Conference back40::soapbox

Plumber cracked?

>Militias..... Who and what are they?

That's what I'd like to know.

Like, are they secret organizations?
And what do you have to be and do to qualify
for membership?  Can girls join as well as boys?

    It's either called plumbers butt or mechanics crack...

If Ms. Manchester formed a particularly vile one, would it be
Melissa's malicious militia?

Melissa's Malicious Militia.

MMM.

RE .5

Now try saying that 3 times fast :-)

	I heard on a talk show once about a guy who was trying to get a law
passes that made everyone in that town, state, city, or county (don't 
remember) a member of a militia.  This was being done to get around the gun
control laws (I think).

ME

    AP 27 Apr 95 0:41 EDT V0514
 
    Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Those concerned about the rise of the militia
    movement make a mistake if they dismiss the camouflaged weekend
    warriors as oddballs. 

    Specialists watching the movement say that what is remarkable about the
    recruits is how unremarkable they are. 

    "Every one of us ought to be able to imagine a situation bad enough
    that our hopes for ourselves and for our children are sufficiently
    diminished and threatened that we feel we ought to do something," said
    Clark McCauley, a psychology professor at Bryn Mawr College in
    Pennsylvania and an expert on terrorism. 

    "These people are not some variety of beast. They're people just like
    us." 

    The militia movement is said to draw much of its strength from
    economically struggling white men, many of them veterans, prone to
    believe in conspiracies, often living in rural areas, fervently
    defending the right to bear arms. 

    Some members are former college professors; others never made it
    through high school. Some insist they are not bigots; others see Jews,
    blacks and foreigners as the perpetrators of a huge, anti-American
    conspiracy. 

    While militia watchers underscore that reliable data and a detailed
    understanding of these groups is lacking, rough sketches have emerged
    in the days after the Oklahoma City bombing. Officials are checking for
    any links between the bombing and members of such groups. 

    Political science professor Michael Barkun of Syracuse University
    agreed with McCauley. "We make a substantial mistake and eventually
    underestimate the danger if we simply assume that everyone engaged in
    such organizations is ignorant or disordered or pathological," he said. 

    A series of incidents has fueled membership: the federal raid on
    separatist Randy Weaver's Idaho compound in 1992; the burning of the
    Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, in 1993; passage of the
    Brady gun law in 1993 and of an assault-style weapons ban last year. 

    Members often learn about the organizations at gun shows. They are
    predominantly white and male, age 18 to 46. Many served in the military
    and belong to a Christian denomination, according to the Center for
    Democratic Renewal in Atlanta, a group that monitors extremist groups. 

    Membership is "predominantly middle class, working class, small
    business owner-type people," said Noah Chandler, a researcher for the
    center who has attended militia conventions. 

    Several of the figures who have emerged in the bombing investigation
    seem to fit. 

    For example, Timothy McVeigh, charged in the bombing, was an Army
    veteran who became a drifter. Authorities say he had ties to two
    brothers now charged with conspiracy in connection with bomb-making in
    Michigan -- James Nichols, the owner of a small farm, and his younger
    brother Terry, an Army veteran who became an independent military
    surplus dealer. 

    Norman Olson, head of the Michigan Militia, an organization that says
    it kicked out McVeigh, is pastor of a Baptist church and owner of a gun
    shop. Mark Koernke, said to have been an associate of McVeigh, is a
    janitor at the University of Michigan. 

    Militia members view themselves as under assault by federal
    authorities. 

    "There is a readiness to see conspiracies," said Jerrold Post, director
    of the political psychology program at George Washington University.
    "It is a theme and it is deep within human psychology in general and is
    especially apt to become pronounced at times of socioeconomic stress." 

    These feelings may not be fully formed when a recruit joins a militia,
    McCauley said, but they become magnified within the closed loop of the
    organization. 

    "The horsepower is in a powerful group dynamic in a group that is ever
    more closed to outside opinion," McCauley said. "They are hermetically
    sealed. They're only talking to one another. Under those conditions,
    there's no brake. There's no reality check." 

    Barkun spoke of a "profound sense that there is nothing meaningful that
    can be accomplished through existing political institutions." He said
    many militia members are plain folks, "to an extent that might surprise
    and shock us." 

    just my personal observation, but do most of these guys come like
    thier family tree was located in a dried up gene pool?
    
    i'm sorry, but they would do well to try and manipulate the press
    toward some of the more well-spoken/articulate members.
    
    Chip

    Thanks for .7 John.  Anyone have any internet posts or other info from 
    a militia directly?  Anything that is a non-media based for example?  I
    am curious about learning more about them.  I do not want to go to a
    gun show to get the recruiting spiel.  
    
    Brian

Sounds like many little groups of AWMs with arms.
Sounds pretty exclusive, too. :-(

.8 was most enlightening.

Ja, I learned how to say "baseball caps" auf deutsch (Baseballkappen).

    
    
    RE: .9  Chip,
    
    Kind of makes one wonder why the media doesn't seek out the well spoken
    ones.  Also remember, to some, a southern drawl or a country dialect
    means that the person is a stupid country hick. 
    
    
    Mike

    
    
>    Kind of makes one wonder why the media doesn't seek out the well spoken
>    ones.  Also remember, to some, a southern drawl or a country dialect
>    means that the person is a stupid country hick. 
    
    	Yeah, or long hair, or an earring, or a beer belly, or any of a
    number of things will automatically cause folks to lose credibility
    with a lot of people. 
    
    jim

    on the news the other night I saw a "leader" of a militia and it sure
    was scary to me (and I don't live in the US). He discribed the bombing
    as a "work of art", a "Rembrant" (SP?), the perfect marriage of science
    and art. It was truely scary to see someone who thought this was a good
    thing. I am sure alot of these weekend warriers are as repulsed as the
    rest of us, but to say the militia movement is benign is not true
    either.
    
    							Derek.
    (PS. He was very well spoken though)

    
    
    Well, almost got rid of the beer belly, Jim.  Still got the earring and
    the hair is getting a bit longer (what's left of it anyway). :')
    
    
    Mike

>    the hair is getting a bit longer (what's left of it anyway). :')

When it gets really long, you can comb it over the chrome dome.
Women love it.

    
    
    
    I've heard it was a turnon to the babes, Gerald.  How does it work for
    you?

    i agree Mike. it's not the southern drawl that i meant and i do get
    your point about the media seeking these people out just to make sure
    the right amount of bias remains alive and well.
    
    i was just wondering that by now, you'd think these fringe-types would
    learn a little of the PR game and use the the talking heads to their
    advantage. but then again, monkeys could fly out of my butt!
    
    Chip :-)

Yeah, like a big butt, or spittle at the corners of the mouth,
or a high sloping forehead accentuated with small slitty eyes, 
or incredible B.O., or wicked dirty fingernails....

> but then again, monkeys could fly out of my butt!

Is _THAT_ how Martin's going to have that metter fixed, Chip?

:^)

    gee i dunno if it's fixable... i haven't seen it :-)
    
    Chip

<--- see 11.4092 - first paragraph. :^)

    Re 398.16 by KAOFS::D_STREET
    
    It wasn't a "leader" of the miltia, it was Bo Gritz formerly the most
    decorated service-man from the Vietnam era war - now spokesperson for
    several white-separatist/survivalist movements.  If you saw the feed on
    C-SPAN2 -  He had said while he condemned anybody who could bomb
    American women and children, as a former guerilla fighter one had to
    admire the way that the bomb was implemented with common everyday
    materials and used to deadly affect.
    
    Given that context, his statements praising the OKC bomb take on a
    whole new light.
    
    /jim

    The picture of the NH militia dude, somethingorother MacRae,  was less
    than what I would call average folk.  Reminded me of Adam fom Northern
    Exposure right down to the "unspecified military service for national
    security reasons".
    
    Brian 

    ASABET::MCWILLIAMS
    
     To you maybe. I saw it on CTV news, and you can couch the words of
    "white-separatist/survivalist" in any wrapping you like, and it still
    will send chlls down my spine. The thought that people actually think like
    that, and that people will try to defend them by saying that at the
    beginning he said it was bad, is sad.  The reality is that he just about
    creamed his jeans in praise of the effort. Sick plain and simple.
    
    		Derek.

    
    <------
    
    Sorta like the head of The Nation of Islam stating Hitler was a great
    leader... huh?

    SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI
    
    >>Sorta like the head of The Nation of Islam stating Hitler was a great
    >>leader... huh?
    
     I'm sure you quoted him out of context. :*)
    
    							Derek.

    
    It sent "chills" down my spine then too (contextually speaking of
    course)
    
     

    I found this in MENNOTES, thanks to Andreas for posting.
    
    Brian
    
             <<< QUARK::USER_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                  -< Discussions of topics pertaining to men >-
================================================================================
Note 170.2                    Oklahoma City Bombing                      2 of 12
DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have"  514 lines  26-APR-1995 06:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from "http://www.well.com/user/srhodes/militia.html"
 

By Daniel Junas

(Re-Printed with Permission from Covert Action Quarterly)

Winter is harsh in western Montana. Short days, bitter cold and heavy snows 
enforce the isolation of the small towns and lonely ranches scattered among 
the broad river valleys and high peaks of the Northern Rockies. But in 
February 1994 - the dead of winter - a wave of fear and paranoia strong enough 
to persuade Montanans to brave the, elements swept through the region. 
Hundreds of people poured into meetings in small towns to hear tales of 
mysterious black helicopters sighted throughout the United States and foreign 
military equipment moving via rail and flatbed truck across the country, in 
preparation for an invasion by a hostile federal government aided by U.N. 
troops seeking to impose a New World Order.

    In Hamilton (pop. 1,700), at the base of the Bitterroot Mountains dividing
Idaho and Montana, 250 people showed up; 200 more gathered in Eureka (pop. 
1,000), ten miles from the Canadian border. And 800 people met in Kalispell, at 
the foot of Glacier National Park. Meeting organizers encouraged their 
    audiences to form citizens' militias to protect themselves from the 
    impending military threat.1

Most often, John Trochmann, a wiry, white-haired man in his fifties, led the 
meetings.  Trochmann lives near the Idaho border in Noxon (pop. 270), a 
townwell-suited for strategic defense. A one-lane bridge over the Clark Fork 
River is the only means of access, and a wall of mountains behind the town makes 
it a natural fortress against invasion. From this bastion, Trochmann, his 
brother David, and his nephew Randy run the Militia of Montana (MOM), a 
publicity-seeking outfit that has organized "militia support groups"2 and pumped 
out an array of written and taped tales of a sinister global conspiracy 
controlling the U.S. government. MOM also proides "how to" materials for 
organizing citizens' militias to meet this dark threat.

Militia Mania

It is difficult to judge from attendance at public meetings how many militias  
and militia members there might be in Montana, or if, as is widely rumored, they 
areconducting military training and exercises. The same applies across the 
country; there is little hard information on how many are involved or what they 
are actually doing.

But the Trochmanns are clearly not alone in raising fears about the federal 
government nor in sounding the call to arms. By January, movement watchers had 
identified militia activity in at least 40 states, with a conservatively 
estimated hard-core membership of at least 10,000 - and growing.3

    The appearance of armed militias raises the level of tension in a region
already at war over environmental and land use issues.

A threat explicitly tied to militias occurred in November 1994, at a public 
hearing in Everett, Washington. Two men approached Ellen Gray, an Audubon 
Society activist.  According to Gray, one of them, later identified as Darryl 
Lord, placed a hangman's noose on a nearby chair, saying, "This is a message for 
you." He also distributed cards with a picture of a hangman's noose that said, 
"Teason = Death" on one side, and "Eco fascists go home" on the other. The other 
man told Gray, "If we can't get you at the ballot box, we'll get you with a 
bullet. We have a militia of 10,000."4 In a written statement, Lord later denied 
making the threat, although he admitted bringing the hangman's noose to the 
meeting.5

Militias, 'Patriots," and Angry White Guys

As important as environmental issues are in the West, they are only part of what 
is driving the militia movement. The militias have close ties to the older and 
more broadly based "Patriot" movement, from which they emerged, and which 
supplies their worldview. Accordingto Chip Berlet, an analyst at Political 
Research Associates in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who has been tracking the far 
right for over two decades, this movement consists of loosely linked 
organizations and individuals who perceive a global conspiracy in which key 
political and economic events are manipulated by a small group of elite 
insiders.

On the far right flank of the Patriot movement are white supremacists and
anti-Semites, who believe that the world is controlled by a cabal of Jewish 
bankers. This position is represented by, among others, the Liberty Lobby and 
its weekly newspaper, the Spotlight. At the other end of this relatively narrow 
spectrum is the John Birch Society, which has repeatedly repudiated anti- 
Semitism, but hews to its own paranoid vision. For the Birchers, it is not the 
Rothschilds but such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations, the 
Trilateral Commission, and the U.N. which secretly call the shots.6

This far-right milieu is home to a variety of movements, including Identity 
Christians, Constitutionalists, tax protesters, and remnants of the semi-secret 
Posse Comitatus. Members of the Christian right who subscribe to the 
conspiratorial world view presented in Pat Robertson's 1991 book, The New World 
Order, also fall within the movement's parameters.7 Berlet estimates that as 
many as five million Americans consider themselves Patriots.8

While the Patriot movement has long existed on the margins of U.S. society, it 
has grown markedly in recent years.9 Three factors have sparked that growth.

One is the end of the Cold War. For over 40 years, the "international communist
conspiracy" held plot-minded Americans in thrall. But with the collapse of the 
Soviet empire, their search for enemies turned toward the federal government, 
long an object of simmering resentment.

The other factors are economic and social. While the Patriot movement provides a   
pool of potential recruits for the militias, it in turn draws its members from a 
large and growing number of U.S. citizens disaffected from and alienated by a 
government that seems indifferent, if not hostile, to their interests. This 
predominantly white, male, and middle- and working-class sector has been 
buffeted by global economic restructuring, with its attendant job losses, 
declining real wages and social dislocations. While under economic stress, this 
sector has also seen its traditional privileges and status challenged by 
1960s-style social movements, such as feminism, minority rights, and 
environmentalism.

Someone must be to blame. But in the current political context, serious 
progressive analysis is virtually invisible, while the Patriot movement provides 
plenty of answers. Unfortunately, they are dangerously wrong-headed ones.10

Ruby Ridge and Waco

Two recent events inflamed Patriot passions and precipitated the formation of 
the militias. The first was the FBI's 1992 confrontation with white supremacist 
Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in which federal agents killed Weaver's son 
and wife. The second was the federal government's destruction of David Koresh 
and his followers at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in April 
1993.11

Key promoters of the militia movement repeatedly invoke Ruby Ridge and Waco as
spurs to the formation of militias to defend the citizenry against a hostile 
federal government. 

The sense of foreboding and resentment of the federal government was compounded 
by the passage of the Brady Bill (imposing a waiting period and background 
checks for the purchase of a handgun) followed by the Crime Bill (banning the 
sale of certain types of assault rifles). For some members of the Patriot 
movement, these laws are the federal government's first step in disarming the 
citizenry, to be followed by the much dreaded United Nations invasion and the 
imposition of the New World Order.12

But while raising apocalyptic fears among Patriots, gun control legislation also 
angered more mainstream gun owners. Some have become newly receptive to 
conspiracy theorists and militia recruiters, who justify taking such a radical 
step with the Second Amendment: 

 "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
 right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Right-wing organizers have long used the amendment to justify the creation of 
armed formations. The Ku Klux Klan began as a militia movement, and the militia 
idea has continued to circulate in white supremacist circles. It has also spread 
within the Christian right. In the early 1990s, the Coalition on Revival, an 
influential national Christian right networking organization, circulated a 
24-plank action plan. It advocated the formation of "a countywide 
'well-regulated militia' according to the U.S. Constitution under the control of 
the county sheriff and Board of Supervisors."13

Like the larger Patriot movement, the militias vary in membership and ideology. 
In the East, they appear closer to the John Birch Society. In New Hampshire, for 
example, the 15-member Constitution Defense Militia reportedly embraces garden 
variety U.N conspiracy fantasies and lobbies against gun control measures.14

In the Midwest, some militias have close ties to the Christian right, 
particularly the radical wing of the anti-abortion movement. In Wisconsin, 
Matthew Trewhella, leader of Missionaries to the Preborn, has organized 
paramilitary training sessions for his churchmembers.15

And in Indianapolis, Linda Thompson, the self-appointed "Acting Adjutant General 
of the Unorganized Militia of the U.S.A.," called for an armed march on 
Washington last September to demand an investigation of the Waco siege. Although 
she canceled the march when no one responded, she remains an important militia 
promoter.16 While Thompson limits her tirades to U.S. law enforcement and the 
New World Order, her tactics have prompted the Birch Society to warn its members 
"to stay clear of her schemes."17

Despites light variations in their motivations, the militias fit within the 
margins of the Patriot movement. And a recurring theme for all of them is a 
sense of deep frustration and resentment against the federal government.

Nowhere has that resentment been felt more deeply than in the Rocky Mountain 
West, a hotbed of such attitudes since the frontier era. The John Birch Society 
currently has a larger proportional membership in this region than in any 
other.18 Similarly, the Rocky Mountain West is where anti-government 
presidential candidate Ross Perot ran strongest. 

And nowhere in the West is anti-goverrunent sentiment stronger than along the 
spine of wild mountains that divide the Idaho panhandle from Montana. In the 
last two decades, this pristine setting has become a stomping ground for 
believers in Christian Identity, a religious doctrine that holds that whites are 
the true Israelites and that blacks and other people of color are subhuman ,'mud 
people'."19

In the mid-1970s, Richard Butler, a neo-Nazi from California who is carrying out 
a self-described war against the "Zionist Occupational Government," or "ZOG,"
relocated to the Idaho panhandle town of Hayden Lake to establish his Aryan 
Nations compound. He saw the Pacific Northwest, with its relatively low minority 
population, as the region where God's kingdom could be established. Butler also 
believed that a racially pure nation needs an army.20

Butler is aging, and his organization is mired in factional disputes. But he has 
helped generate a milieu in which militias can thrive. In May 1992, one of his 
neighbors and supporters, Eva Vail Lamb, formed the Idaho Organized Militia. 
During the same year, Lamb was also a key organizer for presidential candidate 
Bo Gritz (rhymes with "whites"), another key player in the militia movement.21

Bo Gritz and the Origins of the Militias

A former Green Beret, Ret. Lt. Col. Gritz is a would-be Rambo, having led 
several private missions to Southeast Asia to search for mythical U.S. POWs. He 
also has a lengthy Patriot pedigree. With well -documented ties to white 
supremacist leaders, he has asserted that the Federal Reserve is controlled by 
eight Jewish families.22 In 1988, he accepted the vice-presidential nomination 
of the Populist Party, an electoral amalgam of neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and 
other racist and anti-Semitic organizations.23 His running mate was ex-klansman 
David Duke. Gritz later disavowed any relationship with Duke, but in 1992, Gritz 
was back as the Populist Party's candidate for president.

    He has emerged as a mentor for the militias. During the 1992 campaign, he
encouraged his supporters to form militias,24 and played a key role in one of 
the events that eventually sparked the militia movement, the federal assault on 
the Weaver family compound at Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

In the mid-1980s, Randy Weaver, a machinist from Waterloo, Iowa, moved to Ruby
Ridge in Boundary County, the northernmost county in the panhandle. A white
supremacist who subscribed to anti-government conspiracy theories, he attended
Richard Butler's Aryan Nations congresses at least three times.25 And acting on  
the long-held far right notion that the county ought to be the supreme level of 
government, he even ran for sheriff of Boundary County.

But in 1991, after being arrested on gun charges, Weaver failed to show up for 
trial and holed up in his mountain home. In August 1992, a belated federal 
marshals' effort to arrest him led to a seige in which FBI snipers killed 
Weaver's wife and son, and Weaver associate Kevin Harris killed a federal 
marshal. Gritz appeared on the scene and interposed himself as a negotiator 
between the FBI and Weaver. He eventually convinced Weaver to surrender and end 
the 11-day standoff. The episode gave Gritz national publicity and made him a 
hero on the right.26

He moved quickly to exploit both his new-found fame and the outrage generated by 
the Weaver killings. In February 1993, Gritz initiated his highly profitable 
SPIKE training - Specially Prepared Individuals for Key Events. The ten-part 
traveling program draws on Gritz's Special Forces background and teaches a 
rigorous course on survival and paramilitary techniques. Gritz - who has already 
instructed hundreds of Christian Patriots in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, 
California, and elsewhere - recommends the training as essential preparation for 
militia members.27

MOM

The Randy Weaver shootout also led directly to the formation of the Trochmanns'
Militia of Montana (MOM). In September 1992, during the Ruby Ridge standoff,  
John Trochmann helped found United Citizens for Justice (UC-J), a support group 
for his friend Weaver. Another steering committee member was Chris Temple, who 
writes regularly for the Jubilee, a leading Christian Identity publication. 
Temple also worked as a western Montana organizer for Gritz's presidential 
campaign. One of the earliest mailing lists used to promote MOM came from UCJ.

But despite Trochmann's links to their adherents, white supremacist and 
Christian Identity rhetoric is conspicuously absent from MOM literature.28 
Instead, Trochmann purveys the popular UN/New World Order conspiracy theory with 
an anti-corporate twist. The cabal, he claims, intends to reduce the world's 
population to two billion by the year 3000.29

At public events, he cite news accounts, government documents and reports from 
his informal intelligence network. Trochmann also reports on the mysterious 
black helicopters and ties them to the U.N. takeover plot. In one of his 
lectures, distributed on a MOM videotape, he uses as evidence a map found on the 
back of a Kix cereal box which divides the United States into ten regions, 
reflecting, he implies, an actual plan to divide and conquer the nation.30

The Trochmanns give talks around the country and are part of a very effective
alternative media network which uses direct mail, faxes, videos, talk radio, TV, 
and even computers linked to the Internet to sustain its apocalyptic, paranoid 
world view.31

The Trochmanns use all these venues to promote MOM materials, including an
organizing manual, "Militia Support Group," which provides a model military
structure for the militias and lays out MOM's aims: 

 "The time has come to renew our commitment to high moral values and wrench
 the control of the government from the hands of the secular humanists and the
 self-indulging special interest groups including private corporations." 32

It also reveals that MOM has recruited "Militia Support Groups" throughout the 
nation into its intelligence network, which provides MOM with a steady stream of
information to feed into its conspiracy theories. Consequently, the Trochmanns  
were well aware when trouble was brewing in another remote corner of the West.

The County Rule Movement

In Catron County, New Mexico, the militia movement has converged with some other
strands of the anti-govemment right to create a new challenge to federal power. 
Catron, located in the desolate southwest of New Mexico and with a population of 
less than 3,000 people, has been the site of a novel legal challenge to federal 
control of public lands. In what has become known as the County Rule movement, 
Catron was the first county to issue a direct legal challenge to the federal 
government over those lands.

It grew out of a conflict between local ranchers and federal land managers over 
federal grazing lands. County attorney James Catron, whose ancestors gave the 
county its name, joined forces with Wyoming attorney Karen Budd, a long-time foe 
of environmental regulation33 to produce the Catron County ordinances. These 
purport to give the county ultimate authority over public lands - making it 
illegal for the U.S. Forest Service to regulate grazing, even on its own 
lands.34

But such regulations also serve the interests of natural resource industries. 
Since it is relatively easy for those industries to control county governments, 
the ordinances provide them with a convenient end run around federal 
enviromnental laws and rules. The Catron County legislation has since been 
disseminated throughout the West and recently into the Midwest by the National 
Federal Lands Conference of Bountiful, Utah, which is part of the 
anti-environmental Wise Use movement.35

Over 100 counties in the West have passed similar legislation, despite the 
ordinances'shaky legal foundations. The Boundary County, Idaho, ordinances have 
been overturned in state court, and federal court challenges to county rule 
legislation in Washington state are expected to succeed; the U.S. Supreme Court 
has consistently upheld federal government authority over federal lands.36

Nevertheless, the county rule movement has succeeded in shifting the balance of 
power between the counties and the federal government, if through no other means 
than intimidation. In Catron County, the sheriff has threatened to arrest the 
head of  the local Forest Service office. And the county also passed a 
resolution predicting "much physical violence" if the federal government 
persists in trying to implement grazing reform.37

In fact, a climate of hostility greets environmentalists throughout the West. 
Author David Helvarg writes that there have been hundreds of instances of 
harassment and physical violence in the last few years.38 Sheila O'Donnell, a 
California-based private investigator who tracks harassment of 
environmentalists, concurs that intimidation is on the rise.39

Catron County has been the scene of at least one such incident. Richard Manning, 
a local rancher, planned to open a mill at the Challenger mine, on Forest 
Service land in the Mogollon mountains. Forest Service and state regulators went 
to determine if toxic mine tailings are leaching into watercourses. According to 
several Forest Service and state officials, Manning threatened to meet any 
regulator with "a hundred men with rifles." Manning denies having made the 
threat.40

Militias and the Power of the County

The County Rule movement and the militias share an ideological kinship, 
revolving around the idea, long popular in far-right circles, that the county is 
the supreme level of government and the sheriff the highest elected official.

"Posse Comitatus" - the name for a far-right, semi-secret anti-tax organization 
- literally means "the power of the county." A militia has formed in Catron 
County, quickly sparking an incident that demonstrates the high level of 
paranoia in the area. Last September, two days after the militia held its first 
meeting, FBI and National Guard officials arrived in Catron County to search for 
the body of a person reportedly killed a year earlier in the nearby Mogollon 
mountains. Several militia members refused to believe the official explanation 
and fled their homes for the evening.41

Catron County may be a bellwether: The county rule and militia movements are
apparently converging. In October 1994, the monthly newsletter of the National  
Federal Lands Conference featured a lead article that explicitly called for the 
formation of militias. The article, which cited information provided by the 
Militia of Montana and pro-militia organizations in Idaho and Arizona, closed by 
saying: 

 "At no time in our history since the colonies declared their independence from
 the long train of abuses of King George has our country needed a network of
 active militias across America to protect us from the monster we have allowed
 our federal government to become. Long live the Militia! Long live freedom!
 Long live government that fear [sic] the people!"42

Smoke on the Horizon

Such incendiary rhetoric, commonplace in the Patriot/Militia movement, makes an
armed confrontation between the government and militia members seem increasingly
likely. If past behavior is any guide, federal law enforcement agencies are all 
too ready to fight fire with fire.

Obviously, militias do not pose a military threat to the federal government. But 
they do threaten democracy. Armed militias fueled by paranoid conspiracy 
theories could make the democratic process unworkable, and in some rural areas 
of the West, it is already under siege.

As ominously, the militias represent a smoldering right-wing populism with real 
and imagined grievances stoked by a politics of resentment and scapegoating 
-just a demagogue away from kindling an american fascist movement.

