MILITIA'S COMING OR GOING ???????
Thrasher
This is a question that no one can answer .
I have seen a very large growth in the Militia movement ever since I
joined and it has never declined but always grew . My belief is that
most of the smaller groups are now falling in-line with the larger one's
and becoming more powerful . But to say it is either growing or
shrinking is only one's opinion for no one could ever tell for sure with
out knowing the hearts and minds of all the People in this Great
Republic .
Thrasher ..................................................
www.shelby.net/thrasher
e-mail : thra...@shelby.net
Bill K.
After being replaced by an exact duplicate, Thrasher <thra...@shelby.net>
said:
|
|This is a question that no one can answer .
|I have seen a very large growth in the Militia movement ever since I
|joined and it has never declined but always grew . My belief is that
|most of the smaller groups are now falling in-line with the larger one's
|and becoming more powerful . But to say it is either growing or
|shrinking is only one's opinion for no one could ever tell for sure with
|out knowing the hearts and minds of all the People in this Great
|Republic .
My observation is essentially the same:
The unorganized militia (and I use that term specifically to piss off
Sheldon and Mark) is growing.
Its growth, however, is not marked by public displays of force, training,
or agitation. It is marked by the steady increase in 2, 3 and 4 man groups
forming annonymously (no insignias, no blustering to their friends) with
the defense of the Constitution and their local neighborhood has their
comman goal. Its not publicized, its not advertised. It's just happening.
The beginning of an extremely de-centralized underground is at hand. The
heavy-handed entrapement techniques used by the Feds have caused this, and
nothing in sight will slow it down.
God bless leaderless resistance...
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper, Purveyor of Fine Opinions on Various Topics.
Author, Consultant, Cowboy.
Of course I like the IRS, especially in a light mint sauce...
Due to the gosh-damned spammers, emailing me is intentionally difficult.
If you are really dedicated, decypher the following:
bill Dot kasper at U S A Dot Net
And behold, if thou dost email me stupid things, I shall make thy stupidity
known far and wide by posting thine own idiocies on yonder 'Net, so that
all thy kinsmen may scoff at thee and thy silly rantings and buffooneries.
I want to know about everything for sale via mailbots,
so email me at:
pres...@whitehouse.gov
FRED C. DOBBS
This is whats happening,for sure.The large groups will be
spokesmen and above ground.Leaderless resistance is where the movements
headed, for it's own protection.The movement is starting a new phase.And
like you stated Bill,there is nothing the Fed's can do about it.
GOD BLESS LEADERLESS RESISTANCE
FRED C.DOBBS
Gu...@aol.com
From: bi...@null.dev (Bill K.)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 21:35:11 GMT
Its growth, however, is not marked by public displays of force, training,
or agitation. It is marked by the steady increase in 2, 3 and 4 man groups
forming annonymously (no insignias, no blustering to their friends) with
the defense of the Constitution and their local neighborhood has their
comman goal. Its not publicized, its not advertised. It's just happening.
The beginning of an extremely de-centralized underground is at hand. The
heavy-handed entrapement techniques used by the Feds have caused this, and
nothing in sight will slow it down.
God bless leaderless resistance...
*******************************
RAR...@aol.com
<< From: bi...@null.dev (Bill K.)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 21:35:11 GMT
After being replaced by an exact duplicate, Thrasher <thra...@shelby.net>
said:
|
|This is a question that no one can answer .
|I have seen a very large growth in the Militia movement ever since I
|joined and it has never declined but always grew . My belief is that
|most of the smaller groups are now falling in-line with the larger one's
|and becoming more powerful . But to say it is either growing or
|shrinking is only one's opinion for no one could ever tell for sure with
|out knowing the hearts and minds of all the People in this Great
|Republic .
My observation is essentially the same:
The unorganized militia (and I use that term specifically to piss off
Sheldon and Mark) is growing.
Its growth, however, is not marked by public displays of force, training,
or agitation. It is marked by the steady increase in 2, 3 and 4 man groups
forming annonymously (no insignias, no blustering to their friends) with
the defense of the Constitution and their local neighborhood has their
comman goal. Its not publicized, its not advertised. It's just happening.
The beginning of an extremely de-centralized underground is at hand. The
heavy-handed entrapement techniques used by the Feds have caused this, and
nothing in sight will slow it down.
God bless leaderless resistance...
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper, Purveyor of Fine Opinions on Various Topics. >>
=============================================================
So, Bill, does this mean you are a supporter of Louis Beam and his fellow
Klanners?
You guys are simply hell bent to prove my points aren't you?
Pom-e-GrAnAte
Gu...@aol.com wrote in article
<874507832$94...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
>
> From: bi...@null.dev (Bill K.)
> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 21:35:11 GMT
> Its growth, however, is not marked by public displays of force, training,
> or agitation. It is marked by the steady increase in 2, 3 and 4 man
groups
> forming annonymously (no insignias, no blustering to their friends) with
> the defense of the Constitution and their local neighborhood has their
> comman goal. Its not publicized, its not advertised. It's just
happening.
In local beer pubs and other drinking establishments where one may see
these
bubbas in their natural enviornment, complete with CAT Diesel Power
ballcaps
on and a plate of greasy artery clogging frenchfries and half-cooked
hamburgers
in fromt, munching away while watching professional wrasslin on the teevee
in
the far corner of the bar.
> The beginning of an extremely de-centralized underground is at hand. The
> heavy-handed entrapement techniques used by the Feds have caused this,
and
> nothing in sight will slow it down.
Untill these bloated, beer-bellied, bozos drop over from cardiac failure
from
eating 2 quarter pounders with cheeze and smoking a pack an a half of
Camels on a daily basis...
> God bless leaderless resistance...
Same for brainless resistance also.... We of the "elite" enjoy watching
common garden variety white trailer trash spinning their wheels in the air
all the time not having a clue. Looking foward to the ongoing
militia-follies.
Bill K.
After being replaced by an exact duplicate, RAR...@aol.com said:
|<< From: bi...@null.dev (Bill K.)
<snip>|
|The beginning of an extremely de-centralized underground is at hand. The
|heavy-handed entrapement techniques used by the Feds have caused this, and
|nothing in sight will slow it down.
|
|God bless leaderless resistance...
(Randy sez:)
|So, Bill, does this mean you are a supporter of Louis Beam and his fellow
|Klanners?
Take a gigantic guess, goofball.
|You guys are simply hell bent to prove my points aren't you?
You don't need proof for your points. You continue to believe and spout
them long after they have been debunked. Case in point:
Patriots are going underground to avoid Fed entrapment
Klan is underground
Ergo, all patriots are Klansmen.
Sheesh. Go back to school and learn deductive reasoning.
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper, Purveyor of Fine Opinions on Various Topics.
RAR...@aol.com
<< From: bi...@null.dev (Bill K.)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 97 12:38:22 GMT
After being replaced by an exact duplicate, RAR...@aol.com said:
|<< From: bi...@null.dev (Bill K.)
<snip>|
|The beginning of an extremely de-centralized underground is at hand. The
|heavy-handed entrapement techniques used by the Feds have caused this, and
|nothing in sight will slow it down.
|
|God bless leaderless resistance...
(Randy sez:)
|So, Bill, does this mean you are a supporter of Louis Beam and his fellow
|Klanners?
Take a gigantic guess, goofball.
RARPOL SAYS: Do you even know anything about the doctrines of leaderless
resistence.
|You guys are simply hell bent to prove my points aren't you?
You don't need proof for your points. You continue to believe and spout
them long after they have been debunked. Case in point:
Patriots are going underground to avoid Fed entrapment
Klan is underground
Ergo, all patriots are Klansmen.
Sheesh. Go back to school and learn deductive reasoning.
>>
RARPOL SAYS:
Considering the facts about leaderless resistence, you are being somewhat
dishonest. Is it not essentially a program for armed resistence or not, and
formulated by a well known racist and klansmen Louis Beam? Is this not the
same as the situation Timothy Mcveigh worked in apparently? Has the Louis
Beam authorship of leaderless resistence been debunked?
Frankly my points have not been that miliita types are klanmen, but that they
are influenced by them. Your support for leaderless resistence seems to
prove this.
Kurt Lochner
FRED C. DOBBS wrote:
>
> bi...@null.dev (Bill K.) wrote:
> >
....
>
> This is whats happening,for sure.The large groups will be spokesmen
> and above ground.Leaderless resistance is where the movements
> headed, for it's own protection.The movement is starting a new
> phase.And like you stated Bill,there is nothing the Fed's can do about
> it.
You enjoy being clueless, don't you?
> GOD BLESS LEADERLESS RESISTANCE
> FRED C.DOBBS
Yes, God bless you for being leaderless, and resistant..
Bill K.
Attempting to compensate for his lack of a reproductive system,
"Pom-e-GrAnAte" <seno...@earthlink.net> said:
|> From: bi...@null.dev (Bill K.)
|> Its growth, however, is not marked by public displays of force,
training,
|> or agitation. It is marked by the steady increase in 2, 3 and 4 man
|groups
|> forming annonymously (no insignias, no blustering to their friends) with
|> the defense of the Constitution and their local neighborhood has their
|> comman goal. Its not publicized, its not advertised. It's just
|happening.
|
|In local beer pubs and other drinking establishments where one may see
|these
|bubbas in their natural enviornment, complete with CAT Diesel Power
|ballcaps
|on and a plate of greasy artery clogging frenchfries and half-cooked
|hamburgers
|in fromt, munching away while watching professional wrasslin on the teevee
|in
|the far corner of the bar.
How would you know? You aren't old enough to go to a bar.
Additionally, your smug bigotry betrays your urban, Northern (and
probably eastern) upbringing, and your lack of tolerance for those
different from yourself (especially if they are from the South).
You are basically a yuppie klansman with no culture, life
experience outside of your cozy city environs, or genuine
tolerance of others who attempts to make up for his own lack of
personal worth by degrading others about whom he has
learned nothing even from viewing numerous reruns of "Alice" and
"The Dukes of Hazzard".
|> The beginning of an extremely de-centralized underground is at hand.
The
|> heavy-handed entrapement techniques used by the Feds have caused this,
|and
|> nothing in sight will slow it down.
|
|Untill these bloated, beer-bellied, bozos drop over from cardiac failure
|from
|eating 2 quarter pounders with cheeze and smoking a pack an a half of
|Camels on a daily basis...
|
|> God bless leaderless resistance...
|
|Same for brainless resistance also.... We of the "elite" enjoy watching
You aren't "elite", goofy. You are faux intelligencia. You are
"he who belives himself to be wise". In this regard, you are a
minority of one.
|common garden variety white trailer trash spinning their wheels in the air
|all the time not having a clue. Looking foward to the ongoing
|militia-follies.
Who gave Pothier's nephew a net account?
I want *names*!
Bill K.
After being replaced by an exact duplicate, RAR...@aol.com said:
|<< From: bi...@null.dev (Bill K.)
<snip>
||God bless leaderless resistance...
|
|(Randy sez:)
|
||So, Bill, does this mean you are a supporter of Louis Beam and his fellow
||Klanners?
|
|Take a gigantic guess, goofball.
|
|RARPOL SAYS: Do you even know anything about the doctrines of leaderless
|resistence.
<sarcasm>
No Randy. Like you, I constantly post on topics of which I am completely
and grotesquely ignorant.
</sarcasm>
||You guys are simply hell bent to prove my points aren't you?
|
|You don't need proof for your points. You continue to believe and spout
|them long after they have been debunked. Case in point:
|Patriots are going underground to avoid Fed entrapment
|Klan is underground
|Ergo, all patriots are Klansmen.
|
|Sheesh. Go back to school and learn deductive reasoning.
| >>
|
|RARPOL SAYS:
|Considering the facts about leaderless resistence, you are being somewhat
|dishonest. Is it not essentially a program for armed resistence or not,
and
|formulated by a well known racist and klansmen Louis Beam? Is this not
the
|same as the situation Timothy Mcveigh worked in apparently? Has the Louis
|Beam authorship of leaderless resistence been debunked?
Leaderless resitance is a guerilla tactic which was not born with Beam,
Randy. If you want to get technical, it:
1) goes back at least to the time of pre-New Testament Israel
2) does not required armed conflict, and encompasses Gahndi-style passive
disobedience.
Feel more informed now?
|Frankly my points have not been that miliita types are klanmen, but that
they
|are influenced by them. Your support for leaderless resistence seems to
|prove this.
And the fact that both you and Joeseph Goebles wore white socks is proof
that you are a Nazi.
Please tell me you are attempting to use this faulty syllogism for fun, and
that you don't actually consider it a valid technique for debate...
Son of ATF
when they didn't move fast enough to grab the keyboard :
>After being replaced by an exact duplicate, RAR...@aol.com said:
>|<< From: bi...@null.dev (Bill K.)
>|Frankly my points have not been that miliita types are klanmen, but that
>they
>|are influenced by them. Your support for leaderless resistence seems to
>|prove this.
>And the fact that both you and Joeseph Goebles wore white socks is proof
>that you are a Nazi.
>Please tell me you are attempting to use this faulty syllogism for fun, and
>that you don't actually consider it a valid technique for debate...
It got a rise out of you didn't it? :)
--Son of ATF
(Who is now wondering what color Bill K.'s socks are?)
RAR...@aol.com
<< From: bi...@null.dev (Bill K.)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 97 3:20:34 GMT
After being replaced by an exact duplicate, RAR...@aol.com said:
|<< From: bi...@null.dev (Bill K.)
RR: Hey I thought Christians wer under the New Testament, not the Old, when
God told the Israelites to smite people all the time.
2) does not required armed conflict, and encompasses Gahndi-style passive
disobedience.
RR: Actually, Gandhi used passive resistence, not the terrorist cells
proposed by Beam.
Feel more informed now?
RR: Hardly. I can see how you would be mad to caught supporting leaderless
resistence, which is essentially terrorism. You can call what you will be,
but is still nothing more than a terrorist organization.
|Frankly my points have not been that miliita types are klanmen, but that
they
|are influenced by them. Your support for leaderless resistence seems to
|prove this.
And the fact that both you and Joeseph Goebles wore white socks is proof
that you are a Nazi.
RR: That would be true if I believed in their doctine or organzational
theories.
Please tell me you are attempting to use this faulty syllogism for fun, and
that you don't actually consider it a valid technique for debate...
>>
RR: You must understand my concerns for this leaderless resistence stuff,
since I knew people who victims of a such a group.
Joseph T. Adams
RAR...@aol.com wrote:
: RR: You must understand my concerns for this leaderless resistence stuff,
: since I knew people who victims of a such a group.
Who?
I hope you don't mean the OKC bombing victims, since nothing is known
about the bombers, other than McVeigh, a bit player; and there's no
evidence that he was part of any resistance group of any kind,
leaderless or otherwise.
