BEYOND COMMON SENSE

When the power seekers get control they do things that are "beyond common sense" to keep their ability to run your life fresh. This newsletter is designed to keep you aware of their senseless actions

Issue Number 3

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another, nor ask another to live for mine." -John Galt's pledge from Ayn Rand's masterwork, "Atlas Shrugged," slightly edited to apply to both sexes.
Publisher/Editor: Ray Thomas, P. O. Box 16247, Denver, CO 80216-0247 Phone: 720-351-3674

CONTENTS

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

The main thing the power seekers in our government must do if they are to succeed in gaining total power over all of us is to convince the "average American" that the tactics they use to destroy dissenters and to gain money and property in excess of the money they're paid in taxes to use as "seed money" is to use the Hegelian Principle to create a crisis, which they then publicize far and wide, and then when a clamor is heard for a "solution" to the crisis they have created, provide one -- that conveniently limits our rights just a little bit more, and takes just a little more money away from us to "support" the "solution." Such a scam is the highly vaunted "Drug War," which has allowed them to make more laws and regulations that have more seriously limited our rights and taken more money from us than any single scam before or since.

The main feature in this issue demonstrates that their scam is working admirably. Did you read anywhere but in the local papers about this home invasion and murder, sex assault, and robbery? You won't either. Because this is just one more "exercise" to learn just how much the "average American" will allow their government to do in the name of "getting rid of drugs," which is the "crisis" that has been used in this scam.-Ray Thomas, Publisher/Editor

A simple argument against "forced altruism":
Is it OK to steal from one person and give the stolen property to another person without the approval of the owner, just because of a real or imagined "need?" (Ray Thomas)

FEATURE ARTICLE: GOVERNMENT MURDER IS EASY

Copyright © 1999 By Ray Thomas

Today, the criminals on the streets sometimes wear badges. The "drug war" has led to a greater deterioration of civil liberties that any hysteria in this century. Evidence of that is in the story below:

It's easy to rob and murder with impunity when you're a government agent. When you do, it is all too typical for your "superiors" to create a scenario that criminalizes the innocent person you've just robbed and murdered in his own home while holding his wife, in her panties, outside in the cold. Since the government controls the scene and the complete source of all information about the robbery and murder, no one can claim otherwise with any degree of proof.

Such is the case with the robbery and murder of Mario Paz.

What would you think of a group that bursts into a man's home in the middle of the night, kills the man and sexually assaults his wife, then steals $11,000 the man had taken out of the bank just that day? That's exactly what the El Monte, California Police Department did to Mario Paz and his wife near midnight on August 9, 1999. All because a drug dealer neighbor asked if he could use their address as a mailing address temporarily during a move. They did not knock, they just burst in. they would not allow his wife to put anything on, but forced her to go outdoors in her panties (that's sexual asault). They interrogated her and six other family members for six hours without a lawyer.

No drugs were found.

And when Mrs. Paz grabbed a policeman's leg while begging for her husband's life, they claimed that she "tackled the lead officer" and shot her husband twice in the back. They claimed he was reaching for a weapon, which was patently impossible since he was on his knees on the floor, still in handcuffs. Even if he was reaching for a gun it was his right, since all these armed men burst into his house and assaulted him and his wife -- without identifying themselves. They could have been a gang of thieves. Turns out they were just that. Only these thieves carry badges. They've already stolen $1,000 of the $11,000 they found in the house, since the "official accounting" was that much short. When the family asked for the money back, they used it as a "lever" hoping to get Mrs. Paz to agree to an interview. In any man's language, that's extortion. And Mrs. Paz will never get the money unless she sues, and before she sues, she must file a bond to guarantee the payment of the government's legal expenses, win or lose.

To further confuse matters, another immigrant family who has bought cars from Mr. Paz say that on September 22, the El Monte police threatened to prosecute them for drug trafficking if they did not testify that Paz and another man were dealers, searching their home without showing a warrant and taking an address book and other personal papers.

The so-called "drug war" has been a massive and destructive, expensive failure. That is if its claimed purpose to stop drug use is assumed. But what if the goal is not that at all, but is actually to further erode our civil liberties with the tacit approval of the general public. If that is the goal it has succeeded admirably. No other single hysteria has brought us closer to a police state than has the "drug war," while doing absolutely nothing to reduce drug use. Drug use is, if anything, higher than at any time in our history after many years of the "drug war."

In a police state, they must first convince the "average person" who does not "pay attention to politics" that their methods are admirable and use that approval to mask the illegality of their tactics. Then they go out and use this newfound power to not only enrich themselves and their organizations, but as a weapon against those who see what they're doing and tell others.