The militia movement now is like a brush fire on a hot summer day, atop a high 
and dry mountain ridge on the Idaho panhandle. As anyone in the panhandle can 
tell you, those brush fires have a way of getting out of control. 

Daniel Junas is a Seattle-based political researcher and author of "The 
Religious Right in Washington State," published by the ACLU of Washington. 
Research assistance by Paul de Armond and David Neiwert.



References

1. Montana Human Rights Network, "A Season of Discontent: Militias,
Constitutionalists, and The Far Right in Montana," May 1994.

2. Paramilitary formations are illegal in Montana. Militia organizers skirt the 
law by forming "support groups."

3. Interview with Chip Berlet, Dec. 21, 1994.

4. Diane Brooks, "Threats Replace Debate at Hearing," Seattle Times, Snohomish
edition, Nov. 15, 1994, p. B1; interview with Ellen Gray by Paul de Armond, Nov. 
22, 1994.

5. Statement to the press, Nov. 16, 1994.

6. For Birch Society theories, see its magazine, The New American; also James 
Perloff,  The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline (Belmont, 
Mass.: Western Islands, 1988), and Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government (Belmont, 
Mass.: Western Islands, 1965).

7. Pat Robertson, The New World Order (Irving, Tex.: New Publishers, 1991).

8. Berlet interview, op. cit.

9. Ibid. Berlet notes that the John Birch Society has rebounded from a low of 
20,000 members and claims to have doubled its membership in recent years. Berlet 
believes membership has probably increased by 10,000.

10. This analysis is based on interviews with long-time movement watcher Chip
Berlet, Feb. 6, 1995.

11. The behavior of federal law enforcement agencies merits criticism. Weaver 
and actual shooter Kevin Harris were acquitted of muder charges in the death of 
a federal agent during the siege. A December 1993 Justice Department report on 
the Weaver stand-off found that FBI agents violated both bureau policies and 
constitutional  guidelines when they issued "rules of engagement" allowing 
agents to shoot any armed adult. An Idaho procescutor's investigation continues, 
and FBI head Louis Freeh expects two agents to be indicted. (Jerry Seper, "Probe 
of federal agents in siege killings continutes," Washington Times, Feb. 13, 
1995, p. A3). Similarly, the Justice Department's Report to the Deputy Attorney 
General on the Events at Waco, Texas, February 28 to April 19, 1993 faulted BATF 
and FBI performance, but found no cause for indictments.

12. See "Under the Law of the Gun," Taking Aim (Militia of Montana newsletter), 
v. 1, n.7, 1994, pp. 1-3.

13. Fred Clarkson, "HardCOR," Church and State, Jan. 1991, p.26.

14. Anti-Defamation League, Armed and Dangerous: Militias Take Aim at the 
Federal Government, 1994, p.20.

15. John Goetz, "Missionaries' Leader Calls for Armed Miltia," Front Line 
Research, Aug. 1994, pp. 1,3-4; Beth Hawkins, "Patriot Games," Metro Times 
(Detroit), Oct. 12-18, 1994, pp. 12-16.

16. Adam Parfrey and Jim Redden, "Patriot Games," Village Voice, Oct. 11, 1994, 
pp. 26-31.

17. Cited in Anti-Defamation League, op. cit., p. 12.

18. Charles Jeffrey Kraft, "A Preliminary Socio-Economic and State Demographic
Profile of the John Birch Society," Political Research Associates, 1991.

19. Leonard Zeskind, "The 'Christian Identity' Movement," National Council of
Churches, 1986.

20. In 1984, Butler's vision briefly materialized in the form of an Aryan 
Nations offshoot led by Robert Jay Matthews. The Order committed a series of 
crimes, including bank robberies, bombings, and the murder of Denber radio talk 
show host Alan Berg. Matthews himself died in a shootout with police in December 
1984 on Whidbey Island, In Puget Sound near Seattle. See Robert Crawford, S.L. 
Gardiner,  Jonathan Mozzochi, and R.L. Taylor, The Northwest Imperative 
(Portland, Ore.: Coalition for Human Dignity, 1994), p. 1.16.

21. Robert Crawford, S.L. Gardiner, Jonathan Mozzochi, "Patriot Games," 
Coalition for Human Dignity Special Report, 1994.

22. Crawford, et al., Northwest Imperative, op. cit., p. 2.25; I. Gritz  
nonetheless denies that he is a white supremacist. Phone interview by David 
Neiwert, Nov. 10, 1994.  

23. Crawford, et al., Northwest Imperative, p. 1.32.

24. Montana Human Rights Network, op. cit., p. 7.

25. Philip Weiss, "Off the Grid," New York Times Magazine, January 8, 1995, pp.
24-33.

26. Weiss, op. cit.; Crawford, et al., Northwest Imperative, op. cit.,p. 2.27.

27. Phone interview by David Neiwert, op. cit.

28. Trochmann denies being a white supremacist. In 1990, however, he was a 
featured speaker at an Aryan Nations congress and has since admitted travelling 
to the  white supremacist compound on at least four or five occasions. Interview 
by David Neiwert, Nov. 15, 1994.
 
29. Ibid.

30. Militia of Montana Information Video and Intel Update, videotape, undated.

31. Interview with Ken Toole, president, Montana Human Rights Network, Jan. 9,
1995; Anti- Defamation League, "Armed and Dangerous: Militias Take Aim at the
Federal Government," 1994, pp. 7-9.

32. Militia of Montana, "Militia Support Group," undated.

33. Budd formerly worked for James Watt in the Interior Dept., as well as for 
Watt's former employer, the anti-environment, corporate funded Mountain States 
Legal Foundation. Barry Sims, "Private rights in public lands?"The Workbook 
(Albuquerque), Summer 1993, p. 55.

34. Charles McCoy, "Catron County, N.M. Leads a Nasty Revolt Over
Eco-Protection," Wall Street Journal, Jan. 1995; Scott Reed, "The County 
Supremacy Myth: Mendacious Myth Marketing," Idaho Law Review, v. 30, 1994, pp. 
526-53; interview with Tarso Ramos, Western States Center, Dec. 21, 1994.

35. The "Wise Use" movement has recently emerged as a potent political force in 
the West. It is largely the brainchild of Ron Arnold, who has been helping 
logging, mining, and agricultural corporations fight the environmental movment 
since the mid-1970s. Since 1985 Arnold has headed the corporate- funded Center 
for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE), controlled by Alan Gottlied, a New 
right direct mail fundraiser best known for his oppostion to gun control. See 
Alan Gotlieb, ed., The Wise Use Agenda, (Bellevue, Wash.: Free Enterprise Press, 
1989). The National Federal Lands Conference supported the first Wise Use 
conference. See National Federal Lands Conference brochure, 1994. 

36. McCoy, op. cit.

37. Ibid.

38. David Helvarg, The War Against the Greens (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books,
1994), p. 326.

39. Interview, Jan. 9, 1995.

40. McCoy, op. cit.

41. Tony David, "Militia Members scatter as FBI, Guard turn up in Catron," 
Albuquerque Tribune, Sept. 14, 1994.

42. Jim Faulkner, "Why There is a Need for the Militia in America," Update, 
National Federal Lands Conference, October 1994.

 

    .7 Thanks /john, sums up my picture of most of the groups; the
    "fringe" spin-off scares the bejeebers out of me.
    
    .16 Derek, I agree Gritz was scary in that clip.  Saw a follow-up
    interview where Gritz tried to explain away the "Rembrandt" comment;
    came across to me as someone tap dancing as fast as he could while 
    talking out both sides of his mouth.
    
    

In a rare fit of honesty, Janet Reno has said that the Anti-Terrorism Bill
before Congress would not have helped to prevent the OKC attack.

But she's in favor of it anyway.  Bigger budget for her department, ya know.

    
    
    Gotta love that......

>Militia of Montana (MOM)

This is cute, but I still prefer Melissa's Malicious Militia. (MMM)

    
    
    
       I remember some of "these organizations" back in 60's talking
       about and preparing at that time for the so called "race war"
       that was imminent due to urban civil unrest,...remember that.
    
    
       I also remember The Black Panthers who had members who were
       systematically murdered by feds and local police. As a matter
       of fact the right wingers had no problem watching the 
       constitutional rights of the Panthers,...SNCC,..RNA,...etc being
       stomped out. Remember those days...??  These organizations were
       part of the so called communist conspiracy back them,...so it
       was *ok*.
    
       Wonder how long these "militias" would be around if all those
       white faces in fatigues with "semis" were black faces??
    
    
       Ed

>Wonder how long these "militias" would be around if all those
>       white faces in fatigues with "semis" were black faces??

Excellent point.  Imagine if the Panthers had tried a bombing
the scope of OKC.  Geeziz, they would have been wiped out sooner
than they were....

    <--- Oh, what a load of crap. What a stinking filthy load
         of crap. Why don't you try real hard to purchase a
         clue at your local clue emporium, hence realizing
         what racist bile _you're_ engaging in.

    -b

    
    
         .38
    
          What are you sayin',..that members of The Panthers weren't
          systemically murdered by police?
    
    
          Regarding the militia comment,...I don't give a doo doo what
          you think,....come into my neighborhood,...ask folks the
          question and you'll get that answer.
    
          Ed

    I concur with -b on the previous comments in .36 and .37.
    
    The rhetoric of the media and government is spewn out so that they can
    have public support for shutting down the militias. 
    
    The slant given in the 400-liner a few back (.32?) is obvious to anyone
    who is paying attention.  It was a great emotional tweaker intended to
    sway opinion that all militia folk are paranoid crazies.  It never gave
    any regard to the *possibility* that some of these conspiracy theories
    just *may* (and I make no judgement here either way) be *based* in
    fact.  No, it comes right out and matter-of-factly states that such
    beliefs are crazy paranoid delusions, and that any who believe them
    are probably dangerous.  
    
    By bringing up the extreme elements (KKK, white supremacists, etc.) and
    trying to make a parallel between them and the militia, the article
    becomes an emotionally loaded, biased peice of opinion and broad
    brushing.  I found the continual use of "Christain" quite interesting,
    as well.  Let's just connect all patriots and Christians (who are
    notoriously un-PC, for the most part) with racist organizations and
    paranoid extremists.
    
    All in all, it was an excellent peice of propaganda.  I give it an A+. 
    With one fell swoop, it demonized the militia, Christians, and all
    associated with the "right".  It was subtle, well worded, and effective
    in its purpose.  
    
    I wonder if the author has read Mein Kempf (yes, yes, I know I
    mis-spelled it, but you know what I'm talking about).
    
    
    -steve 

    
    re: .38
    
    -b
    
    Which makes you a moron in the Topaz book of anagrams...
    

    > What are you sayin',..that members of The Panthers weren't
    > systemically murdered by police?

    Nope, not saying that at all. I don't know either way, if
    you want to know the God's honest truth. But I wouldn't
    be surprised if they did, knowing our government's
    propensity for lawlessness. The only thing that has changed
    is the victims, not the nature of our government.

    What irks me is:

    1. Who says African Americans *aren't* involved with the
       militias?

    2. Who says militia members *aren't* being targeted by
       federal police?

    3. Why are people so damn eager to "get these rowdies
       under control?" (Not quoting you, just an ideological
       viewpoint that seems damn prevalent these days).
       Isn't that a little frightening, considering our
       history?

    We probably have African Americans to thank for showing us
    the effect of a covert war. The fact that the government
    is under more scrutiny than in "the old days" (like the
    60s) probably has a _lot_ to do with the disgraceful
    way that blacks were treated... but we still have plenty
    of examples of the government dealing rather forcefully
    with anyone who dares get "uppity", and for gawd sakes,
    it's blacks, it's whites, it's _anybody_ who dares think
    differently.

    > Regarding the militia comment,...I don't give a doo doo what
    > you think,....

    I'm sure you don't... but thank you for making it clear that
    you have an absolutely closed mind and will not even discuss
    it...

    > come into my neighborhood,...ask folks the question and you'll
    > get that answer.

    And that, of course, makes it the right answer?

    Look, what's going on _sucks_. It is racist to think that
    "it's white people getting theirs", and this is what that
    implies to me. Don't be blind! It's _people_ getting boned
    up the butt.

    -b

    >   Excellent rebuttal.  Well considered, well thought out, and
    >   buttressed with irrefutable logic.
       
    >   Or at least, maybe you'd be able to compose one (1)if you had the
    >   ability to do so and (2)if you were right.  Alas, you don't and
    >   you're not.

    Perhaps, Mr. Topaz who obviously is used to looking down from
    his high place of wisdom, you should read the rest of the
    chain (where I do respond further) before you take the time
    from your intellectually draining task of anagramming everything
    in sight to hurl unsolicited insults.

    In other words, I wasn't talking to you because I don't talk to
    things named after rocks.

    -b

    
    Such as Rock Hudson, or Oliver Stone?
    
    :^)
    

	I would say that leaves out Pebbles, too.

    
    	Geez, Brian, you're getting boulder by the minute!!
    

    
    You kids and your "rock-and-roll" music!!
    

    You can't just dismiss what Ed is saying.  I noticed in some of
    the clips of the MM featuring Mark Koernke; closeups of police
    and FBI holding automatic weapons seemed to focus primarily
    on black officers.  The message wasn't even close to being 
    subliminal. 
    
    Sure, the MM is just anti-govt, not racist.
    

    
    Granite, I did listen to the Flinstones... just Felt(like)spar(ring)
    I glass...
    
    -b

	By the way, I sent mail to Pebbles about this just now, and
	she was crushed.  That's the only way I can put it.

    
    
       .43
    
    
        I'll tell ya' what......do you know any black folks?? If
        you do,...ask him/her/them about blacks being armed and
        and practicing manuvers and if the government would tolerate
        it.
    
        If you don't know any black folks,...approach one in your Dec
        facility and ask him/her or them,...you'll get the same answer.
    
        Let me tell you something else,.....if you ain't around black
       folks and hispanic folks,.....you don't understand the perceptions
       and the feelings that we have about justice in this country.
    
       You just don't! We live in "separate" societies. It seems like
       you're not up to speed re the black civil rights movement in this
       country. You need to catch up on history.
    
    
       Ed

    Well lime in the mood for a few quartz. Shale anyone share my
    sediments?

    Woa. Ed. I'm from Central Mass. My dad was a musician, I
    grew up with (and around) black people. When I was doing
    music professionally, my manager was black. I dated both black
    and hispanic woman (I married a white woman, but certainly
    not because she was white... she was the only one that
    I found that would put up with me... :-)

    I've been to the range with a guy who used to work for
    Digital named Robert Brown. Guess what color Mr. Brown
    is? Guess what Mr. Brown thinks about what happened
    in Oklahoma. He's pissed, same as I am. Guess what Mr.
    Brown thinks about the federal government. He's pissed,
    same as I am. Mr. Brown works for Mitre now. I have
    his mail address somewhere; I'll send him mail and see
    what he has to say.

    All I'm telling you is that the attempt to paint the
    militias as racist (maybe some are, but none that I've
    had any contact with...) is just part of the overall
    effort to demonize the participants. If you're looking
    for racism, and you're barking at me, you're definitely
    barking up the wrong tree, and if you're barking at the
    militias it is my experience that you are also barking
    up the wrong tree.

    I would be real happy if we were together barking at
    the _same_ tree, namely government gone mad.

    -b

     >  Let me tell you something else,.....if you ain't around black
     >  folks and hispanic folks,.....you don't understand the perceptions
     >  and the feelings that we have about justice in this country.
    
     >  You just don't! We live in "separate" societies. It seems like
     >  you're not up to speed re the black civil rights movement in this
     >  country. You need to catch up on history.
    
    I've been thinking about these two paragraphs, and I've
    concluded that you're right. I don't know. The black
    people that I've known all my life are part and parcel
    of my environment. They certainly were not a separate
    society to me, so maybe that is why I do not know what
    I should know about racism. It simply was not part of
    my upbringing. Folks was folks. Period.
    
    I am saying this because I want to make an honest effort
    to learn. You mentioned books earlier... by all means,
    point away.
    
    Maybe I can point you toward a few things too. Maybe we
    can resolve our difference of opinion by showing each
    other what we need to know, rather than arguing with
    each other that we're wrong.
    
    -b

        .54, Brian - clear enough for me to understand - well said.
        
        Last year  I  was  approached  (at  Wolf  range, I think) by J.
        Random Stranger who  asked  if I had any interest in membership
        in an organisation dedicated to "the freedom of the individual"
        - I was looking at  a paper target with Hillary Clinton's image
        centred on it as I was  browsing  the  "store"  - and he nodded
        towards  the  target, indicating contempt.  I  asked  how  many
        blacks were members and he reacted as if  I had taken a dump on
        a  photo  of the Pope in St.  Peter's  Square  -  "None!"  with
        emphasis. Sad.
        
        Andy (who was once rumoured to be gay in the  worst  way when a
        black  friend  and I hugged in the main corridor of MKO1  after
        sharing some good news.) And we still laugh about it.
       

    
    Andy,
    
    I was a "fag" all through high school. Never could figure
    that one out. All I did was dream about girls and try to
    avoid the boys, strange behavior for a fag, wouldn't
    you say? :-)
    
    You seem to have met the inevitable bad apple there in
    Wolf's, but that isn't the norm in my experience.
    
    Whatcha say we kidnap Ed, dress him up in camo, and get
    him to spend a day at the range with us? :-)
    
    I betcha he'd come away saying he had a good time!
    
    -b

Re: .38

I wasn't attempting to paint the militias as racist in .37.
(Not to say that I don't believe that a goodly percentage
of the membership in these fun groups _are_ racist).

My point was that if a large group of black men got together
in the woods armed to the teeth every weekend you can bet 
your last nickel that they would be under rather heavy 
surveillance.  Ask Mr. Brown if he agrees with _that_ statement.

    re:.41
    
    Steve,
    
    I posted .31 as a source of information which seemed well researched. 
    Are there additional sources of information that might lend credence to
    the conspiracy theories and bolster the credibility of some of the
    groups mentioned?  My judgement has been reserved until additional
    information is available.  I do believe that there are fringe groups
    that are dangerous and hold white supremacy or radical religious or
    both beliefs.  
    
    Not being too happy myself with the state of affairs in the government
    in general, I am not ready to embrace armed insurrection.  If this is an
    eventuality the militias are preparing for, then they are dangerous
    IMO.  I would like to know more about who and what they truly are
    besides what the media feeds us.  I would like to be able to make an
    informed decision.  
    
    Brian 

    
Reprinted from: Strategic Investment, April 19, 1995, pg. 7, 
Behind the Lines  column by Jack Wheeler. 
 
Waco spared
 
	At 10:30 in the morning, Friday, March 24, an official from the NRA 
called to tell me: "All indications are the BATF/FBI raid on the militias 
is still on. The Rapid Response Center at Ft. Bragg, for example, is on a 
2-hour alert. The raids are scheduled to begin at 4:00 tomorrow morning." 
Two to three days earlier, the March issue of SI had arrived to 
subscribers, and this column, entitled "Waco2" and warning of the 
impending attack, was soon posted at several locations on the Internet. 
Word quickly spread throughout talk radio; all day Friday, I did radio 
interviews around the country, in which I advised militia leaders not to 
be home Saturday or Sunday morning. Just before five in the afternoon, 
with less than 12 hours to go, the NRA called again: "Bragg and other 
military installations are off alert; with the element of surprise so 
clearly lost, the raid has been called off, at least for now." Thanks, we 
were told, to the efforts of Strategic Investment and others, a lot of 
bloodshed may have been averted. This was a subterranean drama, not a word 
of which was printed in the liberal mainstream press. To all SI readers 
who played a role in preventing an entire score of government atrocities, 
thank You.

    > an official from the NRA called to tell me
    
    How conveniently this official is unidentified.  All we have here is
    totally uncorroborated paranoid hearsay.  Let's see some REAL docs,
    like maybe the name or names of the NRA person or persons involved, and
    maybe some proof that ANY military installation was REALLY on alert.
    
    	Paranoia will destroy ya.
    
    					- The Kinks

    
    
       I'm saying the same thing that .58 is saying. Very recent
       history has shown that it won't be tolerated. Do you dispute
       this? My suggestion to ask blacks or hispanics this question
       is not intended to interject or label anyone a racist.
    
       Look at the number of civil rights qrganizations that were stomped
       out,....both non-violent and violent. You can't argue history.
       Many people in this country believe that this climate is still
       prevalent towards non whites,.....call me wrong if you like,..
       .......but this feeling persist,...I'm telling you what I know
       and I'm telling you the truth.
    
       ....Now about those fatigues,.......I need something that's kinda
       "oversized",......I'd like to be in style....:-).
    
    
       Ed

    We have one.  Several, actually:
    
    Books
    Newspapers
    TV documentaries
    Internet documents
    Notesfiles
    ...and more
    
    What we really need is a filter that can take the garbage out of these
    things, and I'm afraid the technology is insufficient.

    
    Saw an ad recently for camo underwear.
    
      bb

    >>   Look at the number of civil rights qrganizations that were stomped
    >>   out,....both non-violent and violent. You can't argue history.
    
    Keeping history in mind, do you believe that increasing the police
    powers of the government is in the best interests of blacks, hispanics,
    and other minorities?  How would the residents of, say, LA or Miami
    respond to the proposition to give additional powers to the various
    governmental law enforcement agencies?  Have they historically been
    fair to minorities?  Do you really want to give them more power?
    
    Brian was right; all of us, regardless of race, need to be rightfully
    concerned with bigger, less accountable, out-of-control government and
    agencies.  Nobody benefits from fewer freedoms, except those who are
    at the controls.
    
    Chris

    What is Strategic Investment?  Who publishes, what is the audience?  
    
    Brian

re: Mr. Markey, et al.

Keeping this real short: the problem is that when systemic abuses have been
highlighted in the past they were relegated to the status of whining. They
were denied credibility because the 'victims' were always claimimg 'victim'
status.

When the Stuart murder case occurred, there was no benign "checking of possible
suspects": the communities were literally dragneted. 

It does not escape my attention that, once the suspects were determined to be 
who they are, the _system_ was questioned with allusions to what might have
_fostered_ this particular behavior. In "reverse" circumstances, the onus was
always put upon the protester. If only they'd work harder; salvage and preserve
their marital/family status etc. they'd realize the system does "work" for them.

While this is true -- 

What was denied them which seems to be accorded to these (and like-minded)
individuals is the possibility that _institutional_ abuses could (in part or
whole, depending on your persuasion) be responsible for their
condition/reaction: and while that *may* not mitigate the circumstances in some
peoples minds, it nonetheless carries a certain perception of a nobility of
purpose, because of the ideological component. (Mind you, this is only my
analysis: I've already stated my position in 393.380).

This is why Mr. Bullock sees a contrast (as do I) in this situations and why
your "get to a clue store" remonstrations ring hollow to my ears.

This from your 398.43 >We probably have African Americans to thank for showing
>us the effect of a covert war.

	...Is likely truer than you know.

But this: >we still have plenty of examples of the government dealing rather
>forcefully with anyone who dares get "uppity", and for gawd sakes, it's blacks,
>it's whites, it's _anybody_ who dares think differently.

	...is likely a lot less.
 

re:.66

A certain housing project in Chicago(?) has accepted a near prison-like
existence in exchange for greater security.

You'll find many residents of the inner city calling for increased police
protection, believing in the rule of law and the maintenance assignment to the
proper areas.

(I'm not one of them; I see gun ownership as a legitimate right -- even though I
don't own one. I believe in policing oneself as much as possible.)

    re: .59
    
    I wasn't trying to pin a specific view on you personally, I was just
    commenting on what I see as a biased (though rather subtle) peice. 
    When I spot these, I am somewhat _enthusiactic_ 8^) about pointing out
    the slant.
    
    From what I understand of the militias, they exist as a defensive
    measure.  IF the government ever decided to make THE power grab and
    engage martial law (suspending the Constitution and BoR), these
    militias would fight such insurrection within thier territory
    (defending themseleves from government police who try to enforce their
    will on the population).
    
    Now, if the federal government has no plans of this, and the federal
    police do NOT ever try to enforce unconstitutional rule over the
    citizens, then they have nothing to fear from the militia.
    
    Other than a few extremists (there are extremists in any movement, as
    we have learned from history), the militia is a purely DEFENSIVE
    organization.  They are not planning on assaulting DC, as the media
    would have us believe.  You don't mess with the rights of the citizens, 
    then you won't have to try and force unconstitutional laws on the public, 
    and you won't have to worry about the militias who are there to defend
    against tyrrany.
    
    This is how I see it, anyway.  All the media and government hype around
    militias to equate them to crazy, anti-government future terrorists,
    only solidifies my view.  Broad brush tactics like this are frowned
    upon here in soapbox and are pointed out regularly; yet all too many 
    accept this tactic from the media.  Perhaps it has something to do with
    our conditioning to believe what the "experts" say, and our trust that
    the media would not directly lie to the public (at least
    intentionally).   Obviously, I've long since "de-programmed" myself
    from such conditioning, and perhaps have gone to the other extreme (not
    trusting a word they say).  8^)
    
    
    -steve

<<< Note 398.68 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>

Well said.

    No Steve, didn't feel pinned :-).  It was the only non-wireservice type 
    piece I had seen that had any kind of in depth information.  I would 
    like to see something similar from an identified source as Binder 
    suggested.  I can see how it would be easy for the uninformed (like me) 
    to draw a conclusion that militias are yet another group of whackos.  
    They may be, their leadership may be, it may differ from unit to unit, 
    state to state etc.  I don't know.  
    
    Brian

    I apologize for not being clear yesterday. Please give me another
    chance. What Chris said in the final paragraph of 398.66 is a
    better crack at what I was trying to say, than anything I've
    written so far in this thread (thanks Chris!).

    First, let me point out that I somewhat misinterpreted the
    sentiments of OLIVER_B in .58. So, much of the heat I generated
    was not light. Sorry for this. I understand now the point that
    black men dressed in fatigues and practicing with firearms
    might have caused alarm for certain people. This does not
    imply that the alarm would have come from the militias, which
    was my original interpretation. I personally feel that anyone
    who GAS enough to get out and work with us is OK by me;
    their race, ancestry, sexual orientation, religion and marital
    status is of no interest as long as we're sworn to protect
    each other's butt if the fertilizer hits the ventilator.

    What I think you're failing to see is that the militia movement
    is not preparing to take on the federal government. The militia
    movement is primarily concerned with defending against an
    enemy; any enemy. The point is that for the most part, the
    militias are _not_ training for offensive military operations.
    They are training how to _defend against_ offensive military
    operations. Those responsible for the OK City bombing were
    not representative of the militia movement for this reason
    (among others), and it is more than bad PR which is driving
    the militias to distance themselves from such extremists.
    There is a fundamental philosophical difference.