I am sorry for your loss, Randy, and always have been; but it does not
justify this irrational hatred of Patriots on your part. Patriotism
is the OPPOSITE of what the OKC bombers did. Patriotism is the
resistance of tyranny through JUSTICE, not through the murder of
innocent children.
Furthermore, tragedies like OKC as well as much larger ones are likely
to continue until the criminals in government, media, and the white
supremacist movement, all of whom are partly responsible, are put down
decisively. They will be, and Patriots are helping in every way we
possibly can. The fact that we are doing so through lawful and
peaceful means doesn't make for the precise kinds of sensationalism
and headlines that the crackpots generate. But it is the correct
thing to do regardless. We have no choice if we are to save the
victims of the next would-be OKC bomber, as well as the rest of the
country. We're not doing it for ratings; we're doing it because it's
right.
I sure as hell wish you'd stop working against us. You of all people
ought to know better.
Joe
David Donnell
> RAR...@aol.com wrote:
> : RR: You must understand my concerns for this leaderless resistence
stuff,
> : since I knew people who victims of a such a group.
>
>
So RARPOL says that we MUST understand his concerns about leaderless
resistance BECAUSE he knew victims of such a group.
So as usual RARPOL cant use logic so he uses illogic.
Seems RARPOL considers himself one of the VICTIM class. Demanding special
treatment because of his "situation".
EXCUSE ME, RARPOL, but you might want to take a look at your web site
before you ask for that. Why dont you send your letter to the White House
where I am SURE Clinton will "feel your pain" (as soon as he is done
sodomizing some "trailer trash").
Whats the matter, didn't get any sympathy at some Liberal pro-abortion web
site? Imagine THAT! RARPOL goes to a MILITIA web site for sympathy,
understanding, and caring!!
Actually, RARPOL, I am more reminded of the manipulative motives of
Vice-President Gore when he used his sisters cancer death for his immediate
political advantage. Considering your attempts at inflammatory postings, I
couldn't help but envision you grinning as you "click" on the "post
button".
RAR...@aol.com
<< From: "David Donnell" <second...@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 97 1:50:04 GMT
> RAR...@aol.com wrote:
> : RR: You must understand my concerns for this leaderless resistence
stuff,
> : since I knew people who victims of a such a group.
So RARPOL says that we MUST understand his concerns about leaderless
resistance BECAUSE he knew victims of such a group.
So as usual RARPOL cant use logic so he uses illogic.
Seems RARPOL considers himself one of the VICTIM class. Demanding special
treatment because of his "situation".
RR: Everybody in Oklahoma was a victim. Almost everybody here knew somebody
killed or injured in the bombing.
EXCUSE ME, RARPOL, but you might want to take a look at your web site
before you ask for that. Why dont you send your letter to the White House
where I am SURE Clinton will "feel your pain" (as soon as he is done
sodomizing some "trailer trash").
RR: What web site are you referring to? The only web site I run is for a
local political club.
Whats the matter, didn't get any sympathy at some Liberal pro-abortion web
site? Imagine THAT! RARPOL goes to a MILITIA web site for sympathy,
understanding, and caring!!
RR: We in Oklahoma got plenty of sympathy because of the bombing.
Actually, RARPOL, I am more reminded of the manipulative motives of
Vice-President Gore when he used his sisters cancer death for his immediate
political advantage. Considering your attempts at inflammatory postings, I
couldn't help but envision you grinning as you "click" on the "post
button".
RR: Okay, I guess it is clear you don't like Democrats. Gee, color me
shocked.
>>
Son of ATF
when they didn't move fast enough to grab the keyboard :
><< From: j...@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams)
>Date: Fri, 19 Sep 97 21:20:00 GMT
>I am sorry for your loss, Randy, and always have been; but it does not
>justify this irrational hatred of Patriots on your part. Patriotism
>is the OPPOSITE of what the OKC bombers did. Patriotism is the
>resistance of tyranny through JUSTICE, not through the murder of
>innocent children.
So you say, Joe, and I believe that you mean it. You have seen out her, though
those who support. either directly or indirectly, the bombing as Patriotic. I
think those are the people that Randy was specifically addressing and as such I
join him in his opinion. Though I would be inclined to use words like, may,
might and alleged.
>RR: I don't hate the Patriot movement. I think the sizeable portion of the
>Patriot/Militia movement is full of well intentioned people who have to have
>devils to blame for their troubles. Many call it scapegoatism. But there
>are "patriots' out there who really aren't patriots.
>Furthermore, tragedies like OKC as well as much larger ones are likely
>to continue until the criminals in government, media, and the white
>supremacist movement, all of whom are partly responsible, are put down
>decisively.
>RR: Hmmm. Are saying there was a governmental, media, and white supremacist
>plot to bomb the APM? I can believe that the white supremacists may have had
>a role in the plot, since McVeigh's little clique is an example of the
>leaderless resistence proposed by Louis Beam. Even the former KFOR reporter
>Jayna Davis, hailed by many in the militia movement as a heroine, says that
>there is no evidence of government prior knowledge or involvment in the
>bombing. Even her reports about John Doe 2 were pummelled by other media
>outlets in Oklahoma, including the Clinton and liberal hating Daily
>Oklahoman.
> They will be, and Patriots are helping in every way we
>possibly can. The fact that we are doing so through lawful and
>peaceful means doesn't make for the precise kinds of sensationalism
>and headlines that the crackpots generate. But it is the correct
>thing to do regardless. We have no choice if we are to save the
>victims of the next would-be OKC bomber, as well as the rest of the
>country. We're not doing it for ratings; we're doing it because it's
>right.
>RR: Perhaps the best way to avoid another OKC is to tone down the rhetoric
>from the militia movement, a rhetoric that without a doubt influenced McVeigh
>and gave him the impression that such an action against the Federal
>government would have massive support. Don't you get it yet? Calling those
>who whom you disagree with evil or even just enemies validate the wacko views
>of people like McVeigh. There is far more constructive means to the ends you
>desire. But playing on fear and paranoia can only lead to more McVeighs.
>I sure as hell wish you'd stop working against us. You of all people
>ought to know better.
>joe >>
>RR: Until I see a change in the militia movement that clearly shows it seeks
>to rid itself of all National Alliance type influence, and put away the
>uniforms, I can't. Have you noticed that I never oppose the John Birch
>Society, even though I think their views and paranoias are a crock as well?
> Well its because they still are in the system, using the means provided for
>in the Constitution we all claim to love. There are many issues you might be
>surprised to know I share with you guys. In fact, one candidate I am working
>for could fit nicely in a "Sein Fein" wing of the militia movement. And he
>is a Democrat no less! The difference is he believes in the political means
>to achieve those ends.
So I guess, Joe, what we anti's need to know is how to tell a real patriot from
someone who only claims to be one. How to tell a good militia from a bad one.
Sticky wicket.
--Son of ATF
Son of ATF Creed: (2 of 19)
2. When given a choice--Take both!
RAR...@aol.com
<< From: j...@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 97 21:20:00 GMT
RAR...@aol.com wrote:
: RR: You must understand my concerns for this leaderless resistence stuff,
: since I knew people who victims of a such a group.
Who?
I hope you don't mean the OKC bombing victims, since nothing is known
about the bombers, other than McVeigh, a bit player; and there's no
evidence that he was part of any resistance group of any kind,
leaderless or otherwise.
RR: It fits a classic terrorist cell.
I am sorry for your loss, Randy, and always have been; but it does not
justify this irrational hatred of Patriots on your part. Patriotism
is the OPPOSITE of what the OKC bombers did. Patriotism is the
resistance of tyranny through JUSTICE, not through the murder of
innocent children.
RR: I don't hate the Patriot movement. I think the sizeable portion of the
David Donnell
RAR...@aol.com wrote in article
<874780501$50...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
>
> << From: "David Donnell" <second...@earthlink.net>
> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 97 1:50:04 GMT
>
> > RAR...@aol.com wrote:
> > : RR: You must understand my concerns for this leaderless resistence
> stuff,
> > : since I knew people who victims of a such a group.
>
>
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I dont like LIBERALS.
Joseph T. Adams
Son of ATF (l...@US66.net) wrote:
:
: So you say, Joe, and I believe that you mean it. You have seen out her, though
: those who support. either directly or indirectly, the bombing as Patriotic. I
: think those are the people that Randy was specifically addressing and as such I
: join him in his opinion. Though I would be inclined to use words like, may,
: might and alleged.
I have no less of a problem with preemptive violence than do most of
the anti's. I think it's absolutely and unquestionably wrong, not to
mention counterproductive. And I am quite critical of those who
support it - EVEN in cases where I can understand some of the
frustration and righteous indignation that might lead to it.
A big difference between you and Randy is that you seem willing to at
least try to draw a distinction between those who want to preserve
justice and the rule of law, and those (whether they call themselves
"patriots" or anything else) who want to destroy it. Randy often
insists on lumping the two together, even to the point of inferring
connections that don't exist, although there are times that he tries
to be fair and I appreciate it when he does.
I fully understand that at the fringes of the movement, the lines can
become blurred. Mostly because there are a lot of folks willing to do
wrong things because they think it will accomplish a greater good.
The "end justifies the means" thing and all that. One need look no
further than Timothy McVeigh to see what can happen as a result.
Can I say that the Patriot movement is free of this attitude? No. Is
it dangerous? Absolutely. Is it common? No, it isn't, but just a
few loose cannons can cause a great deal of damage. But I can say
that it is definitely frowned on and discouraged by the great majority
within it. I also can say that Militia organizations in general try
very hard to weed folks like this out. They are as dangerous to us,
if not more so, as they are dangerous to the public whom we are there
to protect.
: So I guess, Joe, what we anti's need to know is how to tell a real patriot from
: someone who only claims to be one. How to tell a good militia from a bad one.
Look at their words, and look at their actions. If they are working
to protect people, and educate them, and give them the tools to keep
themselves safe and to effect needed changes peacefully and lawfully,
then they are a good organization. If on the other hand they advocate
or practice things like racism, preemptive violence, fraud, blowing up
federal buildings, etc., then you have every right to question their
patriotism, and frankly so would I.
It's not the labels that matter; it's the words and especially the
actions.
: Sticky wicket.
Not really . . . I think you'll find that most of those in the Militia
movement are at least as decent and honorable as I am, and probably
more so. Many of them have served this country in various other
ways, often as law enforcement officers and/or members of the armed
services, since long before the advent of the modern Militia movement.
Joe
matthew
In article <874780501$50...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
RAR...@aol.com writes
>
><< From: "David Donnell" <second...@earthlink.net>
>Date: Sat, 20 Sep 97 1:50:04 GMT
>
>So as usual RARPOL cant use logic so he uses illogic.
David, I can't hold her much longer Captain.
--
matthew
matthew
In article <874819206$23...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, David
Donnell <second...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>
>
>RAR...@aol.com wrote in article
><874780501$50...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
>>
>> << From: "David Donnell" <second...@earthlink.net>
>> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 97 1:50:04 GMT
>Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I dont like LIBERALS.
>
>
please write a list of political philosophy that you reject.
--
matthew
David Donnell
matthew <mat...@rivilis.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<874866036$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
>
> In article <874780501$50...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> RAR...@aol.com writes
> >
> ><< From: "David Donnell" <second...@earthlink.net>
> >Date: Sat, 20 Sep 97 1:50:04 GMT
> >
> >So as usual RARPOL cant use logic so he uses illogic.
> David, I can't hold her much longer Captain.
> --
> matthew
>
Scottie, is that you?
PGISS...@aol.com
bi...@on.the.road.again (Bill K.) cited:
| --Son of ATF
|(Who is now wondering what color Bill K.'s socks are?)
who said Bill's socks even match? Yeesh. Haven't you heard
about ???graph consultants and independent application
developers? :-)
and Bill then said:
>I swear he does this on purpose.
Most likely. I would.
>No one could use this fallacious and ameteurish attack after
>having it repititively and completely destroyed in public (as I
>have done for Randy), unless they enjoy the "I know you are,
>but what am I?" style of debating...
or if they have retained the level of dry humor that's sometimes
hard, Bill. SOATF and Randy both work pretty hard at being
only modestly annoying, unlike me where I try to take it to new
levels thus antagonizing folks on both sides. :-)
Mr. Wizard
Bill K.
Instead of getting me another beer, PGISS...@aol.com said:
|
|bi...@on.the.road.again (Bill K.) cited:
|
|| --Son of ATF
||(Who is now wondering what color Bill K.'s socks are?)
|
|who said Bill's socks even match? Yeesh. Haven't you heard
|about ???graph consultants and independent application
|developers? :-)
I don't wear socks. Only certified Berkley computer science sandals...
|and Bill then said:
|
|>I swear he does this on purpose.
|
|Most likely. I would.
Not over and over and over, you wouldn't. That's why, though not favorable
to the militia stance, you are at least pleasant to converse with. You
learn, remember, and converse.
Randy seems like an Alzheimer's patient, where at every post, he has
totally forgotten all previous ones.
|>No one could use this fallacious and ameteurish attack after
|>having it repititively and completely destroyed in public (as I
|>have done for Randy), unless they enjoy the "I know you are,
|>but what am I?" style of debating...
|
|or if they have retained the level of dry humor that's sometimes
|hard, Bill. SOATF and Randy both work pretty hard at being
|only modestly annoying, unlike me where I try to take it to new
|levels thus antagonizing folks on both sides. :-)
Yeah, you do tend to piss off everyone. Nothing like a guy in a tuxedo
trying to break up a bar fight....
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper, Purveyor of Fine Opinions on Various Topics.
Author, Consultant, Cowboy.
"Stupid people always comprise the 'simnple majority'"
Due to the gosh-damned spammers,
emailing me is intentionally difficult. Try:
bill dot kasper at U S A dot N E T
Send threats and spam to:
pres...@whitehouse.gov
RAR...@aol.com
<< From: bi...@on.the.road.again (Bill K.)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 97 1:05:00 GMT
Instead of getting me another beer, l...@US66.net (Son of ATF) said:
<snip the "nazis wear wihite socks, so all white-sock-wearers are nazis>
|It got a rise out of you didn't it? :)
| --Son of ATF
|(Who is now wondering what color Bill K.'s socks are?)
I swear he does this on purpose. No one could use this fallacious
and ameteurish attack after having it repititively and completely
destroyed in public (as I have done for Randy), unless they enjoy
the "I know you are, but what am I?" style of debating... >>
RARPOL SAYS: Claiming great victories are we Bill? I guess I must have
missed this complete destruction somehow. Hell I am still working on the
tome you sent the other day. Sheesh.
Bill K.
Instead of getting me another beer, l...@US66.net (Son of ATF) said:
<snip the "nazis wear wihite socks, so all white-sock-wearers are nazis>
|It got a rise out of you didn't it? :)
| --Son of ATF
|(Who is now wondering what color Bill K.'s socks are?)
