Shoot The Bastards?

The Autonomist ^ | 8/10/04 | Reginald Firehammer

[Hank Kerchief]

 

Shoot The Bastards?

Claire Wolfe says, "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." [from: 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution].

The Autonomist thinks we missed the cue to shoot the bastards in 1791, although some involved in the Whisky Rebellion tried. Since then, the government has grown ever more powerful, more intrusive, and more repressive. That provocative statement by Claire Wolfe sums up the two most prevalent views about what ought to be done to reverse this trend of government oppression and to restore the country to the, "land of liberty," the founders intended.

These "two" views are actually variations of the same view. They both presume the problem is how the government is run and that the solution is either to reform the government by "working within the system," or to correct the problem by "shooting" those who are abusing its power. (This is not necessarily what Claire Wolfe meant to imply, however.) What is wrong with both these views is the presumption that government is the solution, and that freedom will reign if we only have the right government.

But, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," Ronald Reagan eloquently stated. The freedom enjoyed by American citizens in the first one hundred fifty years of this country were not the result of the kind of government we had, but the fact there was so little of it. We have essentially the same kind of government today, but do not enjoy anything like the kind of freedom American citizens enjoyed as little as a hundred, of even sixty, years ago.

How To Regain Freedom

The Autonomist frankly believes, if you are going to be free in your lifetime, you will have to make yourself free. No movement, no program, no government or social change, and no revolution is going to bring you freedom in the foreseeable future. That, of course, is what the Autonomist is all about. It is the personal means to freedom The Autonomist promotes.

The Autonomist approach to freedom does not appeal to everyone. There are many other views of freedom and how to achieve it. While I do not agree with all of the approaches, or even all the objectives of other freedom lovers (and fighters), I both applaud and support all efforts to promote and work for freedom, whatever particular methods are advocated or employed.

I emphasize most people do not really want freedom. What most people want is safety and guarantees. Most people do not really even know what freedom is, and anyone born in the last 35 to 40 years has no firsthand experience with what it is like to be truly free. If freedom is ever going to be restored, or at least the march of encroaching government oppression and tyranny halted, we need all the freedom fighters we can get.

The Best Method?

So, what is the correct means to freedom. Do we attempt to reform the government? Do we educate the electorate so they will vote for the right candidates? Do we educate people to understand, no candidates are for freedom, and that some other kind of action is required? Is voting the answer, or is it time? Do we just wait for the absurd fiscal, domestic, and foreign policies to produce the inevitable economic and social collapse they must, or do we, "shoot the bastards," before that happens?

The variety of solutions for restoring freedom is almost endless, and those seriously pursuing the cause of freedom fall into a number of different, "camps," each advocating or working for their view of how freedom should be restored. While the objective is the same for all these people, most do not even know there are other freedom lovers in other camps, or if they know, they dismiss them as crackpots, ineffective, uninformed, unphilosophical, or "unrealistic."

Some may be any or all of these things, but the very idea of freedom is that every individual must pursue their objectives by their own lights. Where we agree we can choose to cooperate and support one another, and where we disagree, we are free to act on our own and argue for our views. However much we disagree, even if we think others efforts are doomed to failure, on the issue of freedom, we know they are on our side. On that issue we must agree, and wherever possible both support and encourage one another, and cooperate in any way we can, without compromising our own principles and purposes, of course. In the end, if the cause of freedom is lost, no other cause matters.

Who Is Fighting for Freedom?

If individual freedom is your love, even if you disagree with everything else you think other freedom lovers stand for, they are your friends. They are on your side. They want you to be free. Here are some of your friends:

There are the Objectivists—who emphasize that philosophy necessary to freedom. The modern freedom movements, to a very large extent, owe their impetus to the founder or Objectivism, Ayn Rand. In The Virtue of Selfishness she laid out the principles demonstrating why freedom is as much an essential to human life as food and water. In Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal she shows why a free economy is necessary for individual freedom, and that any other economic or political system is oppression and tyranny.