    The Black Panthers came up in yesterday's discussion. Were
    they ever perceived as a "defensive" organization? Probably
    not. I see them more along the lines of the IRA or the
    PLO. Namely, they have legitimate grievances that they choose
    to address through violent acts. This puts them in direct
    and immediate conflict with governments.

    That is _not_ what the militia is about. The militia is
    about getting people together to defend themselves against
    aggressors, not to be aggressors. If the militias have
    a somewhat common political base, that does not mean that
    militias cannot tolerate diversity, because the militia
    is not about politics.

    So, from my perspective, it would make a hell of a big
    difference what the group of black men (or any men)
    intended to do. If they're getting together to actively
    plan the overthrow of the government through violent
    means than you bet your ass I want them scrutinized.
    But if they're getting together to learn how to survive
    on plants and wild animals, to make potable water, to
    correctly use firearms and to build shelter, then I see
    _no threat_ in anything they do, and in fact, would
    welcome them with open arms. I dare say most people would
    feel the same way.

    -b

re:.74

To my memory I do not recall the Black Panthers involved in any terrorist act.

I know they embraced some collectivist philosophies from Mao, sought to arm
themselves to protect against what they perceived to be a hostile
police force, tried to uplift their communities by running education/daycare
centers and providing low-cost/free meals to the populace.

And they were activists in many community events.

I do not recall them being a non-violent movement however, and think they were
involved in the Watts riot of '65, among some others.

I understand there were some chapters on the west coast that had white members
too.

re:72

Thanks.

The 'box (among other places) has given me more than enough...opportunities for
such analysis. ;-)

Re: .74

>    The Black Panthers came up in yesterday's discussion. Were
>    they ever perceived as a "defensive" organization? Probably
>    not. I see them more along the lines of the IRA or the
>    PLO. Namely, they have legitimate grievances that they choose
>    to address through violent acts. This puts them in direct
>    and immediate conflict with governments.

Well, I guess one man's defensive organization is another man's
offensive organization.

The truth be known, the Black Panthers scared the living sh*t
out of most white people because they were ARMED. 

First time in American history that the black man was portrayed
as armed, unsmiling, and organized in the press.  White America
was stunned.

So, yeah, the Panthers were _definitely_ not perceived as a 
defensive organization.  You betcha.

>To my memory I do not recall the Black Panthers involved in any terrorist act.

Was H. Rap Brown a member of the BP?

TTom

                     <<< Note 398.77 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>

Wasn't the slogan, "Burn, baby, burn." attributed to the Black Panthers?

The Black Panthers started as a political party.  I remember them passing
out voter registration materials in California.  Later on there were some
pretty imfamous shoot-outs between very militant Panthers and the police.

    
    <-- Oh, I thought that was from "Disco Inferno".

re:.78

Why do you ask?

>Wasn't the slogan, "Burn, baby, burn." attributed to the Black Panthers?

I'm not sure.  I think the press picked up this phrase around the time
of the Watts riot.

>The Black Panthers started as a political party.  I remember them passing
out voter registration materials in California.

Yes.  I believe the BP originated in the Deep South.  They started carrying
guns to protect the black citizenry from harassment.

When asked by the press why they carried guns the inevitable response was always:
"We are exercising our Constitutional rights."

                     <<< Note 398.82 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>

> >Wasn't the slogan, "Burn, baby, burn." attributed to the Black Panthers?

> I'm not sure.  I think the press picked up this phrase around the time
> of the Watts riot.

Hmmmmm.  I don't think it was Watts.  I'm 80% sure it was the Panthers.
Do you remember what caused the shoot-outs with police?  I vaguely remember
one case where the probable cause for a police raid was "questionable".


> >The Black Panthers started as a political party.  I remember them passing
> out voter registration materials in California.
>
> Yes.  I believe the BP originated in the Deep South.  They started carrying
> guns to protect the black citizenry from harassment.
> 
> When asked by the press why they carried guns the inevitable response was always:
> "We are exercising our Constitutional rights."

Many people in the Civil Rights movement used firearms for self defense.
The book, _Restricting_Firearms_ by Kates details many of his experiences 
during those years and why firearms were so important in protecting an 
unpopular minority that could not expect protection from local, state, or
Federal law enforcement agencies.  It's interesting reading.

Mr. Topaz is truly helpful, don't you think?

(And I dare him to make an anagram of this).

(I already know what he's gonna do...)

Re: .83

>Do you remember what caused the shoot-outs with police?  I vaguely remember
>one case where the probable cause for a police raid was "questionable".

I think it was the show "Frontline" that aired a most excellent documentary
on the Panthers a few years ago.  And the "questionable" raid you speak of 
left me with the impression that it was cold-blooded murder.    

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 27 APR 1995 17:04:32 -0400 
From: Aldo Tartaglini <liberty@panix.com>
Newgroups: misc.activism.militia, talk.politics.guns
Subject: Media "Militia Angle" Fading? 

In today's NY Post, an article on the OK bombing states:

   "The Oklahoma City bombing is focussing on up to a dozen Army
   buddies who served with suspect Timothy McVeigh, rather than
   on right-wing militiamen, a well-placed source told the Post
   yesterday.

   The source said FBI Director Louis Freeh is discounting the
   involvement of militia members in last week's bombing of the
   Oklahoma City federal building.

   "'That's not the common denominator,' the source quoted the
   the FBI director as saying. 'The biggest common denominator
   is service in the U.S. Army.'"

   -- NY Post, 4/27/95, p. 4, column 5

I guess the media will now decry the U.S. military as a vicious group of
ultra-rightwing white supremacist bomb-throwing anarchists/gun fanatics
who should be infiltrated and perhaps outlawed outright in the interests
of national security and public safety. Someone should alert Slick Willie
Clinton, Rep. Schumer, Tom Brokaw, and Pete Jennings of this grave new
threat to our American way of life. 

    Well Senor Topaz, I certainly do not fit your broad brush of white
    America's perception.  I see a gun, I feel threatened.  The color of
    the trigger finger is of little consequence to how warm and fuzzy I
    feel.  
    
    

re:-1

I think he knows he doesn't fit it either.

>       > Huey Newton
       
>       Anagram:  Hey -- U no Newt

Oh, I _luv_ that one.

    Do I need to get my sarcasm detector recalibrated?  

    I'm glad Mr. Markey has such faith in the militias; but what I've
    seen of the Michigan and Montana militias does not indicate they
    are maintaining purely a "defensive" posture whatsoever, they are
    vehemently anti-government and their rhetoric comes down on the side
    of taking action against the government should the government not
    change certain laws that they deem unacceptable (to them).  I do not
    interpret this to mean "wait until the government attacks us".
    
    For now I will try to accept that not all militias are the same;
    I don't believe everything Uncle Sam tells me and I'm certainly 
    not going to swallow the load of bull SOME of these groups are
    advocating. 
    
    Following this entire string brought back a line out of an old
    Paul Simon tune "paranoia lies deep in the heartland......."
    
    Guess I'd better find out how bad the winters in South Wales
    really are, cause if a Mark Koernke or his ilk ever wind up live,
    on the tube saying "my fellow Americans" I'm outta here!!
    
    

    
    .70
    
    Cabrini Green
    
    NNTTM
    
    Mark

    So, if OKC turns out to be just McVeigh and a handful of old 
    army buddies, who was the real target, the few recuiting offices
    in the building?
    
    

>Wasn't the slogan, "Burn, baby, burn." attributed to the Black Panthers?

Their slogan was "Power to the People."

    Re: .90
    
    >I see a gun, I feel threatened.
    
    Unless, apparently, it's held by a militia member.

    re.94
    
    
    see ya

    
    
>    Unless, apparently, it's held by a militia member.
    
    	As long as it's not pointed at me, I'm not worried.
    
    
    

    Chelsea, please explain how I would feel better about a militia member
    having a gun versus Jane or John Q. Public.  Actually, I am finding
    myself more distrustful of militias the more I think about it.  
    
    Brian

    re .94
    
    Unless the winters have changed in the last 20 years, winter in South
    Wales is just like Spring in New England.  But who says you would be
    safe there, what about the Free Welsh Army - they blew up a public
    lavatory in early 1970.  Who's to say what they'll blow up in the
    1990's.

<<< Note 398.97 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>

> >Wasn't the slogan, "Burn, baby, burn." attributed to the Black Panthers?

> Their slogan was "Power to the People."

"Power to the people." was SDS.
Black Panthers also gave us, I think, "Black power."

    Gaskell,
    
    If my family is any example, I do believe the Welsh are better
    singers than fighters :-)
    
    

    I though Power to the People was a John Lennon song.  :-)

I thought "Power to the People" is what Wolfie Smith used to shout
before that snotty nosed brat kicked him in the shins!  (What was
that series called, anyone remember?!)

Chris.

'Wolfie' Smith, of the Tooting Popular Front

Wolfie: "All those in favour of passing the motion 
         say 'Chelsea football team'"

All:    "Chelsea football team?"

Wolfie: "Motion passed"

Simon$UP_TOOTING_POPULAR_FRONT

>                               -< Citizen Smith >-

oh of course, bit obvious really!  Innit about time they showed it
again?  (I guess it's probably on UK Gold or something, but I don't
have one of those dustbin lids stapled to the side of my house...)

Chris.

    re. 105
    
    >>If my family is any example, I do believe the Welsh are better
      singers than fighters <<
    
    O contrare!  What about Rugby football?  
    
    Mind you, they do warble a good tune as well.    

    >>If my family is any example, I do believe the Welsh are better
      singers than fighters <<
    
    So then, how do you account for Stevie Nicks?
    
    -b

    
    You mean Stevie "Knuckles" Nicks?
    

    or Terrible Tom Jones? 

Just because they're bad singers doesn't mean they're not worse fighters.

Stevie Nicks and the Singing Welch Militia.
You can go your own way...

Welsh.

    leave her alone and pick on somebody your own size...
    
    Chip

>    O contrare!  What about Rugby football?  
    
didn't Wales get the wooden spoon in the Five Nations Championship?

Chris.

    
    
    
        Re: a few back....H.Rap Brown was one of the founders of
        SNCC (Student Non violent Coordinating Committee).
    
        There's a chapter of The Black Panther that's still in existence
        in Oakland,CA. Primarily involved in job training,..teen
        counseling, mentor programs etc.
    
        Former Panther co founder Eldridge Cleaver wrote a book back
        in 68,..or 69,...."Soul on Ice" that depicts his observations
        of the Black political movement in America at that time. He
        entered politics and ran for the city council in Oakland. I
        believe he was elected a served one term. Co founder Huey Newton
        was found shot to death on a sidewalk in Oakland,....around
        four or five years ago.
    
    
        Ed

Eldridge Cleaver became

	(A) a hawker of codpiece-style trousers,
	(B) a born-again Christian,
	(C) a right-wing Republican,
	(D) all of the above.	

    
    
       He ran as a Republican.
    
    
       Ed

He also published a b-b-q cookbook.

    > He also published a b-b-q cookbook.
    
    Seems like a pretty natural thing for a guy named "Cleaver"
    to do...
    
    -b

    Re: .102
    
    >please explain how I would feel better about a militia member having a 
    >gun versus Jane or John Q. Public
    
    It seems I've gotten you mixed up with another Brian.  Never mind.

    
    I see a gun... I get a woody! :-)
    
    (the other Brian who you might have been referring to!)
    
    -b

    
    .127:
    
    The TRUE motivation of a gunnut, revealed!   :^)
    

>    I see a gun... I get a woody! :-)
    
pervo!

Chris.

    
    Well, if most of you are going to believe that anyway, I might
    as well play along... :-)
    
    -b

    
    On that particular topic...see the scene in `Tank Girl' where she first
    lays eyes on the tank of her dreams...and the theme from `Shaft' is 
    playing in the background.
    

    
    
       .124
    
       I believe the cookbook was authored by Bobby Seales.
    
    
       Ed

    re. 119
    
    >>didn't Wales get the wooden spoon in the Five Nations Championship?<<
    
    I don't know!!!   I just watched the game, I don't understand the
    rules (if there are any) or the pecking order.

    Arn't they from the 'Honey Moon'ers'. Ralp and Norton with raccon hats
    off to their lodge meeting with the grand poo-bha?:)

.132
 
    
>     I believe the cookbook was authored by Bobby Seales.

Whoops.  Faulty memory.  I believe you are correct.

Last night I saw a TV ad for a new movie called "Panthers".
The phrase "Power to the People" was used in the ad.

Would a group of militant Barbie dolls call themselves Pink Panthers?

Barbie dolls would probably opt for Pink Pantherettes.

Aussies crack down on paramilitary group

CANBERRA, Australia -- Police have raided homes and seized weapons in an 
investigation of five Defense Department employees accused of belonging 
to a right-wing paramilitary group.

Australian Federal Police said Thursday they had seized 15 weapons and 
more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition from homes in the suburbs of Canberra.

An anonymous letter sent to the Australian Broadcasting Corp. said the 
group was run by fundamentalist Christians who believe the government is 
illegal, and had links to militia organizations in the United States that 
have come under scrutiny since last month's bombing in Oklahoma City.

Authorities said they were investigating links between the group and U.S. 
militias, but had no evidence to support the claims.

--

Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 22:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Richard L. Hartman" <rlh@comtch.iea.com>
To: noban <noban@mainstream.com>, firearms <fap@world.std.com>,
Subject: Terrorists Everywhere
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.950502221329.1904A-100000@comtch>


I'll admit right up front that this is a little off-topic. But I posted a 
note about the "Earth First!" newspaper a couple of days ago, and have 
since had a chance to actually purchase and scan this publication. My 
notes appear below.

The only reason I'm posting this in firearm-related lists is because it 
is solid data that helps refute the nonsense about the "right" having all 
the wanna-be terrorists. Believe me, I haven't included anywhere NEAR all 
the references that deserve attention. These people scare even ME.

-----
There is much about which I could comment in just one issue of this
publication.  Space and time preclude me from covering everything, so I'll
focus on things which, if they appeared in a gun magazine or a news report
on militias, would be perceived negatively by the general public. 

As you read these excerpts, keep this question in your mind: "How would
<item> be perceived by the White House, the media, and the general public
if it appeared in an issue of the American Rifleman?" 

Front Cover

The symbol of the publication - and the organization behind it - is a fist
against a green background.  The subtitle of the publication is "THE
RADICAL ENVIRONMENTAL JOURNAL", with the word "radical" in both capital
letters and italics. 

Page 2

The top of the page has the name EARTH FIRST! in large green letters.  The
subtitle reads: "NO COMPROMISE IN THE DEFENSE OF MOTHER EARTH!" in all
capital letters. 

To the right of the title area are two hand tools, each a little over one
inch in height, arranged in a cross: An adjustable plumber's wrench
(commonly known as a "monkey wrench") and what appears to be a stone axe
or hammer.  Presumably these represent two versions of the tools of their
trade. 

An article on this page entitled "After the Fall: Strategy Without Law"
says that the government is corrupted by interest groups which represent
the "logging industry or development or mining."  The writer states that
"the system is stacked against us," and then asks: "Should we pursue
avenues of resistance that are more overtly revolutionary?" 

In the subscription area it mentions that this newspaper "is published
eight times a year on the solstices, equinoxes, and cross-quarter days." 
One year subscriptions are $25; however, law enforcement groups get to pay
$45. 

Page 3

In the Letters department, a reader comments: "I for a very long time was
one of your admirers and sympathizers `from afar.' Your direct action, no
BS approach had a lot to commend it, and still does."  This reader goes on
to say that he finally obtained a sample copy of the publication. 

He continues: "Two negatives really stood out.  One, the constant
adolescent patter of dumb swear world [sic], gutter expressions, tough
talk nonsense.  Two, the half tongue in cheek, half dead serious insert
about the allegedly criminal idiocy of having children, and the corollary,
the quicker the human race is exterminated, the better." 

He goes on to say that "Since these two `items' seem to be endemic and
typical (I've read a few other issues of EF!J), and not just the
eccentricities of one or two immature egos who write for and to your
paper, I've lost interest in becoming a supporter and subscriber." 

In other words, comments regarding the "idiocy of having children" and the
desirability of human extermination are apparently regular features of
this publication.  One wonders if they encourage abortion as a pro-Earth
activity? 

Page 4

An article entitled "Warner Creek Salvage Sale Goes to Court" encourages
people to "Start polishing your U-locks and coiling your tree-climbing
ropes." 

Page 8

"An Open Letter From Rod Coronado" says, in part, that the author aided
and abetted "a fire at Michigan State University (MSU) that destroyed 32
years of research.... [This was] the seventh in a series of actions dubbed
`Operation Bite Back'...."  The author also admits being guilty of "one
count of theft of US Government property." 

The author states that this is the result of "the federal government's
continued targeting of indigenous activists who assert their
sovereignty.... I am unable to match the limitless resources of the US
Government...."

Page 9

"EF! Beats Up On Jim Bob Moffett" includes the following: "Like a swarm of
angry bees, EF! and student activists tore through the [University of
Texas] campus the day after the Activist Conference.  After an educational
rally sponsored by students, EF! took center stage, smashing TV sets in
protest of Freeport's onslaught of dis-informercials, and beating an
effigy of Jim Bob with a golf club.  The lively mob then took off on a
rowdy tour of campus.  Campus coppers tried in vain to prevent the
proliferation of chalked slogans denouncing UT and Freeport on university
buildings and walkways.... 

"Then the swarm buzzed over to the freshly bulldozed site of the future
Jim Bob building.  As people began discreetly pulling up the posts of the
chain link fence, two UT alumni burned their diplomas to protest the name
of the building-to-be...."

This advocates the destruction of private property (TV's), torture
(beating of an identified individual), resistance to law enforcement,
defacing of property (chalking), and more destruction of property (fence
posts). 

Page 16

A cartoon-like drawing shows a creature from the simian (ape or monkey)
family carrying an adjustable plumber's wrench - a clear pictorial
representation of the term "monkeywrenching." 

Page 18

Get this: A photograph of a man dressed in all black, including a
full-face black ski mask and sunglasses, has the following caption:
"Pictured is a protestor in front of the Burlington (VT) Federal Building
during a demonstration on February 13th." 

If "Guns & Ammo" magazine encouraged people to visit Federal buildings
dressed like this, what do you suppose the Clinton Administration would
say? 

Page 22

A full-page spread entitled "Calling All Earth Warriors!" appears beside a
picture of an "assault squirrel" (no kidding).  Under the subtitle
"Wrenching?", the article says "There will be no monkeywrenching at this
camp, but feel free to do it any other time!  L-P [a lumber company] just
came to Swan River -- they might need some vehicle maintainance [sic] or
tree innoculations..." 

Page 24

Under the heading "Montana Legislature Revels in Orgy of Destruction,"
James Barnes says the following: "As for `what you can do:' probably not
much.  These guys are going to do what they want, and it's going to be up
to us to stop the resulting atrocities physically.  The time for lobbying
and lawyering is over." 

Thus, according to Mr. Barnes, violence is the only answer.

Page 30

Letter from Delenda Est: "...we need more deaths.... We need a recycling
program; we need to reintroduce large predators [for] recycling humans
back into the food chain where they belong.... [this requires] depriving
the humans of all post-stone age weapons and technology.... We should be
brainstorming how to monkeywrench the world's agricultural production and
the industrial technology...." 

Where do you suppose the UnaBomber gets his ideas? 

Page 31

Letter from "Ronald Reagan" [pseudonym, I presume]: "Let's say some
department store wanted to clear a couple hundred acres of wooded land....
A concerned person might read up about tree spiking in her or his copy of
Ecodefense, aquire [sic] the necessary materials, sneak in one night and
thoroughly spike the trees on that land.... Just Do It!" 

Ecodefense is a book supposedly published by the Sierra Club.  Sounds like
a terrorism manual, no? 

Letter from "Reynard": "What I'm talking about is spiking trees with
plastic spikes.  These spikes would be inserted the same as a ceramic
spike.  Extra care should be taken to completely caulk the spike in
place.... Also, try to use tan colored plastic.  One spike per 50 trees
should be sufficient to screw up production each and every day...." 

These sound like complete instructions on domestic terrorism to me! 

Page 32

Regular feature entitled "Dear Ned Ludd" covers "Golf Course Maintenance." 
The entire article discusses how to repeatedly destroy the irrigation
systems at golf courses.  Detailed instructions for both old and new style
irrigation systems are included.  Notes on evading security guards and law
enforcement personnel are reviewed as well. 

Page 36

"ARMED WITH VISIONS", a page full of "poetry."  Some excerpts:

"Burn baby Burn -
You thought they were words to a disco song.
But as I look at the big yellow scraper
the wreckage that was once Sonora
I light the match and realize
They're words to live by!"

"Hell, no, I'll create my own beauty;
take a battering ram
and bust the dam
Spiking trees is my real duty.
So I'm off to join the Monkey Wrench gang
Burning down billboards
I'm just destroying eyesores
Compulsive pyromaniac, I'll go out with a bang."

Page 37

Bumperstickers for $1 each...

"I'd Rather be Monkeywrenching"
"Resist Much, Obey Little"
"Subvert the Dominant Paradigm"
"Visualize Industrial Collapse"
..and many more

Rear Cover

This is actually the outside cover when the newspaper is folded for
display on the newsstand.  That means this is the "front" of the
publication when it is sitting on the shelf. 

A roughly 4 by 5 inch drawing shows an earthmover in the near distance. 
Two shadowy human figures stand in the foreground, wrenches and other
tools in hand.  The caption, in very large letters, reads: 

         EARTH NIGHT 1995
     Go out and do something
         for the Earth...
            at night.

If that isn't advocating terrorism, violence, and destruction of property,
I don't know what could. 

Summary

These are quick observations from a single copy of this publication,
purchased from a "family bookstore" in a moderately-sized American city. 
That letter to the editor indicates that this is the standard tone for
this group.  Suggestions that law-abiding gun owners, conservatives, talk
show hosts, or even "militias" are inciting violence or encouraging
illegal behavior pale by comparison. 

One final note.  When I was paying for this publication, I made a casual
comment that $3.50 seemed rather expensive for a newspaper.  The cashier
looked at the cover, looked up at me, and said - with a gleam in her eye -
"Yeah, but if it gives you the information you need, it's worth it." 

And WE'RE the radicals?

------------------------------

    There is no shortage of zealots that subscribe to violence as a means
    to an end.  Ecoterrorism is no more acceptable than what happened in
    OKC.  

re:.104

"Power to the People" - was the Panthers. My cousin was one and so was another
friend of mine. Don't believe all you (may have) read.

"Black Power" was SNCC.

    
For your reference, I include the text of particular sections of US
Code title 18 chapter 115, care of the Cornell Law School web server,
	http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/


     * UNITED STATES CODE + TITLE 18 o PART I # CHAPTER 115
     _________________________________________________________________
   
-=- Sec 2384. Seditious conspiracy
    
   If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place
   subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to
   overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the
   United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the
   authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the
   execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take,
   or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority
   thereof, they shall each be fined not more than $20,000 or imprisoned
   not more than twenty years, or both.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
-=- Sec 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
    
   Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches
   the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or
   destroying the government of the United States or the government of
   any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the
   government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence,
   or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
   
   Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such
   government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells,
   distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter
   advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability,
   or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the
   United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
   
   Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group,
   or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow
   or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes
   or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or
   assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof -
   
   Shall be fined not more than $20,000 or imprisoned not more than
   twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the
   United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years
   next following his conviction.
   
   If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this
   section, each shall be fined not more than $20,000 or imprisoned not
   more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for
   employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof,
   for the five years next following his conviction.
   
   As used in this section, the terms 'organizes' and 'organize', with
   respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the
   recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the
   regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of
   such society, group, or assembly of persons.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
-=- Sec 2386. Registration of certain organizations
     * (A) For the purposes of this section: 'Attorney General' means the
       Attorney General of the United States;
       
       'Organization' means any group, club, league, society, committee,
       association, political party, or combination of individuals,
       whether incorporated or otherwise, but such term shall not include
       any corporation, association, community chest, fund, or
       foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious,
       charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes;
       
       'Political activity' means any activity the purpose or aim of
       which, or one of the purposes or aims of which, is the control by
       force or overthrow of the Government of the United States or a
       political subdivision thereof, or any State or political
       subdivision thereof;
       
       An organization is engaged in 'civilian military activity' if:
          + (1) it gives instruction to, or prescribes instruction for,
            its members in the use of firearms or other weapons or any
            substitute therefor, or military or naval science; or
          + (2) it receives from any other organization or from any
            individual instruction in military or naval science; or
          + (3) it engages in any military or naval maneuvers or
            activities; or
          + (4) it engages, either with or without arms, in drills or
            parades of a military or naval character; or
          + (5) it engages in any other form of organized activity which
            in the opinion of the Attorney General constitutes
            preparation for military action; An organization is 'subject
            to foreign control' if:
          + (a) it solicits or accepts financial contributions, loans, or
            support of any kind, directly or indirectly, from, or is
            affiliated directly or indirectly with, a foreign government
            or a political subdivision thereof, or an agent, agency, or
            instrumentality of a foreign government or political
            subdivision thereof, or a political party in a foreign
            country, or an international political organization; or
          + (b) its policies, or any of them, are determined by or at the
            suggestion of, or in collaboration with, a foreign government
            or political subdivision thereof, or an agent, agency, or
            instrumentality of a foreign government or a political
            subdivision thereof, or a political party in a foreign
            country, or an international political organization.
     * (B)(1) The following organizations shall be required to register
       with the Attorney General:
       
       Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in
       political activity;
       
       Every organization which engages both in civilian military
       activity and in political activity;
       
       Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in
       civilian military activity; and
       
       Every organization, the purpose or aim of which, or one of the
       purposes or aims of which, is the establishment, control, conduct,
       seizure, or overthrow of a government or subdivision thereof by
       the use of force, violence, military measures, or threats of any
       one or more of the foregoing.
       