I swear he does this on purpose. No one could use this fallacious
and ameteurish attack after having it repititively and completely
destroyed in public (as I have done for Randy), unless they enjoy
the "I know you are, but what am I?" style of debating...
matthew
In article <874888500$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, David
Donnell <second...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>
>
This is life David but not as we know it.
--
matthew
David Donnell
matthew <mat...@rivilis.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<874980301$31...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
I hate to admit it, but that sounds strangely profound.
Meplat
RAR...@aol.com wrote:
>
> RR: Perhaps the best way to avoid another OKC is to tone down the rhetoric
The best way to avoid another OKC is for the BATF to stop useing day
care kids and other civilians as human shields.
> from the militia movement, a rhetoric that without a doubt influenced > McVeigh
I don't think anything anyone in the militia movement had to say
effected McVeigh nearly as much as watching the government burn women
and children to death, he was there.
> and gave him the impression that such an action against the Federal
> government would have massive support.
An action against the federal government ALONE would have had massive
support.
> Don't you get it yet? Calling those
> who whom you disagree with evil
I think burning inocent children alive is grounds for more than just
"disagreement". And those people *are* evil, as well as being the
enemies of freedom.
or even just enemies validate the wacko views
> of people like McVeigh.
McVeigh's views are less "wacko" than the BATF's or FBI's, but like
them, he crossed the line (if indeed he is guilty as charged). So, why
is it promotions and medals all around for the government bullet heads
and a death sentience for McVeigh?
> There is far more constructive means to the ends you
> desire.
You may have a point there.
> But playing on fear and paranoia can only lead to more McVeighs.
>
It's only paranoia if they ain't after ya.
--
Regards
Meplat
**********************************
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it
**********************************
Sheldon Sheps
j...@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) wrote:
>
>RAR...@aol.com wrote:
>: RR: You must understand my concerns for this leaderless resistence stuff,
>: since I knew people who victims of a such a group.
>
>
>Who?
>
>I hope you don't mean the OKC bombing victims, since nothing is known
>about the bombers, other than McVeigh, a bit player; and there's no
>evidence that he was part of any resistance group of any kind,
>leaderless or otherwise.
Tsk, Tsk, tsk don't you know your own literature? Tim McVeigh fits
perfectly into Louis Beam's concept of leaderless resistance.
McVeigh, an individual, looks objectively at the world around him and
decides to act. Fits in perfectly.
That's the beauty of Leaderless resistance. No Milisha Central, no
leadership for the feds to decapitate. Any every time something 'bad'
happens, just deny that they were part of the militia.
McVeigh decided that bombing the Murrah building was an appropriate
thing to do. Presumably this was done as a response to Waco and as a
message to the federal government to change what it was doing.
Lobbying by terrorism: It works.
A cell of two or three who act in accordance with their beliefs cannot
be infiltrated and betrayed from within. That's what happened with
McVeigh. He wasn't betrayed from within his group.
If he hadn't been so stupid to rent a truck, instead of stealing one,
he never would have been caught.
>
[snip]
>Furthermore, tragedies like OKC as well as much larger ones are likely
>to continue until the criminals in government, media, and the white
>supremacist movement, all of whom are partly responsible, are put down
>decisively.
I guess we need a more pro-active governments at the state and federal
level to stop wackos like McVeigh from killing people.
I guess we need more government control over the mass media to ensure
that David Koresh, Mike Koerneke, Louis Beam and Ernest Mullins get
proper and respectful coverage.
But you're missing the group that has the most moral responsibility
for the OKC bombing. Those who spout off militia nonsense and spoke
of patriot revenge for Waco. If enough people keep up this trash,
eventually someone will carry it through. As a start, you might
consider your rhetoric where you discuss the nicety of trying versus
assassinating politicians who support gun control laws.
> They will be, and Patriots are helping in every way we
>possibly can. The fact that we are doing so through lawful and
>peaceful means doesn't make for the precise kinds of sensationalism
>and headlines that the crackpots generate. But it is the correct
>thing to do regardless. We have no choice if we are to save the
>victims of the next would-be OKC bomber, as well as the rest of the
>country. We're not doing it for ratings; we're doing it because it's
>right.
You've got a point. Wackos are attracted to extremists. Some
extremists will turn in the wackos. Some extremists won't turn in the
wackos.
>
>I sure as hell wish you'd stop working against us. You of all people
>ought to know better.
That's one view. The other view is that irresponsible rhetoric rachets
up the problem.
>
>
>Joe
Sheldon
--
Sheldon Sheps
Militia - History and Law FAQ
http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq1.htm
You don't have to agree with what's in it.
But it sure explains a lot of the issues.
Secret Agent Man
Meplat wrote:
>
> RAR...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > RR: Perhaps the best way to avoid another OKC is to tone down the rhetoric
>
> The best way to avoid another OKC is for the BATF to stop useing day
> care kids and other civilians as human shields.
>
> > from the militia movement, a rhetoric that without a doubt influenced > McVeigh
>
> I don't think anything anyone in the militia movement had to say
> effected McVeigh nearly as much as watching the government burn women
> and children to death, he was there.
Yes I agree, that is what made the movment and McVey for better or
worse. I really believe if they ever try another Waco all hell is gonna
break loose in this country, and I think the Feds know it too. They have
been very careful the past couple of years, think about it. By the way
for those who ask I dont excuse McVey for his killinf of women and
children either, he should fry as should the sponsers of Waco, Ruby
Ridge and all the other illegal acts of agression against innocent
citizens of this country. **********************************
Joseph T. Adams
Sheldon Sheps (jug...@interlog.com) wrote:
: As a start, you might
: consider your rhetoric where you discuss the nicety of trying versus
: assassinating politicians who support gun control laws.
Not rhetoric, sir, but a very calm and rational discussion of an issue
upon which the future of this country (and probably yours as well)
most assuredly depends.
The traitors are going to be held accountable for the crimes they have
openly, publicly, and undeniably committed (and even bragged about.)
The only question in the minds of any informed person is whether it
will be done by means of justice under the law - which I support - or
through assassination, which I do NOT support unless justice under the
law becomes permanently unavaiable.
Attitudes like yours make it less likely that there will be justice,
and more likely that there will be war.
Your country will not be unaffected by any domestic unrest in the
U.S.; we are your largest trading partner, and thus your economy is
likely to be devastated to at least the same extent that ours will be,
and your cities will be overrun with armed refugees as well as
criminals should things deteriorate here.
Frankly, I have not seen you write a single positive word since the
Nazional Alliance invasion. Your help in dealing with those assholes
was very useful, and I appreciate it. But since then, you have not
contributed anything at all - not even thoughtful dissent. You've
done nothing but manipulate and harass others, and confuse yourself as
well as others who might be influenced by you. This is sad, because
you were capable of much, much better.
Joe
Meplat
Sheldon Sheps wrote:
Tim McVeigh fits
> perfectly into Louis Beam's concept of leaderless resistance.
>
> McVeigh, an individual, looks objectively at the world around him and
> decides to act. Fits in perfectly.
>
> That's the beauty of Leaderless resistance. No Milisha Central, no
> leadership for the feds to decapitate. Any every time something 'bad'
> happens, just deny that they were part of the militia.
Well, Well, Sheldon is correct fore a change. Sleep tight.
> Lobbying by terrorism: It works.
Right again!
>
> A cell of two or three who act in accordance with their beliefs cannot
> be infiltrated and betrayed from within. That's what happened with
> McVeigh. He wasn't betrayed from within his group.
OOPS! Wrong this time.
Son of ATF
was burbbled by Gu...@aol.com when they didn't move fast enough to grab the
keyboard :
>>> Lobbying by terrorism: It works.
>>Right again!
>>>Hmmmm. Sitting here trying to think of times the US has given in to
>terrorists.
>>>Several examples where terrorism made them react the other way, come to
>mind.
>>>Examples of sitting around waiting for something.
>>>
>>> --Son of ATF
> The Clinton Administration's substantial softening position toward the PLO
>is
>an example that comes to mind.
Is that a result of the terrorist tactics, or the softening of the PLO? I
certanly don't agree with it. Arafat and his org should still be considered
criminals in a just world. Still, I do believe that the latter and not the
former is the reason for the effect you brought up.
> For another, I've seen enough from various sources to convince me that
>the
>Iranian government was involved in the downing of TWA 800. Didn't I notice
>in
>the news recently that the U.S. was taking steps to unfreeze money held in
>U.S. banks since the fall of the Shah?
Ehh.... (Here come the flames)...Lets stick to confirmed acts of terrorism,
where it is generally known and acknowledged who did what and why. As for the
news report, it must be mistaken. I just got notification from the White House
of the continuation of the national emergency in Iran. That keeps the assets
frozen. Only ending that emergency will unfreeze it. (Or Ollie Northesque
shenanigans.)
> For another, North Korean terrorism is legend, and the Clinton
>Administration
>has stepped up already substantial efforts to "assist" that sorry outfit.
> Incidentally,
>Iran is receiving latest generation Rodong missiles from North Korea.
Rodong? How about No-Dong? Still, it is in our interests to feed North Korea.
A starving North will invade the South. Seeing as that's where I'll get
deployed, I'd just as soon feed them. What examples of legendary North Korean
terrorism are you aware of? And how, in your opinion, have those acts
influenced US policy.
> And then, concider the cooperation between the Clinton Administration and
>Castro returning escapees to Cuba with U.S. Coast Guard vessels.
Hmmmm. I don't even know about that. Mind pointing me somewhere for details?
> And then, of course, the IRA matter.
And again, like the PLO, there has been some softening of the IRA.
Not that I thnk its right, but the message is better than dealing with them out
of their (supposed) strength. It says, IMHO, that if you want to deal you have
to first turn the level way down. Off would indeed, however, be better.
>Pragmatism, not principle, guides the Federal Government in foreign affairs
>and domestic affairs. At the present time the only thing standing in the way
>of the Federal Government imposing a complete police state is the vestiges of
>a legitimate judiciary and the barely veiled threat of a revolution.
I'll certainly agree with the first sentence anyway.
--Son of ATF
Son of ATF Creed: (6 of19)
6. When forced to compromise, ask for more.
Sheldon Sheps
Meplat <wl...@lennon.csufresno.edu> wrote:
>
>Sheldon Sheps wrote:
> Tim McVeigh fits
>> perfectly into Louis Beam's concept of leaderless resistance.
>>
>> McVeigh, an individual, looks objectively at the world around him and
>> decides to act. Fits in perfectly.
>>
>> That's the beauty of Leaderless resistance. No Milisha Central, no
>> leadership for the feds to decapitate. Any every time something 'bad'
>> happens, just deny that they were part of the militia.
>
>
>Well, Well, Sheldon is correct fore a change. Sleep tight.
>
>
>> Lobbying by terrorism: It works.
>
>Right again!
>
>>
>> A cell of two or three who act in accordance with their beliefs cannot
>> be infiltrated and betrayed from within. That's what happened with
>> McVeigh. He wasn't betrayed from within his group.
>
>OOPS! Wrong this time.
Small possibility of correction.
I don't think so. BTW, I think you're one of those doing research to
prove the FAQ is all wrong. How's it coming along? When's your
magnum opus going to be presented?
McVeigh wasn't stopped by an internal betrayal within his small circle
before the bombing.
McVeigh wasn't caught by an internal betrayal within his small circle
after the bombing.
OTOH, the Fortiers did help convict McVeigh.
Son of ATF
was burbbled by Meplat <wl...@lennon.csufresno.edu> when they didn't move fast
enough to grab the keyboard :
>Sheldon Sheps wrote:
>
>> Lobbying by terrorism: It works.
>Right again!
Hmmmm. Sitting here trying to think of times the US has given in to terrorists.
Several examples where terrorism made them react the other way, come to mind.
Examples of sitting around waiting for something.
--Son of ATF
Son of ATF Creed: (5 of 19)
5. Do it by the book...but be the author!
Gu...@aol.com
>> Lobbying by terrorism: It works.
>Right again!
>>Hmmmm. Sitting here trying to think of times the US has given in to
terrorists.
>>Several examples where terrorism made them react the other way, come to
mind.
>>Examples of sitting around waiting for something.
>>
>> --Son of ATF
The Clinton Administration's substantial softening position toward the PLO
is
an example that comes to mind.
For another, I've seen enough from various sources to convince me that
the
Iranian government was involved in the downing of TWA 800. Didn't I notice
in
the news recently that the U.S. was taking steps to unfreeze money held in
U.S. banks since the fall of the Shah?
For another, North Korean terrorism is legend, and the Clinton
Administration
has stepped up already substantial efforts to "assist" that sorry outfit.
Incidentally,
Iran is receiving latest generation Rodong missiles from North Korea.
And then, concider the cooperation between the Clinton Administration and
Castro returning escapees to Cuba with U.S. Coast Guard vessels.
And then, of course, the IRA matter.
Pragmatism, not principle, guides the Federal Government in foreign affairs
and domestic affairs. At the present time the only thing standing in the way
of the Federal Government imposing a complete police state is the vestiges of
a legitimate judiciary and the barely veiled threat of a revolution.
GUNE7
David Donnell
Secret Agent Man <b1...@cyberhighway.net> wrote in article
<875065806$63...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
>
> Yes I agree, that is what made the movment and McVey for better or
> worse. I really believe if they ever try another Waco all hell is gonna
> break loose in this country, and I think the Feds know it too. They have
> been very careful the past couple of years, think about it. By the way
> for those who ask I dont excuse McVey for his killinf of women and
> children either, he should fry as should the sponsers of Waco, Ruby
> Ridge and all the other illegal acts of agression against innocent
> citizens of this country. **********************************
>
Only difference is that McVeigh WILL die and THEY will live to kill again
(from behind women and children).
McVeigh killed TO AVENGE the killing of women and children. While they JUST
KILL women and children.
Big difference when you look at WHY they killed, right or wrong as it may
be.
The Feds are the REAL COWARDS.
Meplat
Son of ATF wrote:
>
> Hmmmm. Sitting here trying to think of times the US has given in to terrorists.
Try the double jeopardy trial (they should have been convicted the first
time) of the Rodney King four, for openers. Then go to the Iranian
hostage affair. Then consider how a new social program springs forth
every time some self appointed "Black Leader" voices a credible warning
of riots in the streets.
And, even if the government reacts "the other way" as you put it, the
government has been induced to take an action, which COULD have been
just what the perps wanted. The Reichstag fire was no accident.
Come to think of it, if we blow up one of our own buildings and kill a
bunch of innocent people, we can ask for more power and authority and
probably get it.
matthew
>> And then, of course, the IRA matter.
Yes.
But you must be talking about the "Provisional Irish Republican Army"
RATHER THAN THE IRA. Or is that now the Workers Party.
No?
And that does not include the "Irish Republican Continuity Council"?
Changing times, same bigots.
