secretary of Defense, and to the chief of Cuba Transition, and stated plainly that I intended to participate at my earliest convenience in the armed overthrow of the Castro regime. No one has arrested, warned, or even looked sideways at me.

The quote indirectly cites the words of the one advocating for state intervention, but directly cites the author of the book that revealed this situation. It is a good quote that reveals the attitude of the state.

Not overly hyperbolic. Perhaps slightly exaggerated, but only slightly.

Dick: We would all appreciate a reasoned explanation of your determination. It is not that I claim not to be crazy, but only that the good intentions reflected by Reston's comment fail to consider the greater reality of the state's incapacity. The failure of society to produce good parents must result in its incapacity to regulate parenting. Is that unreasonable?

Adding to the above, welfare dependents who continue to have children, knowing that they are creating wards of the state, should be penalized for their antisocial behavior, the same as if they had robbed public funds from the cash drawer of a government office.

If men were capable of determining the adequate guidelines for such issues, mankind would probably not need them.

Although the reservations are valid, the basic idea is a good one. There are people who should not have children. That much is painfully obvious.

Where do you see the contradiction? Oh, that's right, there is no contradiction, in fact, but only your inability to maintain a clear view of the picture. Sorry, Archer, but I think there might be a medicine for you, or maybe just stop smoking pot for a while and it might all clear up for you. Good luck.

I love you too, Archer.

No, Jack. But I think you had figured that out already. Some forms of perversion are tolerable, in a sense, when kept in the privacy of ones home. How do you feel about NAMBLA, for example? Or what about the drug addicts who live on the streets and mug the citizenry? Or what about the career criminals? Or what about the communists, who are dedicated to the overthrow of our society? I do not think that any of these should have a share in government.

Actually, it is sometimes erroneous to label as government a regime that exercises tyranny over a population. When pirates came ashore, armed and rabid, taking control of towns and sacking them, they usually left after getting what they had come for. In the case of Cuba, they came ashore, armed and rabid, took control, looted, sacked, and never left again. Does that mean they became a government? Some might say so; I reject the idea. Think of tyranny "from without" as opposed to the individuals' decision, from within himself, to imitate others.

Actually, many of them do not even have the vote, having been excluded as a result of convictions leading to loss of privileges. And that is very good. The less the influence of that type in government, the better.

No one loses freedom or autonomy by imitating another. They choose freely to do so, and can freely choose to do otherwise. Tyranny from without brings loss of freedom.

Self evident? Allowing addicts, perverts, the deranged, and the sociopathic to share in government would do nothing for the improvement of democracy.

The trip into the abstract leaves behind the real. Those who choose to exercise tyranny, and do so with skill, have other skills that they could also choose to exercise, if they were not so perverse.

The day when all alike share in government to the utmost will be a sadder, more violent, more corrupt day than today.

I find it astonishing that the editor repeatedly edits out my comments while repeatedly allowing to remain the baseless, ignorant, and bigotted comments of others. The editor is not obviously a believer in many of the principles expounded in the quotes he posts.

Just a few years ago, sodomy was a crime. Now the anti-sodomy laws are all repealed, and homosexuality has become a matter of pride, pride in repeatedly inserting a reproductive organ into an excretory canal. The courts regularly rule against prayer or public displays of Christian principles, including calling preaching against homosexulaity a hate crime. Get your facts straight, you anti-Christian bigots.

If they only were all as lucid as he was when he ruled in that case.

Sorry, Jack, but I can say without any sentiment that on the Elian case you are totally ignorant. I do have so much first-hand information about that tragic incident, more than you would believe. I have spent many hours on the scene, on many different days, before and after that CRIME committed on Clinton's orders and under his approval. And I have first-hand contacts with several of the people involved directly in that incident. You just do not have any idea about what you are talking about, since you were spoon fed a little information by the liberal press, which did not report the true facts. You can take that or leave it, but it is a fact. And the multiple crimes committed against Elian and others in that case are beyond question of the heinous type.

You do not have to believe in a supreme being described by anyone to be a believer in God. And from your description of yourself, you seem not to be an atheist. I think you are a role model, almost.

Waco, and Elian Gonzalez, and Whitewater, and delivering top secrets to China, and read through the following sites:
http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clintoncrime.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/3450/clintonscrimes.html
http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc.html
You're welcome.

You claim to be an atheist, but I bet that you are not.

Robert: Oh, so you agree that you should "behave towards others as you would behave unto yourself." That's half the battle. Now, if you would just believe in God, you might have a chance. I was an atheist, but thankfully I am no longer as ignorant as I was.

Robert: Clinton is connected with more criminal activity and associations than any other president. I am sure your Buddha would not approve, given the principles of right action and right thought or intention. But you go ahead and idolize a criminal, if that brings you peace.