       Every such organization shall register by filing with the Attorney
       General, on such forms and in such detail as the Attorney General
       may by rules and regulations prescribe, a registration statement
       containing the information and documents prescribed in subsection
       (B)(3) and shall within thirty days after the expiration of each
       period of six months succeeding the filing of such registration
       statement, file with the Attorney General, on such forms and in
       such detail as the Attorney General may by rules and regulations
       prescribe, a supplemental statement containing such information
       and documents as may be necessary to make the information and
       documents previously filed under this section accurate and current
       with respect to such preceding six months' period. Every statement
       required to be filed by this section shall be subscribed, under
       oath, by all of the officers of the organization.
     * (2) This section shall not require registration or the filing of
       any statement with the Attorney General by:
     * (a) The armed forces of the United States; or
     * (b) The organized militia or National Guard of any State,
       Territory, District, or possession of the United States; or
     * (c) Any law-enforcement agency of the United States or of any
       Territory, District or possession thereof, or of any State or
       political subdivision of a State, or of any agency or
       instrumentality of one or more States; or
     * (d) Any duly established diplomatic mission or consular office of
       a foreign government which is so recognized by the Department of
       State; or
     * (e) Any nationally recognized organization of persons who are
       veterans of the armed forces of the United States, or affiliates
       of such organizations.
     * (3) Every registration statement required to be filed by any
       organization shall contain the following information and
       documents:
     * (a) The name and post-office address of the organization in the
       United States, and the names and addresses of all branches,
       chapters, and affiliates of such organization;
     * (b) The name, address, and nationality of each officer, and of
       each person who performs the functions of an officer, of the
       organization, and of each branch, chapter, and affiliate of the
       organization;
     * (c) The qualifications for membership in the organization;
     * (d) The existing and proposed aims and purposes of the
       organization, and all the means by which these aims or purposes
       are being attained or are to be attained;
     * (e) The address or addresses of meeting places of the
       organization, and of each branch, chapter, or affiliate of the
       organization, and the times of meetings;
     * (f) The name and address of each person who has contributed any
       money, dues, property, or other thing of value to the organization
       or to any branch, chapter, or affiliate of the organization;
     * (g) A detailed statement of the assets of the organization, and of
       each branch, chapter, and affiliate of the organization, the
       manner in which such assets were acquired, and a detailed
       statement of the liabilities and income of the organization and of
       each branch, chapter, and affiliate of the organization;
     * (h) A detailed description of the activities of the organization,
       and of each chapter, branch, and affiliate of the organization;
     * (i) A description of the uniforms, badges, insignia, or other
       means of identification prescribed by the organization, and worn
       or carried by its officers or members, or any of such officers or
       members;
     * (j) A copy of each book, pamphlet, leaflet, or other publication
       or item of written, printed, or graphic matter issued or
       distributed directly or indirectly by the organization, or by any
       chapter, branch, or affiliate of the organization, or by any of
       the members of the organization under its authority or within its
       knowledge, together with the name of its author or authors and the
       name and address of the publisher;
     * (k) A description of all firearms or other weapons owned by the
       organization, or by any chapter, branch, or affiliate of the
       organization, identified by the manufacturer's number thereon;
     * (l) In case the organization is subject to foreign control, the
       manner in which it is so subject;
     * (m) A copy of the charter, articles of association, constitution,
       bylaws, rules, regulations, agreements, resolutions, and all other
       instruments relating to the organization, powers, and purposes of
       the organization and to the powers of the officers of the
       organization and of each chapter, branch, and affiliate of the
       organization; and
     * (n) Such other information and documents pertinent to the purposes
       of this section as the Attorney General may from time to time
       require.
       
       All statements filed under this section shall be public records
       and open to public examination and inspection at all reasonable
       hours under such rules and regulations as the Attorney General may
       prescribe.
     * (C) The Attorney General is authorized at any time to make, amend,
       and rescind such rules and regulations as may be necessary to
       carry out this section, including rules and regulations governing
       the statements required to be filed.
     * (D) Whoever violates any of the provisions of this section shall
       be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five
       years, or both.
       
       Whoever in a statement filed pursuant to this section willfully
       makes any false statement or willfully omits to state any fact
       which is required to be stated, or which is necessary to make the
       statements made not misleading, shall be fined not more than
       $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
     _________________________________________________________________

-- 
Will Day                                 OIT, Georgia Tech, Atlanta 30332-0715
willday@rom.oit.gatech.edu               http://rom.oit.gatech.edu/~willday/
---  =-> Opinions expressed are mine alone and do not reflect OIT policy <-=
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    Benjamin Franklin, 1759 (Franklin B. Historical Review of Pennsylvania)

    Sounds unconstitutional to me!?
    
    ...Tom

    Aren't militias by definition seditious organizations then?  

    > Aren't militias by definition seditious organizations then?  

    Brian, do you _really_ believe that all militias are bent
    on overthrowing/destroying the government?

    The facts are:

    1. McVeigh, Nichols, etc. were denied militia membership

    2. The government has stated that the common tie between
       the suspected conspirators is military service, not
       militia membership. Their bomb making skills were
       obtained in the military.

    3. Every major militia has denounced the bombing as
       a terrorist act.

    4. No link has been established between the conspirators
       and the militias... everything so far has been a lot
       of flame fanning by the media.

    I don't know why someone who has never had any connection
    with a militia and knows only of their existence by what
    the government and media has told them can conclude that
    all militias are "all bad" or even "mostly bad".

    -b

    Brian,
    
    No, I don't necessarily believe *all* militias are bent on government
    overthrow.  It was a question, plain and simple.  I have not concluded
    that *all* militias are bad or even mostly bad.  I give credit to the 
    New Hampshire militia has been the most proactivce in distancing itself 
    from extremist labelling IMO.  This is what I gathered from news
    reports which I am not supposed to believe?  
    
    OKC has nothing to do with it with the possible exception of bringing
    more media attention to militias in general and the Michigan and Montana 
    Militias in particular.  I am willing to write McVeigh and company off 
    as dangerous kooks, not associated with the militia movement except for
    maybe in their own twisted minds as sharing in the "struggle".  
    
    It is a fact that there are organizations that are armed and training
    under the title of militia.  Are these organizations registered as
    such?  Are they not politically minded?  Is it true or not that Mark 
    from Michigan has stated via his shortwave broadcasts that he is at war?  
    Are the Trochmann's et al. advocating or not active defiance of the 
    federal government including armed insurrection?  Are these people 
    preparing for a confrontation or not under the guise of foreign invasion?  
    Are the Trochmann's and Mark from MI poor examples of what the militias
    stand for and not to be used as examples of what the militas are about?  
    	
    Brian

    The Clintster was ranting and raving loudly about militias earlier
    today when addressing some college students or high school students
    somewhere.  I heard a clip on the radio, and he was really hilarious.
    Whether he's really mad or just pretending, he still sounds like he's
    pretending.  The guy just can't get a good head of steam built up,
    like, say, Ted Kennedy.  He always sounds like he's acting, and badly.
    Maybe he's afraid he'll pop an aorta or something.
    
    In any event, he sounded absurd.  Militias have nothing whatsoever
    to do with this, and the more he tries to pull this guilt by
    association thing, the more goobery he comes off.  Too bad his
    friends won't tell him.
    
    Chris

    Oh, and someone really needs to explain it to him, slowly so
    that he can understand, that there's a world of difference between
    "hating your government" and hating the evil criminals that are
    temporarily occupying certain offices at any given moment.
    
    Chris

    I really like this part:
    
>       An organization is engaged in 'civilian military activity' if:
>          + (1) it gives instruction to, or prescribes instruction for,
>            its members in the use of firearms or other weapons or any
>            substitute therefor, or military or naval science; or
>          + (2) it receives from any other organization or from any
>            individual instruction in military or naval science; or
>          + (3) it engages in any military or naval maneuvers or
>            activities; or
>          + (4) it engages, either with or without arms, in drills or
>            parades of a military or naval character; or
>
    
    	Sounds like my Boy scout troop when we could march in the Memorial
    Day parade and practice map/compass skills. We also practiced with .22
    rifles at Boy Scout camp in the summer, so I guess we were a pretty
    dangerous militia....
    
    
    jim

    
    RE: .147  Brian ...Are these organizations registered as such?...
    
    
    Where are they supposed to be registered???
    
    Paul
    

    
    
    	I believe they are supposed to be registered with the attny
    general.
    
    
    jim

 
Political Systems, Violence, and War

R. J. Rummel May, 1988 ([1])

By the end of the eighteenth century a complete [classical] liberal
theory of international relations, of war and peace, had ...
developed... Peace was ... fundamentally a question of the
establishment of democratic institutions throughout the world. [2]

SUMMARY 

Are political systems related to collective violence and war? This
is now fundamentally answered in one of three ways: yes,
democracies are least violence prone; yes, socialist
equalitarianism assures peace; and no, political systems and
violence are unrelated. 

Recent theoretical and empirical research confirms the first
answer: those political systems that maximize and guarantee
individual freedom (democracies) are least violence prone; those
that maximize the subordination of all individual behavior to state
control (totalitarian systems) the most, whether socialist or not;
and wars do not occur between democracies. 

Known for centuries, a tenet of classical liberalism, the pacific
nature of democracy has became largely forgotten or ignored in
the last half-century. That democracy is inherently peaceful is
now probably believed by no more than a few prominent peace
researchers. In part this has been due to the intellectual defection
of Western intellectuals from classical liberalism to some variant
of socialism, with its emphasis on the competitive violence and
bellicosity of capitalist freedoms. Many intellectuals, and in
particularly European and Third World peace researchers, have
come to believe that socialist equalitarianism is the answer to
violence; others, particularly American liberals, believe that if the
socialist are wrong, then at least democracies are no better than
other political systems in promoting peace. 

Socialism aside, there also has been a rejection of Western values,
of which individual freedom is prominent, and acceptance of
some form of value-relativism (thus, no political system is better
than any other). In some cases this rejection has turned to outright
hostility and particularly anti-Americanism, and thus opposition
to American values, such as freedom. To accept, therefore, that
democratic freedom is inherently most peaceful, is to the
value-relativist, to say the unacceptable_that it is better. For
another, to accept that this freedom promotes non-violence seems
to take sides in what is perceived as the global ideological struggle
or power game between the United States and Soviet Union. 

Independent of different ideological or philosophical perspectives,
several interacting methodological errors have blinded
intellectuals and peace researchers to the peacefulness of
democracies. One of these is the strong, general tendency to see
only national characteristics and overall behavior. Then a nation is
rich or poor, powerful or weak, belligerent or pacific. But most
important for identifying the relationship between freedom and
violence is rather the similarities and differences between two
states and their mutual behavior. Thus should be observed a lack
of violence and war between democracies; and the most severe
violence occurring between those nations with the least freedom. 

Another error has been to selectively focus upon the major
powers, which include among them not only several democracies
having many wars, but also Great Britain having the most.
However, a systematic comparison among all the belligerents and
neutrals in wars, would uncover the greater peacefulness of
democracies. 

Along with this selective attention is the tendency to count
equally against democracies all of its wars, no matter how mild or
small. Thus, the American invasion of Grenada would be one
mark against democracy; Hitler's invasion of Poland that initiated
World War II would be a similar mark against non-democracies.
This stacks any such accounting against democracy. 

Finally, while a systematic survey of the literature shows
significant support for the inverse relationship between
democracy and violence, researchers have done little theoretical
testing of this relationship, thus resulting in their overlooking or
ignoring it when it appears in their results. 

DEMOCRACIES PROMOTE NONVIOLENCE 

The organizers of this conference asked me write a taxonomic
paper on the question: "Can the relative bellicosity of states be
measured and predicted as a function of their internal political
system?" The answer of most current empirical research is
decidedly "yes." [3] 

Indeed, the empirical relationship is even more profound and
comprehensive than the question implies. In theory and fact, the
more democratic the political systems of two states, the less
violence between them; and if they are both democratic violence
is precluded altogether. [4] That is, democratic states do not make
war on each other. Moreover, the more democratic a political
system, the less foreign and domestic collective violence; the
more totalitarian, the more likely such violence. [5] 

Perhaps the most surprising finding is that the less democratic a
government, the more likely it will kill its own citizens in cold
blood, independent of any foreign or domestic war. Now, war is
not the most deadly form of violence. Indeed, while 36 million
people have been killed in battle in all foreign and domestic wars
in our century, at least 119 million more have been killed by
government genocide, massacres, and other mass killing. And
about 115 million of these were killed by totalitarian governments
(as many as 95 million by communist ones). There is no case of
democracies killing en-masse their own citizens. [6] 

The inverse relationship between democracy and foreign violence,
collective domestic violence, or government genocide is not
simply a correlation, but a cause and effect. In a nutshell,
democratic freedom promotes nonviolence. These results are
worthy of the greatest attention and analysis, for if true, which I
am now convinced they are, then peace research has in fact
defined a policy for minimizing collective violence and
eliminating war: enhance and foster [7] democratic
institutions~civil liberties and political rights_here and abroad. 
[8] 

THE CLASSICAL LIBERALS 

The fundamental inverse relationship between freedom and
violence is truly a matter of insight and knowledge gained and lost
among political philosophers to be rediscovered through rigorous
theoretical and empirical research by peace researchers. In fact, so
long ago as 1795, in his virtually now forgotten Perpetual Peace,
Immanuel Kant systematically articulated the positive role of
political freedom in eliminating war; and proposed therefore that
constitutional republics be established to assure universal peace.
This proposal has various nuances, such as those involving the
difference between republics and democracies, and between
political and economic freedom, but the essential idea was this:
the more freedom people have to govern their own lives, the more
government power is limited constitutionally, the more leaders
are responsible through free elections to their people, then the
more restrained the leaders will be in making war. In Kant's
words: [9] 

The republican constitution...gives a favorable prospect for the
desired consequence, i.e., perpetual peace. The reason is this: if the
consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war
should be declared (and in this constitution it cannot but be the
case), nothing is more natural than that they would be very
cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for
themselves all the calamities of war. 

Among the latter would be: having to fight. having to pay the
costs of wars from their own resources, having painfully to repair
the devastation war leaves behind, ant, to fill up the measure of
evils, load themselves with a heavy national debt that would
embitter peace itself and that can never be liquidated on account
of constant wars in the future. But. on the other hand. in a
constitution which is not republican, and under which the subjects
are not citizens, a declaration of war is the easiest thing in the
world to decide upon, because war does not require of the ruler,
who is the proprietor and not a member of the state. the least
sacrifice of the pleasures of his table. the chase, his country hours,
his court functions, and the like. He may, therefore. resolve on
war as on a pleasure party for the most trivial reasons. and with
perfect indifference leave the justification which decency requires
to the diplomatic corps who are ever ready to provide it. 

Through the writings of Kant, de Montesquieu, Thomas Paine,
Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill, among others, it became
an article of classical liberal faith in the 18th and 19th centuries
that "Government on the old system," as Paine wrote, His an
assumption of power, for the aggrandizement of itself; on the new
Republican form of government as just established in the United
States], a delegation of power for the common benefit of society.
The former supports itself by keeping up a system of war; the
latter promotes a system of peace, as the true means of enriching a
nation." [10] These liberals believed that there was a natural
harmony of interests among nations, and that free trade would
facilitate this harmony and promote peace. Most important, they
were convinced that monarchical aristocracies had a vested
interest in war. It was, in contemporary terms, a game they played
with the lives of the common folk. Empower the common people
to make such decisions through their representatives, and they
would always oppose war. In an historical perspective that they
did not have, it is clear that the classical liberals had too much
faith in the masses. They did not anticipate the rise of nationalism,
although the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars
presaged what our century would behold in full glory: the total
nation at arms, total mobilization and total war. They did not
appreciate how the superheated hatred and revengefulness of
majorities can drive democratic nations to war. The Crimean and
Boar Wars, and the Mexican-American and Spanish-American
wars were yet to occur. The clamor for war can be irresistible to
ambitious politicians. 

But much to their peril, popular leaders also have discovered the
flip side to Popular Will. The people can be aggressive today,
pacific tomorrow. One need only contrast the popular support for
American involvement in Vietnam in 1963 to 1966, to the
vigorous hostility among intellectuals and opinion leaders to a
continuation of the war in 1969. Of course it is also true that the
people can be stubbornly opposed to what they perceive as
bellicose policies, no matter what their merits may be. Thus,
President Roosevelt felt constrained by isolationist public opinion
from giving all out military aid to America's fraternal ally Great
Britain in 1940-1941, the time when her survival from air and
submarine attacks by Nazi Germany was very questionable,
indeed. Yet, in deference to massive public opposition to
American involvement, Roosevelt could only aid indirectly,
discreetly, or illegally under the table, this last European bulwark
against Nazi tyranny, aggression, and genocide. 

In the 18th century classical liberals had to write about the pacific
nature of democracies in the abstract, by hypothesis. Of course,
the bellicose history of Emperors, Kings and Queens, and
aristocracies, was clear. History could not tell them, however,
how free peoples would behave. This could only be derived from
reason and was ultimately based on faith. No wonder, then, that
their associated theory was simplistic. Leaving out the invisible
hand, harmony of interests, and free trade baggage, war would
disappear among democratic nations because popular majorities
would refuse to pay in their blood and property for such wars. 

As mentioned, the historical record now shows that the people are
not only willing, but sometimes will demand to go to war. The
problem with the theory is that it provides only an incomplete and
superficial explanation, and for that reason is only correct part of
the time (e.g., explains why America did not declare war on Hitler
in 1940, but not why America did so against Spain in 1898). A
proper theory of democratic peacefulness must allow for both
these aggressive and pacific sides of Popular Will. It must go
beneath public opinion and popular majorities and deal with the
social forces involved. These are in terms of social fields,
cross-pressures, and polarization. 

WHY DEMOCRACIES ARE LESS VIOLENT 

The civil liberties and political rights of a democratic system
foster and maintain an exchange society. This is a social field,
whose medium is composed of a people's meanings (as those
given to the flag or a cross), values, and norms; its social forces
are imbedded in this medium and flow one way or another,
forming various equilibriums among what people want, can, and
will try to get; and conflict or cooperation within this field,
violence or peace, depend on the congruence between these
equilibriums and the expectations people have about the outcome
of their actions. 

Democratically free people are spontaneous, diverse, pluralistic.
They have many, often opposing, interests pushing them one way
or another. They belong to independent and overlapping
occupational, religious, recreational, and political subgroups, each
involving its own interests; and then they are moved by the
separate and even antagonistic desires of different age, sex, ethnic,
racial, and regional strata. 

Freedom thus creates a social field in which social forces point in
many different directions, and in which individual interests, the
engine of social behavior, are often cross-pressured. Like the
Catholic political conservative who cannot decide whether to vote
for the Episcopalian, Republican conservative, or the Catholic
welfare democrat, many within a free society must balance often
contradictory wants This means that those very strong interests
that drive the individual in one direction to the exclusion of all
else, even at the risk of violence, do not develop easily. And, if
such interests do develop, they are usually shared by relatively
few individuals. That is, the normal working of a democratically
free society in all its diversity is to restrain the growth across the
community of that consuming singleness of view and purpose that
leads, if frustrated, to wide-scale social and political violence. 

Consider by contrast a centralized society with a totalitarian
government. In the main, behavior is no longer spontaneous, but
commanded; in its major, most significant outlines, what one is
and does is determined at the center. The totalitarian model is
familiar and need not be elaborated. Relevantly here, such a
system turns a social field into an organization, with a task to
achieve (such as equality, communism, social justice,
development), a management-worker, communal-obey class
division cutting across all society, and all the characteristics of an
organization (coercive planning, plethora of rules, lines of
authority from top to bottom) needed to direct each member's
activities. 

The consequence is to polarize major interests. If the satisfaction
of one's interests depends always on the same "them"; if "they"
are responsible for one's job, housing, quality and cost of food,
and even life and death, then almost all that is important depends
on whether one is in the command or obey class. In effect, these
are two poles to which interests become aligned. Thus, and most
importantly for us here, since most vital interests depend on one
center, it is easy to see that the interests related to this center_who
commands and what is commanded_are matters Of grave concern.
In a democracy one can shrug his shoulders over losing: "win
some, lose some, I'll do better next time." But in a highly
centralized system, a loss on one issue may result in a loss on all,
including even one's life. 

With so much at stake, therefore, violence comes easily,
especially to the rulers who must use repression and terror against
possible dissent or sources of opposition; the gun, prison, or
concentration camp are the major tools Of social policy. And, as
happened in Poland, in such a polarized system, conflict and
violence involving local interests soon engage the whole society.
For the split between those who command and obey is a fault line:
slippage in one place moves along the whole fault and causes a
social quake_wide-scale conflict and, given the importance of the
issues, quite possibly violence. 

What about foreign violence? By virtue of the same
cross-pressures restricting violence within democracies, the
unification of public interests needed to pursue foreign aggression
is usually missing. Given the lack of general public support, and
perhaps the outright opposition of certain social or interest
groups, a democratic leader would pursue a costly foreign conflict
at great risk to his political future, even if he could get the
government's counter-balanced machinery to work in the same
perilous direction. This he can do, especially when some external
threat or attack unites public opinion (as in Great Britain's
military response to Argentina's invasion of the Falkland Islands),
but not with anything like the political freedom with which a
dictator or small ruling group can make war. And among
democracies, each with its own pluralism, cross-pressures, and
politically constrained leaders; and each quite possibly having a
variety of political and commercial ties and transactions that
create their own pro-peace interest groups; the forces opposing
violence overwhelm any tendencies toward severe conflict,
violence, and war between them. 

A totalitarian ruler has no such natural constraints. True, there
will be crosspressures among the elite. There are calculations to
be made about the cost in lost trade, aid, allies, and the like, not to
mention in resources and manpower. But such cross-pressures are
usually within a particular direction (Should we invade today or
wait? Should we squeeze them into submission?) and among often
hand-picked subordinates. Real, fundamental opposition is
lacking, where as in a democracy even the basic constitutional
laws governing the making of war are open to debate and political
contest. 

In all this I am simplifying to essentials, as in universally
describing a falling body by a simple equation that ignores wind,
body shape, and air friction. And the heart of this pure explanation
is the difference between a social field of cross- pressured
interests and politically responsible leaders versus a tightly
organized society of polarized interests and dictatorial rulers. I am
describing pure types, recognizing that there are many gradations
between. 

But this should suffice here. To promote democratic institutions
promotes a deeper and more durable peace because it promotes a
social field, cross-pressures, and political responsibility; it
promotes pluralism, diversity, and groups that have a stake in
peace. 

THE SOCIALIST CRITIQUE OF CLASSICAL
LIBERALISM 

Contemporary theory aside, the classical liberals view of
democracy's peacefulness was insightful. But by the middle of the
20th century, this insight became almost completely ignored or
forgotten. 

How did we fall off the classical liberal path to peace and fail to
find it again until recently? There are several reasons for this,
some ideological, some methodological. First and foremost, the
classical liberal view itself fell into disrepute among intellectuals
and scholars. Essentially, classical liberals believed that the
government that governs least governs best. Adam Smith's An
Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was
their economic bible. And in current terms, they preached
democratic capitalism. But beginning in the 19th century
capitalism came under increasing attack by socialists of all
flavors. First, the socialist agreed with the classical liberal that the
people had to be empowered, and that this would bring peace. But
what the socialist saw when the liberal creed was enacted into
law, especially in Britain, was that the bellicose aristocracies were
replaced by equally bellicose capitalists. Democracies and their
attendant free market appeared to foster exploitation, inequality,
and poverty; to enable a very few to rule over the many. 

Most important here, capitalism was seen not just to promote, but
to require colonialism and imperialism, and thereby war. 

But what was to be done? Here the socialist mainly divided
essentially into the democratic socialists, state socialists, and
Marxists. The democratic socialists argued that true democracy
means that both the political and economic aspects of their lives
must be under the people's control, and this is done through both a
representative government and government ownership, control,
and management of the economy. The capitalist would be thus
replaced by elected representatives, who would oversee economic
planners and managers, and above all be responsive to popular
majorities. With the aristocratic and capitalist interests in war
thus eliminated, with the peace oriented worker and peasant
democratically empower, peace would be assured. 

The state socialists, however, would simply replace representative
institutions with some form of socialist dictatorship. This would
assure the best implementation and progress of socialist
equalitarianism, without interference by the bourgeoisie and other
self-serving interests. Moreover, the people cannot be trusted to
know their own interests, for they are easily blinded by
pro-capitalist propaganda and manipulation. Burma today is a
good example of state socialism in practice. 

While agreeing on much of the socialist analysis of capitalism, the
Marxist added to it a deterministic, dialectical theory of history, a
class analysis of societies, an economic theory of capitalism, and
the necessity of the impoverishment of the worker and the
inevitability of a communist revolution. However, the Marxist
disagreed with the socialist on the ends. Never far from the
anarchist, the Marxists, especially the Marxist-Leninist of our
century, looked at the socialist state that would come into being
with the overthrow of capitalism as nothing more than an
intermediary dictatorship of the proletariat through which the
transition to the final stage of communism would be prepared.
And stripped of its feudal or capitalist exploiters and thus its
agents of war, communism would mean, not the natural harmony
among nations as in the liberal creed, but among all people as each
works according to his ability and receives according to his need.
The state then would wither away, and the masses would then live
in true, everlasting peace and freedom. 

It should be underlined that while the democratic or state socialist
believes that socialist governments will be peaceloving and
nonviolent, the Marxist-Leninist believes this true of only the
final, communist stage of stateless anarchy. The socialist
transition period may well involve war with capitalist states, but
while this inter-state war is to be avoided if at all possible in this
age of nuclear weapons, the world-wide struggle against
capitalism must be pursued by all means short of interstate war.
This would involve not only the arts of deception, disinformation,
subversion, and demoralization, against capitalist states, but also
terrorism and domestic wars through National liberation fronts".
For the Marxist-Leninist, then, it is the communist system that is
inherently peaceful, not the socialist intermediary state. This
socialist stage means the purposeful, aggressive use of force and
violence to pursue the final, global stage of communist peace and
freedom. 

In any case, regardless of the brand of socialism from which the
critique of capitalism ensued, the protracted l9th century socialist
assault on capitalism had a profound effect on liberalism and
especially the theory of war. Falling into disrepute, its program
seen as utopian or special pleading for capitalists, pure classical
liberalism mutated among Western intellectuals into a reform or
welfare liberalism that is little differentiated today from the
programs and views of the early socialists. And this modern
liberalism, or liberalism as it is now called, has been heavily
influenced by the socialist view of war; and this modern liberal
view grew widely influential in scholarly research on
international relations, and thus war and peace. It must be
recognized that until the 1960s such research was largely the
preserve of the social sciences, and that an overwhelming number
of social scientists were by the mid-20th century modern liberals
or socialists in their outlook. 