Ayn Rand said it best in her masterwork, "Atlas Shrugged": "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one "makes" them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on the guilt."

Pretty soon the majority of people are so frightened at what the government can do to them that they accept what's happening to others to keep it from happening to them. George Orwell described this in "1984" as: "protective stupidity." In the book it was called: "Crimestop." It is described this way: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc (English Socialism there, or simply what the government wants you to think) and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a 'heretical' direction. Crimestop means, in short, protective stupidity."

I believe that a majority of Americans are practicing "protective stupidity" to save their own skins. But it won't work. The more power the power seekers get, the more they want until they have the unlimited power of life and death over everybody and the more the "average American" ignores them while they "close in on our rights," the closer they will get to total control before most people are even aware they've "been had." The "War on Drugs" is the perfect vehicle for them to use in selling these people on accepting their incursions on our rights. As long as the majority of Americans practice "protective stupidity," they'll get away with it and soon no one will be able to protest.

To those who are trying to convince themselves that I'm wrong, I leave you with this statement made by Sir John Harrington (1561-1612): "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

Department: Ayn Rand's Message

This section will be dedicated to highlighting sections of her works and philosophy so that those who know nothing about it can learn.

A lot of people think just because Ayn Rand had some personal foibles that they should just ignore her philosophy. Wrong. You should never "throw out the baby with the bath water." Sure; Ayn Rand was human. She made mistakes and, in some cases, was wrong on some of her conclusions because she approached certain subjects on a subjective, rather than an objective level. Should she have known better? Maybe; but the mistakes she made in her lifetime should not destroy the effect of her masterwork, the philosophy of Objectivism. In her own case, her own philosophical mentor was wrong about many things , according to her. But she still acknowledged a debt to him when she wrote in "Atlas Shrugged": "The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. I most emphatically disagree with a great many parts of his philosophy -- but his definition of the laws of logic and the means of human knowledge are so great an achievement that his errors are irrelevant by comparison."

She was "dictatorial" in her relations with her closest confidantes, whom she laughingly called her "collective." She demanded ideological purity in their every thought concerning "her" philosophy and "excommunicated" them should they disagree with any part of it. Such people were declared "persona non grata" and were forever shunned. To this day, some of her followers cling to this dogmatic approach to Objectivism, which has led to the establishment of two separate groups, "warring" over the right to be the Objectivist group that is the primary one. One group is led by Leonard Peikoff, her "intellectual and financial heir," who is represented by the Ayn Rand Institute. The other is David Kelley, who heads the Objectivist Center, formerly the Institute of Objectivist Studies. Both preach basically the same message, but have major disagreements over details -- and because of the "dogmatism" displayed by Peikoff, her "disciple," they are "at war."

I personally think that if Peikoff were to be a bit less dogmatic, they could easily work out their differences, but I don't think that is going to happen any time soon. Should it come to pass, I would welcome it. Until then I intend to get what good I can get from both factions and attempt to "walk the thin line" between them. But should I fail it won't make a whole lot of difference to me if they were to both "denounce" me (although that is a tool of only one faction) since the entirety of Ayn Rand's philosophy tells me I should not live for the approval of any person. That my own approval is all that is needed. Therefore, I can be an "Objectivist" without the support or approval of either faction -- and that's the way I like it.

I have been an "individualist" all my life. I did not come to Objectivism as something to be learned. I have been a "practicing Objectivist" since long before I had what it was laid out for me in her writing. I did not come to Objectivism by "accepting" what she said. On the contrary; Objectivism "came to me" by confirming what I already knew to be true and giving me a framework to use in understanding it. If Ayn Rand hadn't come up with Objectivism, someone else would have, and that someone else might have even been me. But I happily "give over" to her because, as an Objectivist, I don't need the "approval" of others and I'm just happy to see the philosophy by which I've lived all my life given a name and to be practiced by others.

Liberal theories are not an expression of ideas, but a bucket of slime emptied in public."
(With thanks to Ayn Rand)

RANDOM SHOTS #114

HOW MANY NEW LAWS? In the newspapers, this story By Stefani G. Kopenec of the Associated Press

"FORT WORTH, Texas (Sept. 15, [1999]) - A man dressed in black walked into a church service for teen-agers Wednesday night, pulled a gun and opened fire, killing six before the gunman fatally shot himself in a church pew." So how many new laws disarming innocent people are the politicians and anti-gun freaks going to demand after this one? Does anybody even know if this guy had the gun legally? Wouldn't it have been nice if one person in that church had been a licensed "concealed carrier" and could have saved him the trouble of killing himself, but before he killed seven people? And don't give me that gaff about "carrying a killing instrument into a House of God, either. If someone had, there might have been fewer dead kids carried out of that "House of God" in body bags. (Sorry for the imagery, but maybe it's needed to wake people up.) When are the politicians going to "tumble" to the fact that the answer to gun violence is NOT to disarm the honest, innocent people, but to make sure that when guys like this decide to kill a bunch of innocent people there will probably be several people there with guns to put a stop to him before he can kill as many people as he wants to kill? As Thomas Sowell said (and I paraphrase), the thing that usually stops people like this in their rampages is when someone else with guns show up. If they were already there, it would be even better.

