Slashdot Mirror

Ask the folks who were in Athens, Tn,. who were around just after World War 2 ended.

Hint - GIs came home and kicked ass over election and voting issues.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/at...

The corpses piled up in a society based on libertarian ideals would be infinitesimal compared to the mass slaughters perpetrated by governments. Even if you exclude wars, the governments of the 20th century murdered 170 million people, mostly their own citizens.

If there is no institutional power structure in place to confiscate wealth and coerce behavior, it's extremely difficult to fight a large scale war, engage in mass murder or even mass incarceration. Can you imagine a war of aggression in which all of the soldiers were unpaid volunteers furnishing their own weapons and equipment? How far would they be willing to travel and how long would they be willing to be away from their homes? Without a government, you wouldn't get people to travel from North America to Iraq or Vietnam to fight a war. Most people would rather maintain a peaceful existence and fight only in self defense.

Libertarianism does not mean "no rules", it just means "no ruleRs".

Hate to spoil your 2nd Amendment dreams there, but I can assure you that private ownership is quite tightly restricted. The vast bulk of those open-carry weapons that you see are held by active duty soldiers, and not private citizens. Of the private citizens who *can* carry, the majority live in areas that border upon Palestinian-controlled territories (such as yehudah and shomron).

Considering that veterans of the IDF are allowed to own a handgun and that 75% of the country was compulsory conscripted at one point, it stands to reason that Israel is in fact a 2nd amendment paradise.

Enjoy: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/is...

Veterans:
1. Veterans of the Regular Army honorably discharged with the rank of non-commissioned officer, and veterans of the Reserve Army with the rank of regimental commander- may own 1 handgun
2. Retired law enforcement officers with the rank of sergeant - may own 1 handgun
3. Retired prison guards with the rank of squadron commander- may own 1 handgun

I'll see your relatively peaceful protests and raise you with armed revolt

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/at...

Or how about just plain revolution? No, not 1776 or 1860... How about 1946? http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/at...

Indeed. There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty, and they need to be used in order. Right now we are at the soap box stage. Next is the ballot box stage, and there isn't a lot being done there now. Then the jury box - much like the ballot box, not a lot going on there, and there needs to be. The last choice is the ammo box, a desperate measure.

If 1946 is contemporary enough, you may want to read up on the Battle of Athens - http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/at...

I think McVeigh was a terrorist - there are LOTS of other targets out there for "an attack against the government" or even a particular branch or department of the government where there would've been a lot less civilian "sucks to be you" casualties esp with the daycare center.

Guns haven't been necessary to defend rights since the war of independence

Might want to read up about the Battle of Athens, Tn. http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm

"Where were these slef styles defenders of liberty when Bush was setting up the gulag in Gitmo and using torture? They were cheering him on."

No, I assure you I was not. I was out protesting and organizing against it. Where were YOU when I was looking for help?

Lobbying for victim disarmament and health care disaster?

"If there ever was a fascist takeover of the US, the NRA would be there in their jackboots and pillowcases rounding up opponents to help the new regime."

I have nothing to do with the NRA. Try JPFO.

The reason that the gun laws are more restrictive in those parts of the country is because they've realised[sic] what a huge problem they represent.

Then why is it that the areas with the least restrictive gun laws in the U.S. have the fewest gun crimes? Guns aren't the problem - it's culture in urban areas that embraces thuggish behavior and a "war on drugs" that create incentives for gang turf wars and related violence that are the problem. You don't have a similar "war on drugs" in Europe. It's a real problem here both for gun violence and for creating a huge prison population. Mexico has very strict gun laws but has incredible levels of violence as well. Why? Same god-damn drug war, that's why. It creates incredible monetary incentives because of the black market drug trade which in turn creates the wars between among the cartels and gangs to control that lucrative trade and since it's already a criminal enterprise it attracts those sociopaths who could care less about others.

If you eliminated the drug related deaths from our "body count" we'd have an extremely low rate of murder and gun related deaths. Basically, you're advocating eliminating the rights of the law abiding because of the acts of those who are not law abiding. Research has shown that those who have a licensed to carry a concealed firearm are even more law abiding than law enforcement. So, again, it's not guns that are the problem but the criminals who use them.

