Hillary Behind Bars

by L. Neil Smith

Presented to the Colorado Libertarian Party
State Convention April 29 - May 1, 1994
Roundup Ranch, Sedalia, Colorado

         All of us remember, if we're old enough, or if we watch Nickelodeon on a regular basis, a young TV situation comedy character, already dishonest and cynical at an early age, who would do anything, lie, cheat, steal, or suck up disgustingly to the principal character's mother and father -- "What a lovely dress you're wearing, Mrs. Cleaver!" -- in order to get whatever it was he wanted.
         Now we all know that the actor who played that character grew up and became something else -- a California highway patrolman, someone told me -- but the character, Eddie Haskell, grew up and became Bill Clinton. Which is how we find ourselves living in a "Haskellocracy" and the reason we need to find our way back out again.
         My purpose this evening is to suggest how we're going to do that.


         Ladies and gentlemen, in September of last year, when I delivered what I sometimes refer to as my "default keynote address" to the Libertarian Party National Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah, I tried to make my remarks the distilled essence of thirty-two years of careful thought and hard experience in the movement.
         What I said then, in the light of what had happened just that summer, thanks to that ciger-smoking old maid on PCP, Janet Reno, in Waco, Texas, was that for the foreseeable future, the Libertarian Party could do worse -- much worse -- given the direction of events and the temper of the times, than to emphasize political issues related to the Second Amendment -- to the individual right to own and carry weapons -- even at the expense of all other issues combined.
         I pointed out that another well-known old maid, George Bush, had lost the 1992 election -- exactly as I had predicted he would at the very height of his Gulf War popularity -- by a number of votes smaller than the number of single-issue Second Amendment voters he and his party had chosen to betray on several occasions. I proposed that we Libertarians pursue those single-issue voters aggressively, by the relatively simple expedient of embracing a sufficiently principled and progressive Second Amendment position, and do with them to the Republicans what Socialist Norman Thomas did to the Democrats in 1928: scare them into co-opting our position and maybe even some of our principles.
         Without delivering the same speech here, I then defined "a sufficiently principled and progressive Second Amendment position" by proclaiming that we Libertarians should: (A) "outbid" the Republican Party, who are in the process of crumpling the Second Amendment up and pitching it in the dumpster of history along with the rest of the Bill of Rights; and (B) "outbid" the National Rifle Association, whose principal distinguishing characteristic, since 1934, has been a palpitatingly spineless compulsion to surrender in the face of enemies like Diane Feinstein, Janet Reno, Hillary Clinton -- or even Shirley Temple.
         I said we can accomplish this by promising single-issue voters not just to resist all proposed and pending gun control legislation -- which I referred to as "victim disarmament" laws -- not just to repeal or nullify every one of the twenty thousand victim disarmament laws already on the nation's books at every level of government, but by promising to arrest, indict, try, convict, and imprison every city councilman, every county commissioner, every state legislator, every U.S. Congressman, and every Senator -- past or present -- who ever helped to write those victim disarmament laws into those books, along with every police chief, every sheriff, every governor, and yes, every President -- not to mention First Ladies and Attorneys General -- who ever enforced them.
         Most of us have understood for a long time that by denying individuals unencumbered exercise of their inherent human right to own and carry weapons, people like Hillary and Janet are morally responsible for atrocities like the Long Island Railway shootings. Now we'll hold them legally responsible, as well. Never forget that we are the good-guys, we of the American productive class, and they, the parasitic politicians and bureaucrats, Hillary and Janet, are the bad-guys. They are the criminals. It is against the law -- the highest law of the land -- to enact or enforce statutes or ordinances mandating victim disarmament, or for that matter any other breach of the Constitution.
         Along the way I observed that this tactic, offering to jail politicians, will work because those it addresses most directly tend to place punishing their enemies ahead of anything else they might achieve through the political process, and that in this instance, we could go along with that, and remain solidly within principle.
         But for us, I concluded, we Libertarians who are "higher-minded" and not so vindictive, having acquired the support of those single-issue voters, we could go on to generalize the tactic into an overall strategy both principled and pragmatic. The Bill of Rights, I reminded my audience, is a law -- the highest law of the land -- and it needs to be enforced. For the foreseeable future then, "Bill of Rights enforcement" should become the Mission Statement of the Libertarian Party.