In the early 1960s the development of peace research began to take
off and is today a full discipline. In its early years it was very
much an American phenomenon and also very liberal in its view
of war. Where real factors, as apart from psychological ones, were
focused upon, war was generally believed to be caused by the
existence of have and have not, rich and poor nations; by poverty,
unrestrained competition, and the maldistribution of resources; by
exploiting multinational corporations, armament merchants, and
the military industrial complex. But peace research soon became
internationalized, and with this global growth the European
socialist and neo-Marxist's view of capitalism and war soon
dominated. The milder, American peace researcher's modern
liberal view soon became passe, and in its place one began to read
about Western (capitalist) imperialism and dominance; about
world capitalist economic control, manipulation, and war making;
and about the promotion of non-violence through material
equality and a socialist world economy. Positive peace and social
justice became central concepts in peace research, both meaning
some kind of socialist equalitarianism. [11] 

But what happened to the idea that individual freedom promotes
nonviolence? [12] With the protracted socialist attack on the
classical liberal's fundamental belief in capitalism, coupled with
the apparent excesses of capitalism, such as sweat shops, robber
barons, monopolies, depressions, and political corruption,
classical liberalism eventually lost the heart and minds of Western
intellectuals. And with this defeat went its fundamental truth
about democracy promoting peace. Interestingly, in the last decade
there has been a conservative resurgence of classical liberalism.
President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
exemplify this, and their often expressed views on the positive
role of free institutions for peace are straight out of classical
liberalism. This popular resurgence has yet to percolate up to
those in the social sciences and peace research communities. 

This is not to say that most peace researchers generally view
capitalist political- economic systems as the cause of war, as
asserted by hard-line socialists. Many European and Third World
peace researchers generally view capitalism as one cause among
several, although some theoretical emphasis may be given to
capitalism, as in Galtung's influential center-periphery theory
which clearly lays the major blame for war on a capitalist type,
competitive system. [13] Indeed, many peace researchers, and
especially Americans, have moved to a middle position: both
capitalism or socialism can be a source of peace or war, depending
on the circumstances. In either case, neither is a general factor in
war. 

Now, capitalism and democracy are not the same thing.
Democratic socialist systems exist, as in Sweden and Denmark, as
do authoritarian capitalist systems like Chile and Taiwan. Why
then has the peace-making effects of democratic freedoms been
tossed out with capitalism? As mentioned, these freedoms were
part of an ideology emphasizing capitalism_as the ideology
retreated, so did its belief in the positive role of freedom in peace.
But there other factors at work here that are at least as important. 

METHODOLOGICAL BLINDERS 

One of these factors causing scholars and peace researchers to
reject democracy's peacefulness is a misreading of history. Kant
and the classical liberals were writing in theory about freedom
and war; they had virtually no historical evidence. But by the
middle of the 20th century enough democracies had existed for
over half-a- century for an historical judgment to be made. And
that was believed to show that democracies not only do go to war,
but they can be very aggressive. Americans alone could easily note
their American-Indian Wars, Mexican-American and Spanish
American wars, and of course the Civil war, the most violent war
of any in the century between the Napoleonic wars and World
War I. And even if one argues that the United States was dragged
into both World Wars, there is the invasion of Grenada and the
Vietnam War, which many peace researchers view as a case of
American aggression. Then, of course, there is Great Britain, who
between 1850 to 1941 fought 20 wars, more than any other state.
France, also a democracy for most of this period, fought the next
most at 18. The United States fought 7. These three nations alone
fought 63 percent of all the wars during these 92 years. [14] Of
course, Britain did not become a true democracy until 1884 with
the extension of the franchise to agricultural workers, but she was
afterwards still the aggressor in numerous European and colonial
wars. The historical record of democracies thus appeared no better
than that of other regimes; and the classical liberal belief in the
peacefulness of democracies seemed nothing more than bad theory
or misplaced faith. 

But all other types of regimes seemed equally bellicose. The
supposed peacefulness of socialist systems was belied by the
aggressiveness of its two major totalitarian variants, that of the
Soviet Union and Nazi Germany [15] ; and other types of regimes,
whether authoritarian dictatorships like Japan before World War
II, or absolute monarchies like Christ Russia before World War 1,
appeared no less warlike. The verdict was and is an easy one_all
types of political, or politico-economic, systems make war; none
is especially pacific. Clearly articulated in Kenneth Waltz's
widely read Man,the State and ;Hag [16] this critique is today the
consensus view of American peace research, and in peace research
elsewhere it is the major alternative belief to that of the inherent
bellicosity of capitalist systems. 

A number of methodological errors account for peace researchers
misreading the recent history of democracies; and the history of
wars being so misleading. First, there is that of selective attention
The many wars of a few democracies is focused upon and the total
population of democracies and wars is ignored. A true comparison
should involve that of all democracies with non-democracies and
for all wars, at least in this century. 

Second, there is the error of improper weighting: Even where such
systematic comparison is done, the intensity of wars is ignored. 
[17] In such comparisons, the American invasion of Grenada and
the British Falklands Islands War, among history's least violent
wars, are counted as wars, and put on par with the American and
British participation in, say, World War II. The proposition that
democracies are more peaceful than other political systems really
means that they engage in less violence, where violence is
understood as a continuum, from low intensity to high. To say that
democratic freedom reduces violence is like saying that aspirin
reduces pain. It is not a question of the presence or absence of war,
but of the degree of killing involved. 

Another error, one I also admit to being guilty of in my earlier
work, is to atheoretically screen correlations and to ignore low
ones_to claim that low correlations between political systems and
violence simply show that no meaningful relationship exists. This
is simply a matter of seeking mountains and ignoring the hills. In
truth, as a systematic screening of all the empirical and
quantitative literature shows, [18] there is a consistent and
significant, but low, negative correlation between democracies
and collective violence, as predicted by classical liberalism. The
reason for this low correlation is that freedom is not both
necessary and sufficient for non-violence to occur. That is, like
democracies, authoritarian and totalitarian systems can be without
violence for many years. [19] The problem here is an almost
endemic one in the social sciences: drawing conclusions about a
theory from exploratory data analysis in which the theory is not
explicitly tested. 

Even if these errors caused an historical misinterpretation of the
relationship between freedom and violence, how could it be
missed that democracies do not make war on each other, if true?
After all, this is a point prediction whose historical truth or falsity
should be obvious. The problem is just that social scientists and
peace researchers do not ordinarily think dyadically: They think of
nations as developed or undeveloped, strong or weak, democratic
or undemocratic, large or small, belligerent or not. That is, they
think monatically: Thus history is generally studied for the
relationship between a nation's political system and its bellicosity.
[20] 

Like so much in science, this is a matter of perspective, as in
looking end-wise at a cylinder and seeing only a circle. A simple
change in perspective would show a cylinder; similarly, a simple
shift to dyadic relations would show that when two nations are
stable democracies, no wars occur between them. [21] In all the
wars from 1814 until the present, there has been no war between
stable democracies, even though the number of democracies has
grown to number 51 today, or 31 percent of all nations, governing
38 percent of the world's population. That just for all the large or
small wars since 1945, not one has involved democracies against
each other; that in a world where contiguous nations often use
violence to settle their differences or at least have armed borders
between, democracies like the United States and Canada should
have long, completely unarmed borders; and that in Europe, the
historical cauldron of war, once all Western European nations
became democratic they no longer armed against each other and
the expectation of war among them is now zero; that all this
should be missed shows how powerfully misleading an improper
historical perspective or model can be. [22] 

INTERNATIONALISM AND TWO-PARTYISM 

So the socialist critique of capitalism combined with a monadic
view of history and a failure to empirically and properly test these
beliefs has led peace researchers to accept the view that capitalist
freedoms in fact were the cause of violence, or that at least there
was no relationship between democratic freedoms and collective
violence. But besides socialism and these methodological errors,
there are still other factors at work. Since the first world war and
accelerated by the second, there has been a strong rejection among
intellectuals of any hint of nationalism. Nationalism was seen by
many non-socialists as a fundamental cause of war, or at least of
its total national mobilization and total violence. Internationalism,
rising above one's nation, seeing humanity and its transcending
interest as a whole, and furthering world government, became
their intellectual ideal. Social scientist and peace researchers, who
after all are usually intellectuals with Ph.Ds, have almost
universally shared this view. In fact one of the attractions of
socialism for many was its inherent internationalism, its rejection
of the nation and patriotism as values. Internationalists generally
have refused to accept that any one nation is really better than
another. After all, cultures and values are relative; one nation's
virtues is another's evils. Best we treat all nations equally to
better resolve conflicts among them. As Hans Morgenthau points
out in his most popular and influential international relations text,
both the United States and Soviet Union should be condemned for
the Cold War; it is their evangelistic, crusading belief in their
own values that makes the East-West conflict so difficult to
resolve. The following quote from Morgenthau shows well this
language of two-partyism: 

From the aftermath of the Second World War onwards, these two
blocs [centered on the superpowers] have faced each other like two
fighters in a short and narrow lane. They have tended to advance
and meet in what was likely to be combat, or retreat and allow the
other side to advance into what to them is precious ground.... 

For the two giants that today determine the course of world
affairs only one policy has seemed to be left; that is to increase
their own strength and that of their allies....either side must fear
that the temporarily stronger contestant will we its superiority to
eliminate the threat from the other side by shattering military and
economic pressure of by a war of annihilation. 

The international situation is reduced to the primitive spectacle of
two giants eying each other with watchful suspicion. They bend
every effort to increase their military potential to the utmost,
since this is all they have to count on. Both prepare to strike the
first decisive blow, for if one does not striate it the other might.
Thus, contain or be contained, conquer or be conquered, destroy or
be destroyed. become the watchwords of Cold War diplomacy. 
[23] This two-partyism easily can be seen in reading the peace
research and related literature. There is no victim or aggressor, no
right or wrong nation, but only two parties to a conflict (when this
two-partyism does break down, it is usually in terms of
American, or Western "imperialist, aggression"). Consequently,
to except that the freedom's espoused by the United States and its
democratic allies lead to peace, and that the totalitarian socialism
fostered by the Soviet Union leads to violence and war, is is take
sides It is to be nationalistic. And this for the internationalist is
ipso facto wrong. 

There is another psychological force toward two-partyism that
should not be underestimated. The statement that democratic
freedom fosters peace seems not only nationalistic, but inherently
ideological. After all, freedom is one of the flags in the
"ideological Cold War." No matter that this is a scientific
statement based on rigorous theory and empirical tests; no matter
that the results come from researchers who themselves have
conflicting ideologies. To accept it appears not only to take sides;
but to be what is worse, a right wing, cold warrior. 

For these reasons there is a knee-jerk reaction among many peace
researchers against any assertion that the democratic regimes of
the West provide a path to peace. Is it any wonder, then, that there
has been relatively so little empirical research directly and
explicitly on this question, [24] and a strong resistance to the
results of such research showing the inverse relationship between
freedom and collective violence. But of course there are peace
researchers who reject two-partyism; and for some of these there
is another factor at work, an apparently strongly emotional one
hinted at above. In the last two decades, there has grown within
the peace research community a virulent anti-Westernism, often
centered on the United States. Rather than being neutral between
East and West, evincing a studied internationalism, this view does
take sides. It is fundamentally socialist, sometimes neo-Marxist
and Third World in orientation. The West is seen as exploiting,
lusting for profit and power, and forever struggling to dominate
other countries; its alleged democratic values are a facade behind
which it manipulates and controls poor nations. Violence is their
means, their secret services, and especially the CIA, their tool. In
this view, which is held by a significant segment of the peace
research community, there is nothing too evil for the West to
commit in grasping for power and profit. Seemingly, anything
negative will be believed. For example, in a communication to the
students and faculty of the Political Science Department at the
University of Hawaii, such a well known peace researcher as
Johan Galtung alleges that the CIA has been carrying out "very
much the same thing" as Hitler's "holocaust" against the Jews, and
has "rubbed out" 6,000,000 (sic) people throughout the world. [25]
No peace researcher with these views could accept the possibility
of Western, democratic freedoms promoting peace. 

CONCLUSION 

To conclude, then, theoretical and empirical research establishes
that democratic civil liberties and political rights promote
nonviolence and is a path to a warless world. The clearest
evidence of this is that there has never been a war between
democracies, while numerous wars have occurred between all
other political systems; and that of the over 1 19 million people
genocidally killed in cold blood in our century, virtually all were
killed by non-democracies, and especially totalitarian ones. That
democracies are relatively non-violent is not a new discovery. It
was fundamental to 17th and 18th century classical liberalism.
But this truth has become forgotten or ignored in our time. The
reasons for this are many and complex, but they reduce basically
to these. First, 19th century socialism and 20th century
internationalism offered influential alternative explanations of
war and ways to peace that seemed to fit the contemporary history
of war better than the apriori speculations of the classical liberals.
This history especially seemed to show that democracies not only
made war on other nations but were at least as aggressive as any.
Second, for recent generations ethical relativism (and its
associated two-partyism) and anti-Westernism (or
antiAmericanism) have caused many intellectuals to reject
fundamental Western values, including the faith in classical
democratic freedoms; and with this has also gone a rejection of
any evidence that these freedoms could promote peace. These
ideological forces have been strengthened by several
methodological errors. One is the tendency to see nations wholly
in terms of their characteristics and behavior, and not in relation
to each other. Thus the fact that democracies do not make war on
each other, or that the less the democratic freedom in two nations,
the more likely violence between them, is missed. Other errors are
to view history selectively, without systematic comparison of all
cases or wars; to seek correlations atheoretically, thus ignoring the
necessarily low, but significant inverse relationships between
freedom and violence; and to treat all wars as the same, no matter
how different in the levels of violence. The final words to such a
paper as this should be left to our foremost student of war, Quincy
Wright, and his monumental "A Study of War": [26] 

To sum up, it appears that absolutist states with geographically
and functionally centralized governments under autocratic
leadership are likely to be most belligerent, while constitutional
states with geographically and functionally federalized
governments under democratic leadership are likely to be most
peaceful. 



Notes 

1. This paper has been prepared for the United States Institute of
Peace Conference, Airlie House, Airlie, Virginia, June, 1988. 

2. Howard. 1978, p.31. 

3. In Rummel (1979) I surveyed ah the systematic studies on this
question and concluded that they supported an hypothesized
inverse relationship between libertarian systems and foreign
violence; in Rummel (1985) I redid this survey, adding several
refinements and tests of significance, and confirmed the earlier
results. 

4. In previous professional world I have termed libertarian those
nations that assure civil liberties and political right rather than
democratic. For one, the latter term has become blurred by in use
in the battle for people's minds, as in "democratic centralism" or
"people's democracy," and thus sometimes now stands for what
used to be in opposite_dictatorship. Moreover. democracy
technically does not stand for civil rights and political liberties,
but for majority rule. and such a majority within the historical
meaning of democracy could eliminate minority rights and
liberties. While there is not a one-to-one relationship between
democracy on the one side and rights and liberties on the other,
therefore, there is this identity for libertarian systems. A majority
denying minority rights and liberties can still be democratic; it
cannot be libertarian. And it is these very rights and liberties that
creak the conditions reducing the likelihood of collective
violence. 

However, in spite of these problems I must use the term
democratic in this paper, understanding that it refers to libertarian
systems. The reason is that it is the historically settled term for
both the advocates and critics of such systems, the major subject
matter here, and to replace it with libertarian would promote
ambiguity and confusion. 

5. Totalitarian and communist systems should not be confused.
While most communist systems are totalitarian, not all are (e g-,
Poland): also not all totalitarian systems are communist, such as
Ayatollah's Iran and Hitler's Germany. 

6. See Rummel (1986; 1987) for these figures and related analysis.

7. The words "enhance" and "foster" are carefully chosen to imply
the use of the non-forceful, non-violent, arts of persuasion,
facilitation, and encouragement. Any policy to forcefully spread
democracy_to impose democratic institutions on others_would
contradict the very essence of the policy, which is that people
should be free to choose. 

8. The ethical question whether this would be a socially just
solution to violence is as important as to whether there is an
empirical relationship. I cannot treat this issue here. but using the
social contract approach to justice I have concluded elsewhere that
promoting the freedom of individuals to choose their way of life,
consistent with a like freedom for others, would minimize
violence and maximize social justice. (Rummel, 1981) 

9. Kant, 1957, pp. 12-13. 

10. Quoted in Howard. 1978. p. 29. 

11. Of course, much of such writing was not self-consciously
socialist or ideological, but the analyses and programs were in the
socialist tradition. See for example, the World Order studies, and
in particular Falk (1975) and Falk and Mendlovitz (1966). 

12. Keep in mind that two kinds of freedom must now be
distinguished. To the Marxist- Leninist, it is communist freedom
(in effect, anarco-communism) that creates peace; to the classical
liberal peace is fostered by individual freedom under a democratic
government. 

13. See Galtung (1964, 1969). 

14. Based on Wright, 1965. Table 44, p. 650. 

15. Hitler's Nazi Party was self-consciously socialist: Nazi stood
for The National Socialist German Worker's Party. While not
formally nationalized, big business was brought under complete
Nazi government control and dictation; and the German economy
was centrally directed by government ministries. 

16. Published in 1954, by 1965 it had gone through six printing 

17. See, for example, Weed (1984) and Chan (1984) 

18. Rummel. 1985. 

19. The theoretical assumption is not that the data points for the
violence versus freedom coordinate axes would lie close around a
downward sloping regression line, which is required for an high
correlation, but that the data points lie in a right triangle, whose
base is the horizontal axis (freedom) and whose right angle is at
the origin. 

20. Note that this is even the way the question I was to answer in
this paper was phrased by the conference organizers: "Can the
relative bellicosity of states be measured and predicted as a
function of their internal political system?" (italics added)
Consider how different this monadic question becomes if "of" is
replaced by "between", and "relative" is added after "their". 

21. There are two minor exceptions to this. An "ephemeral
republican France attacking an ephemeral republican Rome in
1849," (Small ant Singer, 1976, p. 67), and barely democratic
Finland joining Germany in fighting the Soviet Union in World
War II. This put Finland formally at war with the democracies,
but no actual hostilities occurred. 

22. It has been alleged that the lack of war between democracies is
due to chance or to lack of borders between most of them. Tests of
significance show that both them possibilities are very
improbable. See Rummel (1983). 

23. Morgenthau. 1985. pp. 378-379. 

24. Much of the accumulated evidence supporting the inverse
relationship between democracy and violence comes from the
empirical side-results of research on other, often quite unrelated,
topics. 

25. Johan Galtung, "Memo to friends and colleagues," and
published exchange of communications between Henry Varied
and Johan Galtung, Political Science Department, University of
Hawaii, April, 1988. 

26. Wright,1965, pp. 847-848. 



REFERENCES 

Chan, S. "Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall...: are the Freer Countries
more Pacific?" The Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 28
(December 1984): 617-648. 

Falk, Richard A. A Study of Future Worlds New York: Free
Press, 1975. 

Falk and Saul H. Mendlovitz (Eds.) The Strategy for World Order
Vol IV:Disarmament and Economic Development New York:
World Law Fund, 1 966. 

Galtung, Johan. "A Structural Theory of Aggression." Journal of
Peace Research (No. 2, 1964): 95-1 19. 

Galtung Violence, peace, and peace research." Journal of Peace
Research (No. 3, 1969): 167-191. 

Howard, Michael. War and the Liberal Conscious New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1978. 

Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace Translated by Lewis White
Beck, New York: The Library of Liberal Arts, Bobbs-Merrill,
1957. 

Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Actions. the Struggle for
Sower and Peace Sixth Edition Revised by Kenneth W.
Thompson. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1 985. 

Rummel, R.J. Understanding Conflict and War Vol 4: War,
Power, Peace Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1979. 

Rummel Understanding Conflict and War.Vol 5 The Just Peace.
Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1981. 

Rummel Libertarianism and International Violence." The Journal
of Conflict Resolution Vol. 27 (March 1983): 27-71. 

Rummel "Libertarian Propositions on Violence Within and
Between Nations: A Test Against Published Research Results."
The Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 29 (September 1985):
419-455. 

Rummel "War Isn't This Century's Biggest Killer." The Wall
Street Journal: (July 7, 1986): Editorial Page. 

Rummel "Deadlier than War." APA Review Institute of Public
Affairs Limited, Australian Vol. 41 (August-October 1987):
24-30. 

Small, M. and J.D.Singer. "The War Proneness of Democratic
Regimes, 1816-1965." 

The Jerusalem Journal of International Relations. Vol. 1 (Summer
1976): 5069. 

Waltz, Kenneth. Man, the State, and War. A Theoretical Analysis
New York: Columbia University Press. 1954. 

Weede, E. "Democracy and War Involvement." The Journal of
Conflict Resolution Vol. 28 (December, 1984):649-664. 

Wright, Quincy. A Study of War. Second Edition, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1965. 

    I read a few excerpts of Clinton's speech in Michigan (I think at some
    college).  Talk about promoting guilt by (weak) association!  Good
    grief!  Either this man is terribly uninformed (which was the Militia's
    response to his speech), or he has an agenda to demonize the militias
    (or perhaps try to get rid of them for whatever reason).
    
    He came across as uneducated, one-sided, simplistic, and fake (the "how
    dare they"s would be amusing if they weren't so pathetic).
    
    I can't wait until '96 so I won't have to listen to his foamings any
    more.  He talks about Democracy and freedom out of one side of his
    mouth, while talking about increasing federal police forces and
    limiting the Constitutional rights of Americans out of the other.  His
    picture should be next to the word 'hypocrite', in all US dictionaries.
    
    
    -steve

    Hey anyone see 60 mins last night on the FBI selling planes to the drug
    lords of Comumbia?? Yep... Makes you think how well out goverment folk
    can take a good idea and fowl it up something royal....,

>FBI selling planes to the drug
    lords of Comumbia??

Next they'll be selling arms to Mibya!!

    Where is Mibya??
    

It's near the Lediterranean.

    Southwest of Lamta.

    That "some school in Michigan" was MSU, home of the Spartans.  I agree,
    Clinton sounded like a pleading, whining, wimp.  
    
    Brian

    
    Who was it (George?) that used to go on about the Repubs shooting
    themselves in the foot? Whoever it was, I guess he never got a close
    look at Bill Clinton's shoes! :-)
    
    -b

    Good ole' holy toes himself?  :-)

Ain't nuttin' worst than a a pleading, whining, wimp. 

Get me anudder green death.

    
    	One green death, comin' up! Care for a shot uh JD wit dat?
    
    

Is Lumumba a drug lord of Comumbia?

Double, straight up...

Did Comumbus discover Comumbia?

No, Patrice.

    
    Do they where cummerbunds in Comombia?

	where ?

    Wonder how long ago Michigan booked sliq to speak at commencement.
    It's either one heckuva coinky-dink or they received a "Mr. Bill
    would like to speak at your commencement" notice ;-}
    
    

    It wasn't commencement and it wasn't Michigan, it was Michigan State. 
    Big difference and one that MSU alums don't take kindly to.  :-/

    Well, I got the state right!!
    
    

States' rights, fer sure.
That's what it's all about.

Pass me the beernuts.

    
    
    
        Remember,......the only thing that Clinton has to do,..is
        beat the competition.
    
    
        Ed
    
    

    
    something of a naive question.
    
    several people (I gather from the militias) reported that they 
    were expecting militias camps to raided all across the country.
    on the surface, it sounds paranoic enough to dismiss, but I was
    wondering what other folks may have heard regarding this.
    Has anyone in the media pursued this story line? 
    
    The image of several Wacos happening at the same time is rather
    spooky.  Sounds rather "brown shirtish".
    
    My only knowledge of what's going on West of the Mississippi is Peter 
    Jennings and company.  My suspicion is they don't have a clue either.
         
    al
    
    

    -1 Sounds somewhat like Chicken Little running around claiming
    "the sky is falling, the sky is falling".
    
    

    Actually, there were rumors which were based on military and
    government sources (!!!) that at the end of March, certain
    units were placed on alert, that military aircraft were being
    used to move large amounts of military equipment owned by
    the law enforcement agencies (which they're not supposed
    to have in the first place) and that leaves and vacations had
    been canceled for all BATF personnel.

    These rumors prompted at least on Congressman and Senator to
    write to the Attorney General, demanding an explanation. The
    rumors were subsequently denied and March passed without
    incident, but there is a great deal of corroborating evidence
    to suggest that something was in the works...

    -b

    
    
    Has the media been successful in painting the militia's as evil?  Now,
    I'm not saying there aren't some who are.  I just wonder if now we have
    an atmosphere that will understand such raids should they happen.
    
    
    Mike

    Re .143:
    
    >    Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches
    > the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or
    > destroying the government of the United States or the government of
    > any State,
    
    Hmm, article 10 of the New Hampshire Consitution, entitled "Right of
    Revolution", says that when government is perverted and public liberty
    manifestly endangered, the people have not only a right but a DUTY to
    overthrow the government.  The feds ought to arrest the State Secretary
    and anybody else who publishes this subversive literature.
                                                              
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    the Australian Govt wasted no time in _busting_ two militia groups
    since oklahoma and confiscating a cache which included automatic and
    semi-automatic rifles, both of which are illegal here. both groups were
    already being _watched_ by various department.

re: .-1

Hmmm. And what's the name of your National Police force in OZ?

    The Pigs.

>The Federal Police

>Spooks:
> ASIO
> ASIS
> ?


 PIGS is the missing one.

Speakers at convention defend militias, assail
government 


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

Los Angeles Daily News

PALM SPRINGS -- Bound by their discontent with government,
more than 600 people gathered in this sleepy desert city 120 miles
east of Los Angeles to hear speeches, rail against politicians and
trade theories on the Oklahoma City bombing.

"It is now time for Americans to stand shoulder to shoulder. If we
hesitate, we lose," said Mark Koernke, a University of Michigan
janitor and keynote speaker during the seven-hour "Take Our
Country Back" Convention on Sunday.

Koernke and other speakers blamed the federal government for
causing the Oklahoma bombing, either by carrying out the attack or
by creating the atmosphere of discontent that led to it.

"The big question is: Who profits from this action?" said Koernke,
organizer of the Michigan Militia. "Bill Clinton did. Legislation was
waiting in the wings."

Another speaker asserted that the bombing set the stage for Clinton
to propose new anti-terrorism laws that would limit Americans'
civil liberties unconstitutionally.

"Don't think you can create a terrorist episode and destroy our
Constitution with it," warned Suzanne Harris, founder of the Law
Loft think tank in Los Angeles.

Former Los Angeles FBI chief Ted Gunderson told the convention
that he believes the attack was actually caused by two blasts from a
highly sophisticated bomb. Many people in the audience nodded their
heads in agreement.

"There is an element within the government -- a demonic element
-- that is behind this," Gunderson said in an earlier interview.

Although there was much talk Sunday of armed-citizen militias, no
one was dressed in camouflage. Audience members, paying $10
apiece, came to the Palm Springs Hilton Hotel in wheelchairs, in
baby carriages, wearing crew cuts or ponytails and in suits or
T-shirts and jeans.

As diverse as they were, they unified along several common themes:
The federal government is stripping Americans of their
constitutional rights, and the United Nations is part of a plot to suck
America into a one-world government.

Among those in the audience was 51-year-old Janice Wilson, who
wore a button that read: "I love my country, but fear my
government."