The point was NOT that Hitler disarmed the German people, but that they were disarmed. The Weimar Republic enacted draconian gun laws because the Treaty of Versailles required them to disarm their military and they did not want to have their people armed and their military disarmed so they passed laws confiscating firearms before their military had to be disarmed. The Nazis simply made good use of those laws and strengthened them as against groups that they wanted to murder.

Shortly after the Nazis took power, they began house-to-house searches to discover firearms in the homes of suspected opponents. They claimed to find large numbers of weapons in the hands of subversives. Bernard E. Harcourt, writing for the University of Chicago Law School and Political Science Department, notes: "the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms." Here's a copy of the 1938 law, in English, if you're interested in reviewing it: http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm (from the group "Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership"). Israel Gutmann, a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and world renowned scholar of the Holocaust outlined how the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis was hampered by the fact that imprisoned Jews did not have access to adequate arsenals of firearms, although their resistance did lead Goebbels to note in his diary: “This just shows what you can expect from Jews if they lay hands on weapons.”

The same argument goes for Stalin's Russia. The people were not disarmed. You are simply incorrect.

Really? Regarding the Communists and Stalin, in October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the Communist government) ordered citizens to surrender all firearms, ammunition, and sabres, having first mandated registration of all weapons six months earlier. Just like the Nazis, Communist Party members were exempt from the ban. A 1920 decree then imposed a minimum six month prison sentence for any non-Communist possessing a weapon. After the civil war, possession became punishable with three months hard labor plus fines. After Stalin came to power, he made possession of unlawful firearms a crime punishable

JPFO

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
  http://jpfo.org/

You're comparing jews to guns?

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

170 MIllion dead people later:

20th Century Genocides
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

And the US Gun Control act of 1968 is lifted from the German Weapons Law of 1938
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

The second amendment is not to promote sporting purposes of firearms, its to protect the people from government. The killing of innocents is angering, frustrating, and sickening but an unarmed population is in greater danger.

Weren't there a fair number of fowling pieces and personal rifles &c. at the Battle of Concord?

That said, American citizens being well armed was one consideration in Mexico deciding not to invade the U.S. at the behest of Germany in the early days of World War I (look up ``Zimmerman Telegram'').

I believe the organization which you'd want to join is Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership:

http://jpfo.org/

William

I love gun nut response like this. It's so cute that they think their little guns discourage the government in any way.

Never heard of Athens, TN?

Actually, there have been a few... Lubys, the church shooting, the first Virgina college (not Virginia tech w/ Cho).

But to be honest, the 2nd is not primarily about personal protection, but rather about the ability to replace the government - by force if needed.

But when has that happened you ask? On a national level, 1776 of course, and the Civil War (no it wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights). And as recently as 1946

Anyone who naively believes implementation of gun control to be good news should watch these two films produced by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership: "Innocents Betrayed - The True Story of Gun Control WorldWide " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg "No Guns for Negroes" http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/movieplay-ngn-swf.htm

Sadly, I have to wonder if at that point there will be people like these around to say "enough is enough". The 2nd ain't about duck hunting...

I am still astounded by the fact that despite the vast amount of studies and statistics published during the last fifty years, some americans are totally unable to understand this basic fact.

between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent.

...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents." -- Don B. Kates, writing on statistical patterns in gun crime

These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported.[18] The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses.[19] "

The now-famous 1995 Tennessee Law Review article entitled "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?", written by Don B. Kates, Henry E. Schaffer, John K. Lattimer, George B. Murray, and Edwin H. Cassem, powerfully discredits the myth that "gun violence" is an epidemic that only "gun control" can cure. This 1995 article shows how much of the statistical evidence the gun prohibitionists use is skewed, falsified, or massaged. When all of the statistics are accounted, however, they tend to show that the public health argument is a sham.

I don't suppose you have any citations.

Not everyone considers the right to carry lethal weapons so sacred.

But many people know better.

Forgot to mention about those shotguns.
After US vs Olofson Precedent was set that even if a firearm that was manufactured as a semiautomatic and malfunctioned so that more than one round was fired with a single pull of the trigger deemed the firearm to be an automatic machine gun. This also follows suit such that a shotgun that fires both chambered shells through the means of one trigger pull is thus an illegal machine gun. Yes, the ATF is on record saying that.