--
matthew
Sheldon Sheps
j...@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) wrote:
>
>Sheldon Sheps (jug...@interlog.com) wrote:
>: As a start, you might
>: consider your rhetoric where you discuss the nicety of trying versus
>: assassinating politicians who support gun control laws.
>
>
>Not rhetoric, sir, but a very calm and rational discussion of an issue
>upon which the future of this country (and probably yours as well)
>most assuredly depends.
A calm and collected and rational discussion of the merits of
assassination as a method of bringing about change WITHIN the bounds
of the constitution of the United States.
I don't think that even David WORLD GOVERNMENT Grossack agrees that
you can try in an American court a politician for their words spoken
in Congress.
>
>The traitors are going to be held accountable for the crimes they have
>openly, publicly, and undeniably committed (and even bragged about.)
>The only question in the minds of any informed person is whether it
>will be done by means of justice under the law - which I support - or
>through assassination, which I do NOT support unless justice under the
>law becomes permanently unavaiable.
You say:
1. we've got to hold these people accountable.
2. we'd like to do so under the law, but if the law is not available
3. then I'd support assassination.
Since its impossible to hold these people accountable under the 'law'
you're supporting violence/assassination.
You're dangerous. You're that peculiarly American brand of wacko. You
think that not only are you morally correct and politically correct
but also legally correct. Of course, your ideas of law requires the
dictatorship of the 'politically correct' -- but no matter.
And you wonder why I think the militia movement is dangerous. You may
not take a potshot at a politician, but what about McVeigh wannabe's
who really, really believe in this crap.
Let's look at your ideas of law:
1. If you mean the "people's" justice, that makes sense. That type
of justice can ignore the law of the day and take whatever action
seems appropriate. Some will even add in the trappings of a normal
court --- perhaps a flag with your image silkscreened on it with a
gold fringe.
2. But you can't try politicians as 'traitors' for actions they take
as legislators under current laws and the current judicial system.
3.And come the revolution, you can go back and apply whatever
standards of justice you choose. You don't need laws... in times of
revolution, revolutionary justice is usually carried out. If El
Capitane decides to shoot everyone with one blue eye and one brown eye
then that's fine.
>
>Attitudes like yours make it less likely that there will be justice,
>and more likely that there will be war.
Idiocy.
You say 'justice' or assassination or 'war'. I merely point out the
obvious: you won't get the 'justice' you demand under the current
systems of laws, the constitution and judges. I guess that means war.
>
>Your country will not be unaffected by any domestic unrest in the
>U.S.; we are your largest trading partner, and thus your economy is
>likely to be devastated to at least the same extent that ours will be,
>and your cities will be overrun with armed refugees as well as
>criminals should things deteriorate here.
Good reason for me to oppose those who think assassination is a
possible tactic.
>
>Frankly, I have not seen you write a single positive word since the
>Nazional Alliance invasion. Your help in dealing with those assholes
>was very useful, and I appreciate it. But since then, you have not
>contributed anything at all - not even thoughtful dissent. You've
>done nothing but manipulate and harass others, and confuse yourself as
>well as others who might be influenced by you. This is sad, because
>you were capable of much, much better.
We've gone over this before. You keep imagining that I've had a much
nicer opinion of the militia/patriot movement in the past. That's not
true.
As for harassment: If you're going to publish moral sounding garbage,
then you've got to expect someone to call you on it. If its legal
sounding garbage, then its more likely I'll take an interest.
As for being sad: I used to think better of your ideas. They were
ridiculous, of course, but not ominous. I find it sad that your
recent posts have focussed more and more on violence against
politicians who disagree with you.
While you haven't before, you now properly deserve the term of
'dangerous extremist wacko'.
Congratulations.
Sheldon
>
>
>Joe
GunE7
>You
>think that not only are you morally correct and politically correct
>but also legally correct. Of course, your ideas of law requires the
>dictatorship of the 'politically correct' -- but no matter.
>
>And you wonder why I think the militia movement is dangerous.
I know you think it's dangerous. You should. Every supporter
of the growing police state should.
Question is: Are you fearful ENOUGH?
GUNE7
RAR...@aol.com
<< From: "FRED C. DOBBS" <tom-...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 97 6:50:03 GMT
GUNE7;you are 100% right.They should fear,they must fear,its
only then that you get a response.If they don't fear, things will keep
heading in the direction of the total police state.They must fear what
will happen if they try to disarm us.They must fear what will happen if
they destroy the constitution.They must fear millions of armed patriots
determined to save our country from the forces that would destroy it.No
more Wacos--no more Ruby Ridge--or there will be a reason to fear.
FRED C.DOBBS
THERE WILL BE MORE TO FEAR THAN FEAR ITSELF IF THERES NO JUSTICE
>>
RARPOL SAYS: All Americans should be afraid if the patriot movement is
seeking assistance from such "freedom loving" nations like Libya, Iraq, and
Iran as Gune7 has suggested.
Jerry
>
As we are contemplating the state of the world The U'S. Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) it's Multi Facility Intrigation (MFI) is
sending file grams containing sensitive information on U.S Citizens. MFI
Shares information between computers of the Federal, State and local
agencies.
Do you have child in school? Have they seen the school nurse? Who knows of
this visit ? This school nurse log puts the information in to the computer.
and this information can be retrieved by any Federal, State or local
agency.
Starting this year ever new employee in the U.S. will have their pay
information entered in to a government computer. I wonder why a state
agency in New Jersey need to know that work part time at a 7-11 in Idaho?
FRED C. DOBBS
Patrick Cheatham
Leaderless Resistance: The great communist revolutionary Mao Tsetung
promoted this idea in his "Red Book". Also "The Popular Democratic Front
for the Liberation of Palistine" wrote an virtually poetic pamplet/
booklet outlining this theory as its path to victory. This is a group
that is extremely hated by Zionist Israel.
The leaderless resistance , I think, is a rather common tactic used by
dissident groups around the world.
The anti Czar Russian rebels used the isolated cell tactic, necessary
because so many were arrested . These were both moderate socialists and
dedicated Marxists (communists) groups.
This goes back to about the 1890-1918 era.
----------------------------------------
Here in the United States, children,..... it's now 1984, forever.
Patrick Cheatham
Rarpol condemns Libya, Iran, Iraq. Only in time of declared war can the
USA gov't even pretend that it can choose we, the people's enemies for
us, and dictate to us.
In time of no declared war, we the people are free to decide for our
individual selves who the bad guys are and who the good guys are.
We have a right and a DUTY to educate ourselves and to evaulate and
make reasonable judgements as free citizens of a government that is OUR
SERVANT.
The US Government is the servant of the people!!!! The people are NOT
the servants if the Government!!!!
Joseph T. Adams
Sheldon Sheps (jug...@interlog.com) wrote:
: You say:
: 1. we've got to hold these people accountable.
Yes. That is correct.
: 2. we'd like to do so under the law, but if the law is not available
: 3. then I'd support assassination.
That is also correct.
Those who commit murder deserve to die. ESPECIALLY if they do so
under color of law.
: Since its impossible to hold these people accountable under the 'law'
: you're supporting violence/assassination.
Not quite yet, but I'm pondering it seriously.
Something must be done about the tens of thousands of deaths every
year caused by gun and drug prohibition.
If assassination proves to be the least bloody way of ending this
carnage once and for all, then I'm for it.
I don't think it is - YET - but that's only because the folks in power
are a good bit smarter and more realistic than you are. And also
because we are far more patient than you suppose.
We are trying to find peaceful solutions - no thanks to assholes like
you.
: You're dangerous. You're that peculiarly American brand of wacko.
If you say so, Sheldon.
I guess I am dangerous to you and your brand of government-enforced
thuggery.
I guess I am dangerous to those who believe that all it takes to
justify theft, extortion, kidnapping and murder is a majority vote
plus one.
One thing is for goddamn certain: I AM dangerous to assholes like
Schumer, Feinstein, etc. who think that people like me will submit
willingly to unilateral disarmament. They do not belong in Congress.
They belong in jail, and they know it. It is my hope and prayer that
someday they will be. After all,
Another thing that you can consider to be goddamn certain: when and
if I do decide that the assassination of any traitor will save more
lives than it will cost - I sure as shit won't waste any more time
here on m.a.m. talking about it.
Happy now?
: You
: think that not only are you morally correct and politically correct
: but also legally correct.
There isn't a whole lot of doubt in anyone's mind, including yours.
Otherwise, you'd at least attempt to refute me.
: And you wonder why I think the militia movement is dangerous. You may
: not take a potshot at a politician, but what about McVeigh wannabe's
: who really, really believe in this crap.
You don't think I believe in "this crap?" Then why do I periodically
post my real name, phone number and address?
And yes, I am dangerous to folks such as you who hate liberty and
justice, and who insist on attempting to use the mechanism of a
corrupt and decaying government to impose your ideals on the vast,
vast majority of Americans who not only do not share them but will
fight to the death to prevent them from being inflicted on them.
But to that vast majority of Americans, I'm no more dangerous than
their neighbor or the guy who delivers their mail. After all,
statistically speaking, both of those folks are at least as likely to
agree with me as not.
The only weapon I have ever used, other than in training or
self-defense, is my mind. And that seems to be the weapon you and
your ideological allies fear the most.
Joe
Guru1...@aol.com
> GUNE7;you are 100% right.They should fear,they must fear,its
>only then that you get a response.If they don't fear, things will keep
>heading in the direction of the total police state.They must fear what
>will happen if they try to disarm us.They must fear what will happen if
>they destroy the constitution.They must fear millions of armed patriots
>determined to save our country from the forces that would destroy it.No
>more Wacos--no more Ruby Ridge--or there will be a reason to fear.
>
> FRED C.DOBBS
> THERE WILL BE MORE TO FEAR THAN FEAR ITSELF IF THERES NO JUSTICE
> >>
>
>RARPOL SAYS: All Americans should be afraid if the patriot movement is
>seeking assistance from such "freedom loving" nations like Libya, Iraq, and
>Iran as Gune7 has suggested.
I'm concerned as to the result of that fear, as it usually beckons
fierce attacks against Liberty in our legislative bodies.
Sheldon Sheps
Medi...@webtv.net (Patrick Cheatham) wrote:
>
>Leaderless Resistance: The great communist revolutionary Mao Tsetung
>promoted this idea in his "Red Book". Also "The Popular Democratic Front
>for the Liberation of Palistine" wrote an virtually poetic pamplet/
>booklet outlining this theory as its path to victory. This is a group
>that is extremely hated by Zionist Israel.
>The leaderless resistance , I think, is a rather common tactic used by
>dissident groups around the world.
>The anti Czar Russian rebels used the isolated cell tactic, necessary
>because so many were arrested . These were both moderate socialists and
>dedicated Marxists (communists) groups.
>This goes back to about the 1890-1918 era.
Really? Did these groups require common political and ideological
beliefs?
Louis Beam's leaderless resistance doesn't ask for any common
ideological or political beliefs. It doesn't ask for any common
understanding of what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable. It
says, look around you and do what you (or your independent group)
think is right.
Was this concept of individuals making their own political decisions
based on their own political ideology part of the Little Red Book? I'd
be surprised. Wasn't the purpose of the Cultural Revolution (at the
ideological level) to get a common result.
Sheldon
Joseph T. Adams
FRED C. DOBBS (tom-...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: GUNE7;you are 100% right.They should fear,they must fear,its
: only then that you get a response.If they don't fear, things will keep
: heading in the direction of the total police state.They must fear what
: will happen if they try to disarm us.They must fear what will happen if
: they destroy the constitution.They must fear millions of armed patriots
: determined to save our country from the forces that would destroy it.No
: more Wacos--no more Ruby Ridge--or there will be a reason to fear.
You both are probably right. But I'm very sad that it has come to
this. I guess I was naive enough to hope that reason alone would
suffice.
Sheldon is right in his own way too. There can never be peace between
his kind (those who want to control other people) and my kind (those
who refuse to be thus controlled). Either one of us must surrender,
or one of us must be destroyed.
We are not surrendering, and we will not be destroyed. The fears of
Sheps, Pitcavage, Ragsdale, etc. are thus quite well founded, and
they will be realized - but only because they and their ideological
allies would not let us live in peace. We did not seek this quarrel;
the gun grabbers, globalists, and other petty thugs within the
establishment did, and they have continually refused our attempts to
hammer out a peaceful solution that would allow them to practice their
social engineering on those who are WILLING to submit to it while
leaving the rest of us the fuck alone.
I am beginning to fear that conflict is inevitable. I will still work
to prevent it for as long as there is any hope of preventing it (short
of selling out what little of liberty and justice is available, to be
passed on to those who will follow us). But all my efforts may well
turn out to be for naught, and those who prepared for war rather than
trying to avoid it might prove to be the real heroes.
Hopefully the conflict will be short and decisive, and hopefully there
will still be something left of our country to rebuild when it is
over. And hopefully we will have enough strength left to teach our
children how to remain free, not just today, but thirty, sixty, and
three hundred years from today. We are going to have to make some
sacrifices for them. I don't mind doing that. I'm happy to, just as
others did for me. But I don't want them to have to go through the
same thing. It's a whole lot easier to preserve liberty and justice,
than to regain it once it's been lost.
Joe
Guru1...@aol.com
>Those who commit murder deserve to die. ESPECIALLY if they do so
>under color of law.
While I sympathize with your overall premise, I feel a need to caution
you on a possible philosophical pitfall: if you proclaim the law (i.e., the
REAL law of the Constitution) in what you do, and then use it as a
pretext for carrying out assassination, you fall in danger of yourself
murdering under color of law.
Any legal/justice system anywhere with life/death powers of
enforcement wields a significant enough amount of force to
require an equally significant system of checks and balances.
Oversight, oversight, oversight! If the CURRENT system doesn't
have enough oversight, imagine, if you will, a gaggle of adrenaline-
pumped patriots out on a battlefield who just got custody of a
dozen or so "NWO sympathizers." The potential for injustice is
staggering, if there is no prior planning, no contingency system
for real trials administering real justice. Such a potential is often
what holds people back from supporting the decisive efforts needed
to "go for the gusto" in direct opposition to the status quo.
Son of ATF
was burbbled by Guru1...@aol.com when they didn't move fast enough to grab the
keyboard :
Yep. And that scenario you painted is just EXACTLY the vision that most of us
"anti's" conjure up as the inevitable result of a militia movement gone
"proactive." You got any ideas for keeping it from happening?
--Son of ATF
Son of ATF Creed: (8 of 19)
If it's worth doing, it's got to be done right now.
Joseph T. Adams
Son of ATF (l...@US66.net) wrote:
: Yep. And that scenario you painted is just EXACTLY the vision that most of us
: "anti's" conjure up as the inevitable result of a militia movement gone
: "proactive." You got any ideas for keeping it from happening?
That's a fair enough question, and I have a simple but I believe very
adequate answer: work with us to make sure that it isn't necessary.