Wilson said she supports the armed citizen militias. "I hope the
militias are on our side -- someone has to be," she said.

Outside the hotel, about 40 protesters stood vigil, singing "God Bless
America" and holding signs with such messages as "Extremists do
not represent us -- Palm Springs supports everyone's rights."

A protest organizer, Anita Rufus, said she does not want the world to
think that Palm Springs is a hotbed of militia activity.

"What could be more American than do this on the 50th anniversary
of the victory over fascism in Europe," said Rufus, past president of
the National Organization for Women in Palm Springs.

During a break in the program, David Bazley stepped outside with
his 1-year-old daughter and watched the protesters in disbelief, not
sure why he and others at the convention had been labeled as
extremists.

"I haven't heard anything extreme there," the San Diego salesman
said. "Just people saying how the Constitution says how our country
should be -- but it isn't."

Bazley said he listened with special interest to theories that the
government had a hand in the Oklahoma bombing. "I am not totally
convinced it wasn't," he said.

Purple ribbons commemorating victims of the bombing were on sale
outside the convention hall, along with such videotapes as "A Call to
Arms," "Invasion and Betrayal" and "CIA Secret War." Nearby was
a bar stocked with beer, wine and mineral water.

Inside the hall, 54-year-old Carol Peebles clutched $14 worth of
newly purchased books, including "Mysteries of the Federal
Reserve." The Federal Reserve, she allowed, is not run by the
government.

"We were sold out," she said.

Peebles said she came from San Diego to hear the speakers because
they are a key source of information for her on such topics as how
the United States is becoming part of a one-world government.

"We are not here for any hate campaign," she said. "I am here
because I am concerned about America."

Many attendees wore lapel pins of upside-down American flags to
protest what they described as "American in distress."

From her electric wheelchair, 79-year-old Linda Cooper Lee
explained that she wore a tea bag dangling from her American flag
button "to protest the invasions of freedom of speech."

Chester Smith and his wife, Linda Smith, each came with
well-marked copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He said
he believes the militias play an important role -- "to keep
government in line.

"The leverage is armed force," added the 52-year-old mechanical
engineer.

Throughout the afternoon, 41-year-old Harvey Kessler stood in the
hot desert sun with his sign: "Evil triumphs when good people do
nothing." The Desert Hot Springs man said he he fears the speakers
are fostering violence, although he conceded he had not heard them
that day.



    The BoR allows for well regulated militias.  A question was posed in
    another string, who are they answerable to?  Who regulates them?  Are
    they self regulating?  
    
    Brian

    oops, forgot to add...
    
    Is the National Guard considered a regulated militia?  Do they have a
    duty and responsibility to look out for states (citizens) rights?  Are
    they merely a home defense force called into action for police actions
    (riots etc.) and in times of war on foreign soil?    
    
    Brian

    
    
    >    The BoR allows for well regulated militias.  A question was posed in
>    another string, who are they answerable to?  Who regulates them?  Are
>    they self regulating?  
    
    	Well regulated meant (in the time of the writing of the Bill of
    Rights) well armed. The militia members were expected to provide their
    own firearms, ammunition, clothing, etc. They were to be led by people
    of their own choosing. The would be held accountable by the people of
    the United States. The whole purpose behind the militia was that they
    be controlled by the people, not by the government.
    	
    RE: The national guard
    
    	I would suggest you take a look at the United States Code as it
    defines militias. The National Guard is the organized militia and the
    people themselves are the unorganized militia. Since the National Guard
    is just an offshoot of the U.S. Army (and is therefore at the feds
    beck and call), it is not the militia that the founding fathers were
    talking about. I will post the section of code if you like.
    
    	trivia question: How long (after the Bill of Rights was written) was
    it until we formed the National Guard?
    
    jim 

These sections are referred to as 10 USC 311, 10 USC 312, 
and 32 USC 313.
-----
United Stated Code (USC)

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

  (a) The militia of the United States consists
of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age
and, except as provided in section 313 of title 
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have
made a declaration of intention to become, citi-
zens of the United States and of female citizens
of the United States who are commissioned of-
ficers of the National Guard.
  (b) The classes of the militia are--
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of
  the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
  and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists
  of the members of the militia who are not
  members of the National Guard or the Naval
  Militia.


Section 312. Militia duty: exemptions

  (a) The following persons are exempt from
militia duty:
    (1) The Vice President.
    (2) The judicial and executive officers of
  the United States, the several States and Ter-
  ritories, Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone.
    (3) Members of the armed forces, except
  members who are not on active duty.
    (4) Customhouse clerks.
    (5) Persons employed by the United States
  in the transmission of mail.
    (6) Workers employed in armories, arse-
  nals, and naval shipyards of the United 
  States.
    (7) Pilots on navigable waters.
    (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen
  of, or a merchant in, the United States.

  (b) A person who claims exemption because
of religious belief is exempt from militia duty
in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious
holding of that belief is established under such
regulations as the President may prescribe.
However, such a person is not exempt from mi-
litia duty that the President determines to be
noncombatant.


TITLE 32--NATIONAL GUARD

Section 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

  (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in
the National Guard, a person must be at least
17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years
of age and a former member of the Regular
Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or
Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reen-
listment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
  (b) To be eligible for appointment as an offi-
cer of the National Guard, a person must--
    (1) be a citizen of the United States; and
    (2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

-----

    Okay Jim, thanks.  Now who do the current crop of local militias answer
    to?  Who sanctions them?  What control do I, Joe Citizen have over them
    to ensure they are not making things worse instead of better?  What
    check and balance is there to make sure the ideology behind the
    movement is not sociopathic or their goal is not to swap one type of
    total control over another?  
    
    Brian

    
    
    	Since the current crop of militias are made up of citizens, then
    the citizenry controls them. If you wish to exert more control over
    how the militias behave, then go join one and vote in the meetings!
    It's the same way the controls work in our government. The government
    can only ultimately be held accountable by the people themselves, same
    as the militias. 
    
    
    jim

It's amusing that some won't trust any armed people that aren't blessed by
the gov't.

Probably the same ones who believe that it's THE POLICE who hold society
together.

60,000,000 people have been armed in the USA all along.

    Re: .191
    
    >If you wish to exert more control over how the militias behave, then
    >go join one and vote in the meetings!
    
    The rallying cry of the Revolution was "No taxation without
    representation."  Shortly before we declared war, the British
    government said, "Okay, we'll let you send a representative to
    Parliament."  Which was what the insurrectionists had demanded.  But by
    this point, they realized that a single member of parliament wouldn't
    amount to a hill of beans.
    
    So joining a militia won't give you a whole lot of control over it.

    
    
>    So joining a militia won't give you a whole lot of control over it.
    
    	Ah yes. I guess you don't vote either since your one vote doesn't
    give you a whole lot of control over the government.
    
    
    jim

    Militias are going to continue to have credibility problems with
    mainstream America as long as people such as the ex-Desert Storm
    vet goes on the news stating that the "black U.N.helicopters" are
    airborne to pick out sites for the crematoriums.
    
    

Yeah, everyone knows U.N. helicopters are blue.

    Re: .194
    
    >I guess you don't vote either since your one vote doesn't give you a 
    >whole lot of control over the government.
    
    No.  I don't vote because I haven't taken the time to follow all the
    issues and all the candidates, and would wind up picking folks more or
    less at random, which is hardly the point.  And the time it would take
    for me to feel sufficiently confident about any choices I made would be
    considerable.  I'd have to research various matters of public policy,
    make sure I understood the implications, and develop some firm opinions
    about what I thought should be done.  This could take several weeks per
    issue, and we have lots of issues to deal with.
    
    As far as militias go, the people who are most likely to join a militia
    are the people who are least interested in reining them in.

    -1 VOTE! it's important, and... if you're uncomfortable for any
       reason on an issue, don't. 
    
       but you have to participate Chels no matter how cruddy you think
       the options are.
    
       Chip

    I didn't say I thought the options were cruddy.  I said I didn't know
    enough about the options to know if they were cruddy.  Nor can you be
    sure that I will think the same options cruddy as you do, so you're
    being somewhat short-sighted in urging me into the fray.
    
    The only place one _has_ to participate, that I know of, is Australia. 
    But then, they don't spend some 18 months campaigning.

Somebody pointed out to me that there are several places in the Constitution
where the term "militia" appears, to wit:

Article I Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, 
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and 
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall 
be uniform throughout the United States;
...
     To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, 
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
     To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for 
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United 
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, 
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline 
prescribed by Congress;
...

Article II Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of 
the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into 
the actual Service of the United States...

    Take a pill will ya... you're the one that's short sighted - even
    shallow for voicing any political opinion in here and keeping your
    head buried in the sand (outside the 'box)... 
    
    as usual, you jumped to a conclusion that wasn't even close...
    
    Have a nice day...
    
    Chip

    Re: .201
    
    >as usual, you jumped to a conclusion that wasn't even close...
    
    My note contained no conclusions whatsoever.  I certainly made no 
    conclusions about anything you said, so you certainly have no basis for 
    determining whether my purported conclusions were close to -- well,
    whatever you seem to think they had to be close to.
    
    If anyone has been jumping to conclusions around here, it's you.

    come on Chels, "so you're being somewhat short-sighted in urging
    me into the fray." doesn't qualify you drawing a conclusion about
    my intent? Tsk, tsk, tsk... smells like a duck to me sweetie...
    
    Chip

    
    	Chels, not voting because you don't have the time to study every
    issue is a cop out. That's like not getting an education because you
    can't possibly know everything.....
    
    
    jim

    I thought Chels was saying she didn't want to join a militia.....
    
    

    Re: .203
    
    >"so you're being somewhat short-sighted in urging me into the fray." 
    >doesn't qualify you drawing a conclusion about my intent? 
    
    Exactly.  It's a conclusion about the result.  It matters not what your
    intent was, assuming you had one (which I didn't).
    
    >smells like a duck to me sweetie...
    
    Perhaps your sense of smell would improve if you removed your head from
    up your -- well, you get the picture.
    
    I'm no one's "sweetie" and I like it fine that way.

    Re: .204
    
    No, it's not the same.  I have enough education to be useful; I can
    hold down a job and pursue my interests.  It's functional.  I can still
    conduct my life without understanding the details of quantum physics.
    
    Voting without understanding the issues is like tossing a coin or
    picking names you like the sound of.  It does not allow the system to
    function properly.

    	re .-1
    
    	Yes, and no.  Making an educated guess is better than not voting.
    	You do not have to be totally-studied to make that educated guess.
    	Sometimes knowing that a particular thing will (or will not) 
    	happen is sufficient to make the vote.  Knowing the general
    	politics of a particular candidate will let you know within
    	reasonable likelihood how s/he will vote on an issue that s/he
    	has not indicated his/her position.
    
    	Knowing absolutely nothing about the issue or the candidates
    	makes one's vote the coin toss.

           <<< Note 398.207 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

	So blissful in your ignorance. It's almost a shame to point out
	that you are really not a citizen. At least not one worthy of the
	title.



Jim

    .206 Chels, you must've had some terrible experiences in your life
         to always be on the offensive and caustic responses to most 
         everything.
    
         anyway, i'll make an attempt to pull my... and simply state that
         Mr. Sadin made an accurate point and i'll close with saying that
         you certainly don't act like you don't know enough about any
         issue, particularly political issues. it might not smells like
         a duck, but smacks of hippocracy...
    
         oh, and i'd bet the farm YOU ARE nobody's sweetie. at least we 
         agree on that.
    
         have a normal day...
    
         Chip

    
    
re:           <<< Note 398.207 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>
    
>    Voting without understanding the issues is like tossing a coin or
>    picking names you like the sound of.  It does not allow the system to
>    function properly.
    
    	Bull! No one can possibly know everything about all the issues. How
    many folks do you think actually sat down and READ the crime bill (1500
    pages long)? How many legislators do you think actually read it?? C'mon
    Chels, you take what you know and you run with it, for better or for
    worse. At the very least you can vote for a certain party that has in
    the past upheld your beliefs. Not voting is not right. We the people
    have the power to make changes for the better...if we don't use those
    powers, we will lose them.
    
    
    jim

    
    
    This "talk show/news/tabloid thinking that's out there is unbelievable. 
    Don't people have the brains to think things through and to read about 
    items?  It seems like they just swallow what they're spoon fed by the 
    media.  Tis a shame.
    
    
    
    Mike

    re: .200
    
    If the pres. is CIC of all armed forces including militias, do the
    current militias recognize this?  

    Ummmm, I think the Georgia militia will have difficulty getting
    SANE recruits if they allow idjits like the guy who was just on
    Channel 11 noon news to speak for them.
    
    "Yessir, no doubt about it, the government has concentration camps
     and crematoriums already built."
    
    Reporter:	Have you personally seen or visited them?
    
    "Yessir, no doubt about it, the government has the camps and
    crematoriums built, you can take my word for it".
    
    

    re: .188 & .189 Evidently the author doesn't understand the
    history of militias or the National Guard.
    
    fm

    Email sent to NPR's Morning Edition in response to a piece they ran
    this morning:
    
    --------
    
    To: morning@npr.org
    From: <my Macintosh>
    Subject: Militia Report
    
    I caught only the last couple of minutes of your report on militias
    today (Friday, May 12).
    
    I come down in the middle of the political road or perhaps even on its
    left shoulder, but I must agree with the interviewee's assessment that
    your reporter is ignorant or was being disingenuous by asking about the
    phrase "A well regulated militia."  The term "well regulated," in the
    1780s, meant well organized and drilled.  It most emphatically did NOT
    mean controlled by government regulations.  Today this sense of the
    word "regulated" persists in such things as the regulated power
    supplies we use in computers to provide an unvarying voltage to the
    microchips.
    
    The entire point of the American Revolution was that the American
    colonists saw themselves as being trampled under the foot of a
    government that refused to give them fair representation and that they,
    the people, had the right to remove themselves from the power of such a
    government.  The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution was
    an attempt to ensure that their new government recognized that
    God-given right in perpetuity.
    
    As much as I deplore what I see as paranoia among the right-wing
    militias of today, I am still alarmed by the actions our present
    government is taking to curb or eliminate the freedoms our Founding
    Fathers died to give us.
    
    Richard Binder
    Nashua, New Hampshire
    Business phone (603) 881-2775 (9-5 weekdays)

    Re: .209
    
    >So blissful in your ignorance.
    
    Says one who speaks in ignorance.  I have said nothing which indicates
    any state of mind, let alone bliss.
    
    >It's almost a shame to point out that you are really not a citizen. 
    
    Yeah, I'm sure you're all broken up about it.  Well, you can spare
    yourself the pain; there's no need to tell me something I've long since
    figured out.

    Re: .210
    
    >to always be on the offensive and caustic responses to most everything
    
    Well, I won't bother to imagine what kind of life you must have led to
    assume that every response I've made has been caustic.  You told me to
    "chill" after a reply that was not at all emotional, and then you
    called me "shallow."  Gosh, of course I should have been all sweetness
    and light.  Gee, no doubt about it, I must have been horribly scarred
    in the past.
    
    >you certainly don't act like you don't know enough about any issue, 
    >particularly political issues
    
    I know history, and I understand political philosophy.  These do not
    constitute issues, certainly not in the context of elections.  Election
    issues involve such matters as education and the environment.
    
    >i'd bet the farm YOU ARE nobody's sweetie
    
    Which makes it quite wonderful that you called me one, all things
    considered.  But don't worry, I won't accuse you of hypocrisy.

    Re: .211
    
    >No one can possibly know everything about all the issues
    
    I don't think I claimed that anyone could or should.
    
    >How many folks do you think actually sat down and READ the crime bill 
    >(1500 pages long)?
    
    Any bill that long ought to be tossed.  But Congress can't stop itself
    from micromanaging everything to death.  As for reading legislation,
    it's certainly a good idea.  It's the best way to know what your
    government is up to, n'est-ce pas?
    
    >At the very least you can vote for a certain party that has in the
    >past upheld your beliefs.
    
    No such party exists.

    re: .214
    
    FWIW, that looney may have a point.  There is a strange building being
    constructed in the middle of nowhere (close to where a farmer buddy of
    mine lives) that is supposed to be a school.  My farmer buddy got a
    looksee at it and swears that its construction methods more closely
    resemble the building of a prison- something about steel rod enforced
    concrete walls that are a bit thicker than needed (a couple of feet
    thick).
    
    What makes it even more curious is that it is quite a large structure,
    much larger a "school" than is needed for this area.  In fact, it is
    probably 10-20 times larger than what is needed (being conservative in
    my estimate).
    
    I'll have to take a trip out that way and see if I can get a better
    look at it next time I'm out that way.  I don't remember there being
    any signs or usual hoopla about building a school or mall or anything
    else.  Of course, there aren't enough locals to pay for such a school,
    if that is what it is.
    
    I'm not speculating anything on this, so don't put my normal conspiracy
    slant into this particular note.  I simply don't have enough
    information on it at this time to form a serious opinion.  I do,
    however, find it quite curious.  Seems that there are other structures
    across the country that pique the interest of locals, too.
    
    
    -steve

    Leech,
    
    Takes pictures.
    
    

      <<< Note 398.216 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>


Dick, ordinarily I steer clear of these gun/2nd amendment debates, unless 
something is said that seems really out of whack. Too much emotion and too 
little to gain. Sort of like arguing religion. 

But I can't resist picking a couple of nits, given that you're a champion 
nitpicker yerself. :')
    
>    I come down in the middle of the political road or perhaps even on its
>    left shoulder, but I must agree with the interviewee's assessment that
>    your reporter is ignorant or was being disingenuous by asking about the
>    phrase "A well regulated militia."  The term "well regulated," in the
>    1780s, meant well organized and drilled.  It most emphatically did NOT
>    mean controlled by government regulations.  
>
>    The entire point of the American Revolution was that the American
>    colonists saw themselves as being trampled under the foot of a
>    government that refused to give them fair representation and that they,
>    the people, had the right to remove themselves from the power of such a
>    government.  The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 
>was an attempt to ensure that their new government recognized that
>    God-given right in perpetuity.

Now, I didn't hear this show, so I don't know how the question was phrased, 
but I can guess that his/her implication (or assertion) was that the militias 
referred to in the constitution at least served some government purpose, if not 
under their direct control. To the frayed nerves of gun buffs these days, that 
probably felt like a sharp poke; it's certainly guaranteed to elicit an angry 
response. But it is neither ignorant nor disingenuous, despite NRA propaganda 
to the contrary. It is not an open-and-shut case. Debate still rages. 

As another note in this string pointed out, the term "militia" appears
elsewhere in the Constitution, referring primarily to an auxiliary military
capability - a sort of army reserves. Clearly, the revolution had taught
the FFs that it would be in the nation's best interest if every able-bodied
and willing man (at that time) could be counted on to join the battle if
our republic were threatened. Even then, there was a growing sentiment
within many communities, particularly the larger cities, like Boston, New
York, and Richmond, to outlaw guns within their boundaries. The FFs may
well have seen that as a threat to their ability to raise a "well organized
and drilled" army on short notice, and coastal cities under such regulation
would be defenseless (or at least weak) if attacked. It certainly fits the
language of the 2nd amendment far better than the reasoning that we want to
hold a gun to the government's head in perpetuity. If that were the case,
why not say: "The capacity for insurrection, being necessary to the
assurance of a free State,..." 

As MadMike and others have pointed out, many of the FFs saw an armed 
populace as a good safeguard against tyranny from within as well, especially 
given the immaturity of the republic, but that appears to be an advantageous 
side-effect of the law, not it's stated purpose.
 
And if that interpretation of the law is accurate, then the law's purpose
may no longer be valid. (Even if our semi-automatic rifles were of any use
in a nuclear exchange, the vast majority of gun owners are not well
regulated by even your definition, Dick.) Which means it should be either
ignored, amended, or stricken. But I assure you, the NRA does *not* want
the US majority to codify its feelings about guns at this time in history. 
 
>    As much as I deplore what I see as paranoia among the right-wing
>    militias of today, I am still alarmed by the actions our present
>    government is taking to curb or eliminate the freedoms our Founding
>    Fathers died to give us.

Another nit: I've never heard of the FF label being applied so broadly as
to cover all revolutionary war participants. I thought FF meant Jefferson,
Madison, Franklin, and the rest of the constitutional convention delegates.
And none of them, by definition, "died" to give us the right to own guns. 

I'm *very* uncomfortable with the recent mood in Washington to extend the
powers of the FBI in ways that could compromise our liberties and privacy,
but I'm not too alarmed by assault-weapons bans. And despite protests that
are bound to rain down upon me to the contrary here in the 'box, I think
the FFs would agree - or at least the ones I think of as FFs. 

re: .222

>our republic were threatened. Even then, there was a growing sentiment
>within many communities, particularly the larger cities, like Boston, New
>York, and Richmond, to outlaw guns within their boundaries. The FFs may


Do you have references to back up this statement?

Thanks,

Bob

re: .220, Steve

While I have no particular reason to doubt that this structure could exist,
it is yet again an instance of the existence being mentioned as hearsay.
Is it possible, Steve, that you could contact your friend and give us
an actual location of the structure so that any of us might have the
opportunity to verify its existence for ourselves?

    re: .224
    
    I'll contact my friend and see what he can give me on it.  We'll be
    making an excursion out that way in a couple of weeks, so maybe I can
    get a first hand look-see at it, too. 
    
    
    -steve

    
    I wasn't quite sure where to place this so I figured here would be good
    (since militia's claim that the U.S. is in a state of emergency). You
    may copy the entire "War and Emergency Power Report" from:
    
    SUPBAC::DISK$SUB_USER9:[SADIN.TOOLS.FIREARMS]WAR_EMERGENCY.POWERS;
    
    
    Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon
    August 1, 1972 (Exhibit 68) states:
    
     "Continuing the Regulation of Exports; By virtue of the
     authority vested in the President by the Constitution and
     statutes of the United States, including Section 5 (b) of the
     Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U. S. C. 95a), and
     in view of the continued existence of the national
     emergencies..."
    
                                                                      

FAQ Regarding the War and Emergency Powers of the President
http://www.metronet.com/afc/afchome.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most American's have not been taught that since March 9, 1933 the
president has had total authoritarian control over them through a state of
declared national emergency.  This authority is called the "war powers"
and is the very authority that President Clinton used in the recent bail
out of Mexico over Congresses objection.

Q:  What are the war and emergency powers of the president?
A:  They are the powers of all three branches of government being given
to the president during time of war or declared national emergency.

Q:  Does the president possess these powers during times of peace?
A:  Only over citizens of enemy countries living or working within the
United States.  To be applicable over US citizens, it must be during
times of Rebellion or Invasion and when the public safety may
require it, however, every president since March 9, 1933 have exercised
these powers over US citizens.  This legislation authorizes executive
orders.  The opening line in Senate Report 93-549 reads:  "Since
March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of
declared national emergency."

Q:  What is a declared national emergency?
A:  NATIONAL EMERGENCY: as defined in Black's Law Dictionary. A
state of national crisis;  a situation demanding immediate and
extraordinary national or federal action.  Congress has made little or no
distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of war".
Brown v. Bernstein, D.C.Pa., 49 F.Supp.  728, 732.

Q:  What legislation gives the president this broad range of executive
powers?
A:  The "Emergency in Banking Relief Act" passed March 9, 1933 (48
Stat 1) in combination with the "Trading with the Enemy Act" passed
October 6'th, 1917 (40 Stat. 411).  Codified in 12 USC Section 95a
and 95b.

Q:  What is the Banking Holiday of 1933?
A:  As defined in Black's Law Dictionary:  Presidential Proclomations
No. 2039 issued March 6, 1933, and No. 2040, issued March 9, 1933
temporarily suspended banking transactions by member banks of the
Federal Reserve System.  Normal banking functions were resumed on
March 13,1933 subject to federal restrictions.  The first proclomation, it
was held, had no authority in law until the passage on March 9, 1933, of
a ratifying act (12 USC 95b).  Anthony v. Bank of Wiggins, 183 Miss.
885, 184 So. 626. The present law forbids member banks of the Federal
Reserve System to transact banking business, except under regulations
of the Secretary of the Treasury, during an emergency proclaimed by the
President. 12 USC 95a.

Q:  What is Title 12 USC Section 95a and 95b?
A:  12 USC Section 95a (Chapter 1, Title I, Section 2 of 48 Statute 1)
amends the terms of the "Trading with the enemy Act"  of October
6'th, 1917 (Subdivision b of section 5 of 40 Statute 411) to reclassify
citizens of the United States of America to be included within the
classification of an enemy.  12 USC Section 95b (Chapter 1, Title I,
Section 1 of 48 Statute 1) ratifies all future orders of the president
with respect to regulating enemies. Quoting 95b - "The actions,
regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or
hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of
the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the
4'th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of
Section 5 of the Act of October 6'th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS
Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933,
Chapter 1, Title I, Section 1 of 48 Statute 1)".
         
Q:  Does the president have dictatorial type powers under this statute?
A:  Yes.  Quoting from Senate Report 93-549, "This vast range of
powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country
without reference to normal constitutional processes.  Under the
powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize
property; organize and control the means of production; seize
commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law;
seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the
operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of
particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens"

Q:  What does the 1973 Senate Report 93-549 say in its opening
sentence?
A:  "Since March the 9'th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of
declared national emergency."

Q:  Please give more excerpts from the 1973 Senate Report 93-549
A:  Remember, our legislators wrote Report 93-549 and this document
talks about these emergency powers and they say:
         
"Since March the 9'th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of
declared national emergency."
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their
lives under emergency rule."
"For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed
by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws
brought into force by states of national emergency."
 "This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority
to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional
processes.  Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the
President may: seize property; organize and control the means of
production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad;
institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and
communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict
travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all
American citizens"
"And, in the United States, actions taken by the government in times
of great crisis have  from, at least, the Civil War, in important ways
shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national
emergency."
"They are quite careful and restrictive on the power, but the power to
suspend is specifically contemplated by the Constitution in the Writ
of Habeas Corpus."
"48 Stat. 1. The exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly found in
the Act, was deleted from Sect. 5 (b) at this time." - Our Congress
wrote that in the year 1973.
In the section entitled, "Emergency Administration", the senate report
says:  "Organizationally, in dealing with the depression, it was
Roosevelt's general policy to assign new, emergency functions tonewly
created agencies, rather than to already existing departments." Thus,
thousands of "temporary" emergency agencies, are now sitting out there
with emergency functions to rule us in all cases whatsoever.

Q:  What legislative event took place on March 9, 1933?
A:  48 Statute 1 was ratified and Chapter 1, Title I, Section 1 of 48
Statute 1 granted the president full dictatorial control over all
persons and property with enemy status.  In section 2 of that same
Act, the "Trading with the enemy Act" (40 Statute 411) was amended
at Section 5 Subdivision (b) to include US citizens and their property
under the jurisdiction of enemy statutes.