HILLARY'S VISION FOR YOUR CHILDREN: I've been writing about the intent to take control of your children for some time now. And others are just now beginning to realize it, although they haven't made the connection to the "child protector scam." Here's part of a blurb for a new book by Regenery, "Hell to Pay," about Hillary Clinton's quest for power: "...you'll discover Hillary's 'vision' for American family life in the 21st century ... a 'brave new world' in which mothers and fathers take a backseat to an army of teachers, pediatricians and social workers who will take over the main task of child rearing. In Hillary's America, social workers will even be allowed to make 'preemptive visits' -- like Gestapo agents in Nazi Germany -- into the private homes of parents earmarked as 'at risk' for 'bad parenting.' The determination of what constitutes 'bad parenting' will, of course, be made by the most politically correct of government bureaucrats." In other words, a bureaucrat gets to "define" you as being a "bad parent" on a whim and then the child protector Gestapo can enter your home at will, without a warrant, based on that whim. This is a major part of "Hillary's Vision."

ACCIDENTAL SHOOTINGS: Did you know that according to s study done by "Newsweek" in 1993 (and hardly heard of until now), only two percent of shootings by armed citizens were found to involve innocent bystanders while the "error rate" for police officers is more than five times higher at eleven percent? So much for the anti-gun freak contention that allowing Americans to carry guns for self defense would create a "blood-bath" as they went out and became crazy just because they had a gun.

FEDS MILITARIZING POLICE: The law says that the military cannot engage in local police activity except under specific conditions. But it doesn't say anything about making a military organization out of certain police organizations.

Did you know that in California alone more than $30 million in excess military hardware has been given to more than 200 law enforcement agencies? That police agencies in 23 states now have bayonets as part of their arsenals? What on earth will they do with bayonets? Why are these local cops being so armed at a time when such a high degree of activity is being devoted to disarming the population?

The whole program of turning over military gear to local police departments began in 1990 and included the requirement that they only use it in the "War on Drugs." But as usual, the way they usually do things, after people stopped asking questions about the program, that requirement was quietly dropped last year and the program dramatically expanded. At the same time the federal cops in an increasing number of agencies are being militarized as well. There are now more than 80,000 armed feds in agencies as diverse at the Environmental Protection Agency and Fish and Game!

The Founding Fathers feared a "standing army," and Clinton is fast building one. At the same time, cops are increasingly prone to mount military-style actions against unsuspecting (often innocent) civilians. Feds have taken an increasing role in training local and state police officers at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center which plans to train as many as 25,000 new cops in the next three years. What are they preparing for? Are they soon to declare "patriot militias" to be criminals and go after them? Are they going to seek out and find people who write things they don't like on the Internet and "Take them down?" Are they going to ban gun ownership and go "door-to-door" confiscating guns? Think about it.

POLICE FRAMEUPS: When an arrestee claims the police "set him up," no one believes him because so many of them make such a claim that it is almost routine. But as with paranoids (who might really have someone out to get them), it is sometimes true, and probably happens more often than any of us knows because it is so easy. In Los Angeles, where police are revered by one and all for their honesty and attention to the rights of the individual [hee, hee], an unarmed 19-year-old gang member was cuffed, then shot in the head by two L. A. cops, who placed a "throwaway" sawed-off .22 cal. Rifle on him and claim he attacked them. He had no record, and no physical evidence that he attacked them except for the presence of the gun they planted. He gets 23 years, even though he is paralyzed from the waist down. This is no "pipe dream." It actually happened. We know because one of the cops who set him up confessed to it in an effort to get his own sentence reduced in a later case. Officer Rafael Perez admits it and implicated his then partner, Nino Durden. He also told of yet another shooting in which two other officers shot and killed another civilian, then shot another man in the back, then framed him on charges of assaulting the police.