No one is going to revolt over abuses that are minor, transient, and
correctible. It's only the ones that are persistent, systematic, and
which irreversibly destroy the lives of innocent people that may need
to be addressed outside of the "system," since the existence of those
kinds of major abuses is viewed by many, rightly or wrongly, as
evidence that the "system" no longer works.
We in the Militia are mindful that our job is to protect life,
liberty, property, and rule of law. We are aware that going
"proactive" in even a very minor and limited fashion has the potential
to make things significantly worse than they are now. I can say with
a fair degree of certainty that the vast majority of Militia
leadership will go "proactive" only if given absolutely no other
choice. You need not take my word for that. You need only look at
our actions over the past two years or so. We've had many situations
where armed confrontations seemed likely. None of those
confrontations actually materialized. Sanity on the part of both our
leadership and the LEOs involved seems to have prevailed. I hope and
pray that it will continue to, although I am less optimistic all the
time, as I see greater and greater abuses that would have provoked
universal outrage just a few years ago being tolerated with barely a
whimper.
Joe
RAR...@aol.com
<< From: Medi...@webtv.net (Patrick Cheatham)
Date:Sun, 28 Sep 97 21:20:13 GMT
Rarpol condemns Libya, Iran, Iraq. Only in time of declared war can the
USA gov't even pretend that it can choose we, the people's enemies for
us, and dictate to us.
RARPOL SAYS: Yes I do condemn those nations as well as others like them.
BTW what provisions in the constitutution or federal law support your
conclusions?
In time of no declared war, we the people are free to decide for our
individual selves who the bad guys are and who the good guys are.
We have a right and a DUTY to educate ourselves and to evaulate and
make reasonable judgements as free citizens of a government that is OUR
SERVANT.
RARPOL SAYS: You mean as long as you don't violate the Logan act, and others
that deal with treason, espionage, and sedition. You can admire Saddam
Hussein to your heart's content. You can hang pictures of him and light
candles. Nothing can stop you from doing that. However, if as individuals,
or as groups, have associations with countries with an aim to overthrow the
government or thwart the execution of the laws, you have no legal leg to
stand on at all.
The US Government is the servant of the people!!!! The people are NOT
the servants if the Government!!!!
RARPOL SAYS: Yeah, tell us something we don't know. So explain to me how it
serves your purposes to elicit support from regimes like those in Libya,
Iraq, or Iran, whose systems are completely opposite to your alleged aims?
Answer this one for me.
RAR...@aol.com
<< From: Guru1...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 97 20:50:00 GMT
> GUNE7;you are 100% right.They should fear,they must fear,its
>only then that you get a response.If they don't fear, things will keep
>heading in the direction of the total police state.They must fear what
>will happen if they try to disarm us.They must fear what will happen if
>they destroy the constitution.They must fear millions of armed patriots
>determined to save our country from the forces that would destroy it.No
>more Wacos--no more Ruby Ridge--or there will be a reason to fear.
>
> FRED C.DOBBS
> THERE WILL BE MORE TO FEAR THAN FEAR ITSELF IF THERES NO JUSTICE
> >>
>
>RARPOL SAYS: All Americans should be afraid if the patriot movement is
>seeking assistance from such "freedom loving" nations like Libya, Iraq, and
>Iran as Gune7 has suggested.
I'm concerned as to the result of that fear, as it usually beckons
fierce attacks against Liberty in our legislative bodies >>
RARPOL SAYS: You mean it wouldn't trouble you at all, is such countries
provided funds, arms, and support to acheive your aims? Even thought it is
clear to all who really believe in freedom and liberty, that such regimes the
ulitmate aim is the destruction of the United States, its system, its ability
to restrict their imperial ambitions. Why don't you disavow the comments
of Gune7 on this subject if you really believe in freedom and liberty? Or
does your hatred of the federal government take precedent over those goals?
RoboTorgo
In article <875491500$17...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, j...@apk.net
(Joseph T. Adams) writes:
>We are not surrendering, and we will not be destroyed. The fears of
>Sheps, Pitcavage, Ragsdale, etc. are thus quite well founded, and
>they will be realized - but only because they and their ideological
>allies would not let us live in peace. We did not seek this quarrel;
>the gun grabbers, globalists, and other petty thugs within the
>establishment did, and they have continually refused our attempts to
>hammer out a peaceful solution that would allow them to practice their
>social engineering on those who are WILLING to submit to it while
>leaving the rest of us the fuck alone.
>
>
I have known Ragsdale for over 15 years now and he is neither a gun
grabber, globalist or a petty thug. In fact he is quite libertarian in many
ways. I would think he would agree that it would be best if we were all
just left alone by govt.
What he and I see wrong with many in this movement is their penchant for
nutty theories (missing 13 amd, 16th amd. did not pass, United States is
only DC, etc.) and the advocation of violent overthrow of govt. Many also
completely ignore the historical context of the meaning of the Constitution
and substitute their own convenient theories. (2d amd. is absolute, etc.)
Robert
"Mr. President, truth is not always a pleasant thing"--Gen. "Buck"
Turgidson (USAF)
"Your commie has no regard for human life, not even his own"--Gen. Jack D.
Ripper (USAF)
"Watch out for snakes!" -- Tom Servo
"Bite me, its fun"-- Crow T. Robot
RoboTorgo
In article <875481613$13...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
Medi...@webtv.net (Patrick Cheatham) writes:
>
>Rarpol condemns Libya, Iran, Iraq. Only in time of declared war can the
>USA gov't even pretend that it can choose we, the people's enemies for
>us, and dictate to us.
>In time of no declared war, we the people are free to decide for our
>individual selves who the bad guys are and who the good guys are.
>We have a right and a DUTY to educate ourselves and to evaulate and
>make reasonable judgements as free citizens of a government that is OUR
>SERVANT.
>The US Government is the servant of the people!!!! The people are NOT
>the servants if the Government!!!!
>
>
Try to condemn the governments and leaders of Iran, Iraq, or Libya and you
will soon see what tyranny means. Only in very few countries, this being
one, is the amount of criticism of the government that is posted here
tolerated. You, sir, in most countries would be in jail or dead for your
comments above. Look what sweet ole Saddam did to his own son.
The above are enemies of this nation and you.
Guru1...@aol.com
Iran, Iraq, the U.S..... really, every government on earth has
ambitions of greater power and the decline of their perceived
enemies. But one aspect about the potential link between
American militias and muslim fundamentalist groups is a
religious belief that by far transcends any willingness to
submit to a government outside that belief system. What
looks zany and crazy to us "infidels" and "Pagans," et. al.,
to them is really religious devotion. They have cynical
and secular elements to them, obviously, but the common
psychological thread is there. Thus, in spite of a wide gulf
in the belief systems themselves, the way in which they
approach those systems, that common zeal, combined
with the common enemy, provides a vast potential for an
actual alliance of sorts. Would I "disavow" such an alliance?
I would and do so now. The reason for this is that I always
consider the means to justify the ends. To kill scum (i.e.,
one such as Lon Horiuchi) is a noble act. The "end" of
such an act is immaterial, because the act itself justifies
itself. By contrast, terrorist-style hits, like bombing an
airliner or a federal building, etc., which kill innocent people,
are DESPICABLE acts. The ends of such acts don't amount
to a hill of beans because nothing can take away the
innocence of the victims, the horror, the pure evil involved.
There is no cleaning solution for that kind of stain. That's
the one thing Timothy McVeigh just didn't understand. He
had decent motivation, a good grasp of the problem, and even,
in some considerations, a beginning notion of appropriate
tactics. But his target acquisition SUCKED. It sucked so
bad that it turned him into a real life monster. It erased
everything that such an act could have gained for good.
For this very verbose reason given above, my only answer to
klan scum, skinhead scum, Iraqi scum, Iranian scum, IRA
scum, gang-banger scum, any scum you may care to offer,
is (at the risk of sounding Christian), "Get thee hence."
Guru1...@aol.com
>>Any legal/justice system anywhere with life/death powers of
>>enforcement wields a significant enough amount of force to
>>require an equally significant system of checks and balances.
>>Oversight, oversight, oversight! If the CURRENT system doesn't
>>have enough oversight, imagine, if you will, a gaggle of adrenaline-
>>pumped patriots out on a battlefield who just got custody of a
>>dozen or so "NWO sympathizers." The potential for injustice is
>>staggering, if there is no prior planning, no contingency system
>>for real trials administering real justice. Such a potential is often
>>what holds people back from supporting the decisive efforts needed
>>to "go for the gusto" in direct opposition to the status quo.
>
>Yep. And that scenario you painted is just EXACTLY the vision that most of
>us
>"anti's" conjure up as the inevitable result of a militia movement gone
>"proactive." You got any ideas for keeping it from happening?
The focus of the "movement" (for want of a better word here) ought
to be in the area of information--that's where the real power is
anyway. First lawyers, then money, then guns. If evolutive efforts
to reform the system from within the system are successful, there
will be no need for armed insurgents anywhere, although financial
costs are inevitable.
If it does come down to guns, the ideal model would be the
framework of events that came down in our first War of
Independance: though loosely-organized to allow tactical
flexibility, the units involved must eventually come to a
national consensus (i.e., Constitution) on what shall be the
law of the land. That law having been established, all will
have to abide by it. Our current Constitution will also serve
as a model, but obviously it had too many loopholes if things
degenerate to that point.
RARPOL
In article <875840729$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
Guru1...@aol.com writes:
I don't have any problems with section above, but the later ones, well........
To kill scum (i.e.,
>one such as Lon Horiuchi) is a noble act. The "end" of
>such an act is immaterial, because the act itself justifies
>itself.
Would you grant him the right to a trial first before carrying out the
sentence?
Or do believe only certain people are entitled to the rights you claim to
hold dear?
By contrast, terrorist-style hits, like bombing an
>airliner or a federal building, etc., which kill innocent people,
>are DESPICABLE acts. The ends of such acts don't amount
>to a hill of beans because nothing can take away the
>innocence of the victims, the horror, the pure evil involved.
>There is no cleaning solution for that kind of stain.
True.
> That's
>the one thing Timothy McVeigh just didn't understand. He
>had decent motivation, a good grasp of the problem, and even,
>in some considerations, a beginning notion of appropriate
>tactics.
McVeigh didn't have a grasp of his own dick. Don't dare apply even the
remotest good works to him.
But his target acquisition SUCKED. It sucked so
>bad that it turned him into a real life monster.
Which he is. Anybody who kills like that without warning is a Goddamned
monster. As much as you guys bellyach about Waco, at least there were
plenty of chances for the BDs to come out and live. This son of bitch
didn't give the people in the A.P. Muirrah even that decency.
It erased
>everything that such an act could have gained for good.
What good do you mean? What possible good could have come out of his
fucking insanity and blood lust?
>
>For this very verbose reason given above, my only answer to
>klan scum, skinhead scum, Iraqi scum, Iranian scum, IRA
>scum, gang-banger scum, any scum you may care to offer,
>is (at the risk of sounding Christian), "Get thee hence."
>
How about scum who think McVeigh had decent motivation?
It troubles me to see that you apply different standards to Horiuchi and
McVeigh. Horuchi was part of police force, in Idaho to enforce the law.
The circumstances surrounding the death of Mrs. Weaver are deplorable.
However, there is no proof that Horiuchi deliberately and in cold blood
meant to kill her, despite patriot rhetoric to contrary. Having said that,
I however, don't think it was unreasonable for the State of Idaho to
prosecute for involuntary manslaughter, because that is the crime he may
have commiteed. However, McVeigh is another matter completely. He planned
to kill many people to get body count to serve his cause. His was
deliberate and in cold blood. He was not there as representative of legally
constituted authority. He was there because he was blinded by his hatred
of the federal government and his belief in that govermment deliberately
killed the BDs. You think his "target aquisistion sucked". What would you
have preferred? The possiblities scare me to death and any decent American
who believes in this constitutional form of government. I knew people
killed and injured in that building that day. I live only about 23 miles
from that site, and to in anyway compare the tragedies at Waco or Ruby
Ridge with Oklahoma CIty sickens me. At Waco and at Ruby Ridge, those who
died had choices they could have made that would have allowed them to live.
But their hatred, paranoia, or religious delusions kept them from making
rational choices. However in Oklahoma City, the bastard McVeigh denied the
people and children in that building that same choice.
If anybody out there in the patriot or militia movement think that McVeigh
had "good motivation" and merely lacked good target selection, then you can
go to same place he is headed for all I care.
"Hail Gordon Kahl, Bob Matthews, Randy Weaver, David Koresh, and Timothy
McVeigh" crys out the miltia and patriot fateful as they pass near their
pantheon of martyred heros.
Yeah, they rank right up with the likes Thomas Jefferson, George
Washington, Ethan Allen, Crispus Attucks, Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, etc.
Sheesh.
This is where I draw the line. If you believe that McVeigh had good
motivation and poor target selection, then we just might be forced to meet
on opposite sides of a barracade someday. All your talk about liberty is
just a facade for hatred. I hope I am wrong, but if these beliefs are
shared by many in the militia movement, then I think problems will get
worse, but I am convinced you won't have the support of average, everyday,
hard working Americans you call sheeple, because those were the same kind
of people killed by McVeigh.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Patrick Cheatham
GURU: How about Zionist Scum,? FBI Scum,? CIA Scum?.
Guru new Rarpol for years? I met a few FBI Scum myself over the years!
Second amendment: right to keep and bear arms, has never been legally
rescinded: this constitutional amendment implies armed resistance to a
tyranical government!!
RoboTorgo
In article <876185400$66...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
Medi...@webtv.net (Patrick Cheatham) writes:
>GURU: How about Zionist Scum,? FBI Scum,? CIA Scum?.
>Guru new Rarpol for years? I met a few FBI Scum myself over the years!
>Second amendment: right to keep and bear arms, has never been legally
>rescinded: this constitutional amendment implies armed resistance to a
>tyranical government!!
>
>
I might agree that resistance to a tyrannical government might have to be
armed. However, our govt. is NOT EVEN CLOSE to tyrannical. Until it is, the
way to resist the government must be through the ballot, the press,
protest, speech and participation in the political process.
Brandishing guns and blowing up buildings only increases the people's
tolerance for more government intrusion.
FRED C. DOBBS
Mr.RoboTorgo=====================
You say our government is not tyrannical,what the hell
do they have to do to be termed tyrannical in your eyes?We see things as
they really are,we are not fooled by the controlled media.We see a
government out of controll,wanting to amass power at all costs.We see a
government that puts no value on human life.We see traitors in our
political process as you say,trying to subvert the constitution.
The ballot is fixed,the press is controlled,we are
beyond protest.We are arming ourselves for protection of our loved ones
and the constitution.Wake up from your sleep.Yes.truth can be unpleasant
sometimes,and watch out for the snakes in your government,they will bite
you if you are not carefull.