Q:  Where does Title 12 USC Section 95a and 95b originate?
A:  It comes from the "Trading with the Enemy Act" (40 Stat 411), and
was amended by recommendation proposed by the Federal Reserve
Board in 1933.  95a and 95b is found at Chapter 1, Title I, Section
1,2 of 48 Statute 1, March 9, 1933.

Q:  What is the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917?
A:  It is found at 40 Stat 411 and gives the president full authoritarian
control of citizens of enemy countries living or working in this
country, and their property within the United States or its
possessions.

Q:  How does the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as
amended differ from its predecessor?
A:  The clause "other than credits relating solely to transactions to be
executed wholly within the United States" was deleted, and the
clause "other than citizens of the United States" was changed to
read "any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the
jurisdiction thereof"

Q:  Can an enemy of the United States living within this country conduct
commercial intercourse without a license or permit?
A:  No.

Q:  Are we as American citizens defined as "the enemy" under Title 12
Section 95a and 95b?
A:  Yes - 12 USC 95b (Chapter 1, Title I, Section 1 of 48 Statute 1)
granted the president full doctoral control over all persons and
property with enemy status.  12 USC 95a (Chapter 1, Title I, Section
2 of 48 Statute 1) amended the "Trading with the enemy Act" (40
Statute 411) at Section 5 Subdivision (b) to include US citizens and
their property under the jurisdiction of these enemy statutes.

Q:  If we as American citizens are defined as being "the enemy" to the
US government then is our property regarded as "prize"?
A:  No.  It is regarded as "Booty"  This is explained in the "War Powers"
report and the term "prize" is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as:
"Goods taken on land from a public enemy are called booty; and the
distinction between a prize and booty consists in this, that the former
is taken at sea and the latter on land."

Q:  What is Admiralty Law or Statutory Law as opposed to the Common
Law?
A:  Admiralty Law is the law of the sea and is not constitutional law.
Common Law is Constitutional law as indicated by the seventh
amendment.  Under emergency rule, the admiralty law is applicable
within the Land.  Admiralty jurisdiction has been conferred to the
courts, thus displacing the common law.

Q:  Under Title 12 USC Section 95a and 95b does the president and
secretary of the treasury need to ask Congress for approval on any
actions or are they already approved and confirmed under this
statute?
A:  12 USC 95b says: "The actions, .... hereafter taken, ...by the
President of the United States or the Secretary ....  are hereby
approved and confirmed." Quoting 95b in its entirety: "The actions,
regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or
hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of
the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the
4'th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of
Section 5 of the Act of October 6'th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS
Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933,
Chapter 1, Title I, Section 1 of 48 Statute 1)".

Q:  During times of peace and normal constitutional operations of our
government does the  president have the power to issue executive
orders, or is this strictly a war power?
A:  It is strictly a war power.  The constitution Article 1 Section 7
explains that a Law is created by proposing a bill in the house or senate,
and then it goes to the president.  Executive orders are issued by the
president without the consent of congress or the senate.

Q:  Under the current law codified in Title 12 USC Section 95a and
95b does the president have the power to suspend the
constitution?
A:  Yes - Since 95b has allowed the president to abridge parts of the
constitution, there is nothing to stop him from suspending the whole
constitution except for the reaction of the people.

Q:  Has the constitution been suspended?
A:  Effectively it has.  Admiralty jurisdiction has been conferred to the
courts, thus displacing the common law.  The constitution has been
reduced from the supreme law of the land, using the "original
understanding" doctrine, to a regulation which views the constitution as
and "evolutionary document".

To learn more about the war and emergency powers
of the president and the national emergency that governs our country
today, contact:  American Freedom Coalition
214-826-5899 or fax 214-826-5896 or
open url http://www.metronet.com/afc/afchome.html

    
    Heck, the second World War isn't officially over either and nobody
    cares.

    re .227 & .228 SADIN.
    It's called the Emergency War Powers Act and you don't understand this
    one either.
    
    fm

    
    
    	re: .229
    
    	well then, dear fellow, please do explain it to me! I posted those
    notes here for my own edification as well as for the benefit of others.
    I am humbled before your obvious wisdom and debating prowess...<cower -
    cringe - shiver>
    
    
    jim

    
    
    Gee Jim, they found you out. ;')  
    
    
    I smell fresh meat!!!!!!! grrrrrrrr

re:-1

Down boy!

I've seen fm here before...

    drats. :')

    
    
    Foe....certainly warped foe.
    
    
    
    Just my opinion of course...
    

    
    
    	have you read any of this string Terrie?
    
    
    

    
    
    Yes, every single word.
    

    
    
    	Ok...just checkin.....:)
    
    
    jim

    
    
    
    My note was not in response to anyone elses.  It was merely
    my opinion of the topic in general.
    
    
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    Jim, I'm getting file not found on your report.
    
    Mike

    
    
    	re: -1
    
    	oops! I changed the name slightly since I had two different files
    with that name. the new name is:
    
    SUPBAC::DISK$SUB_USER9:[SADIN.TOOLS.FIREARMS]WAR_EMERGENCY.POWERS2;
    
    	War_emergency.powers1; has some interesting stuff in it too......
    
    
    jim

The Electronic Telegraph  Monday 29 May 1995  World News

 [World News]

Clinton attack swells ranks of the militias

As mistrust in the federal government grows, new
battle lines are being drawn across America,
writes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington

THE battle fatigues have been put away. Semi-automatic rifles are no longer
quite so visible on the front seat of pick-up trucks. Weekend manoeuvres
have been postponed. But those who thought that the militias were going to
melt away after the Oklahoma bombing are in for a big surprise. Word from
across the United States is that the militia organisers are overwhelmed by a
surge of recruitment.

Ken Gomes, a leader of the Maine State Militia, said: "People who were
sympathetic before are now coming out of the woodwork and saying, 'We're
with you'. We've got doctors, mill workers, waitresses and retired naval
officers joining up. People around here just don't believe the militia blew
that building up."

Mr Gomes claims that there are now more than 15,000 members of the different
militia outfits in Maine, an astonishing number for a state of only 1.3
million inhabitants. If there is any truth to this - and it is impossible to
obtain accurate data - it is clear that Washington has totally misjudged the
scale and character of the militia movement.

Ben Swank, commander of the Unorganized Militia of Northern Ohio, said that
his region is in ferment. "Our membership has increased dramatically but
it's more clandestine now, more cautious," he said, adding that the movement
was spreading from a core of fundamentalist Christians to a much broader
cross-section.

President Clinton has been a catalyst for recruitment. His speeches linking
the Oklahoma bombing to the militias, and ascribing "intellectual
complicity" to conservative radio shows, have enraged many people.

So far, the government has been unable to show any involvement by militia
units in the terrorist attack. Two of the early suspects, the Nichols
brothers, apparently attended a couple of meetings of the Michigan Militia,
but were asked not to come back because of their anarchist views on tax
protest.

On May 5, Clinton made a speech in Michigan amounting to a declaration of
cultural war on the "constitutionalists", "patriots" and Vietnam veterans
who make up the militia movement. "There is nothing patriotic about hating
your country," he said. "How dare you call yourself patriots and heroes? . .
. If you say violence is an acceptable way to make change, you are wrong . .
. If you appropriate our sacred symbols for paranoid purposes and compare
yourselves to colonial militias, you are wrong."

Coming from a draft-evader, this speech was ill-advised, to put it mildly

Coming from a draft-evader, this speech was ill-advised, to put it mildly.
When the history of the late 20th century is finally written, this speech
may well be judged as fatal, the moment when the establishment over-reached
itself and provoked what could all too easily evolve into a caste war: the
university-educated top third against the rest.

In the short run, Clinton has won plaudits from the press. A majority of
Americans have given him high marks for his handling of the bombing. But
things are changing fast. Suddenly we are seeing a national dialogue about
widespread abuses by the US federal government.

Until the Oklahoma bombing, it was impossible to get anybody to talk about
the Waco tragedy. Most people accepted the official line that the Branch
Davidians were crazies who committed mass suicide by setting fire to
themselves.

But now the truth is coming out: the mothers of Waco were huddled with their
children underneath wet blankets before they were engulfed in flames; the
accusations that the Davidians were engaged in child abuse were lies. And so
on.

In an amazing programme last week on National Public Radio - the sanctum
sanctorum of political correctness - most of the speakers accepted as a fact
the thesis that the government caused the fire by mistake and then tried to
cover up its own blunders. All of this is starting to lodge in the public
consciousness.

At the same time, the investigation of the Oklahoma bombing seems to have
stalled. A federal judge has ordered the release of James Nichols for lack
of evidence. Now lawyers for his brother Terry, who has been charged with
the attack, have called for his release on grounds that the government case
is "lamentably thin".

As for Timothy McVeigh, the prime suspect, it turns out that some of what we
were first told about him is untrue. For example, it was leaked that he had
been rejected by the US Special Forces because he was psychologically unfit
- a hint that he might be deranged enough to bomb federal buildings. In
fact, McVeigh failed the physical, quite a different matter. Where did the
false leak come from?

The FBI has clearly been moving dogmatically, without much regard for expert
opinion from outside its ranks

The FBI has clearly been moving dogmatically, without much regard for expert
opinion from outside its ranks. It ignored a report by the Oklahoma
Geological Survey showing that two "events" of similar amplitude were picked
up by their seismographic station outside Oklahoma City. The seismograph
suggests two separate blasts, 10 seconds apart. A second blast of this kind
would imply that the bombers had access to the building, pointing to a much
more complex conspiracy than McVeigh and his truck bomb.

Ray Brown, a geophysicist at the Geological Survey, says that his team have
not been able to come up with any explanation for the two sets of signals.
They discount theories that the second "event" could have been the collapse
of the building, or an air wave. He said that some explosions occur at such
low frequency that they are inaudible to the human ear. "It's possible that
you could have had two or even three blasts without people hearing," he
said.

Criticisms have been pouring in from other quarters too. Brigadier-General
Benton Partin, former commander of the Air Force Armament Technology
Laboratory and an expert on explosives, says that it was physically
"impossible" for the truck bomb to have inflicted so much structural damage
on reinforced concrete columns and beams. "You can't bring down a building
with ammonium nitrate like that," he said.

Doubtless, these questions will be the subject of furious debate at the
trials of McVeigh and Nichols. There may be simple explanations for some of
the mysteries. But the government has no margin for error in this climate of
extreme mistrust. If there is any hint of a rigged investigation, the
consequences for America could be ugly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ET | Front | News | World | Features | Sport | City | What's new | Help | ET
                                  archive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to The Electronic Telegraph - et@telegraph.co.uk

The Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc

    	Headlines here in Colorado Springs say that when Clinton addresses
    	the Air Force graduation today, he will tell the cadets that the
    	military is going to be used more to fight terrorism here at home.
    
    	It seems to me that this is precisely what the patriot groups
    	fear most, and it seems like a mistake to say this at this time.

>        <<< Note 398.242 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	Headlines here in Colorado Springs say that when Clinton addresses
>    	the Air Force graduation today, he will tell the cadets that the
>    	military is going to be used more to fight terrorism here at home.
    
>    	It seems to me that this is precisely what the patriot groups
>    	fear most, and it seems like a mistake to say this at this time.

He wants to keep irritating and poking them until more crazies do something 
dumb. then waving dead babies as he did after OKC he can get his total
people-control,,er,,anti-terrorism bill passed thru congress.

His goal may well be that if he appears to be losing at election time that he 
will declare martial law "to control the militia types" and declare himself
"king for life" or whatever. which will precipitate the very disorder
that every intelligent person is trying to stop thru the legal means of
the ballot box. slik has lost all touch with reality.
Amos

    Isn't there something in the Constitution or someplace about NOT using the
    military at home?

    No, it's the CIA that is not supposed to be used at home.  The military
    takes an oath to repel any enemy from without or within.  

   <<< Note 398.243 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>

>he can get his total
>people-control,,er,,anti-terrorism bill passed thru congress.

	Let's not forget that, as wriiten, the anti-terrorism bill allows
	the DOJ to declare, without any requirement for supporting
	evidence, any group to be a "terrorist organization".

Jim

    .243
    
    > He wants to keep irritating and poking them...
    
    How nice that you can read his mind.

    
      Actually, this is a pretty good political strategy to pick, given no
     actual performance of the job.  Demonize a minority ("big business"
     "welfare queens" "militias" or whoever), painting them as extremists,
     attribute atrocities to them.  Ask the country to "stand as one" vs.
     this evil threat.  It helps if you can so exasperate the group that
     their leaders make rash statements.  To cap it off, you could stage
     a fake "assassination attempt" mid-summer 96 - just enough to get a
     blip in the polls.  But you'd have to pin it on a "militia terrorist".
    
      bb

    re: .243  Amos
    
    I agree.  As for Clinton using the military to solidify his position,
    we can only hold out hope that if push comes to shove, the military
    (a representative sample of whom "despise" Clinton, I have been made
    to understand) will be on our side.
    
    Chris

>    <<< Note 398.245 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "Reformatted to fit your screen" >>>

>    No, it's the CIA that is not supposed to be used at home.  The military
>    takes an oath to repel any enemy from without or within.  


Wrong!!! go look up _posse comitatus_ and get back to us.

Amos

>    I agree.  As for Clinton using the military to solidify his position,
>    we can only hold out hope that if push comes to shove, the military
>    (a representative sample of whom "despise" Clinton, I have been made
>    to understand) will be on our side.

But that would be breaking their oath.

>    <<< Note 398.246 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Let's not forget that, as wriiten, the anti-terrorism bill allows
>	the DOJ to declare, without any requirement for supporting
>	evidence, any group to be a "terrorist organization".

The person who was shot on Madonna's property was charged with "terrorist" 
crimes. What happened to plain old trespass, stalking, breaking&entering, etc?
Why do we suddenly hear of "terrorist" crimes?
Amos

>   <<< Note 398.249 by DECWIN::RALTO "It's a small third world after all" >>>
>                     -< Clinton may be in for a surprise >-

>    re: .243  Amos
    
>    I agree.  As for Clinton using the military to solidify his position,
>    we can only hold out hope that if push comes to shove, the military
>    (a representative sample of whom "despise" Clinton, I have been made
>    to understand) will be on our side.
    
>    Chris

My thoughts are that he would not let "the Military" close to the D.C.
but would put together a preatorian-guard of gov't swat groups but order
the military to "clean up the country-side"(you know round-up the militia 
types).

Amos

>> But that would be breaking their oath.
    
    Not if he has broken his first.  The military are sworn to
    uphold the Constitution of the United States, and they are
    supposed to defend the nation against domestic and foreign
    enemies.
    
    Chris

   <<< Note 398.250 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>

>Wrong!!! go look up _posse comitatus_ and get back to us.

	A careful reading of the wording of the Posse Comitatus Act will
	yield the following results. It is illegal to use US Military forces
	in "law enforcement" roles. All the Executive need do is declare that
	domestic terrorism is a matter of national security, not law 
	enforcement, and Presto!, no conflict with the Act.

Jim

    Um, do I still have to go look it up?  

>    <<< Note 398.255 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	domestic terrorism is a matter of national security, not law 
>	enforcement, and Presto!, no conflict with the Act.

I thought it had to be under martial-law. Not just national security.

Damn, wrong twice this decade. must be slippin'. :-}

Amos

   <<< Note 398.257 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>

>I thought it had to be under martial-law. Not just national security.

	You forgot about FDR's Executive order (number ??) that DID
	place the US under martial law. Now all it takes is another
	Executive Order to seemingly violate ALL sorts of laws.

Jim

    
    
    Good article about militias in the times this past weekend.  About how
    they're one of the first organizations to pitch in in quite a few
    natural disasters.  Of course we didn't hear much about that on the
    major media, I wonder why.....
    

    God Almighty !
    
    These last few notes have been scary as all get out!
    
    I only pray that he isn't smart enough (or crazy enough) to try any of
    them!
    
    Dan

>    God Almighty !
>    
>    These last few notes have been scary as all get out!
>    
>    I only pray that he isn't smart enough (or crazy enough) to try any of
>    them!

Who isn't smart enough?  Hamburger, Ralto, McBride, Percival or Wannemacher?

    re: .250
    
    Right you are, Amos.  Of course, if the anti-terrorist bill were ever
    to be passed, the _posse comitatus_ would be null and void.  I would
    think that even ardent, non-conspiracy folk could see a certain pattern
    in all this. 
    
    -steve

    re: .258
    
    Okay, you may be right on this one.  Ignore my last note, as I am in
    error it would seem.  
    
    -steve (joining Amos in incorrectness this morning)  8^)

>                      <<< Note 398.262 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>

>    re: .250
    
>    Right you are, Amos.  Of course, if the anti-terrorist bill were ever
>    to be passed, the _posse comitatus_ would be null and void.  I would

From another string Jim Percival reminded me that due to the manuevering
of FDR in 1933 Posse Comitatus may already be dead, just not yet buried.
(back to the archives for research but I believe he is right)

>    think that even ardent, non-conspiracy folk could see a certain pattern
>    in all this. 
    
The "non-conspiracy folk" I am afraid are so badly brain-washed that
they wil never see the danger. in the late 30's/early 40's many
German's didn't believe the reports of the death camps. After VE day the
allies had to march German citizens past/thru the camps to prove to them how 
"bad" their gov't had been. I can only pray there is someone left to
march Americans past our graves when the time comes to show them the horror
of sliks' rule.

Amos

>Hamburger, Ralto, McBride, Percival or Wannemacher?

Sounds like a law firm...(no offense guys.)

    <----- I like it.  We could cater to all sorts of diverse cases.  The
    firm for everyman.

    
    	That "or" in the name has me confused, though.
    
    	Does that mean that you present your case to the firm [maybe a
    	representative like an administrative assistant or something]
    	and then [s]he, based on knowledge of skills of the partners,
    	sends the client to one or the other?
    
    	Obviously, all the [innocent] gun-nuts who blow away friends
    	would go to Percival.  How about the others?
    

      <<< Note 398.267 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Trouble with a capital 'T'" >>>

    
>    	Obviously, all the [innocent] gun-nuts who blow away friends
>    	would go to Percival.  

	I get the Gay Rights and Prayer in School cases too! ;-)

Jim

    
>	I get the Gay Rights and Prayer in School cases too! ;-)
    
    
    	those are mine!! :)
    
    
    jim

    I want the "feds out of control" cases.  Then again, maybe
    I don't!  :-)  Probably not much money in it, and probably
    hazardous to my health!
    
    Let me practice my "Jim Sokolove" concerned look...
    
    Chris

    re: Note 398.264 by TIS::HAMBURGER
    
    Amos, I think this "State of Emergency" is in effect in the federal
    zone, so it  comes down to jurisdiction.  Look at the code that
    all this crap was enacted under.  It's non-positive, it applies only
    to the federal government and it's jurisdiction.  Posse Comitatus is
    most likely enacted under code that is postive, like USC 18, and would
    be in effect nationwide under Constitutional authority.
    
    The trick is JURISDICTION.  I think this will be THE KEY to much
    stuff in the future.  Force the federal government back into its
    proper place.  The federal gov is leading the bull by the nose 
    however.  Banks, states, federal agencies (EPA, FDA, HUD) all sing
    the federal tune.  For instance, is your mortgage serviced by HUD?
    Is the money secured by the FDIC... good intentions and all...
    
    MadMike

    In most ways Militias are our friend. If nothing else they keep
    politicians in check so these power-grabbers like Clinton don't run amuck.
    
    ...Tom

               "Up In Arms About A Revolting Movement"
                       By Glenn Harlan Reynolds

     Recently, a steady drumbeat of print reports and network news
stories has given national attention to what many in the South and
West already knew: that some Americans are arming themselves and
organizing into militia companies. Part of a so-called "Patriot
Movement" that some number at five million members, the militia
movement is estimated by press accounts as having somewhere between
100,000 and 300,000 members under arms.  Their fear, based on all
sorts of rumors about "black helicopters" and foreign forces
maneuvering in remote areas, is that the feds, perhaps in conjunction
with the United Nations, will seize their guns and establish a "new
world order" dictatorship that will take control over their lives.
Some are even talking about armed revolt.

     Militia members believe their actions are authorized by the U.S.
Constitution. They're silly to worry about the U.N., which can't even
handle the Serbs. They're half right about the Constitution - but the
part they have wrong could mean trouble.  Militia advocates point to
the Constitution's Second Amendment, which addresses the right to keep
and bear arms, and to the framers' general views in favor of an armed
citizenry as a check on tyrants. Here they're on solid ground. There
is no question that the framers supported an armed citizenry as a way
of preventing tyrannical government.

     But the militia groups haven't thought about how the framers
defined tyrannical government. The fact is that though there is plenty
to complain about with regard to the expansion of government in the
last half-century, just about all of it was with the acquiescence -
and often the outright endorsement - of the electorate. That makes a
big difference. Although many militia supporters can quote the framers
at great length on the right to bear arms, few seem aware that the
framers also put a lot of effort into distinguishing between
legitimate revolutions - such as the American Revolution - and mere
"rebellions" or "insurrections." The former represented a right, even
a duty, of the people. The latter were illegitimate, mere outlawry.
The framers developed a rather sophisticated political theory for
distinguishing between the two.

     The most important aspect of this theory was representation.
Those who were not represented lacked the citizen's duty of loyalty. A
government that taxed its citizens without representation was thus no
better than an outlaw, and citizens enjoyed the same right of
resistance against its officers as they possessed against robbers.

     But revolting against taxation without representation is not the
same thing as revolting against taxation, period. Like it or not, the
government we have now is the one that most citizens at least thought
they wanted.

     If you want to know what the framers considered grounds for
revolt, read the list of complaints about George III in the
Declaration of Independence.

     The framers understood what a dangerous thing a revolution was.
They embarked on their effort with trepidation, and they would not
have been surprised to learn that most revolutions that came after
theirs either failed or produced a new tyranny worse than the old.
They knew that once let out, the genie of revolution often proves both
destructive and hard to rebottle. As the militia movement says, the
framers did believe in the right to revolution. But they believed that
such strong medicine was a last resort against tyranny. Today's
militia members would be better advised to organize a new political
party, or to work at increasing voter turnout.

     Such counsel may seem bland beside the very real romance of
revolution. But those on the political right (from which most, though
not all, of the militia movement comes) should know better than to
yield to that romance. Ever since the idolization of Che Guevara, a
large chunk of the American left has succumbed to revolutionary
romance, while those on the right have focused on workaday politics.
The relative fortunes of those two movements over the last 25 years,
especially after November's elections, suggest which approach works.

     I also have a cautionary note for those who are not part of the
militia movement. When large numbers of citizens begin arming against
their own government and are ready to believe even the silliest rumors
about that government's willingness to evade the Constitution, there
is a problem that goes beyond gullibility.  This country's political
establishment should think about what it has done to inspire such
distrust - and what it can do to regain the trust and loyalty of many
Americans who no longer grant it either.


[Associate professor of law at the University of Tennessee, Glenn
Reynolds wrote "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Under the Tennessee
Constitution: A Case Study in Civic Republican Thought," in the Winter
1994 Tennessee Law Review. "Up In Arms About A Revolting Movement"
appeared in Jan. 30, 1995, Chicago Tribune and is reprinted with the
author's permission.]
=+=+=
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Some useful URLs:  http://WWW.NRA.Org, 
gopher://GOPHER.NRA.Org, wais://WAIS.NRA.Org, ftp://FTP.NRA.Org,
mailto:LISTPROC@NRA.Org (Send the word help as the body of a message)

Information can also be obtained by connecting directly to the NRA-ILA 
GUN-TALK BBS at (703) 934-2121.

NRA.org is maintained by Mainstream.net  mailto:info@mainstream.net

             "Government, Citizens And Keeping The Trust"

     "Do you think the federal government has become so large and
     powerful that it poses a threat to the rights and freedoms
     of ordinary citizens, or don't you think so?"

     Shockingly, 52% of Americans answered yes to this Time/CNN poll
question posed a week after the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City.
Such is the depth of the concerns of millions of honest, hard-working,
tax-paying citizens.

     Since the cowardly bomber murders, however, public attention has
failed to center on the critical question of why so many citizens no
longer trust their government. Rather, the focus has been on a small
number of people who form so-called "citizen militias." These groups
exist, we are constantly informed, in defiance of governmental efforts
to control firearms.

     While the National Rifle Association, of course, opposes gun
control schemes, for decades it has followed an explicit policy that
condemns violent individuals and groups, including those advocating
the violent overthrow of the government of the United States.

     NRA defends the individual right of law-abiding citizens to keep
and bear arms for legitimate purposes, the individual right guaranteed
by the Constitution. This right is not dependent upon the Second
Amendment's militia clause, nor does participation in a citizen
militia organization make that right any more valid or strong.
Consequently, NRA has never been involved in the formation or support
of so-called citizen militia units.

     It is the gun control advocates who advance the fantasy that the
right to keep and bear arms is a "collective right," contingent upon
participation in a "citizen militia." As constitutional scholar
Stephen Halbrook says: "If anyone entertained this notion in the
period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated
and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of
the 18th century."

     On the other hand, one can cite, as just one example, famed
English jurist Sir William Blackstone, whose writing strongly
influenced the framers of our Constitution. Blackstone referred to the
right of the people to be armed as an "auxiliary" right that serves
"to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights,
of personal security, personal liberty, and private property."

     Following the Oklahoma tragedy, there have been calls to expand
the powers of federal law enforcement agents. Fingers of guilt have
been pointed at individuals and groups who bear no responsibility for
the terrorist attack but who do exercise their right to express anger
and frustration at what they feel their government has become.

     These are the voices of not only those who choose to join citizen
militias. For every militia member, there are hundreds of thousands of
Americans who are angered by a tax system that penalizes rather than
rewards hard work, angered by a regulatory system that confiscates
private property by transforming puddles into "wetlands," angered by a
criminal justice system that often seems to treat criminals as
victims, and, yes, angered by politicians who seek to disarm them
under the guise of fighting crime.

     These citizens spoke loudly last November in voting booths across
the nation, and they proved to any doubters that government remains
subject to democratic change. These citizens became active
participants in the debate about the proper role of the federal
government, about what power should be concentrated within Washington,
D.C. That debate, despite what some political opportunists seem to
suggest, is legitimate, is necessary and is thoroughly American.

     It is these same citizens who rightfully question BATF/FBI
actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco and feel that the government, in its
internal reviews, has stonewalled attempts to arrive at the truth
behind those disasters. It is these citizens who distrust Attorney
General Janet Reno's recent promotion of the censured FBI official who
oversaw both the attack at Ruby Ridge and the assault in Waco. These
citizens know that only the harsh light of congressional hearings -
hearings NRA continues to call for - will bring out the truth.