Objectivists, themselves, do not all agree on the best method of promoting freedom. Most believe it will take the spread of Objectivism itself. They believe, so long as people do not understand the moral and practical principles that make individual liberty necessary and possible, any government that is set up, is bound to devolve into tyranny.

This view believes the way to freedom is the teaching and evangelical route. A good example is a recent article on SOLO (Sense Of Life Objectivists) Marketing A Free Society: Education, Persuasion, and Conversion by Edward W. Younkins.

Solo is one of the three best known promoters of Objectivism. The other two are ARI (The Ayn Rand Institute), and TOC (The Objectivist Center). There is a great deal of disagreement between these three, although TOC and SOLO do work together on a number of levels. What unites them is the belief that every individual exists solely for the sake of his own enjoyment of life.

There are the Wolfeians—Claire Wolfe recently remarked on her BLOG, how strange it seemed to her to have her name used as a metaphor for when a shooting war would begin by the use of such expressions as, "Clare Wolfe time," or "half past Clair Wolfe." Those expressions are based on the, by now, famous quote from 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution with which I began this article.

There is not really a movement called, "Wolfeians," (as far as I know), but there are a great many very vocal, very active, individuals with a variety of different philosophical and political stances that are joined by the central issues addressed by Claire Wolfe in her books, articles, web page, BLOG, and Forum.

Most "Wolfeians" are Libertarians, but not all. They are like those who appear at the The Freedom Summit sponsored by Ernest and Donna Hancock with Marc and Amy Victor. Ernest hosts the radio talk show, "Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock." "The Freedom Summit is an annual seminar dedicated to promoting and advancing human freedom. To that end, the Freedom Summit offers speakers who have demonstrated their effectiveness in presenting the intellectual case for freedom."

Here are some examples: The 2001 summit included as speakers: Jacob Hornberger, Bob Levy, Vin Suprynowicz, Clint Bolick, and more; The 2002 summit inlcuded Walter Block, Lew Rockwell, Sharon Harris, L. Neil Smith, and more; The 2003 summit included Nathaniel Branden, Harry Browne, Boston T. Party (really), Representative Ron Paul and more. Scheduled for the October 8-10, 2004 summit are Ernest Hancock, Doug Casey, Don Boudreaux, Claire Wolfe, Mary Ruwart, Justin Raimondo, Lazarus Long (really), George Smith, Jim Peron, and Ken Schoolland.

There are the gulchers—which is what some "Wolfeians" and others call themselves. Those unfamiliar with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged will have no idea what that means; and I am not going to tell you, because, if you love freedom, you must read that book.

But, I will give you a hint. The idea behind gulching is leaving the present political-economic system. It is not, "escape." Government itself has no wealth and no power of its own, all its wealth is confiscated from others and all its power is the power to harm and destroy, but even that must be expropriated from the citizens who produce it. Gulchers are just refusing to finance their own enslavement. If everyone did that, the government would collapse; but everyone is not going to do that.

There are the Libertarians—who also include a wide spectrum of philosophies and views. They are essentially united on one basic principle, that there is no legitimate purpose for, or function of, government except to protect its citizens from the threat or initiation of the use force by any other individuals or groups, foreign or domestic. Everything else, in their view, develops from that.

The Libertarians are very active, possibly the most active of any group in the freedom movement. They have their own political party and own presidential candidate.

While there are wide differences in their views, next to Objectivists, the Libertarians probably have the most intellectual ammunition in their arsenal. The Journal of Libertarian Studies from Ludwig von Mises Institute, and the Center for Libertarian Studies exploring the libertarian theory and practice of Murray N. Rothbard are examples.

There are the, "free-staters"—at least two varieties of them.

The Free State Project was initiated by Jason Soren's 7/23/01 The Libertarian Enterprise article, "Announcement: The Free State Project."