         Now there's a trick here which knowledgeable Libertarians should be onto already: if you look at the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", or if you look at the Ninth Amendment, which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.", you'll discover at least three fascinating things:
         First, that even the Federalists, the very worst of the Founding Fathers from a standpoint of decentralized authority and individual freedom -- even Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and James Madison, the villains of my books -- were rabid Libertarians, compared to any political point of view today except our own;
         I said "at least" three fascinating things", because these Amendments also demonstrate (parenthetically in the present context) that the gentlemen Federalists and their colleagues and contemporaries understood what very few, including Supreme Court nominees, appear to understand today: that the document, the Constitution, is not the source of rights -- they would have sneered at an idiot notion like that -- but merely an acknowledgement of them for political purposes.
         These Amendments are also all the evidence anyone needs that the Framers clearly understood the essentially negative character of political rights -- "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask in what ways it's going to leave you the hell alone" -- although I've often wished they'd been savvy or prescient enough to drive that point home by calling the first ten Amendments the "Bill of Limitations" (on government power) rather than the "Bill of Rights".
         Second, to return to my original line of argument, that the unmistakable character of the worst of the Founding Fathers, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, demonstrates that it is we Libertarians -- not liberals and not conservatives -- who are the only legitimate heirs to the intellectual and political legacy they established;
         And third, that if these two Amendments alone, the Ninth and the Tenth, are stringently and energetically enforced, we will have the Libertarian society that we've all been working toward for so long, and that anything else we hope to accomplish along those lines will amount to little more than "fine tuning".
         "For the foreseeable future, 'Bill of Rights Enforcement' should become the Mission Statement of the Libertarian Party." Let me tell you, that turned out to be a message more powerful than the medium that carried it. Before I knew it, at least partly as a result of my speech in Salt Lake City, I was being asked to talk everywhere. Publications of both a Libertarian and non-Libertarian character wanted me to write for them. My latest novel Pallas was selling better than anything I'd ever written. Four of my earlier works were suddenly about to be reprinted. My publisher and largest bookseller were purchasing radio spots to promote my work. In fact, was offered my own radio show.
         And I was asked again and again, by an astonishingly wide variety of individuals, not if but when I was going to run for a particular political office.
         There are even those who claim -- among them, a freelance columnist now working on a story about it for the Wall Street Journal -- that my speech has already changed the course of history, since the delegates and leaders of one state Libertarian Party who heard it went home and initiated a referendum on concealed weapons carry which was promptly co-opted into law by Republicans in the legislature.
         Now while all of this good stuff was going on, I was beginning to worry just a little bit. Here I'd spent the last fifteen years trying to motivate people, both Libertarian and non-Libertarian alike, to create a Libertarian society, and the appropriate method, I'd always believed, was what Ayn Rand called "concretization": persuading people, Libertarian and non-Libertarian alike, to envision that Libertarian society as vividly, and in as much detail as possible. That technique had worked quite well in my 1978 campaign for the state house of representatives. The same technique had made my first novel, The Probability Broach, a "cult classic" among Libertarians and their fellow-travellers, and that, in turn had brought thousands of individuals into the Libertarian movement.
         My problem was that the prospect of a political party willing to punish and humiliate their enemies was not only motivating conservatives in a new way -- that, after all, was the whole reason I'd thought the idea up in the first place -- but its effect on my "higher-minded" fellow Libertarians appeared to be an entire order of magnitude greater than anything I'd ever tried on them before.
         I had a long talk with a friend of mine, that member of our movement who has risen higher in the newspaper business than any other individual. I asked him, are we Libertarians really as mean, deep down inside, as conservatives? In a movement already full of anarcho-hyphen-this and minarcho-hypen-that, had I created a new hyphenation: fascisto-hyphen-libertarianism? The sonofabitch laughed at me.
         Then I recalled the light of new hope I'd seen dawning in the eyes of my comrades when I talked with them about jailing politicians and bureaucrats who abuse the Bill of Rights, and I recalled the tone of voice they used when they talked with me, and I knew they weren't such a bad lot, after all. They were responding the same way people had when Jack Kennedy said we were going to the Moon. They weren't moved as much by the thing itself as by what it implied; they didn't care much about the Moon, but they had a good idea what being able to reach it meant, for the American economy, for American technology, for American morale.