The Perez case is part of a large L. A. Police scandal (they have them at least once a year) in which so far, 11 cops have been suspended without pay and one fired. All from the Rampart Division, and most from the citywide anti-gang program called CRASH (Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums). Looks like instead of being against them, they joined them. More dirty cops are expected to be uncovered in the ensuing investigation. (Source: Detroit Free Press, Sept. 27, 1999, in an article by Nita Lelyveld for Knight Ridder Newspapers)

The question this raises is obvious: if this much such corruption and framing of innocents while attempting to kill them can happen, not in just one police department, but in one division, and even mostly in one specific program within that division, how much more of it is going on in police departments across the nation, and even across the world? I'm not "coming down on" all police officers. Most are good people trying to do a thankless job. But the whole idea of blindly accepting their claims that people they shoot and kill "attacked them" with no physical evidence is idiotic and leads to more and more such excesses as were described in this story. We need to look far more carefully at such shootings and stop allowing the police agency involved to investigate itself and routinely "whitewash" such shootings, as happens regularly in Denver as well as in Los Angeles. Such things only make it harder for the GOOD cops to do their jobs.

WE ARE EFFECTIVE:Private citizens throughout the world, banding together in millions of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are exercising an unprecedented level of influence over the decisions of governments and businesses, reports a new study by the Worldwatch Institute. "The proliferation of these groups and the spread of their influence have been very rapid," said Curtis Runyan, author of "Action on the Front Lines" In the November/December issue of World Watch magazine. Estimates show that up to 70 percent of the 2 million NGOs in the United States have been created in the last three decades. The number of NGOs operating internationally-those with a significant presence in three or more countries-has quadrupled to 20,000 in that same period. [That's us, people. -RT]

"It is an absolute that if you produce more than you consume in your lifetime, you're a producer. If you consume more than you produce, you're a moocher or a looter." (Ray Thomas)

This newsletter is FREE. To subscribe or unsubscribe to the "Alert List" that notifies you when a new issue is available go to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/beyondcommonsense and follow the directions. Published and Copyright © 1999 by Ray Thomas, P. O. Box 16247, Denver, CO 80216-0247. Phone: 720-351-3674.

Email: raythomas101@hotmail.com

Publishers and List Moderators: Reprint rights are hereby granted so long as you reprint this publication completely with no editing. The best way to reproduce it in email is to just create a link to it in email if your email program permits it.

Reprinting specific articles under my byline: May be done so long as the copyright indicia and contact information is intact and no changes are made in the text.

Reprinting of specific articles under someone else's byline: you must ask them for permission . There is contact information with each article.

Information Sources

"The Ray Thomas Page": this is my personal site, and the "master site" from which you can access every newsletter or Discussion List I have and subscribe, if you wish, by a single click and following the instructions you'll be given. A major feature of this site is "Information Central," a page where you can access numerous articles of enduring interest. Some I have written, and others are reposted by permission.

The" Forced Altruism Scam": This is the "parent" web site for this newsletter. It details how the power seekers are using "forced altruism" as a tool to force the producer of new wealth to work for the betterment of moochers who will not work for their own betterment. How they have convinced Americans that "We are our brother's keeper" so that they can take from the producer at the point of a gun and give to the moocher to buy the votes to keep the power seekers in power over the rest of us. There are many links to other information sources there.

Archives:

Number 1:
Feature Article: Fiction: A Waste of Time? About the contention of a caller on a Salt Lake City talk show I was guesting on that nobody should read fiction because it's a "waste of time." Random Shots #111: "And They Wonder Why." About the liberals wondering why fewer people are going to church while they "drive a wedge" between people and religion; "Ban Cars!" After a man purposely ran over some children why aren't the "anti-gun" types screaming to ban cars? "Woman Kills Home Invader" Another story you won't read about much in the press, since it's about a person who used a legal gun in self-defense; Celebrating Freedom (Not!) By P. Campbell. Celebrating our freedom on July 4th by remembering all the things we're not free to do. Other Articles: Links to other articles of interest; Classified Advertising: Where we trade ads with other publishers; Information Sources: Links to other sites of interest; Archives: Where all back issues are listed with a direct link to each.

Number 2:
Feature Article: "Gaining Power: A Lesson" About the scheme to use the child protection racket as a means to destroy family rights so as to be able to teach our children to be good collectivists without interference from parents. Random Shots #112: "And They Wonder Why." About the liberals wondering why fewer people are going to church while they "drive a wedge" between people and religion; "Ban Cars!" After a man purposely ran over some children why aren't the "anti-gun" types screaming to ban cars? "Woman Kills Home Invader" Another story you won't read about much in the press, since it's about a person who used a legal gun in self-defense; Celebrating Freedom (Not!) By P. Campbell. Celebrating our freedom on July 4th by remembering all the things we're not free to do. Other Articles: Links to other articles of interest; Classified Advertising: Where we trade ads with other publishers; Information Sources: Links to other sites of interest; Archives: Where all back issues are listed with a direct link to each.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Ref.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml