From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Fwd: CRYPTO-GRAM SPECIAL ISSUE, September 30, 2001 (1 of 3) Date: 03 Oct 2001 06:01:16 -0500 CRYPTO-GRAM September 30, 2001 by Bruce Schneier Founder and CTO Counterpane Internet Security, Inc. schneier@counterpane.com A free monthly newsletter providing summaries, analyses, insights, and commentaries on computer and network security. Back issues are available at . To subscribe, visit or send a blank message to crypto-gram-subscribe@chaparraltree.com. Copyright (c) 2001 by Counterpane Internet Security, Inc. ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* This is a special issue of Crypto-Gram, devoted to the September 11 terrorist attacks and their aftermath. Please distribute this issue widely. In this issue: The Attacks Airline Security Regulations Biometrics in Airports Diagnosing Intelligence Failures Regulating Cryptography Terrorists and Steganography News Protecting Privacy and Liberty How to Help ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* The Attacks Watching the television on September 11, my primary reaction was amazement. The attacks were amazing in their diabolicalness and audacity: to hijack fuel-laden commercial airliners and fly them into buildings, killing thousands of innocent civilians. We'll probably never know if the attackers realized that the heat from the jet fuel would melt the steel supports and collapse the World Trade Center. It seems probable that they placed advantageous trades on the world's stock markets just before the attack. No one planned for an attack like this. We like to think that human beings don't make plans like this. I was impressed when al-Qaeda simultaneously bombed two American embassies in Africa. I was more impressed when they blew a 40-foot hole in an American warship. This attack makes those look like minor operations. The attacks were amazing in their complexity. Estimates are that the plan required about 50 people, at least 19 of them willing to die. It required training. It required logistical support. It required coordination. The sheer scope of the attack seems beyond the capability of a terrorist organization. The attacks rewrote the hijacking rule book. Responses to hijackings are built around this premise: get the plane on the ground so negotiations can begin. That's obsolete now. They rewrote the terrorism book, too. Al-Qaeda invented a new type of attacker. Historically, suicide bombers are young, single, fanatical, and have nothing to lose. These people were older and more experienced. They had marketable job skills. They lived in the U.S.: watched television, ate fast food, drank in bars. One left a wife and four children. It was also a new type of attack. One of the most difficult things about a terrorist operation is getting away. This attack neatly solved that problem. It also solved the technological problem. The United States spends billions of dollars on remote-controlled precision-guided munitions; al-Qaeda just finds morons willing to fly planes into skyscrapers. Finally, the attacks were amazing in their success. They weren't perfect. We know that 100% of the attempted hijackings were successful, and 75% of the hijacked planes successfully hit their targets. We don't know how many planned hijackings were aborted for one reason or another. What's most amazing is that the plan wasn't leaked. No one successfully defected. No one slipped up and gave the plan away. Al-Qaeda had assets in the U.S. for months, and managed to keep the plan secret. Often law enforcement has been lucky here; in this case we weren't. Rarely do you see an attack that changes the world's conception of attack, as these terrorist attacks changed the world's conception of what a terrorist attack can do. Nothing they did was novel, yet the attack was completely new. And our conception of defense must change as well. ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* Airline Security Regulations Computer security experts have a lot of expertise that can be applied to the real world. First and foremost, we have well-developed senses of what security looks like. We can tell the difference between real security and snake oil. And the new airport security rules, put in place after September 11, look and smell a whole lot like snake oil. All the warning signs are there: new and unproven security measures, no real threat analysis, unsubstantiated security claims. The ban on cutting instruments is a perfect example. It's a knee-jerk reaction: the terrorists used small knives and box cutters, so we must ban them. And nail clippers, nail files, cigarette lighters, scissors (even small ones), tweezers, etc. But why isn't anyone asking the real questions: what is the threat, and how does turning an airplane into a kindergarten classroom reduce the threat? If the threat is hijacking, then the countermeasure doesn't protect against all the myriad of ways people can subdue the pilot and crew. Hasn't anyone heard of karate? Or