FRED C.DOBBS
NO EASY WAY TO BE FREE!!!!!!!!
RARPOL
In article <876366326$25...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Tom Paine II
<mil...@activist.com> writes:
>> In article <876185400$66...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>> Medi...@webtv.net (Patrick Cheatham) writes:
>>
>> >GURU: How about Zionist Scum,? FBI Scum,? CIA Scum?.
>> >Guru new Rarpol for years? I met a few FBI Scum myself over the
>> years!
>> >Second amendment: right to keep and bear arms, has never been legally
>>
>> >rescinded: this constitutional amendment implies armed resistance to
>> a
>> >tyranical government!!
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I might agree that resistance to a tyrannical government might have to
>> be
>> armed. However, our govt. is NOT EVEN CLOSE to tyrannical. Until it
>> is, the
>> way to resist the government must be through the ballot, the press,
>> protest, speech and participation in the political process.
>
>Political process: You Fool !The political process is a SHAM..all you
>have to do is look at what happened in Volusia County Florida..the
>shiriff vote ! LOL]
>the Sheriff was loosing 4,320 to 1,276, and should have lost the post
>and election..But what did your political cronies do ?...they stuffed
>the Mailin votes..sheriffs Deputies " Guarded and Counted the Absentee
>Votes that night and Wammie"
>the Sheriff got to win 4,982 to 4,320...now how about that vote them out
>bullshit ?
>blast thenm out, lock and load and take good aim and bam !
This incident may or may not prove anything but irregularities in one
county. I love your solution. A solution McVeigh would smile at.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Jerry
A good clean honest election would be refreshing.
Guru165871
In article <876366326$25...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Tom Paine II
<mil...@activist.com> writes:
>Political process: You Fool !The political process is a SHAM..all you
>have to do is look at what happened in Volusia County Florida..the
>shiriff vote ! LOL]
>the Sheriff was loosing 4,320 to 1,276, and should have lost the post
>and election..But what did your political cronies do ?...they stuffed
>the Mailin votes..sheriffs Deputies " Guarded and Counted the Absentee
>Votes that night and Wammie"
>the Sheriff got to win 4,982 to 4,320...now how about that vote them out
>bullshit ?
>blast thenm out, lock and load and take good aim and bam !
How did all this manage to escape a grand jury?
Guru165871
In article <875861468$22...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) writes:
>> That's
>>the one thing Timothy McVeigh just didn't understand. He
>>had decent motivation, a good grasp of the problem, and even,
>>in some considerations, a beginning notion of appropriate
>>tactics.
>
>McVeigh didn't have a grasp of his own dick. Don't dare apply even the
>remotest good works to him.
Emotion motivates one to go to extremes in defaming him, but
the intellect needs to keep a clear grasp of what he did. Allegedly,
he masterminded an operation whereby a simple truck bomb
SOMEHOW multiplied its own explosive power seventeen times.
Anyone who could squeeze that much destructive force out of
that amount of ammonium nitrate, is a rare chemical genius.
Film at eleven.
Guru165871
In article <875861468$22...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) writes:
> To kill scum (i.e.,
>>one such as Lon Horiuchi) is a noble act. The "end" of
>>such an act is immaterial, because the act itself justifies
>>itself.
>
>Would you grant him the right to a trial first before carrying out the
>sentence?
>Or do believe only certain people are entitled to the rights you claim to
>hold dear?
It would be a simple sting operation whereby we confront him
with yet another unarmed woman holding yet another baby. When
he puts those innocents in his sights for yet another murder, POW,
a killing enacted to save lives.
Guru165871
In article <876417620$17...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) writes:
>> You say our government is not tyrannical,what the hell
>>do they have to do to be termed tyrannical in your eyes?
>
>First you must have a tyranny in order to have a tyrannical government.Our
>system may not be perfect, but if certainly isn't tyranny. Robotorgo is
>right. The problem is many like you have such a rigid and absolute view of
>freedom and liberty, that even the smallest infringment is an act of tyranny.
It's a matter of boiling a frog. Not always is a frog thrown headlong
into water already boiling; sometimes one slowly and quietly ups
the temperature at a rate where the frog doesn't notice. Before the
frog DOES notice, he's cooked.
But in spite of all this, it's important to know the exact temperature,
and not just screams of "by GOD it's hot in here!!!" It's essential
to make a clear and rational assessment based on the facts:
1) First Amendment: Fairly well intact, though FCC wields a
highly dangerous level of power in terms of holding the licensing
keys to public airways. I give it about an 80% effectiveness
rating.
2) Second Amendment: Hanging by a thread. Guns can still
be bought, but one must jump through increasingly narrow
hoops to do so. A multiplicity of para-constitutional restrictions
entangle the citizen to the point of choking off any meaning to
the Amendment. There's only about 30% of this Amendment
left, and dropping mightily.
3) Third Amendment: Fully intact.
4) Fourth Amendment: An absolute joke. Search warrants are
laughable, even IF ever produced. Cops nose their way into
cars no matter what a citizen says about it. Drug gestapos
charge in and slam people against the wall, quite at will. This
right is almost 100% disregarded by the government.
5) Fifth Amendment: The "double jeopardy" aspect is gone.
If the state doesn't get you, the feds will, and vice-versa. If
neither get you, then come the civil suits. It's a game. The
right against self-incrimination is strong in some respects,
and weak in others. They can't coerce a confession, but
"plea bargaining" comes rather close. And the tactics
prosecutors use, such as threatening extreme criminal
prosecution unless the poor hapless captive cooperates, is
also rather contrary to the spirit of this Amendment. The
provision against property being taken for public use is, by
in large, void. Homes are seized via RICO, EPA statutes,
IRS, and a myriad of other sorry excuses. Nary a shred of
due process, either. This Amendment overall, is about 3/4
gone.
6) Sixth Amendment: First part completely smashed into
oblivion (speedy trial, impartial jury, same district), though
right to counsel still exists. Give it about 50%.
7) Seventh Amendment: Fully intact.
8) Eight Amendment: gone, finito, bye bye. Horror stories
abound.
9) Ninth Amendment: Interpereted out of existence by the
Supremely Unjust Court. History.
10) Tenth Amendment: was once completely obliterated,
though some groups are trying to ressurect it. It's about
10% of the way toward making a come-back.
Let's tally up the percentages here:
80
30
100
0
25
50
100
0
0
10
------
395 / 10 = 3.95
On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being an absolutist Nazi/Communist
regime, and 10 being a Libertarian paradise, I give the current
government a 3.95... and dropping...
For you frogs out there, the temperature's rising, and I'm not
surprised in the least that some are beginning to "jump out."
Guru165871
In article <875861468$22...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) writes:
> It erased
>>everything that such an act could have gained for good.
>
>What good do you mean? What possible good could have come out of his
>fucking insanity and blood lust?
If all casualties had been those responsible for Waco, it would
have carried a certain degree of poetic justice--moreso if it
would have involved CS gas.
Son of ATF
"Urgggh, cold coffee," muttered guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) as he sent this:
>In article <875861468$22...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) writes:
>>>For this very verbose reason given above, my only answer to
>>>klan scum, skinhead scum, Iraqi scum, Iranian scum, IRA
>>>scum, gang-banger scum, any scum you may care to offer,
>>>is (at the risk of sounding Christian), "Get thee hence."
>>
>>How about scum who think McVeigh had decent motivation?
>Motivation is moot. The act was the act, and it was a crime.
>>It troubles me to see that you apply different standards to Horiuchi and
>>McVeigh.
>You misunderstand, because the contrary is true: I apply the same
>single standard. Both murdered innocents. Both should die. Had
>one OR the other limited his targets to COMBATTANTS, they would
>simply be warriors doing their duty.
>>Horuchi was part of police force, in Idaho to enforce the law.
>The law doesn't authorize murder of innocents.
>>The circumstances surrounding the death of Mrs. Weaver are deplorable.
>>However, there is no proof that Horiuchi deliberately and in cold blood
>>meant to kill her, despite patriot rhetoric to contrary.
>He was an expert sniper, and could knock the gonads off a
>fruit bat at 1000 yards. A man with that skill doesn't
>"accidentally" take the jawbone off an unarmed woman at
>250 feet and watch her bleed to death, screaming.
So when he shot at and only wounded Randy Weaver, he must have done that
delieberately too. He deliberately wounded the prime subject of teh incident
and then deliberately killed an involved, but ancillary figure for whom he had
no orders to shoot at? His skill was such that this must have been the case, it
just doesn't make sense?
No. Seems to me that if he can miss once, he can miss twice.
--Son of ATF
Son of ATF Creed: (15 of 19)
15. Bureaucracy is a challenge to be conquered with a righteous attitude, a tollerance for stupidity, and a bulldozer when necessary.
RARPOL
In article <876488942$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) writes:
>
>In article <875861468$22...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) writes:
>
>>>For this very verbose reason given above, my only answer to
>>>klan scum, skinhead scum, Iraqi scum, Iranian scum, IRA
>>>scum, gang-banger scum, any scum you may care to offer,
>>>is (at the risk of sounding Christian), "Get thee hence."
>>
>>How about scum who think McVeigh had decent motivation?
>
>Motivation is moot. The act was the act, and it was a crime.
Tell that to some of your militia buddies. They think motivation is very
important, without it, no conspiracy theories.
>
>>It troubles me to see that you apply different standards to Horiuchi and
>>McVeigh.
>
>You misunderstand, because the contrary is true: I apply the same
>single standard. Both murdered innocents. Both should die. Had
>one OR the other limited his targets to COMBATTANTS, they would
>simply be warriors doing their duty.
Still there are differences. Horiuchi was not deliberately attempting to
kill an unarmed woman, especially when there was plenty armed men running
around. McVeigh meant to kill innocent people. That's why the State of
Idaho filed involuntary manslaughter against Horiuchi. That's reasonable
and carries no death sentence. You just refuse to see degree. But you do
apply different standards because you have given McVeigh some cover. You
know that target acquisition problem you mentioned.
>
>>Horuchi was part of police force, in Idaho to enforce the law.
>
>The law doesn't authorize murder of innocents.
Of course it doesn't. But Idaho says manslaughter not murder. Murder
means premeditated, just like McVeigh. Horiuchi didn't get up that morning
saying "I am gonna someone today". However, McVeigh apparently did.
>
>>The circumstances surrounding the death of Mrs. Weaver are deplorable.
>>However, there is no proof that Horiuchi deliberately and in cold blood
>>meant to kill her, despite patriot rhetoric to contrary.
>
>He was an expert sniper, and could knock the gonads off a
>fruit bat at 1000 yards. A man with that skill doesn't
>"accidentally" take the jawbone off an unarmed woman at
>250 feet and watch her bleed to death, screaming.
You mean in the midst of a running gun battle with people screaming and
shooting? I doubt that. BTW Where is your proof he "watched her bleed to
death". It was my impression she died instantly.
>
>>Having said that,
>>I however, don't think it was unreasonable for the State of Idaho to
>>prosecute for involuntary manslaughter, because that is the crime he may
>>have commiteed.
>
>Involuntary is inappropriate, given his skill. At the very least,
>the manslaughter was voluntary.
Let's let a jury of Idahoans determine that. Not you.
>
>>However, McVeigh is another matter completely. He planned
>>to kill many people to get body count to serve his cause.
>
>So did Horiuchi. Those were his orders, and with a "ja vohl,"
>he snapped his jack boots and carried them out.
Proof?
>
>>His was
>>deliberate and in cold blood. He was not there as representative of legally
>>constituted authority.
>
>Being there "of legally constituted authority" actually makes matters
>worse when they end up murdering unarmed innocents in cold blood.
Once again, not even the State of Idaho thinks it was cold blood.
>It's the same principle as a cop who pulls vulnerable women over at
>night to rape them. "Under color of law..."
Not really. Much different. In the example you cite, there isn't a
running gun battle going on.
>
>>He was there because he was blinded by his hatred
>>of the federal government and his belief in that govermment deliberately
>>killed the BDs.
>
>Emotions or lack thereof are immaterial to the acts carried out.
>Even if these killers (McVeigh and Horiuchi) had LOVE in their
>hearts for their victims, it wouldn't matter. They're still murderers.
It does in criminal cases very much. First degree murder, carrying the
death penalty, is based on premeditation or cold blood. Second degree is
passion of the moment, life sentence. Manslaughter means accidental
whether by accident or by omission.
It doesn't make any difference to you because you share McVeigh's beliefs
in many matters, and that troubles many in the militia movement and their
fellow travellers.
>
>>You think his "target aquisistion sucked".
>
>As did Horiuchi's. And both deserve to die.
Nice dodge. But please explain what you meant in McVeigh's case? Don't
hide behind rhetoric or say Horiuchi is evil.
>
>>What would you
>>have preferred? The possiblities scare me to death and any decent American
>>who believes in this constitutional form of government.
>
>War is scary. It was ever thus.
But there isn't a war. If you believe that than you think like McVeigh.
>
>>I knew people
>>killed and injured in that building that day. I live only about 23 miles
>>from that site, and to in anyway compare the tragedies at Waco or Ruby
>>Ridge with Oklahoma CIty sickens me. At Waco and at Ruby Ridge, those who
>>died had choices they could have made that would have allowed them to live.
>
>The children could have decided to leave their parents and go into
>the arms of those they were taught to believe were demonic hordes?
The blame then returns squarely to one David Koresh doesn't it? Had those
parents truly loved their children and were responsible they wouldn't have
put in such a position. As far as I am concerned Koresh was using them as
hostages or shields.
>
>You are utterly bizarre at times.
How? Because I am not driven to hatred like you by uncontrolled passion?
>
>> But their hatred, paranoia, or religious delusions kept them from making
>>rational choices.
>
>I don't recall those children being that way. What gave you
>the impression they were?
Koresh's and the parents' actions give me that impression. The children
were in no position to make any judgements, but the adults were. You know
I am talking about Koresh and his adult followers.
>
>>However in Oklahoma City, the bastard McVeigh denied the
>>people and children in that building that same choice.
>
>No arguments here.
>
>>If anybody out there in the patriot or militia movement think that McVeigh
>>had "good motivation" and merely lacked good target selection, then you can
>>go to same place he is headed for all I care.
>
>Why don't you just give it your best shot?
I believe I just did. Or do prefer violence?
>
>>"Hail Gordon Kahl, Bob Matthews, Randy Weaver, David Koresh, and Timothy
>>McVeigh" crys out the miltia and patriot fateful as they pass near their
>>pantheon of martyred heros.
>
>I don't match your perception of "the movement."
Duh!
I'm looking, not
>at adult would-be martyrs who knew what they were getting into,
>but children who were put to a slow, painful, and completely
>unnecessary death by their own GOVERNMENT.
But they weren't killed by their government! Their parents did. Why I on
earth were they spreading hay and fuel around the compound if not to set
the fire themselves? The children at Waco was merely tools to Koresh, they
ended up that way to fulfill his "visions" or whatever nonsense he muttered.