         Let's take a few moments to examine exactly what my proposed new strategy means ...
         Ladies and gentlemen, we are living today in a period of what I call "Deplorably Solved Problems". Poverty and unemployment are a "deplorably solved problem": all that's required is to eliminate the taxes and regulations with which government burdens America's productive machinery and within an amazingly short time everyone in the country will be wealthy by today's standards. The trouble is that politicians like Hillary don't want the problem solved, because that would leave them without anyone to "help", and bureaucrats like Janet don't like the solution because it leaves them without a job.
         Likewise, drugs are a "deplorably solved problem": all that's required is to repeal the unconscionable and unconstitutional laws that turn a nickel's worth of plant-squeezings into a hundred dollars' worth of anti-music, crack babies, turf wars, and devastated inner cities. The trouble is that precisely the same artificially multiplied profits that feed the street gangs and the overseas drug lords also fund the drug czars and whole branches of government, and, as with poverty, none of those who profit from it want to see the problem solved.
         So we come at last to violent crime, which is another "deplorably solved problem". The theory of an armed society which I expressed seventeen years ago in my first novel is no longer merely a theory: in Florida, where violent crime has plummeted forty percent since it became easy to carry a concealed weapon, in Vermont, which was recently declared the safest state to live in because it was always easy to carry a concealed weapon, the theory of an armed society has been experimentally, scientifically proven beyond the palest shadow of a doubt.
         Violent crime is a solved problem: the solution is Bill of Rights enforcement.
         I recall a time, back in the 60s, when politicians would crow and strut and struggle to claim credit for a statistically meaningless fluctuation in the crime rate of only four percent. To them, to almost anybody living at the time, an unmistakable drop of forty percent would have appeared impossibly Utopian. Yet today, when America has seen it happen (and more to the point, seen what caused it to happen) what it all means to politicians like Hillary and bureaucrats like Janet is not the arrival of the Millennium, but an unmitigated catastrophe: evidence that their crowing doesn't make the sun rise; and the threat of a proportional reduction in their budgets of forty percent.
         Violent crime is a solved problem: the solution is Bill of Rights enforcement.
         And increasingly, it's clear that rather than learning something useful from what's happening around them, rather than learning to live with crime as a solved problem and going on from there, politicians and bureaucrats are willing to enlist the aid of the hopelessly, putrescently corrupt mass media to lie and distort the truth in order to deprive Americans of yet another peace dividend.
         Violent crime is a solved problem: the solution is Bill of Rights enforcement.
         Don't talk to me -- don't let anyone talk to you -- about "vigilantism"; what America has now is vigilantism. What it has now is the Ku Klux Kops: dimwitted thugs in obsessive black nylon, running around inflicting one perverted brutality after another on innocent people at the behest of senile transvestites in long dresses -- what my wife calls "the Grand Dragons of the Supreme Court". By contrast, what we Libertarians advocate is Law and Order: abject government compliance with the Bill of Rights -- the highest law of the land -- decent, productive men and women of the Constitutional community joyfully taking up the burden of their own physical security along with that of their children.
         Violent crime is a solved problem: the solution is Bill of Rights enforcement.
         We know the solution to violent crime, and the only thing that keeps that solution from going to work right here, right now, for each and every of us, is Republican Senator Hank Brown, and those like him, who have apparently discarded whatever it was they once believed in. There are no words in the English language adequate to express the contempt which all decent individuals must feel toward those like Senator Brown who would rather go on seeing people die in the streets than to relinquish the control he fondly imagines he has over their lives.
         Violent crime is a solved problem: the solution is Bill of Rights enforcement.
         The first ten amendments to the Constitution are the exclusive property of the American people they were written to protect; not of the mass media, the so-called "fourth branch of government" who believe there's only one Amendment, the First, and that it only applies to them, not of the executive branch, not of the legislative branch, certainly not of the judicial branch of the very institution which they were written to protect the American people from.
         The Supreme Court has been a particularly wretched custodian of the Bill of Rights because of the inherent conflict of interest involved in their unconstitutional monopoly on the interpretation of it, and the fact that they haven't got a clue, and never had, regarding what the Bill of Rights is all about.
         Twenty years ago, the Libertarian Party national platform committees of which I was a member called for outright abolition of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, on the grounds, among other things, that the Framers of the Constitution never intended America to have a national police force. Naturally, the few outside the Party who paid attention to that particular plank thought we Libertarians were crazy, but, as usual, they were wrong and we Libertarians were right. It is now time, in the light of the murders Ruby Ridge and Waco, for the Libertarian Party to lead other political parties in calling for -- in demanding -- the disarming of all federal agencies. This time, the public will listen, and from now on, if there's something these agencies want that can be obtained by the legitimate application of force, let them consult local law enforcement. If that had been the case last summer, all those people, men, women, and little children would be alive today.
         The one and only thing left that can save the American republic from the Democratic Party -- which is the polite euphemism we customarily employ when we really mean "the socialists" -- is the Libertarian Party. Likewise, the Libertarian Party is the only thing that can save the American republic from Republicans -- which, increasingly, is a euphemism we employ when we really mean "fascists".