As some others pointed out already: it is not illegal to own a gun. You have to go through an established process to get them because GUNS ARE DANGEROUS.

No, not at all. In fact, GUNS SAVE LIVES.

It's actually gun control that is dangerous, as history shows.

realize that there are people who do stuff like the following:
[WARNING GRAPHIC]
http://4gifs.com/gallery/v/AnimatedHorrors/Murdered_in_woods.gif.html
http://johnjacobh.wordpress.com/category/merced-pitchfork-murders/
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart
and you will realize having a loaded weapon at all times is the only option

But as far as I'm concerned the more guns off the streets/store shelves the better.

Hey, 1938 is calling, it wants its Nazi Gun Laws back.

There are reasons to disarm an entire society. There are reasons not to. "Compelling" arguments are made for both sides, as both exist or existed somewhere.

I give more credence to the reasons not to do so. Such as tyranny (scroll down to Athenaion Politeia 14-15), racist oppression, and worst, out-right genocide, over and over.

When has it ever worked? When have the people ever used their guns to stop the executive? Answer: Never.

Matewan, or the Battle of Athens?

Pieces of history that don't get taught anywhere because it is...."disturbing". These things do happen, and in the relatively recent past.

1. ABC's Stossel Links Gun Control to Higher Crime
2. Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership

Can you back up you opinion with facts and logic? Or is it a purely emotional reaction to the concept of "guns", rather than a well though out consideration of the actual effects of prohibition?

Better would be the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

You mean in the 1940s? Like when the Battle of Athens took place?

Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo ...

I guess the anonymous moron has missed this: http://www.jews4ronpaul.org/ and this: http://www.jpfo.org/alerts/alert20071120.htm

I guess I'll have to tell my Korean sister in law an my half Venezuelan nephew I'm like David Duke. /sarcasm

Gives new meaning to the phrase Dial 911 and Die.

I don't know if you two have met. Snocone, this is JPFO. JPFO, Snocone.

I'll let you two get acquainted.

-Peter

Don't forget that possession of a shoe string, or any other string for that matter, and a semi-automatic rifle could be considered intent to manufacture. http://www.jpfo.org/shoestring.jpg

"Israelis all carry firearms because all Israelis are trained army personnel, and they are surrounded by countries who want to destroy them."

The 2d part's true, but the first part's not.

Israeli gun laws are actually stricter than the conventional wisdom (among Americans, at least) would have it: JPFO has an informative page up about it. See http://www.jpfo.org/israel-firearms.htm

(The laws were much less restrictive until 1992.)

timothy

Lets not forget the 2nd Amendment... and yes, there has been armed revolt against local law enforcement. http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

"You are one naive fucking asshole. Why don't you tell all your idiotarian conspiracy theories to the families of the police officers who are killed in the line of duty? The idea that the government works against "regular" citizens is one of the most dangerous and destructive lies told by the so called freedom movement."

Um no lets try that again
People are getting tired of varius government agencys abuseing their power and killing or serouisly injureing people and getting a paid vacation for it. But as you sound like part of the problem you know that don't you?

http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/lamplugh.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNati on%5Carchive%5C200603%5CNAT20060329a.html
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20051028.htm
http://www.gainesnet.com/police.htm

The alternative to income taxes would be federal sales tax, which is generally considered to put an undue tax burden on people who don't make a lot of money...eg, the rich man and the poor man buy a loaf of bread, and the 30 cents tax on the bread that goes to the Fed means nothing to the rich man, but means a lot to the poor man.

Guns have done nothing to prevent violations of our fundamental rights.

Is voting a fundamental right in your eyes?

It is in mine.

In fact, those who own guns are more likely to let the government get away with worse transgressions.

Those without are powerless to stop it.

LK

The JPFO says no.

-Peter

Uh ok. First of all, please show us the numbers. Of course if, as you say, it depends on the numbers you use, then maybe you can prove anything. But just for the fun of it, try comparing two similar and bordering nations like, say, the USA and Canada. See what you come up with. And by the way, I'd much rather be attacked by a kid with a knife than a kid with a gun. There's a reason why there's not much knife regulations: it's much easier to kill with a gun than a knife.