The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people who agree to move to New Hampshire if that many sign up. So far they have 5,978 signed-up. If they fail to get 20,000 signed-up by Sept. 2006, no one is required to make the move. Their purpose is explained in their "Statement of Intent:"

"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." I certainly hope they succeed; I live in New Hampshire.

But there is a competitor on the horizon, theFree State Wyoming project sponsored by Boston T. Party. To make his work, he is only setting his sights on the committment of 4000 people. I hope he succeeds as well. Wyoming is a beautiful state; it would be nice if it were also free.

There are the conservatives—who may or may not be for freedom, depending on whether they ever figure out what it is.

There is an extremely successful conservative forum, Free Republic which is very active and has over 100,000 signed members. They say in their welcoming page, "Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."

So far so good.

In a personal statement of the founder it says, "In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side."

If that is what "conservatism" is, we applaud it. The problem is, most "political conservatives" are not for freedom at all. In most cases, they defend "economic" freedom, but otherwise have an agenda which includes some set of moral behavioral standards they believe ought to imposed on everyone by force of law. What they mean by, "conservative," is "Republican," and actively defend anything a Republican administration does, however outrageous, oppressive, or tyrannical.

Some percentage (probably not large) of posters to Free Republic really do want freedom and know what it is. The rest think freedom means freedom from temptation, or risk, or worry, or responsibility—which is how most Americans today think of freedom.

Choose Your Friends

If I must compromise my principles to have friends, I prefer no friends at all. To the extent that others seek freedom and fight for individual liberty, even if we disagree on all other things, at least on that point, I judge them as friends. No one can seek freedom without being in favor of my freedom. There are not many who seek freedom for themselves, and you can be sure they have no interest in yours or mine. In the struggle for liberty, we must take our friends and allies wherever we find them.

—Reginald Firehammer (8/10/04)

[Just another Joe]

Not federal income taxes. Your state might be taxing you to high heaven, but a family of four making $40,000 per year is now only paying $48.00 per year in total federal income taxes (for a Tax Freedom Day of January 1).

What country do YOU live in?
I wanta move there.

I'll admit, I make more than $40,000 per year and less than $70,000 per year, with two dependants, and I'll tell you right now that I pay at least $5,000 a year in federal income taxes.
Not to mention the taxes on things like gasoline, etc.

[stuartcr]

There is no solution to the problem..it's just the natural progression of our society. You can either take care of the individuals, or the group...not both.

[forester]

Thanks for the ping. Great article w/some good posts.

[John_7Diamonds]

You facts are wrong. The bottome 50% pay total 4%. So half the people don't pay anything to mention. I am not including social secruity.

BTW, I live on Earth, where do you live?

John

[John_7Diamonds]

Hi,

I re read you post and now I think you misunderstood the premise.

The problem is there is no accountability now in spending because so few people pay significant tax. Would you care how much a movie costs if you did not have to pay to go see it? In other words, if other people paid higher prices so you could see it free, would you care what the other people are paying??

Jo

[tpaine]

But, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," Ronald Reagan eloquently stated. The freedom enjoyed by American citizens in the first one hundred fifty years of this country were not the result of the kind of government we had, but the fact there was so little of it. We have essentially the same kind of government today, but do not enjoy anything like the kind of freedom American citizens enjoyed as little as a hundred, of even sixty, years ago.
[From the article]

See, that's just it. If you live in a lilly-White ivory tower, you *might* be able to tell yourself that we were more free 70 years ago

We the people, - [the socalled 'white' majority] - unarguably were. However, no one claims that it was a perfect society.

when FDR made it illegal to own gold,
-[unconstitutional edict]-
when Jim Crowe meant that Blacks couldn't vote,
-[unconstitutional]-
and when women were legally kept out of military colleges and many universities,
-[freedom of association]- <
as well as actively discriminated against (both women and Blacks) in numerous professions such as Medical, Legal, and in corporate boardrooms.

We can all agree that these were unconstitutional disciminations if written into federal,state, or local ~law~. Most were not. They were custom, bigoted nasty customs to be sure, but writing law to enforce 'customs & moralities' is not easily done in a free republic. We lose the freedom of free association.