         Case in point: Denver radio host and columnist Ken Hamblin pleads with his listeners not to let the issue of gun ownership and self-defense become the "property" of Libertarians, because the Libertarian Party will never amount to anything, since none of its candidates has ever gotten more than five percent, and in any case, Libertarians are all nut cases who refuse to stop at stop-signs.
         The reason Hamblin gives for his assessment of our collective sanity -- that we oppose child labor laws -- betrays not only an embarrassing ignorance on his part of economics and history, and an astonishing inability to jettison the left-wing baggage he arrived on the pro-freedom scene with so recently, but that he has rendered himself, quite as deliberately as any "egg-sucking dog liberal" or darktown gang-banger, incapable of further learning in this area, because the facts would only disrupt his low-resolution picture of the world.
         My guess is that Hamblin has been commiserating with his Republican pals in the legislature, whimpering about the pressure Libertarians are putting on them to do the right thing, in the right way, about gun ownership and self-defense. Of course that's our job, as a third party out of power, and from his injured tone, it appears that we're succeeding at it. In the long run, if the Republicans continue to fail to perform, they'll be out and Libertarians will be in -- but never mind all that. I also suspect that his recent, very unbecoming hysteria over the Second Amendment rally on the capitol steps was really about four hundred dollars he had demanded, to speak for a few minutes, which the Libertarian rally organizers politely -- and wisely -- forbore to pay him.
         If Hamblin would occasionally stop talking and listen for a change -- neither of which seems to be in his job-description or his character -- he would learn that the issue of gun ownership and self-defense have never belonged to anybody but Libertarians, who kept it alive all by themselves for more than twenty years (starting when only nut cases were interested in it, long before trendy neo-conservatives like Hamblin decided to stick a delicate toe in) while time after time, the NRA dullwittedly fumbled the ball and the Republicans treacherously sold us out. When I started my first novel, back in 1977, I was the only writer on the entire planet -- aside from one other self-designated Libertarian, Robert A. Heinlein -- to advocate a universally armed populace.
         But Hamblin won't listen; he'd rather suck up to the boys in blue and to Republican politicians, overlooking the fact that, if Martin Luther King had followed his advice in the 1950s -- to avoid an independent effort, stick with major parties, champion only "respectable" notions regardless of the truth -- there would still be two sets of public bathrooms and drinking fountains everywhere.
         Hamblin has come about as far, intellectually, as anyone can reasonably expect a human being to travel in a single lifetime. To give him his due, he managed the great leap from liberalism to neo-conservativism, but by his own admission, he's an "old guy" and he doesn't appear to have another leap, great or otherwise, left in him. In many respects he remains a liberal and still "thinks" with some internal organ other than his brain. Like Rush Limbaugh, if he used both halves of his brain he'd be a Libertarian by now, and he knows it, and it hurts.
         To David Segal, who organized the rally that so deeply offended Hamblin and his sensitive listeners, I say that the only thing more satisfying than being praised for your success is being denounced for it; you may be uncertain as to the sincerity of the former, but never of the latter. Robert LeFevre used to say that what we have in this country is a choice between left-wing socialists and right-wing socialists. More and more today it appears that Bob was wrong. What we have is a choice between right-wing and left-wing fascists.
         My advice to Dave, and to other Colorado Libertarians is that we waste not another moment on Ken Hamblin. He's just another fascist, right-wing or left-wing, whose punitarian answer to everything is to put more people in jail. He's no black Rush Limbaugh as he claims, he's just a black Newt Gingrich. And, as such, he's made himself a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.