Well, I did a quick Google search, and here are just a few links:
http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/crime21.html
http://www.jpfo.org/data-docs.htm

But then again, as I said, there are rather varying numbers on the subject. Kinda like eggs. There's always a study every two months about how eggs are good for you, but they're bad, but they're also good. Personally, I think our gun control laws are pretty good as they are, but could certainly due to at least have a bit more strictness to it. If I were actually making the policy I'd probably like to better review the laws and the statictics, as well as more theories about how they affect eachother, but I don't have the time, so I can only make vague generalizations.

Only 15% of the country voted for him

Well, more like 20%. Of course, only 40% voted. And yeah, that does actually suck. It'd be nice if more people voted. Well, I shouldn't talk, because I didn't vote due to my bizarre political beliefs, but I think that the 60% who didn't vote were just too lazy/apathetic to do so. Well, I guess it makes sense, then, that his job approval ratings are near around the percent of the population who voted for him! As for myself, I don't really like the president too much. He does things that I agree with (i.e. staying in Iraq; I agree that the war was on shaky moral ground, but I think that leaving now would be doing more of a disservice to the Iraqis...), but I'm becoming increasingly fed up with his bullshit (I once had high hopes for his second term, where he'd be less of a Republican ass, but not so much; for example, he keeps talking about "alternative energy", but I see nothing happening. And his in-ability to veto a single spending bill makes me wonder...)

99% of Americans ARE voting for him everyday by letting him in power.

I keep hearing that Americans need to "overthrow" the government on this thread, but how are we suppose to do this without guns? But that aside, what makes you think that the resulting government would be any better, especially how crazy the American people are/are percieved? No offense, but I doubt that will work. But there's good news on the horizon: based on Bush's poor ratings, there's expected to be in a backlash in the 2006 Congressional elections, leading to a Democratic congress and a Republican presidency. Kinda like a reversed version of the Clinton era. Personally, I think that the balance will make for better policy over the next two years.

Mod me down all you want. That doesn't change the fact that, in reality, despite what CNN and Fox might say, Americans are seen as a bunch of morons pretty much everywhere. Don't blame me, that's just the way it is and will be until you show some common sense.

I agree with you in general, if not in the specifics. Whether we deserve it or not we are percieved rather poorly overseas. Hell, we're often poorly percieved in our own country. I think a fair amount of this in undeserved (we're the only remaining superpower, so we're bound to be a target; plus, anti-american sentiment has alot of historical roots), but yes, there is alot of stupid things that America, as a people AND as a government, do. Hopefully in the future things will get better.

If people out there really want to protect our rights, it's really simple, and it doesn't involve threatening to shoot people, shooting people, or getting shot.

Before you get too excited, some information: First, the rate of the tax. "Fair" tax (what a misnomer) supporters will tell you that the proposed fair tax rate is 23%. That is total BS. You have to look at the fine print. 23% is the tax inclusive rate. That means it's 23% of the price with tax. I take this example from a JPFO article which covers many of the points I make here, and is recommended reading (http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm). Suppose you have a candy bar, and you pay $1.30 for it, including tax. The candy bar costs $1.00, and you pay $0.30 in tax. Tax inclusive means that the $0.30 you pay in tax is 23% of the $1.30 total, rather than 23% of the price of the actual item. Sneaky little semantic game they play there.

Second, this will have the effect of dramatically increasing individual Americans' reliance on the federal government on a day-to-day basis. Suddenly, everyone's on the dole. It's not bad enough that you have a good number of people stretching the budget and counting on their tax return checks once a year, now everyone's watching the mailbox hoping the fed will be good to them in the form of a rebate check EVERY MONTH. The effect of this dependence on the benevolence of the government is not good. A dependent populace is much more maleable, much more complacent. The damage it would do to the ability of citizens to develop as autonomous individuals capable of self-sufficiency would be devestating.

One of the most devestating effects of this tax system would be the massive black market that would erupt in the wake of it's implementation. Suddenly there's a black market for tax-free EVERYTHING. Such a black market would be enormous, possibly eclipsing the sales volumes of the "legitimate" government taxed market. This would create a new breed of criminal, the sales tax dodger. These people would be stigmatized, scapegoated for the nation's economic problems (of which many, many loom ahead, fair tax or no), and sentenced to inordinate prison terms, similar to what is done with non-violent drug offenders now.