And whether it was a Democrat like FDR banning gold, or a fascist temperance movement banning alcohol and gambling, or Democrats using Blacks as living medical experiments against their will (i.e. without consent) ala the Tuskegee Experiment that lasted up until recently, it just doesn't matter to these people.

All those unconstitutional acts "mattered" to a LOT of people.. On gold & booze they were outvoted by a tyranny of the majority, -- for a while.. - Then the system corrected itself.

They don't care that a Republican like Nixon ended the ban on owning gold. they don't care who shut down unethical and illegal medical experiments. They don't care that Republicans died in the streets of the South registering Blacks to vote in the face of the Democratic Party machine's opposition (all of the policemen were Democrats who beat the civil rights marchers on the Edmund Petus Bridge here in Alabama, for instance). Oh no, forget facts. Forget our history.

Such a sad, emotional little appeal. No one is forgetting history, southack. We are learning from it in some areas, [civil rights], but ignoring it in others [big government doesn't work].

Some people are so uneducated and so isolated in their own little worlds that they think we were more free 60 years ago when the military was segregated and half of the South had restraunts with "No Coloreds" signs.

Yep, 'we' were, blacks weren't. -- That's been changed for the better. Many other individual freedoms have been lost.

They don't even know that their precious Hollywood and NYC and their anti-Black racism was why early American TV had White men made up in "blackface" to play Black roles rather than hire Black men...or that blood in Illinois and New Jersey had to be certified as White or Colored at one point, lest some White union schmuck get Black blood into him from an operation.

Sigh. -- Amos & Andy was radio show on TV. Get over it. The two state 'laws' were obviously unconstitutional. Get real.

Even forgetting racism and sexism, America of 20, 30, and 40 years ago had widespread bans on civilians carrying firearms.

Again, unconstitutional. There are lots of unconstitutional laws on the books, hack. They don't prove ~your~ point.

It's only been in the last 15 years that CCW has swept our great nation, re-empowering the individual again.

Under State control & regulation, however. But CCW is a start.

10 years ago it was illegal, yes, illegal to make a profit from anything on the internet, too. The eBay concept was illegal. Amazon.com's concept was illegal. Free Republic taking donations was in the gray area back then. Trading stocks via the Internet was likewise illegal.

A few good laws increasing our individual freedoms do not balance the thousands passed in the same period that decreased them, hack. YOu are simply in denial.

Heck, in two weeks the Assault Weapons Ban will expire, yet we'll still hear these same know-nothings tell us that we're less free today than in the past.

Amusing. -- In 1932 there were NO federal gun laws. Now you claim that we are the "know-nothings"? look in the mirror hack.

We've armed our pilots, repealing the first federal gun control regulations in our history, yet these know-nothings will claim that we are less free today than back when pilots couldn't pack heat.

Pilots were disarmed before the NFA?

How embarassing it must be for the few who spout such nonsense to finally realize that we are *all* more free today than in the past 160 years, and for women and Blacks, that we are more free today than ever before in history. 5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

And we will soon have another version of it no matter which 'party' wins the White House.

You live in a dream world hack.

[balrog666]

Marker

[tpaine]

How embarassing it must be for the few who spout such nonsense to finally realize that we are *all* more free today than in the past 160 years, and for women and Blacks, that we are more free today than ever before in history.
42 - Hack

______________________________________

To: Southack
You're largely correct except ---
50 Lurker

______________________________________


To: Southack
Thanks for your #42 rant, it had to be said!
53 - Travis


_____________________________________


See #66.

I find it hard to believe you two agree that we have gained in freedom, -- overall, since 1933.

[Travis McGee]

Southack brought to the table that for blacks and women, America is without a doubt more free than 60 years ago.

Unless you believe that we could claim to be more free 60 years ago (as white men only) and the hell with the blacks.

Now as far as creeping govt interference in our daily personal and economic lives, no doubt we are MUCH less free today.