         We have no time left to spend in a futile attempt to persuade those who willfully misunderstand everything we have to say. For the most part, hearts and minds on the other side are closed for good. Spend your time and energy gathering up those who already agree with us, or who already have a reason to travel with us, and we will not only win over the formerly recalcitrant and attract new individuals willing and eager to be of real help, we will achieve victory.
         Be warned that at the moment, many of our conservative fellow-travellers are all but useless to us -- and to themselves. They can't see that the legislative fever-pitch at which things are preceding in Washington represents desperation on the part of the Marxist trash in the White House, who know full well that this is the last chance in the world they're ever going to get to run things.
         Our conservative fellow-travellers would rather swap paranoid delusions with one another about United Nations forces riding invisible helicopters from Mars, than roll their sleeves up and do some real work. They'd rather whine like what P.J. O'Rourke calls "bedwetting liberals", they'd rather wring their hands and bemoan their fate, than plan and execute a counterstrike in this culture-war they talk about incessantly. All it seems they can do lately is whimper about the horrible things Hillary and Janet have done to us already; the horrible things Hillary and Janet are doing to us now; and the horrible things Hillary and Janet are about to do to us -- instead of concentrating on doing it back!
         Perhaps we can begin the therapy they need to get them out of this funk by teaching them that the words "conservative" and "Republican" are fully separable.
         Don't waste too much effort trying to explain Libertarian positions to them on issues like abortion or the War on Drugs -- and never make excuses or apologies.
         We're right and they're wrong.
         Instead, tell your increasingly angry and disenfranchised conservative friends that we're not asking them to marry us.
         We're not asking them to have our baby.
         We're not asking them to agree with us on each and every issue.
         We're not asking them to become Libertarians.
         We're not even asking them to join the Libertarian Party.
         We're asking them to hire us to do a job -- by consistently voting for Libertarian candidates -- a job no other party seems willing to do: enforce the Bill of Rights.
         The fact is, our own longtime customary practice of blindly persuading individuals to join the Libertarian Party -- or of persuading individuals to join the Libertarian Party blindly -- without fully understanding exactly what Libertarianism and the Libertarian Party are all about, must be brought to an immediate halt. On at least two occasions -- the Ed Clarke campaign and the Ron Paul campaign -- it has come that close to destroying us as an institution and we must now begin to repair the damage by emphasizing "service to clients" -- that is, keeping promises to voters -- rather than membership in a club, and by educating each and every newcomer in what it really means to be a Libertarian.
         If you want to do something, and you're not up to public speaking or to electoral politics, then help create a permanent system of education internal to the Libertarian Party.