     Distrust of government now runs so deep in some Americans that
they see the menace of unmarked "black helicopters" flying over their
towns. They see U.N. troops occupying U.S. soil. They fear intrigues
to establish a "one world order." For their concerns they most often
are dismissed as paranoids, or worse, by the cultural elite who claim
that the citizens voting for change last November 8 were, as ABC News
anchor Peter Jennings contemptuously suggested, angry two-year-olds
acting out temper tantrums, stomping their feet, rolling their eyes
and screaming.

     While the evidence supporting notions of global conspiracies may
be illusory, that doesn't mean NRA ignores threats to the Second
Amendment from the international quarter. In fact, NRA assisted Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms in investigating a
Japanese gun control resolution introduced at the recent Ninth U.N.
Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in
Cairo.

     Sen. Helms and Sen. Larry Craig addressed the issue of the
globalization of gun control in a letter to Attorney General Reno as
the conference was underway. "Japan's proposal may not be binding on
U.S. citizens," they wrote, "but it would be a serious mistake for any
U.S. administration to support any proposal calling for actions that
could ultimately be an infringement of the U.S. Constitution and the
rights of law-abiding Americans."

     Sens. Helms and Craig pointed out that "as is usual with such
ill-considered proposals, it assumes that firearms, not criminals are
the cause of crime." The Clinton administration, however, failed to
heed the Senators' words, and the resolution was passed without
dissent.

     Times have changed. But was it so long ago that a paladin of
American liberalism wrote: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of
freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is
the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.  This is not to say
that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite
safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the
right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against
arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which
now appears remote in America, but historically has proved to be
always possible."

     The nation has changed greatly since Sen. Hubert Humphrey, whose
unflagging optimism always saw and sought to summon the best from his
countrymen, wrote those words. Today law-abiding gun owners are viewed
with suspicion if not fear by a cultural elite that seeks to demonize
them. It is these gun owners who some politicians increasingly seek to
blame for the nation's crime problem.

     NRA will continue to insist that the traditional right of
American citizens to own and use firearms for lawful purposes be
respected. NRA will continue to support politicians who support that
right and seek to defeat those who do not.

     NRA will also recognize that freedom and liberty are not gifts
that governments or politicians can bestow or take away.  Filling
Congress and state houses with pro-gun legislators is not enough. Gun
owners also must not allow themselves to be demonized and become false
images in the hearts and minds of their fellow citizens.

     Attorney and author Jeffrey Snyder captured that truth in a
recent essay. "Ultimately, it is the support and esteem of our
neighbors that we must win," he wrote, "for it is upon them that the
continued enjoyment of our rights depend."
=+=+=
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Some useful URLs:  http://WWW.NRA.Org, 
gopher://GOPHER.NRA.Org, wais://WAIS.NRA.Org, ftp://FTP.NRA.Org,
mailto:LISTPROC@NRA.Org (Send the word help as the body of a message)

Information can also be obtained by connecting directly to the NRA-ILA 
GUN-TALK BBS at (703) 934-2121.

NRA.org is maintained by Mainstream.net  mailto:info@mainstream.net

     "Do you think the federal government has become so large and
     powerful that it poses a threat to the rights and freedoms
     of ordinary citizens, or don't you think so?"

I'm suprised they didn't get a near 100% yes response considering
the question has two contradictory phrases.  Yes to one would be
a no to the other.  But the inverse is also true so any statistic
is meaningless.

    
    	yeah, good ol' Time-Warner. Always on the ball...:)
    
    jim

Democrats hold informal hearing on threats from
right-wing militias


(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

WASHINGTON (Jul 11, 1995 - 20:42 EDT) -- A month after
members of right-wing paramilitary organizations told a Senate
subcommittee that they were ordinary, law-abiding citizens who only
owned guns to protect themselves, a group of local, state and federal
officials Tuesday told other lawmakers that similar groups had
assaulted, harassed and threatened them, members of their families
and co-workers.

Appearing before seven Democratic House members at an informal
hearing, the witnesses described an alarming escalation of
intimidation and violence by members of self-styled militias,
Freemen, Wise Users, Constitutionalists, Tax Protestors, white
supremacists and other groups promoting their own political agendas
through a profound dislike of government and regulations.

"The rage and hate is beginning to well up," said Robert Mariott, a
special agent for the National Park Service. "We've always gotten
threats against our employees. But now, we hear 'Death,' 'You're
going to be killed' or 'You'll be shot.' In the past, it was just, 'A
rancher is mad at us.' "

If the message Tuesday was different from the June presentation
before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, so was
the forum. After Speaker Newt Gingrich and Republican committee
chairmen ignored his calls for new hearings on the so-called militia
movement, Rep. Charles E. Schumer, the Brooklyn Democrat and a
strong supporter of gun control, invited House members to an
informal hearing.

When only Democrats responded, Schumer used the showing to
chide Republicans for scheduling nine days of hearings on the 1993
conflict in Waco, Texas, involving the Branch Davidian sect, but none
on right-wing extremist groups. He called his Republican colleagues
"mealy-mouthed mollifiers of militias" and accused them of not
wanting to "upset the radical fringe of their own party."

Tony Blankley, a spokesman for Gingrich, defended the Republican
leadership, citing a Judicial Committee subcommittee hearing in May
on domestic terrorism.

"This is July," Blankley said. "Mr. Schumer is off by three months on
following the activities going on in Congress."

The most riveting testimony Tuesday was presented by a panel of
state and local officials, all of them women, who described how
experiences with right-wing groups in their communities have altered
their lives and put them in a constant state of fear.

Karen Mathews, the county recorder for Stanislaus County, Calif.,
said that after she told a local man that she did not have the authority
to dismiss a tax lien against him, she found a pipe bomb under her
car, shots were fired through her office window and two men
assaulted her.

Judge Martha A. Bethel, of Municipal Court in the towns of Darby
and Hamilton, Mont., said that Constitutionalists in her area are
clogging the courts by filing "frivolous and baseless suits" as a
protest against the jurisdiction of local judges and the authority of
local public officials.

"I have heard threats such as that I would be kidnapped from my
home, out of my offices or from my vehicle on the highway," she said.
"A local justice of the peace was told that they would be shot in the
head. A deputy county attorney was warned that his home would be
burned and that he would be shot in the back."

Bethel said she was recently warned by a man's voice on the
telephone, "Don't come to Darby for court tonight or you won't be
leaving."

After testifying in favor of a local ecology ordinance, Ellen Gray, an
official with the Pilchuck Audubon Society in Everett, Wash., said a
man approached her and said, "We have a militia of 10,000 and if we
can't beat you at the ballot box, we'll beat you with a bullet."

The lawmakers sat in rapt attention during the testimony and after
several witnesses warned that the intimidation and violence is
scaring people away from public service, the lawmakers
congratulated the officials for their fortitude and courage.

While it's unclear whether the testimony will lead to formal hearings,
Schumer said he would press ahead with more informal hearings if
Republicans show disinterest in the subject.

"This is just the first shot across the bow," he said. "We intend to
keep the drumbeat up. I've heard from certain Republicans that they
feel, 'Gee, we should be doing this.' We'll see."

    The witchhunt continues.
    
    The individuals doing the threatening/intimidation should be locked up,
    if the stories are true.  However, what will happen is that Clinton
    will declare militias as terrorist groups (assuming the latest travesty
    of constitutional erradication bill goes through- alias, the
    anti-terrorist omnibus) and send the federal police to round them up.
    
    Guilt by association is the new catch-word in today's politics. 
    Innocent until proven guilty is archaic under the new rules and will
    quickly be pushed aside.  The worst part is that all too many people
    will cheer when the evil militias are put in jail (or killed).  
    
    An amusing (or perhaps sickening) thing from the article in .277 is the
    negative connotation given to "Constitutionalists"- as if promoting strict
    adherance to the Constitution of the US is a bad thing.  Sad, really.
    
    
    -steve

	A friend of mine, who is gay, got a flat top, and shaved his beard into
a goatee. He went into work and people asked him if he joined the military. He
didn't say it, but what he wanted to say was he joined a militia. They call
themselves the minutemaids..... :-0

    <-----
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
    
    
    :-))))
    Dan

      date=7/12/95
      type=close-up (tta)
    number=4-08466
     title=militias, house hearings, and conspiracies
    byline=adam phillips
 telephone=619-1102
  dateline=washington
    editor=phil haynes

content=          (inserts available in audio services)

anncr:      next week, the u-s house of representatives will  
            begin two separate hearings on the april 1993  
            shootout between federal law enforcement agents and  
            members of the armed branch davidian religious group  
            at waco, texas. eighty members of the group,  
            including many children, and several federal agents  
            were killed in the shootout and an ensuing fire that  
            destroyed the branch davidian compound.  

            some critics allege that the raid was part of ongoing
            conspiracy by the u-s government to abridge  
            constitutional protections, such as the right to bear
            arms. others claim members of the religious sect  
            brought the disaster on themselves. in this report,  
            prepared by adam phillips, two experts discuss the  
            growing political heat generated by the waco  
            incident.  their comments were taken from the voa's  
            "talk to america" program.

anncr:      the congress has already conducted one investigative  
            hearing on the 50-day standoff between government  
            agents and the branch davidians. during that inquiry,
            the government insisted that the justice department,  
            headed by attorney general janet reno, acted properly
            when it ordered the raid, but admitted to mistakes in
            the way the assault was carried out.  

            still, some militia groups that staunchly defend  
            their right to bear arms, and others, claim that the  
            disaster in waco proves that the federal government  
            is increasingly overreaching constitutional bounds.  
            jim fyfe (fife) is a professor of criminal justice at
            temple university, a former police officer, and the  
            author of the book "above the law: police and the  
            excessive use of force. he does not believe in a  
            grand conspiracy, but understands the growing  
            concerns about heightened police and government power
            in the united states.  

tape cut one                        fyfe (:56)

            "well, i think it was cowboy law enforcement that had
            nothing to do with a conspiracy, but it had to do  
            with some folks who have an overly aggressive view of
            their work and who i think badly served the attorney  
            general. but i don't see anything like a conspiracy  
            there. i think there is a concern in the united  
            states with the availability of weapons and of more  
            and more exotic and potent weapons. and the law  
            enforcement people have adopted the same sorts of  
            tactics, in trying to locate and confiscate those as  
            they've done with drugs. and some of the tactics that
            our law enforcement people have been using,  
            especially where guns are concerned, give citizens  
            reason to believe that the government may be a little
            bit out of control, and [this,] unfortunately, fueled
            the sentiment that there is a conspiracy afoot."

text:       the two house of representatives subcommittees who  
            are investigating the waco raid have different  
            focuses. one panel is concerned with crime, because  
            of the deaths of the federal agents and growing  
            threats posed by gun rights advocates like private  
            militia groups and the branch davidians. the other  
            house sub-committee is overseeing government reform.  
            this is an outgrowth of a widespread political  
            concern among americans that the power of the federal
            government needs to be reduced overall.   

            political sociologist martin lipset is a professor of
            public policy at the george mason university in  
            virginia and a senior fellow at the hoover  
            institution at stanford university in palo alto,  
            california. the voa asked the professor whether he  
            became more concerned about the actions of the  
            federal government or the rightwing extremists  
            following the waco incident.  

tape cut two                     lipset (:14)

            "well, i think the paramilitary groups, the  
            extremists groups that seem to have arisen all around
            the country on the right, is the most immediate, the  
            biggest concern, and particularly since we don't know
            much about them."

text:       even those who favor gun control recognize that  
            stubborn gun rights advocates like the militias --  
            and even hunters -- have a strong constitutional  
            argument in their favor when they quote the second  
            amendment to the bill of rights. this amendment says  
            "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the  
            security of a free state, the right of the people to  
            keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." still,  
            jim fyne believes there may be limits to this right,  
            as there are with others.  

tape cut three                   fyne (:40)

            "the second amendment is one of the ten amendments in
            the bill of rights, and virtually every right  
            guaranteed in the bill of rights is subject to some  
            limits. so you have a right to free speech, but  
            americans can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  
            they have a right to be free from unreasonable search
            except that in emergencies, police can conduct  
            unreasonable searches -- or what would be otherwise  
            thought of as unreasonable searches. and the real  
            question here, i think, is one of balance. the  
            individual's right to bear arms: should that be  
            subject to limits based on the amount of danger the  
            individual may be presenting to the society or the  
            potential for danger that an individual presents to  
            society?"  

text:       mr. lipset of george mason and stanford universities  
            notes that the militia movement's constitutional  
            argument is much easier to disseminate today, given  
            the explosion of communications, like computer  
            networks, desktop publishing and cable television.  

tape cut four                 lipset (:37)

            "twenty-five or 30 years ago, i think most people got
            their information and their editorial views from a  
            relatively small number of outlets, and finding  
            extremist views was kind of difficult to do, frankly.
            and that has changed a lot. you know, years ago, for  
            example, it would have been very difficult for second
            amendment advocates -- people who say that we should  
            have no restrictions on our right to bear arms -- it  
            was very difficult for them to get an audience. and  
            that's no longer true. there are lots of talk shows  
            where their views are aired and hear and reinforced."

text:       most americans do not dress up in combat fatigues and
            conduct private military training against the day  
            when they might have to defend themselves against the
            government, as many militia groups do. still,  
            according to mr. lipset, the anti-government  
            sentiments that the militia groups express is firmly  
            rooted in a historical and political heritage that  
            less extreme americans also share. he adds that as  
            the republican-controlled congress prepares to  
            conduct new hearings on the waco incident, it is  
            acutely aware of this politically.  

tape cut five                       lipset (:54)

            "americans are the most opposed to state power of any
            country in the world, certainly any developed  
            country. and so this anti-statism of the militia, of  
            the extreme right, is very much an aspect, a  
            consequence of the american tradition. [thomas  
            ]jefferson said that 'government is best which  
            governs least.' and that value is still a dominant  
            value in the u-s. the republican party, which just  
            captured congress, is the most anti-statist major  
            party in the world. there's no party like it, except  
            small parties in other parts of the world.  
            conservatives in other parts of the world tend to be  
            statist. this pressure on americans to enforce the  
            laws themselves and enforce it on the government is  
            one which is different from other countries."

text:       that was political sociologist professor martin  
            lipset of george mason university and the hoover  
            institution of stanford university, along with  
            criminologist and author jim fyfe of temple  
            university. they were interviewed on voa's "talk to  
            america" program about  the anti-government sentiment
            among u-s militia groups and other extreme gun rights
            advocates.  

            the u-s congress will be looking at that same issue  
            next week when it renews its investigation of the  
            1993 government raid on the armed branch davidian  
            religious compound in waco, texas, that left more  
            than 80 people dead, including several federal  
            officers.  (signed)

neb/ap/pch



13-jul-95 8:52 am edt (1252 utc)
nnnn

source: voice of america
.

Paramilitary groups refocus, on local government


(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

WELLSTON, Mich. (Nov 11, 1995 - 20:36 EST) -- At a township
meeting this week marked by screams, boos and taunts of "Communist!"
and the tears of an elderly woman upset to see neighbor turning against
neighbor, a big man in the vortex of the storm seemed inspired.

A smile dancing in his eyes, William Ordiway Jr., a leader in the
Michigan Militia, had come here to pitch thunder bolts.

Ordiway is at the forefront of a new course for paramilitary groups,
which until now have focused strictly on the federal government and the
United Nations, but are starting to look homeward for sinister plots.

In their attack on local governments, the groups are calling for a form of
frontier democracy: putting every issue to a vote of the townspeople, not
by ballot, but a show of hands.

Indeed, they argue that if a group of voters, or "electors," posts a notice
for a meeting, they can get together and pass almost anything they want.
The townships have kept this from the people, Ordiway claims, to
advance the cause of global government.

In the past month, about 10 townships in the state have reported
members of paramilitary groups showing up at meetings and demanding
a right to vote on everything, said Larry Merrill, an executive director of
the Michigan Township Association.

"They pick and choose what they want from the Constitution, and
sometimes they cite Biblical references," he said, "to assert a theory of
law that townships are superior to state governments and states are
superior to the federal government."

He added: "People who talk to the militia members say Norman is their
test case. It's where they intend to show they can take over a township."

Ordiway, a mountain of a man at 6 feet 7 inches and 340 pounds, used
intimidation to disrupt a recent meeting here. He slammed his fists on a
table under the nose of the Norman supervisor, Sylvester Wood. He
threatened to have Wood "forcibly removed." At the same time, about 50
of his followers shouted demands to be given a vote on all township
business.

After the meeting, supporters of Ordiway gathered at the White Horn
Inn, a rural tavern with a flaming hearth, where they called a "meeting
of the electors," appointed a slate of officers and voted to establish a
commission to "investigate the legal status of the township" to determine
if it was "legitimate."

Much of the bitterness stems from a 1993 zoning law, which a majority
of the residents here had supported in an effort to help clear the
countryside of dilapidated trailers and rusted jalopies on cinder blocks.
But to some people, the zoning law is nothing short of immoral, telling a
man what he can or can not do with his property.

"They want to take away your God-given rights," Ordiway told the
crowd of about 150 people at a meeting on Wednesday. "They're saying
you have no say-so. Are you going to let somebody else run your life?"

Many of those in attendance were paramilitary group members who had
come from well beyond the township borders and who cheered lustily for
Ordiway.

But there were also dozens of opponents of the groups who turned out.
These were people who regard the groups' talk of an oppressive "New
World Order" as a lot of gibberish. And these townspeople jeered
Ordiway.

"Sir, what interest do you have in our township?" Homer Nuddleman,
38, a brawny trucker, called out from the back of the room. "You come
around here like some Great White Hope. You're just stirring up trouble.
Go home! Leave us alone! Who invited you?"

At that, some voices of townspeople rang out in support of Ordiway: "I
invited him." "Me too. "I want him here."

There was a smattering of boos for Nuddleman, who raised his palms
and pleaded with his neighbors.

"Don't you see -- they're making patsies of us," he said. "They're using
propaganda to scare the hell out of people."

Lee Redman, a 52-year-old highway worker in a fatigue jacket, shook
his head in disagreement. "The militia doesn't concern me at all," he
said.

Jim Myers, a 64-year-old retired welder in a flannel shirt, muttered his
support, too. "I want them here."

Almost everyone at the meeting knew one another. At times, the
formality of the meeting became a bit strained. Barb Webber, a supporter
of Ordiway, pressed the township supervisor again and again, until he
finally snapped: "Oh come on, Barb, what's going on here?"

Some people worried that the debate would have a corrosive effect on the
fabric of the town. There were old friends who were no longer speaking.
There were people at the meeting who changed seats if a certain person
sat beside them.

One man angrily shouted across the aisle, "Shut up, woman!" That
brought a threat. And then some curse words. "Watch it," somebody else
shouted, "there's ladies present."

Jaci Knowlton, who runs a coffee shop here, had seen enough. With a
scowl on her face she rose to speak, waving off the microphone because
"my voice carries a country mile."

This has all become ridiculous, said Mrs. Knowlton, 42, who complained
that loud bickering now filled her cafe every morning and that people
were getting personal in their attacks.

"I am not pro-this side or pro-that side," she said. "I am pro-Norman
Township. And look at us here. We are screaming and arguing. We are
calling each other names."

Then she drew a breath and turned up the volume: "I do not want --
and this is Jaci Knowlton talking -- any more bull!"

She added: "We have been airing our dirty laundry. I say it's time we
bring it in, clean it, mend it, and get on with Norman Township."

But her call for calm was ignored. Even after the meeting ended, people
carried their arguments out into a snow squall.



>    Republican Form of Government Guarantee Act (Introduced in the
>                                House)
> 
> HR 2580 IH
> 
>                            104th CONGRESS
> 
>                              1st Session
> 
>                              H. R. 2580
> 
> To guarantee a republican form of government to the States by
> preventing paramilitary violence.
> 
>                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
> 
>                           November 2, 1995
> 
> Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following
> bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                                A BILL
> 
> To guarantee a republican form of government to the States by
> preventing paramilitary violence.
> 
>      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
>      United States of America in Congress assembled,
> 
> SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
> 
>      This Act may be cited as the `Republican Form of Government
>      Guarantee Act'.
> 
> SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
> 
>      Congress finds that--
> 
>           (1) section 4 of article IV of the Constitution provides
>           that the United States shall guarantee a republican form
>           of government to the States;
> 
>           (2) organized criminal actions are an increasing threat to
>           the republican form of government in some States;
> 
>           (3) people who are responsible for upholding the laws of
>           the United States and the several States, or people who
>           assist them, have been threatened, harassed, and assaulted
>           because of these activities;
> 
>           (4) this violence is having a chilling effect on the
>           democratic process because Americans are afraid to
>           participate in town hall meetings, express their views
>           publicly, or take part in the political process;
> 
>           (5) most victims are targeted solely because of their
>           views or activism on controversial political issues such
>           as gun control, abortion, environmental matters, or the
>           role of government in society;
> 
>           (6) this violence is causing a breakdown of law and order
>           in many parts of the United States;
> 
>           (7) this violence has increased in part because of
>           unfounded exaggerations about the impact of recent
>           firearms laws such as the Brady Law and the ban on assault
>           weapons, as well as baseless conspiracy theories regarding
>           the government; and
> 
>           (8) the climate of violence created by these criminals
>           threatens to undermine republican government in some
>           States.
> 
> SEC. 3. PROTECTION AGAINST ASSAULT.
> 
>      Section 111(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
> 
>           (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting `who is an officer or
>           employee of any State or local government, is assisting
>           such an officer or employee in the performance of official
>           duty, or is' after `any person'; and
> 
>           (2) in paragraph (2), by striking `designated in section
>           1114' and inserting `described in paragraph (1)'.
> 
> SEC. 4. INCREASED PENALTIES.
> 
>      (a) ASSAULT- Section 111 of title 18, United States Code, is
>      amended
> 
>           (1) in subsection (a), by striking `shall, where' and all
>           that follows through the end of the subsection and
>           inserting `shall be punished as is provided in subsection
>           (b)'; and
> 
>           (2) so that subsection (b) reads as follows:
> 
>      `(b) PENALTIES- Whoever is convicted of an offense under this
>      section shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less
>      than 2 nor more than 3 years, except that--
> 
>           `(1) in the case of a second or subsequent offense the
>           maximum term or imprisonment shall be not more than 5
>           years; and
> 
>           `(2) in the case of an offense committed with a deadly
>           weapon, the offender shall be imprisoned not less than 8
>           nor more than 10 years.'.
> 
>      (b) EXTORTION AND THREATS-
> 
>           (1) INTERSTATE COMMUNICATIONS- Section 875 of title 18,
>           United States Code, is amended in subsection (c), by
>           striking `not more than five years, or both' and inserting
>           `not less than 2 nor more than 5 years'.
> 
>           (2) MAILING THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS- Section 876 of
>           title 18, United States Code, is amended in the third
>           undesignated paragraph, by striking `not more than five
>           years, or both' and inserting `not less than 2 nor more
>           than 5 years'.
> 
> SEC. 5. RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT;
> ENFORCEMENT.
> 
>      (a) REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHT- Each person not otherwise
>      disqualified, barred, or disabled by State or Federal law shall
>      have the right to participate in a republican form of State
>      government free from interference from unlawful violence and
>      the reasonably perceived threat of unlawful violence.
> 
>      (b) RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE DEFINED- As used in subsection (a),
>      the term `right to participate in a republican form of State
>      government' means the right to--
> 
>           (1) carry out the duties of a State, county, or local
>           office to which the person has been duly elected or
>           appointed;
> 
>           (2) lawfully assist any duly elected or appointed person
>           described in paragraph (1) in carrying out such duties;
> 
>           (3) run for elective office, campaign for such office on
>           one's own behalf, or campaign on behalf of another's
>           candidacy, in accordance with applicable State and local
>           laws;
> 
>           (4) initiate and campaign for any initiative, referendum,
>           petition, or similar political exercise, in accordance
>           with applicable State and local laws;
> 
>           (5) assemble peaceably to petition the Federal, State, or
>           local government, or to attend any public forum concerning
>           such Federal, State, or local government; and
> 
>           (6) exercise the rights guaranteed under article IV of the
>           Constitution of the United States, and the 1st and 14th
>           amendments thereto.
> 
>      (c) ENFORCEMENT-
> 
>           (1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a)
>           is violated by any person or organization may bring an
>           action in any United States district court against such
>           other person or organization for damages, injunctive
>           relief, and such other relief as the court deems
>           appropriate.
> 
>           (2) GOVERNMENT REMEDY- The chief executive officer of any
>           State may bring an action in any United States district
>           court located within that State for damages, injunctive
>           relief, and such other relief as the court deems
>           appropriate against any organization wherever located
>           which unlawfully violates or which conspires, attempts,
>           aids, or abets another person or organization to
>           unlawfully violate the right under subsection (a) of any
>           resident of that State.
> 
>           (3) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE- In an
>           action brought under paragraph (1) or (2), the court, in
>           its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a
>           reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.
> 
>           (4) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought
>           under paragraph (1) or (2) after the 5-year period that
>           begins with the date that the violation described in
>           paragraph (1) is discovered.
> 
> SEC. 6. LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING.
> 
>      The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretaries of
>      Treasury, Agriculture, and the Interior, shall develop and
>      implement a training program for Federal law enforcement
>      personnel to enable such personnel to deal more effectively
>      with politically motivated violence.
> 
> SEC. 7. FEDERAL PAYMENTS WITHHELD.
> 
>      (a) COMPLAINT- If an agency determines that in any county any
>      of that agency's employees or agents is being unlawfully
>      physically prevented or impeded, by employees or agents of a
>      State, county, or local government, from carrying out lawful
>      duties, the agency may file a complaint with the Attorney
>      General.
> 
>      (b) ESCROW- The Attorney General shall investigate the
>      complaint, and if the Attorney General finds the complaint is
>      meritorious, the Attorney General may place in escrow any
>      payments that otherwise would be made to that county under the
>      Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.),
>      until such time as the Attorney General is satisfied that such
>      interference has ceased.
> 
>      (c) RULES- The Attorney General shall make rules governing the
>      procedures used to carry out this section.


*************************************************************************

    
                          (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| Gak!  Who keeps re-electing this idiot? 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    
    	New Yak libs keep electing the gooba....
    
    

    
                          (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     ||  \
                 *  ||W---||  I fart in his general direction. [while
                    ~~    ~~  government-funded groups watch on, measuring
                              the intensity and volume, and computing the 
                              effect it has on the environment]   A cow has
                              no privacy...can't even pass gas in peace.

    

    you do anything you want to do, little cow.