[Southack]

"I'll admit, I make more than $40,000 per year and less than $70,000 per year, with two dependants, and I'll tell you right now that I pay at least $5,000 a year in federal income taxes."

You pay a whole 10% in federal income taxes. Goodness, what a government slave you are!
< /mocking >

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Southack]

"Again, unconstitutional. There are lots of unconstitutional laws on the books, hack. They don't prove ~your~ point."

Only to you, and only because you *missed* my point. My point was not whether the freedom-choking laws and customs of the past were constitutional or not, but rather, that we are more free today than then.

What can we do today that we couldn't do in 1930? Buy sell, and drink alcohol. What can we do today that we couldn't do in 1935? Buy, sell, and trade gold. What can we do today that we couldn't do in 1940? Join a desegregated, color-blind military. What can we do today that we couldn't do in 1950 without risk to life and limb? Register Blacks to vote. What can we do today that we couldn't do in 1960? Put our daughters through any medical, legal, or military university. What can we do today that we couldn't do in 1970? Carry concealed weapons. What can we do today that we couldn't do in 1980? Arm our commercial pilots. What can we do today that we couldn't do in 1990? Make money on the Internet (remember, the internet was around back then, but it was against the law to use it for profit or personal gain).

We don't have to fill out environmental impact statements before building logging roads anymore, either.

so whether talking about Blacks who can now vote, women who can now get any education and job that they want, or the rest of us making a living on the internet, in gold, or in our forests, we are incontrovertibly more free today than 70, 40, or even 10 years ago. We certainly pay less in federal taxes now than in the last half century.

More free today. Less free in the past. That was my point, and I've given you a substantial number of examples of precisely that fact.

In return, you've claimed that we are less free today than in the past. Where are your examples?

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Southack]

c#71

[B4Ranch]

Blacks, Gold, Politics, Racism, Sexism, Taxes and Self Defense are the issues you speak of.

You praise the court system and our government legislators for correcting social errors in these topics.

Ronald Reagan eloquently stated "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,".

Well, you should know me by now. You registered Oct 4, 1998 and I came along Jan 18, 2000 after lurking for a year or so. I just have to shake these good threads to make sure everything worth while has been talked about.

Did American society require the Federal Courts to ensure equal-rights legislation?

Blacks were bound to second class citizenship by America's U.S. Supreme Court in the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)which upheld "separate but equal" facilities. Segregation of Blacks from Whites was formally approved and
legitimized.

It wasn't until WWII that some outlawing of discrimination in defense industries (1941) took place. After the war, partial desegregation of the armed forces (1948) started to occur.

Ending the segregationist practices and racial inequalities that were court ordered across the nation and particularly in the South was of much value to our nation. I have had some interesting experiences concerning "separate but equal" facilities".

I think this separatism would have occurred on it's own, just much slower.

President Nixon's decision to de-link the dollar from the gold standard, wasn't done for yours or my benefit. The system of fixed monetary currency convertibility was in serious trouble.

Foreign Banks at the held roughly 80 billion dollars or 8 times the supply of US gold reserves.

The Smithsonian Agreement prevented the freefall of the Dollar if the Europeans had forced their credit claims and currency speculators went wild. This agreement also cost a 10 percent devaluation of US currency.

Do you still want to say Thank you?

I have been instructed to own both and I do so only because my consultants have proven their worth to me previously.

Politics. WOW! That's a subject we have both ranted on for years. Politicians are known to be self centered and corrupt. Most of them are attorneys whom I wouldn't hire to write me a contract for the sale of a dog house.

Without their Chief of Staff, 98% couldn't analyze the effects on society of a Bill let alone write one.

Sexism is a great topic. During WWII most of our warplanes were built by our moms and grandmothers. I've seen a farmers wife operate a round roll hay baler which drops 1 ton bales as smoothly as an Olympic skater.

When women keep themselves covered up they can work beside men with no problem. Would you hire a gal who likes tight clothes to work with the crew? Just watch production fall and the accident rate increase.