The privacy implications are disturbing. If the fair tax was implemented, the only way to combat the resulting black market trafficing would be to track purchases for each and every citizen. The fair taxers talk about the stresses of April 15th, but the only way to validate that everyone has been paying their "fair share" (as the socialists like to say) of the tax, the government would have to track purchases, which means you've gone from reporting to the IRS regarding your income and tax totals from various sources to reporting EACH AND EVERY PURCHASE. For all intensive purposes, you've gone from filing a tax return to being audited every year. The only way to ensure accuracy and honesty on such an audit would be for the government to become even more apallingly intrusive than it is now ("the financial equivalent of a full rectal exam"). The government would undoubtedly use it as a means to justify further intrustions such as additional monitoring of our communications to ensure no one was buying tax-free online or by mail. Also, the manpower required to implement such an auditing system would be enormous. The fair tax FAQ talks of tax preparers and lobbyists being forced to find more productive pursuits, but in reality, most of them would end up absorbed into the new tax administration bureaucracy.

As to putting an end to lobbyists, I don't believe that for a second. Just as there is now, there will be rich and powerful lobby groups trying to convince the government to make the tax just a little more fair. Why should Bibles be taxed the same as porno? Textbooks the same as comic books? Why not tax cigarettes at a higher rate, since smoking is so un-P.C. now anyway? Lobbyists will not be going anywhere, they'll simply change their approach ever so slightly.

In short, the fair tax is a horrible idea. It has many more problems than I've attempted to delve in

I believe that Lincoln instituted the first US Income Tax, see for example: http://www.jpfo.org/alert20010212.htm, well in advance of the constitutional amendment that made it legal for him to do so. Lincoln had very little regard for civil rights -- his main concern was preserving the empirexxxxxunion.

Yup, for a prime example see "the battle of athens" - link

Also, take a good look at all the crazy stuff that went on in NOLA after Katrina hit. The courts have already decided that the government doesn't have a responsibility to protect you.

Police [. . .] are generally trained to take care of #1 first, not to be a hero.

It is the position of the Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership that this is the foundation of genocide. See this article.

To summarize: Registration -> Confiscation -> Totalitarian Government (to "rescue" the country from the effects of confiscation) -> Genocide.

The JPFO is a great outfit. Their aim is to support "all of the Bill of Rights for everyone." How great is that?

-Peter

It is the position of the Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership that this is the foundation of genocide. See this article.

To summarize: Registration -> Confiscation -> Totalitarian Government (to "rescue" the country from the effects of confiscation) -> Genocide.

The JPFO is a great outfit. Their aim is to support "all of the Bill of Rights for everyone." How great is that?

-Peter

This article exposes some of the issues involving FairTax. I was rather surprises that there could be so many problems with it (after all, seems simple enough, right?) Between black market increase, unfairness to those with pre-taxed savings (Baby Boomers), and troubles with the housing market... I'm not sure I'm convinced this is the right thing.

I also believe it is likely that we will end up with both a National Sales Tax *AND* an Income Tax. Yuck.

"Unfortunately there are still some (...) Jews around who have problems with the idea of Jews being armed"

Certainly not these jews.

steve

When you have a crime to investigate, and you have no suspects, where do you start? Obviously you begin by looking at the person or persons who have the most to gain by perpetrating the crime.

This is why we must consider: who had something to gain from the disasterous crimes of September 11th? Obviously not Osama Bin Laden, who would net no financial windfall from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although he has loudly applauded the "terrorist" acts of September 11th and even tacitly taken credit for them, there is no reason to believe that he is anything more than a bandwagon jumper. Being blamed for the destruction of the World Trade Center has done more for his image than any amount of militant Islamic rhetoric.

But if not Bin Laden, then who?

It so happens that on December 11th, "coincidentally" 2 months after the tragedy, Credit Suisse First Boston quietly agreed to pay out US$100 million in order to settle an 18 month old investigation into its handling of certain high-profile technology IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). One of the most controversial amongst these being the IPO of VA Linux Systems, Inc. (LNUX) .