>
>>Yeah, they rank right up with the likes Thomas Jefferson, George
>>Washington, Ethan Allen, Crispus Attucks, Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, etc.
>>Sheesh.
>
>Whatever, but the children rank right along with Anne Frank's
>cousins in '30s Germany, much as you vehemently deny it.
I deny because, unlike in Germany where they deliberately killed children,
the FBI did not. This is just patriot legend to attract followers.
>
>>This is where I draw the line. If you believe that McVeigh had good
>>motivation and poor target selection, then we just might be forced to meet
>>on opposite sides of a barracade someday.
>
>Oh goodie. I'll be the one with a laptop usurping a plane's
>flight trajectory to where it crashes right down on your swelled
>head.
I am sure you will.
And afterward I'll be unarmed and disguised and melt
>into the sea of zombie-like people, never to be found. Any
>questions? Hut, hut, hike..
You can hope jack. McVeigh apparently thought that as well.
.
>
>>All your talk about liberty is
>>just a facade for hatred.
>
>Love of Liberty, hatred of tyranny. Seems consistent enough.
Not really, because you extend that hatred to individuals. The whole
damned militia movement does. My god, man, you, Joe Adams, and Bill Kasper
have advocated at various times selective assassinations of those you deem
evil without the benifit of trial, and you guys are the moderates or
libertarians!. You just don't get it. This is the very step that McVeigh
took. In his view he was fighting evil. In his view he was getting justice.
>
>>I hope I am wrong, but if these beliefs are
>>shared by many in the militia movement, then I think problems will get
>>worse, but I am convinced you won't have the support of average, everyday,
>>hard working Americans you call sheeple, because those were the same kind
>>of people killed by McVeigh.
>
>The sheeple are stupid, but don't deserve to be killed.
When you say they are stupid, you are already on the road to kill them.
If that don't share you concerns or values, then you have no respect for
them. They become "untermensch" if you will.
They
>simply deserve what they get every time they vote--i.e., lying
>cheating thieves who piss on their back and tell 'em it's
>raining. For this reason I don't carry much of a grudge against
>Bill Clinton. He's just doing what the people want--SNOWING
>them. It's some of the murderous minions out there who need
>to get a little of that Karma coming back around on them...
And you think a few ounces of lead wlll accomplish this?
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
RARPOL
In article <876488890$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) writes:
>In article <875861468$22...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) writes:
>
>> To kill scum (i.e.,
>>>one such as Lon Horiuchi) is a noble act. The "end" of
>>>such an act is immaterial, because the act itself justifies
>>>itself.
>>
>>Would you grant him the right to a trial first before carrying out the
>>sentence?
>>Or do believe only certain people are entitled to the rights you claim to
>>hold dear?
>
>It would be a simple sting operation whereby we confront him
>with yet another unarmed woman holding yet another baby. When
>he puts those innocents in his sights for yet another murder, POW,
>a killing enacted to save lives.
And how many times has he done this? You act like this is what he does all
the time. For all we know he has probably saved lives at a bank robbery.
What if he doesn't do what you think? What will you do then when your
blood is up? Probably kill him anyway. Then walk away claiming your love
for the constitution. What a load of shit.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Son of ATF
"Urgggh, cold coffee," muttered guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) as he sent this:
The double jeopardy clause was never intended to force a selection of criminal
and civil remedy that can be shown by history all the way back to the beginning.
As for it being a shield against differing levels of government prosecution, I
believe you'd be hard pressed to show that, but I don't know for certain.
As for siezure of property, there is a hearing. What other consideration must
due process make? I can even cite examples from your own state within the last
ten years where the party whose property was siezed prevailed in these hearings.
>6) Sixth Amendment: First part completely smashed into
>oblivion (speedy trial, impartial jury, same district), though
>right to counsel still exists. Give it about 50%.
>7) Seventh Amendment: Fully intact.
The Erwin Rommell school of Law disagrees with you. :)
>8) Eight Amendment: gone, finito, bye bye. Horror stories
>abound.
On what bail or punishment?
>9) Ninth Amendment: Interpereted out of existence by the
>Supremely Unjust Court. History.
Oh, I don't know. How often has it been asserted as a defense or gaurantee in
court?
>10) Tenth Amendment: was once completely obliterated,
>though some groups are trying to ressurect it. It's about
>10% of the way toward making a come-back.
As with the ninth. As you point out though, folk are starting to exercise it.
Might beat some of the atrophy.
>Let's tally up the percentages here:
> 80
> 30
>100
> 0
> 25
> 50
>100
> 0
> 0
> 10
>------
>395 / 10 = 3.95
>On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being an absolutist Nazi/Communist
>regime, and 10 being a Libertarian paradise, I give the current
>government a 3.95... and dropping...
>For you frogs out there, the temperature's rising, and I'm not
>surprised in the least that some are beginning to "jump out."
With a thermometer like you around Guru, I think I'll be fine. Right now the
water is.
RARPOL
In article <876488799$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) writes:
>In article <875861468$22...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) writes:
>
>>> That's
>>>the one thing Timothy McVeigh just didn't understand. He
>>>had decent motivation, a good grasp of the problem, and even,
>>>in some considerations, a beginning notion of appropriate
>>>tactics.
>>
>>McVeigh didn't have a grasp of his own dick. Don't dare apply even the
>>remotest good works to him.
>
>Emotion motivates one to go to extremes in defaming him, but
>the intellect needs to keep a clear grasp of what he did.
Amazing how you can intellectually rationize what McVeigh did, but spill
out tons of emotion when discussing Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Allegedly,
>he masterminded an operation whereby a simple truck bomb
Not alleged anymore according to a jury.
>SOMEHOW multiplied its own explosive power seventeen times.
>Anyone who could squeeze that much destructive force out of
>that amount of ammonium nitrate, is a rare chemical genius.
>
Is this an excuse for him?
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
RARPOL
In article <876489002$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) writes:
>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.
>
>If the State is "free," the militia is obligated by that
>Amendment to preserve that State's security. If a
>State is no longer "free," there is no longer any
>obligation, overt or implied, for any militia-like body.
>What frightens to the bone is that modern statists
>loudly exclaim that there is no longer any need for
>a militia: what this implies is that the State is no
>longer free.
Quite the opposite. We still feel that states are free, therefore no need
for revolutionary private armies. The national guard and state guard are
still under the control of the elected governors of the states.
>
>
>
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
RARPOL
In article <876489465$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) writes:
>In article <876417620$17...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) writes:
>
>>> You say our government is not tyrannical,what the hell
>>>do they have to do to be termed tyrannical in your eyes?
>>
>>First you must have a tyranny in order to have a tyrannical government.Our
>>system may not be perfect, but if certainly isn't tyranny. Robotorgo is
>>right. The problem is many like you have such a rigid and absolute view of
>>freedom and liberty, that even the smallest infringment is an act of
>tyranny.
>
>It's a matter of boiling a frog. Not always is a frog thrown headlong
>into water already boiling; sometimes one slowly and quietly ups
>the temperature at a rate where the frog doesn't notice. Before the
>frog DOES notice, he's cooked.
Homilies are not a good basis for government.
>
>But in spite of all this, it's important to know the exact temperature,
>and not just screams of "by GOD it's hot in here!!!" It's essential
>to make a clear and rational assessment based on the facts:
>
>1) First Amendment: Fairly well intact, though FCC wields a
>highly dangerous level of power in terms of holding the licensing
>keys to public airways. I give it about an 80% effectiveness
>rating.
The public airwaves are not private property. Change it to about 93%
>
>2) Second Amendment: Hanging by a thread. Guns can still
>be bought, but one must jump through increasingly narrow
>hoops to do so. A multiplicity of para-constitutional restrictions
>entangle the citizen to the point of choking off any meaning to
>the Amendment. There's only about 30% of this Amendment
>left, and dropping mightily.
Plenty of guns out there. Somewhere around 200 million or one for every
adult in America. Closer to 70%
>
>3) Third Amendment: Fully intact.
Agreed.
>
>4) Fourth Amendment: An absolute joke. Search warrants are
>laughable, even IF ever produced. Cops nose their way into
>cars no matter what a citizen says about it. Drug gestapos
>charge in and slam people against the wall, quite at will. This
>right is almost 100% disregarded by the government.
Including state actions, I would rate about 50%
>
>5) Fifth Amendment: The "double jeopardy" aspect is gone.
>If the state doesn't get you, the feds will, and vice-versa.
Ever heard of the concept known as jurisdiction?
If
>neither get you, then come the civil suits.
Ever heard of the common law?
It's a game. The
>right against self-incrimination is strong in some respects,
>and weak in others. They can't coerce a confession, but
>"plea bargaining" comes rather close. And the tactics
>prosecutors use, such as threatening extreme criminal
>prosecution unless the poor hapless captive cooperates, is
>also rather contrary to the spirit of this Amendment.
Hmmm. Susan McDougal would agree.
The
>provision against property being taken for public use is, by
>in large, void. Homes are seized via RICO, EPA statutes,
>IRS, and a myriad of other sorry excuses. Nary a shred of
>due process, either. This Amendment overall, is about 3/4
>gone.
No closer to about 70% since you don't under the concept of double jeopardy.
>
>6) Sixth Amendment: First part completely smashed into
>oblivion (speedy trial, impartial jury, same district), though
>right to counsel still exists. Give it about 50%.
Speedy trial, often delayed by the defense
Change of venue often requested by the defense.
I give it 90% because everybody now has right to counsel for all federal
state criminal cases.
>
>7) Seventh Amendment: Fully intact.
Yep. Coupled with that double jeopardy thing.
>
>8) Eight Amendment: gone, finito, bye bye. Horror stories
>abound.
Perhaps you would prefer flight risks to hop a plane to avoid prosecution/
I would say about 50% because of state changes in bail laws.
>
>9) Ninth Amendment: Interpereted out of existence by the
>Supremely Unjust Court. History.
Frankly this amendment can mean anything to anybody. That's it weakness.
It merely recognizes those rights not spelled out in the remaining parts of
the BIll of Rights. Since its based on perspective I give it an even 50%
because people can see anything they want.
>
>10) Tenth Amendment: was once completely obliterated,
>though some groups are trying to ressurect it. It's about
>10% of the way toward making a come-back.
In many ways like the 9th. I give it at least 60% because there has been
a roll back in federal power vis a vis the states since 1980, and recent
welfare changes. Had many of the states not used states' rights to keep
minorities down for many years it might respected more. Also, nothing
forces the states to take money from the feds. They can give effect to the
10th by their own actions. No money, no regulations.
>
>Let's tally up the percentages here:
> RARPOL's scale
> 80 93
> 30 70
>100 100
> 0 50
> 25 70
> 50 90
>100 100
> 0 50
> 0 50
> 10 60
>------
>395 / 10 = 3.95 733/10= 7.33
>
>On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being an absolutist Nazi/Communist
>regime, and 10 being a Libertarian paradise, I give the current
>government a 3.95... and dropping...
Nope. I think 7.33 is closer to the mark. Probably the best we can get
in country with many different viewpoints on the meaning of the constitution.
>
>For you frogs out there, the temperature's rising, and I'm not
>surprised in the least that some are beginning to "jump out."
Fraidy cats jump alot too.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Mike Medintz
Under an unknown and disreputable influence, Guru165871 <guru1...@aol.com> wrote:
> 1) First Amendment: Fairly well intact, though FCC wields a
> highly dangerous level of power in terms of holding the licensing
> keys to public airways. I give it about an 80% effectiveness
> rating.
Slightly lower- the government might be keeping their hands off but that
doesn't explain the shitty phone calls at 3AM that certain friends of mine
seem to be getting from Wise Use and antiabortion groups.
> 2) Second Amendment: Hanging by a thread. Guns can still
> be bought, but one must jump through increasingly narrow
> hoops to do so. A multiplicity of para-constitutional restrictions
> entangle the citizen to the point of choking off any meaning to
> the Amendment. There's only about 30% of this Amendment
> left, and dropping mightily.
A little overblown, but not too much. It's more a problem of state laws
than federal at this point (or have you never tried to legally own in
Illinois?) 40-45%
> 4) Fourth Amendment: An absolute joke. Search warrants are
> laughable, even IF ever produced. Cops nose their way into
> cars no matter what a citizen says about it. Drug gestapos
> charge in and slam people against the wall, quite at will. This
> right is almost 100% disregarded by the government.
You left out pending anti-digital-privacy legislation currently pending in
the Congress (the misnamed "SEcure Networks" bill introduced by McCainand
the "Security and Freedom through Encryption" bill that's been amended
into the exact opposite of what it was supposed to be). I propose a
negative value for the fourth.
> 5) Fifth Amendment: The "double jeopardy" aspect is gone.
> If the state doesn't get you, the feds will, and vice-versa. If
> neither get you, then come the civil suits.
For the most part, those are for separate laws-doyuble jeopardy applies to
retrial for violations of the same law.
> It's a game. The
> right against self-incrimination is strong in some respects,
> and weak in others. They can't coerce a confession, but
> "plea bargaining" comes rather close.
Plea-bargaining won't work unless the defendant lets it work. They
essentially let themselves be talked into jail rather than actually
proclaiming their innocence.
> And the tactics
> prosecutors use, such as threatening extreme criminal
> prosecution unless the poor hapless captive cooperates, is
> also rather contrary to the spirit of this Amendment.
See above.
Also, I'd be curious to see real live proof of an actual seizure by EPA.
> 6) Sixth Amendment: First part completely smashed into
> oblivion (speedy trial, impartial jury, same district), though
> right to counsel still exists. Give it about 50%.
more like 75% intact. Change of venue is usually a stunt pulled by the
defense, as are the various flavors of delay. ANd without shutting off the
press completely (thus violating the rule about a _public_ trial) a
completely impartial jury cannot be guaranteed.
> On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being an absolutist Nazi/Communist
> regime, and 10 being a Libertarian paradise, I give the current
> government a 3.95... and dropping...
More like mid 4's...lots of room left to fall before anyone(other than the
raving idiots that seem to infest this ng) Clinton really resembles
Stalin.
--
Mike S. Medintz, /"Call it hope, call it hope
KB9ODS / that emptiness brings fullness
www.idir.net/~medintz / and loss of love brings wholeness
? to us all" -Indigo Girls
RARPOL
In article <876489056$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) writes:
>
>In article <875861468$22...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) writes:
>
>> It erased
>>>everything that such an act could have gained for good.
>>
>>What good do you mean? What possible good could have come out of his
>>fucking insanity and blood lust?
>
>If all casualties had been those responsible for Waco, it would
>have carried a certain degree of poetic justice--moreso if it
>would have involved CS gas.
There is no justification for what happened in Oklahoma City. It was cold
bloodied murder.