Yes, it is their right to walk around with 60% of their skin exposed and no bra. Just don't even try and tell me that I have to hire her.

The easiest way to settle the "female soldier on the front lines" problem is to form a volunteer battalion of 100% women. In five years when the battalion is not fully staffed cancel the idea.

Taxes another good subject. How much would everyones taxes drop if we did not have such loose regulations for social services? Or if we shut down half of the new state and federal agencies. The three and four letter agencies" (alphabet soup) that have appeared in the last forty years. All of a sudden we cannot survive without them! BS!

Self Defense is going to become shoot, shovel and shut up if the cities don't quit trying to turn America into a Great Britain.

Most of these problems are ones we have created for ourselves. Will society ever retreat from the "gains"? Of course not. Not a chance in Hell.

[Southack]

"Ending the segregationist practices and racial inequalities that were court ordered across the nation and particularly in the South was of much value to our nation. I have had some interesting experiences concerning "separate but equal" facilities"."

So are we more free today than in the past before those changes occurred, in your opinion?

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[B4Ranch]

>>I find it hard to believe you two agree that we have gained in freedom, -- overall, since 1933.<<

I was shocked to see Travis agreeing with Southack.

President Wilson said:
"I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but the Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominated men."

Even before the Federal Reserve Act was passed, Thomas Jefferson predicted a huge national debt if we violated our Constitution and allowed a bank like the FED to exist.

Plank #5 of "The Communist Manifesto" had called for just such a central bank. [It is probably the largest generator of debt in the world.]

Feb. 23, 1954 - Senator William Jenner of Indiana says before the U.S. Senate: "Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state. It has a foothold within our Government, and its own propaganda apparatus. One may call this group by many names. Some people call it socialism, some collectivism. I prefer to call it 'democratic centralism.' The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is underway. This secret revolutionary corps understands well the power to influence the people by an elegant form of brainwashing. We see this, for example, in the innocent use of words like 'democracy' in place of 'representative government.' "

Nov. 13, 1963 - It is alleged that just ten days prior to his assassination, President John F. Kennedy tells a Columbia University audience: "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans' freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizens of this plight."

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=160

[B4Ranch]

No

[Southack]

So what personal freedoms do *you* claim we've lost over the past 60, 30, and 10 years?!

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Southack]

"Feb. 23, 1954 - Senator William Jenner of Indiana says before the U.S. Senate: "Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state."

Though it's half a century later and the war between the two Parties continues...

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[B4Ranch]

The Repubkicans had the first chance to help free the Negro race, then the Democrats took a shot at it.

Boy, did they ever screw it up. Drugs and alcohol were introduced to a very religous population which in less than one generation, by controlling available work positions would determine that Blacks would be the prime resident of government housing and ghettos.

If I was a person of the Negro race, you would never see me smile and I sure as hell wouldn't vote for the politician who was determined to keep my race at the bottom.

[B4Ranch]

Do you own land and have you calculated the financial costs of the "small" fees and taxes that you must pay each day, month, quarter or annually?

I'm referring to the taxes on such thing as rubber, cotton, cars, etc that are added on to the retail cost without anyone informing you that they are included?

Have you ever wished to cut down a few acres of trees on you own land to thin them out? Who makes the costs feasible to burn them instead?

Have you ever used your own bulldozer to cut a new cattle pond because you wanted to divide some pastures?

Do you remember when farmers and ranchers left the ditches and corners of their crops for the local bunnies and birds?

If I wanted the government to teach my children about sex I would at least like to discuss the decision first. Were you given the opportunity? I wasn't! I sure did't agree that when my girls were in school if their Mom had given them a couple a Asprin for the monthly pains they neede the schools permission to take them. Who told me that my daughters monthly menustration prooblems would become part of an official record? Nobody, that's who!

When girls were under 18 they were allowed to have a school selected Doctor perform an abortion without notifying me or my wife!

Freedoms? Bullshit!