         It's important to act now. Come 1996, the Republicans -- who've gotten it right precisely once in thirty-five years, and couldn't locate their own overly-developed posteriors with both hands and a city block full of Klieg lights -- will trundle out the same menagerie of drooling retards and moral cripples they've inflicted on us, and on themselves, for so long, complacent in the false belief that Hillary will have performed so badly by then that Bill will be a pushover.
         Or is it the other way around?
         In any case the Republicans may offer us William Bennett, the most soft-spoken and thoroughly evil figure in contemporary politics, who consciously, deliberately, rejected Libertarianism and makes Darth Vader seem like Barney the dinosaur.
         They may offer us Robert Dole. What is it about Bob Dole that always makes me want to reach for a garland of garlic, a crucifix, a mallet, and a sharpened wooden stake? Has anybody ever seen Bob Dole's reflection in a mirror?
         They may offer us Jack Kemp, who was so determined to reverse the years of liberal excesses and abuses within the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, to take everything done by his Democratic predecessors and turn it around, that he forgot that HUD turned around and spelled in reverse is "DUH".
         They may offer us Dick Cheney, whose only virtue is that he isn't quite as blandly stupid as all the others.
         They may offer us Dan Quayle, whose only virtue is that he isn't quite as blandly stupid as Dick Cheney.
         It all depends on the polling data.
         Libertarians have principles; they don't do polling. Republicans do polling, which is why they're running away from the Second Amendment -- and from the entire Bill of Rights -- as fast as their nasty little legs can carry them, instead of leading the nation back to the basic civilities afforded by the Constitution.
         One great problem Libertarians suffer is that we are often secretly -- or not so secretly -- more willing to see Republicans elected than Democrats. There are understandable reasons for this, philosophical, psychological, and historic but it has to stop, for equally cogent reasons both principled and pragmatic.
         As an example, it should be clear now that what seemed to be a tactical victory for Libertarians in Georgia two years ago was really a strategic loss. When Paul Coverdell, Republican candidate for the United States Senate, was forced into a run- off with his Democratic opponent, Wyche Fowler -- thanks to the presence of a strong Libertarian candidate -- the Libertarian should never have endorsed the Republican. It may have altered the course of history, but it gained us nothing -- certainly not the gratitude of Republicans who helped bury the truth afterward -- not at the time it happened, nor afterward in crucial votes like the Clinton budget, the Brady Bill, or the Feinstein amendment.
         Perhaps it would help if I listed a few anti-gun, and therefore anti-Bill of Rights Republicans for you -- people who've recently made statements or cast votes against the Second Amendment: late party chairman Lee Atwater, William Bennett, Sarah and Jim Brady, William F. Buckley, George Bush, Senator John Chaffee, William Colby of the Nixon-era CIA, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, former cabinet secretary Jack Kemp, Republicans of the New Jersey Senate, Republicans of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Republicans of the U.S. Senate in general, Richard M. Nixon, Edwin O. Welles, also of the Nixon-era CIA, columnist George F. Will, California governor Pete Wilson, and New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.
         Only by repeatedly preventing the election of Republicans like these can we Libertarians make our case for Bill of Rights enforcement; and anyway it's better to elect the socialist scum you know than risk another betrayal of the Constitution at the increasingly vile and duplicitous hands of the Republican Party.
         As Paul Atreides reminds us, "The power to destroy a thing is the power to control a thing." Presently we Libertarians will be able, and in each and every case must prove willing, to assure the victory of a liberal Democrat, no matter how repulsive, over a Republican, in every single election until the Republican Party begins to straighten up and fly right -- or becomes as extinct as the dodo.
         Tell your Republican friends that if they truly wish to reform their "Grand Old Party", they must be willing to punish it. Tell them that we Libertarians are offering our services as a bludgeon -- or a rattan cane, if you prefer. Tell them, in a phrase they understand, that if they spare the rod, they'll spoil the child. Tell them, in a phrase they at least claim to understand, that they must be willing to destroy the Republican Party in order to save it.
         Tell them they must Get right with the Bill of Rights. Don't temporize, don't euphemize, don't let them rationalize any longer. Tell them to be real -- and be redeemed. Ask them what ever happened to whatever it was they once believed in.
         I am a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, but not a happy one. To that organization and its leaders, I would say, don't bargain for us any more in Congress or the nation's legislatures; don't write legislation you imagine isn't quite as bad as whatever the bad-guys have in mind; don't wheel and deal for us. You're not up to it; every time you try it, you wind up getting shafted. You wind up getting shafted. We wind up getting shafted. Try sticking to a principle; try sticking to the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights. Try being, for the first time since 1934, what the liberal media say you are: unbending, determined, indomitable, obdurate, persistent, resolute, stubborn, tenacious, uncompromising. And if you don't know what any of those words mean -- past performance implies strongly that you don't -- try looking them up. In the meantime, don't bargain for us any more, and don't do us any favors.
         To the nation's politicians and bureaucrats, to the Pat Sullivans, the Dottie Whams, the Regis Groffs, the Tom Nortons, the Wellington Webbs, the Roy Romers, the Hank Browns, the Patricia Schroeders, the Bill Bennetts, the Jack Kemps, the Janet Renos, the Hillary Clintons, and to everyone else like them across America, I advise them to get out their almanacs or encyclopedias right now, blow off the dust, and bone up on the Bill of Rights. From this moment forward they're being watched by millions of eyes, and they have vastly more at stake, here, than simple re-election. Early in the 21st century, they may find themselves serving time in prison for something they've already done -- or failed to do.
         Let Hillary and Janet do the worrying, about the horrible things we're about to do to them!
         "The laying of a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring war against natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the concern of every Man whom nature hath given the Power of feeling ... " So said our philosophical ancestor, Thomas Paine, in Common Sense.
         One way or another, America is going to wind up with a political party that will enforce the Bill of Rights -- just as soon as the Republicans decide whether they or we Libertarians will put Hillary and Janet and all their little friends behind bars, not for Whitewater capers, not even for Vincent Foster, but for "Crimes against the Constitution".
         Whenever you begin to feel discouraged, I want you to imagine an old lady twenty years from now, tall, stoop-shouldered, wearing thick glasses and a dikey haircut, shuffling along with a canvas bag hung over her shoulder, one of those sticks in her hand with a nail in one end, picking up bits of paper trash as part of her hundred thousand hours of public service, cleaning up America's shooting ranges.
         Party on, Janet!
         And party on, Hillary. America -- or at least Joe-Bob Briggs -- loves movies about "Bimbos Behind Bars".
         Let's see how they like the real thing!

L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of 19 books including The Probability Broach, The Crystal Empire, Henry Martyn, The Lando Calrissian Adventures, Pallas, and (forthcoming) Bretta Martyn and Lever Action. An NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus, he has been active in the Libertarian movement for 34 years and is its most prolific and widely-published living novelist.

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author - provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

Talk to me!: lneil@lneilsmith.org

Back to L. Neil Smith's Speeches Page