VA Linux Systems, Inc., now known as VA Software, is widely derided as a poster child of the dot-com bust, though inexplicably still in business. At the time of the IPO, VA Linux (Software) shares opened trading at nearly 10 times their $30 offer price, closing the first day of trading at $239.25. This meteoric rise made many early investors rich, strangely on account of a company which purports to sell a hobbyist operating system which can be obtained for free on the Internet. "The VA Linux initial public offering is a prime example of market manipulation in an IPO by investment banks, their customers and the issuing firm," said Steven Schulman, a partner in the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which specializes in filing shareholder suits.

"Because certain favored customers of the investment banks agreed to buy shares in a new issue at inflated prices in the aftermarket (in return for getting an allocation of the shares at the initial offering price) the share prices to which the IPO eventually soared were actually driven by artificial market forces," continues Schulman.

But what does the VA Software (Linux) IPO have to do with the attacks on September 11th, and what has that to do with the Credit Suisse settlement? Well, considering that VA Linux (Software) got CSFB into trouble in the first place, it stands to reason that the VA Linux (Software) Board of Directors were complicit in the stock fraud from beginning to end. As the investigation progressed against CSFB, the unscrupulous VA Software/Linux executives, their pockets bulging with filthy lucre plundered from trusting, hard-working investors, must have realized that their days in the country club were numbered if the SEC discovered their wrongdoings.

The SEC, or Securities Exchange Commission, is a federal regulatory agency, and cannot be bribed. Therefore, with a possible stint in federal prison looming large, Larry Augustin and the rest of the crooks, including outspoken gun violence advocate Eric S. Raymond, decided to undertake more active means to halt the investigation.

The Plan

It so happened that all the evidence in the CSFB/

When you have a crime to investigate, and you have no suspects, where do you start? Obviously you begin by looking at the person or persons who have the most to gain by perpetrating the crime.

This is why we must consider: who had something to gain from the disasterous crimes of September 11th? Obviously not Osama Bin Laden, who would net no financial windfall from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although he has loudly applauded the "terrorist" acts of September 11th and even tacitly taken credit for them, there is no reason to believe that he is anything more than a bandwagon jumper. Being blamed for the destruction of the World Trade Center has done more for his image than any amount of militant Islamic rhetoric.

But if not Bin Laden, then who?

It so happens that on December 11th, "coincidentally" 2 months after the tragedy, Credit Suisse First Boston quietly agreed to pay out US$100 million in order to settle an 18 month old investigation into its handling of certain high-profile technology IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). One of the most controversial amongst these being the IPO of VA Linux Systems, Inc. (LNUX) .

VA Linux Systems, Inc., now known as VA Software, is widely derided as a poster child of the dot-com bust, though inexplicably still in business. At the time of the IPO, VA Linux (Software) shares opened trading at nearly 10 times their $30 offer price, closing the first day of trading at $239.25. This meteoric rise made many early investors rich, strangely on account of a company which purports to sell a hobbyist operating system which can be obtained for free on the Internet. "The VA Linux initial public offering is a prime example of market manipulation in an IPO by investment banks, their customers and the issuing firm," said Steven Schulman, a partner in the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which specializes in filing shareholder suits.

"Because certain favored customers of the investment banks agreed to buy shares in a new issue at inflated prices in the aftermarket (in return for getting an allocation of the shares at the initial offering price) the share prices to which the IPO eventually soared were actually driven by artificial market forces," continues Schulman.

But what does the VA Software (Linux) IPO have to do with the attacks on September 11th, and what has that to do with the Credit Suisse settlement? Well, considering that VA Linux (Software) got CSFB into trouble in the first place, it stands to reason that the VA Linux (Software) Board of Directors were complicit in the stock fraud from beginning to end. As the investigation progressed against CSFB, the unscrupulous VA Software/Linux executives, their pockets bulging with filthy lucre plundered from trusting, hard-working investors, must have realized that their days in the country club were numbered if the SEC discovered their wrongdoings.

The SEC, or Securities Exchange Commission, is a federal regulatory agency, and cannot be bribed. Therefore, with a possible stint in federal prison looming large, Larry Augustin and the rest of the crooks, including outspoken gun violence advocate Eric S. Raymond, decided to undertake more active means to halt the investigation.

The Plan

It so happened that all the evidence in the CSFB/