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Son of ATF
"Urgggh, cold coffee," muttered rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) as he sent this:
>In article <876489465$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) writes:
>>6) Sixth Amendment: First part completely smashed into
>>oblivion (speedy trial, impartial jury, same district), though
>>right to counsel still exists. Give it about 50%.
>Speedy trial, often delayed by the defense
>Change of venue often requested by the defense.
Right. And what do you do when the right to an impartial jury conflicts with a
right to be tried in the same district?
>I give it 90% because everybody now has right to counsel for all federal
>state criminal cases.
Yep. Gideon v. Wainwright.
Guru165871
In article <876504001$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
(Son of ATF) writes:
>>8) Eight Amendment: gone, finito, bye bye. Horror stories
>>abound.
>
>On what bail or punishment?
Both: militia and other activists held without bail OR trial,
and the homosexual rape that is now considered "a part
of the punishment" is indeed cruel and unusual.
Guru165871
In article <876504001$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
(Son of ATF) writes:
>As for siezure of property, there is a hearing.
Completely foreign to EPA's and ACE's modus operandi. They
take the property, and then the "subject" has to fight like hell to
get it back. They run absolutely contrary to the Bill of Rights,
and people just LET 'em.
Guru165871
In article <876504001$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
(Son of ATF) writes:
>>9) Ninth Amendment: Interpereted out of existence by the
>>Supremely Unjust Court. History.
>
>Oh, I don't know. How often has it been asserted as a defense or gaurantee
>in
>court?
Ruth Bader Ginsberg devises a constitutional "right" to things
like "housing and medical care," which constitutes an
institutional infringement on the more specific and real right
to not have property confiscated without just compensation.
Guru165871
In article <876504901$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
(Son of ATF) writes:
>>He was an expert sniper, and could knock the gonads off a
>>fruit bat at 1000 yards. A man with that skill doesn't
>>"accidentally" take the jawbone off an unarmed woman at
>>250 feet and watch her bleed to death, screaming.
>
>So when he shot at and only wounded Randy Weaver, he must have done that
>delieberately too. He deliberately wounded the prime subject of teh incident
>and then deliberately killed an involved, but ancillary figure for whom he
>had
>no orders to shoot at?
The orders were to kill "any armed adult." Horiuchi testified he
thought Vicki Weaver was "armed." Yeah, deadly babies,
those are manufactured by Heckler and Koch, aren't they?
>His skill was such that this must have been the case,
>it
>just doesn't make sense?
>
>No. Seems to me that if he can miss once, he can miss twice.
Randy weaver was a moving target.
Guru165871
In article <876504001$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
(Son of ATF) writes:
>>7) Seventh Amendment: Fully intact.
>
>The Erwin Rommell school of Law disagrees with you. :)
Just reread it: they might be right.... ;-)
Guru165871
In article <876504001$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
(Son of ATF) writes:
>>5) Fifth Amendment: The "double jeopardy" aspect is gone.
>>If the state doesn't get you, the feds will, and vice-versa. If
>>neither get you, then come the civil suits. It's a game. The
>>right against self-incrimination is strong in some respects,
>>and weak in others. They can't coerce a confession, but
>>"plea bargaining" comes rather close. And the tactics
>>prosecutors use, such as threatening extreme criminal
>>prosecution unless the poor hapless captive cooperates, is
>>also rather contrary to the spirit of this Amendment. The
>>provision against property being taken for public use is, by
>>in large, void. Homes are seized via RICO, EPA statutes,
>>IRS, and a myriad of other sorry excuses. Nary a shred of
>>due process, either. This Amendment overall, is about 3/4
>>gone.
>
>The double jeopardy clause was never intended to force a selection of
>criminal
>and civil remedy that can be shown by history all the way back to the
>beginning.
>As for it being a shield against differing levels of government prosecution,
>I
>believe you'd be hard pressed to show that, but I don't know for certain.
Let's simply examine the Amendment: "No person shall be held to
answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when when in actual
service in time of war or public danger; [caps mine here] NOR SHALL
ANY PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE TO BE
TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation.
(As a side note, doesn't the above seem completely foreign to the
way things are run today?)
Now, I don't recall seeing "jurisdiction" or "level" anywhere in the
text of that Amendment, there, big guy. It says TWICE, for the
SAME OFFENSE. Once acquitted, that's it. Finito. No mas.
Guru165871
In article <876504001$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
(Son of ATF) writes:
>>Let's tally up the percentages here:
>
>> 80
>> 30
>>100
>> 0
>> 25
>> 50
>>100
>> 0
>> 0
>> 10
>>------
>>395 / 10 = 3.95
>
>>On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being an absolutist Nazi/Communist
>>regime, and 10 being a Libertarian paradise, I give the current
>>government a 3.95... and dropping...
>
>>For you frogs out there, the temperature's rising, and I'm not
>>surprised in the least that some are beginning to "jump out."
>
>With a thermometer like you around Guru, I think I'll be fine. Right now the
>water is.
You must be used to much "warmer waters" than I am.
Mark Pitcavage
On Sat, 11 Oct 97 0:35:12 GMT, guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) wrote:
>
>In article <876504001$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
>(Son of ATF) writes:
>
>>>9) Ninth Amendment: Interpereted out of existence by the
>>>Supremely Unjust Court. History.
>>
>>Oh, I don't know. How often has it been asserted as a defense or gaurantee
>>in
>>court?
>
>Ruth Bader Ginsberg devises a constitutional "right" to things
>like "housing and medical care," which constitutes an
>institutional infringement on the more specific and real right
>to not have property confiscated without just compensation.
That's a bizarre interpretation. (incidentally, you have no right to
not have property confiscated without just compensation. You only
have the right to due process)
Dr. Mark Pitcavage, spa...@militia-watchdog.org
The Militia Watchdog: Http://www.militia-watchdog.org
Son of ATF
"Urgggh, cold coffee," muttered guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) as he sent this:
>In article <876504001$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
>(Son of ATF) writes:
Prior to the passage of the 14th amendment, the Constitution was consistently
held to only apply to the federal level and could present no bar to state
action. Since the passage of the 14th amendment, the rights of the BoR have
been "incorporated" under the 14th piecemeal. Regardless of whether this
piecemeal process is right or wrong, (I don't happen to agree with it) several
rights are not, and probably will not be, applied to the states. A further
function of this process is that ancillary rules that have been traditionally
attached the the various provisions of the BoR have expressly not been
incorporated except in the same peicemeal manner. The double jeopardy provision
has not been applied to the states. It doesn't have to have, however, as every
state constitution make the same gaurantee. History doesn't bear out your
interpretation. Don't misunderstand, I might agree with your view, but I also
see a certain functionallity in dealing with things the way they are, regardless
of how they should be.
Jerry
Ok I saw the hearing on c span. Looks like you people saw a different
hearing. I don't recall this was a gun battle. A battle implies shooting
by both sides. the only ones shooting was FBI.
Son of ATF
"Urgggh, cold coffee," muttered guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) as he sent this:
>In article <876504001$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
>(Son of ATF) writes:
>>As for siezure of property, there is a hearing.
>Completely foreign to EPA's and ACE's modus operandi. They
>take the property, and then the "subject" has to fight like hell to
>get it back. They run absolutely contrary to the Bill of Rights,
>and people just LET 'em.
There is stil a hearing.
Son of ATF
"Urgggh, cold coffee," muttered guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) as he sent this:
>In article <876504001$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
>(Son of ATF) writes:
>>>8) Eight Amendment: gone, finito, bye bye. Horror stories
>>>abound.
>>
>>On what bail or punishment?
>Both: militia and other activists held without bail OR trial,
>and the homosexual rape that is now considered "a part
>of the punishment" is indeed cruel and unusual.
Rape is considered part of the punishment? This has been stated somewhere?
I know that some folks have been held with out bail, but they have been in state
prison. The bail provision has not been incorporated.
Son of ATF
"Urgggh, cold coffee," muttered guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) as he sent this:
>In article <876504901$27...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
>(Son of ATF) writes:
>>>He was an expert sniper, and could knock the gonads off a
>>>fruit bat at 1000 yards. A man with that skill doesn't
>>>"accidentally" take the jawbone off an unarmed woman at
>>>250 feet and watch her bleed to death, screaming.
>>
>>So when he shot at and only wounded Randy Weaver, he must have done that
>>delieberately too. He deliberately wounded the prime subject of teh incident
>>and then deliberately killed an involved, but ancillary figure for whom he
>>had
>>no orders to shoot at?
>The orders were to kill "any armed adult." Horiuchi testified he
>thought Vicki Weaver was "armed." Yeah, deadly babies,
>those are manufactured by Heckler and Koch, aren't they?
This verdict is unsupported by sufficent factual evidence: The orders were to
kill "any armed adult male outside the cabin." Horiuchi testified that he was
shooting at Kevin Harris as he was entering the cabin and that he never saw
Vicki Weaver.
>>His skill was such that this must have been the case,
>>it
>>just doesn't make sense?
>>
>>No. Seems to me that if he can miss once, he can miss twice.
>Randy weaver was a moving target.
As was Kevin Harris. Vicki was standing in the dorrway holding open the dorr
for Randy and Kevin to reenter the cabin for cover. The shot that killed Vicki
was aimed at Kevin Harris. Remember that Kevin was wounded by that shot as
well. Or are you asserting that Horiuchi deliberately went for a "twofer" ala
Dealy Plaza? Magic Bullet #2?
George Erdman
RARPOL <rar...@aol.com> wrote in article
<876516686$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
>
> In article <876488942$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) writes:
>
> >
> >In article <875861468$22...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
> >rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) writes:
>
> But they weren't killed by their government! Their parents did. Why I
on
> earth were they spreading hay and fuel around the compound if not to set
> the fire themselves? The children at Waco was merely tools to Koresh,
they
> ended up that way to fulfill his "visions" or whatever nonsense he
muttered.
>
This is a fantasy. I don't know anyone that believes this scenario other
than some Government employees. You need to get over this and accept the
fact that the American citizens in Waco died in their church as a direct
result of a military action perpetrated on them by the Federal Government
of the United States of America. You are obviously in a state of denial
concerning this matter and have been since the event occurred. No amount
of legal jargon or propaganda will erase the televised images of the
military tanks crashing through the walls of their church and gassing the
children and the adults that were inside. I have read postings over a long
period of time from you and others on this subject and I am always amazed
how you people can't accept the reality of what happened in Waco. I am not
agreeing with their religious beliefs or referring to their encounter with
the ATF I'm only referring to how they died. And please, don't tell me
those weren't really military tanks and it was a police action instead of a
military operation. Whenever you refer to some one as a Nazi or Stalinist
type just pull out those tapes and watch your boys in action.
George
> Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
>
>
>
Jerry
WHOA. Let me understand this. Horuchi was ask by the boundary county
sheriff to come to Idaho and kill a lady and her child with a high power
rifle. So how this would insure the laws of Boundary county would be in
forced. We must make sure that the sentence on violent criminals a
properly executed
RARPOL
In article <876608411$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, "George
Erdman" <well...@centuryinter.net> writes:
>
>RARPOL <rar...@aol.com> wrote in article
><876516686$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
>>
>> In article <876488942$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>> guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) writes:
>>
>> >
>> >In article <875861468$22...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>> >rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) writes:
>
>>
>> But they weren't killed by their government! Their parents did. Why I
>on
>> earth were they spreading hay and fuel around the compound if not to set
>> the fire themselves? The children at Waco was merely tools to Koresh,
>they
>> ended up that way to fulfill his "visions" or whatever nonsense he
>muttered.
>>
>
>This is a fantasy. I don't know anyone that believes this scenario other
>than some Government employees.
Yeah well I think we have an idea what crowd you hang around with.
You need to get over this and accept the
>fact that the American citizens in Waco died in their church as a direct
>result of a military action perpetrated on them by the Federal Government
>of the United States of America.
Then why would the BDs be spreading hay and fuel around for? There are
tapes of this you know.
You are obviously in a state of denial
>concerning this matter and have been since the event occurred. No amount
>of legal jargon or propaganda will erase the televised images of the
>military tanks crashing through the walls of their church and gassing the
>children and the adults that were inside.
But that doesn't mean the government started the fire or intended to kill
them. Hell if that were their intention they would have shot them all, and
wouldn't have wait 51 days to do it.
I have read postings over a long
>period of time from you and others on this subject and I am always amazed
>how you people can't accept the reality of what happened in Waco.
No we can't accept the myths put up by the militia.
I am not
>agreeing with their religious beliefs or referring to their encounter with
>the ATF I'm only referring to how they died
By their own hand.
And please, don't tell me
>those weren't really military tanks and it was a police action instead of a
>military operation. Whenever you refer to some one as a Nazi or Stalinist
>type just pull out those tapes and watch your boys in action.
Yep, and we see a madman inside ordering their deaths, David Koresh.
>
>George
>
>
>
Randy Ragsdale (rar...@aol.com)
Son of ATF
"Urgggh, cold coffee," muttered rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) as he sent this:
>In article <876525606$55...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, l...@US66.net
>(Son of ATF) writes:
>>"Urgggh, cold coffee," muttered rar...@aol.com (RARPOL) as he sent this:
>>
>>
>>>In article <876489465$20...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
>>>guru1...@aol.com (Guru165871) writes:
>>
>>
>>>>6) Sixth Amendment: First part completely smashed into
>>>>oblivion (speedy trial, impartial jury, same district), though
>>>>right to counsel still exists. Give it about 50%.
>>
>>>Speedy trial, often delayed by the defense
>>>Change of venue often requested by the defense.
>>
>>Right. And what do you do when the right to an impartial jury conflicts with
>>a right to be tried in the same district?
>>
>>
>>>I give it 90% because everybody now has right to counsel for all federal
>>>state criminal cases.
>>
>>
>>Yep. Gideon v. Wainwright.
>Hardly the action of a tyranny loving SCOTUS.
Bizactly.
--Son of ATF
Son of ATF Creed: (16 of 19)
16. When in doubt, THINK!
Bill K.
Originally cast as the Professor on Gilligan's Island, guru1...@aol.com
(Guru165871) arranged coconuts into:
=
<snip Guru's frog-boilong scale>
=On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being an absolutist Nazi/Communist
=regime, and 10 being a Libertarian paradise, I give the current
=government a 3.95... and dropping...
=
=For you frogs out there, the temperature's rising, and I'm not
=surprised in the least that some are beginning to "jump out."
Well put. I'd say your rating might be a bit over-generous, but
on the whole, we have no disagreement.
signed,
Bill Kasper,
Frog Liberation Front
"Encouraging Imperiled Amphibians to Leap to Cooler Climes"...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper, Purveyor of Fine Opinions on Various Topics.
Author, Consultant, Cowboy.
misc.activism.militia - Piping hot statists served fresh daily!
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to
such acts as are injurious to others." - Thomas Jefferson
Find Waldo: bill Dot kasper at U S A Dot Net