[462] in libertarians
Re: IRF Info/Beg Letter.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sethf@MIT.EDU)
Tue Dec 6 22:27:34 1994
From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 22:24:29 -0500
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU, safe@MIT.EDU, ocschwar@MIT.EDU
Don't send these people anything, unless you're comfortable
supporting a rabid right-wing lobbying group. Some people don't have a
problem with that. But those of a left or Libertarian perspective should
know who they are funding.
> Are you angry that so many of America's institutions are in the hands
> of liberals, radicals and the politically correct? If you are, here's
He forgot pinkos and commie-symps, but those terms are out of
fashion. Nonetheless, his point is clear.
> At the Universtity of California at Riverside last October, a fraternity
Yes, they did good here. But MY question is can they ever point
to any case that they have taken on that would go AGAINST the general
"right-wing" outlook? I greatly respect the ACLU, because for all the
arguments about having been soft on certain cases, they have an
institutional record of principle that is matched by no other
organization that I know of. As I view it, the definition of principle
is a Jew defending the rights of Nazis, or a black defending the rights
of the Klan (both real ACLU cases). When I see a "right wing" associated
organization perhaps defending a Bondage/Domination club against the
objections of Christian clubs, then I'll believe them (that's another
real case, currently going on at Columbia).
> REQUIRED TO UNDERGO "FIRST AMENDMENT SENSITIVITY TRAINING."
Hee hee hee. Okay, they DO have a sense of humor :-).
> For the first time, the politically correct bullies of the left were not
Yup, he isn't shy about where he's coming from ...
> I'm John Howard, president of the Individual Rights Foundation. We
> are a public service law firm dedicated to protecting the Bill of
> Rights -- especially in cases where political correctness conflicts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> with civil liberties.
i.e., if it's politically useful.
> David Horowitz and I founded the Individual Rights Foundation (IRF)
Horowitz has made a whole career out of left-bashing. He's very
well known, one of those people who's been politically born-again and
goes on the circuit denouncing the whole of his previous politics.
> As Alan Dershowitz, the liberal attorney and a former member of the
Sneaky cross-quoting. I wonder what he thinks of these guys. He
has credibility. They don't.
> My friend, do you care that our traditional liberties are under
> attack and the bullies of the left reign unchallenged?
I care deeply about liberty, and threat from bullies of the
left. But also very much about bullies from the right. And Horowitz is
one of those, and I strongly suspect Howard is another.
> When we take a case, we almost always prevail. For example, we
I think that's because you've been taking easy cases. Nothing
wrong in that, but nothing to brag about either.
> Our very existence has caused many college administrators to stop and
Yes, I suppose the world needs all sorts. Sigh.
> Like all bullies, the politically correct thought police have few
Not exactly subtle, this guy ...
> And we want to broaden our mission as quickly as possible -- to take our
> fight beyond the universities to wherever rights are being violated with
> impunity.
NOW we get to the point, the use of the civil-liberties bait for
the right-wing hook.
> We began on the campuses, because the most outrageous cases were
> occuring there, ans we knew we could get quick results. But throughout
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What did I just say, about taking easy cases?
> America there is an ongoing attack on individual liberty. Landowners
> are losing their property rights to the notions of radical environmentalists.
Actually, for 12 years these regulations basically went away,
and there's recently been Supreme Court rulings limiting them.
But never mind, it's generic fodder.
> Legitimate gun-owners are harassed by government agencies.
Code for BATF and Waco? Not that I disagree, but it's hardly an
under-addressed issue.
> Scientists' life work is destroyed by animal rights extremists.
A definite flag. I wonder where these people stand on
the problems of scientists who do fetal-tissue research.
> The IRF plans to work on all these fronts. But our future depends on you.
i.e., free speech, but only from attacks by the left,
anti-environmentalism, guns and government agencies, pro-vivisectionists.
A clearer portrait of the right-wing mind could not be sketched.
> We've carefully selected just a few lists of people that we think most
> likely to understand and appreciate what we are doing. You are one of
Sure I understand and appreciate what you are doing. I just
don't want to be a part of it, and I'd rather tell people who might be
taken in by your line what it's really about.
> these people. Every single response we receive, and every dollar, is
> very important to us.
Sorry, no dollars. Is this response important?
> correctness -- and, usually, a celebration of our victories over the
> thought police of the left.
Yah, yah, I got the point already.
> [brief description of other enclosed materials, including a letter
> of encouragement from author Tom Clancy]
Tom Clancy??? There's a respected civil-libertarian, sure. They
must've really been scraping, couldn't they get P. J. O'Rouke?
> My colleagues and I thank you for your support.
Don't mention it.
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