broken bottles? Think about hiding small blades inside luggage. Or composite knives that don't show up on metal detectors. Parked cars now must be 300 feet from airport gates. Why? What security problem does this solve? Why doesn't the same problem imply that passenger drop-off and pick-up should also be that far away? Curbside check-in has been eliminated. What's the threat that this security measure has solved? Why, if the new threat is hijacking, are we suddenly worried about bombs? The rule limiting concourse access to ticketed passengers is another one that confuses me. What exactly is the threat here? Hijackers have to be on the planes they're trying to hijack to carry out their attack, so they have to have tickets. And anyone can call Priceline.com and "name their own price" for concourse access. Increased inspections -- of luggage, airplanes, airports -- seem like a good idea, although it's far from perfect. The biggest problem here is that the inspectors are poorly paid and, for the most part, poorly educated and trained. Other problems include the myriad ways to bypass the checkpoints -- numerous studies have found all sorts of violations -- and the impossibility of effectively inspecting everybody while maintaining the required throughput. Unidentified armed guards on select flights is another mildly effective idea: it's a small deterrent, because you never know if one is on the flight you want to hijack. Positive bag matching -- ensuring that a piece of luggage does not get loaded on the plane unless its owner boards the plane -- is actually a good security measure, but assumes that bombers have self-preservation as a guiding force. It is completely useless against suicide bombers. The worst security measure of them all is the photo ID requirement. This solves no security problem I can think of. It doesn't even identify people; any high school student can tell you how to get a fake ID. The requirement for this invasive and ineffective security measure is secret; the FAA won't send you the written regulations if you ask. Airlines are actually more stringent about this than the FAA requires, because the "security" measure solves a business problem for them. The real point of photo ID requirements is to prevent people from reselling tickets. Nonrefundable tickets used to be regularly advertised in the newspaper classifieds. Ads would read something like "Round trip, Boston to Chicago, 11/22 - 11/30, female, $50." Since the airlines didn't check ID but could notice gender, any female could buy the ticket and fly the route. Now this doesn't work. The airlines love this; they solved a problem of theirs, and got to blame the solution on FAA security requirements. Airline security measures are primarily designed to give the appearance of good security rather than the actuality. This makes sense, once you realize that the airlines' goal isn't so much to make the planes hard to hijack, as to make the passengers willing to fly. Of course airlines would prefer it if all their flights were perfectly safe, but actual hijackings and bombings are rare events and they know it. This is not to say that all airport security is useless, and that we'd be better off doing nothing. All security measures have benefits, and all have costs: money, inconvenience, etc. I would like to see some rational analysis of the costs and benefits, so we can get the most security for the resources we have. One basic snake-oil warning sign is the use of self-invented security measures, instead of expert-analyzed and time-tested ones. The closest the airlines have to experienced and expert analysis is El Al. Since 1948 they have been operating in and out of the most heavily terroristic areas of the planet, with phenomenal success. They implement some pretty heavy security measures. One thing they do is have reinforced, locked doors between their airplanes' cockpit and the passenger section. (Notice that this security measure is 1) expensive, and 2) not immediately perceptible to the passenger.) Another thing they do is place all cargo in decompression chambers before takeoff, to trigger bombs set to sense altitude. (Again, this is 1) expensive, and 2) imperceptible, so unattractive to American airlines.) Some of the things El Al does are so intrusive as to be unconstitutional in the U.S., but they let you take your pocketknife on board with you. Airline security: FAA on new security rules: A report on the rules' effectiveness: El Al's security measures: More thoughts on this topic: Two secret FAA documents on photo ID requirement, in text and GIF: Passenger profiling: A CATO Institute report: "The Cost of Antiterrorist Rhetoric," written well before September 11: I don't know if this is a good idea, but at least someone is thinking about the problem: ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* Biometrics in Airports You have to admit, it sounds like a good idea. Put cameras throughout airports and other public congregation areas, and have automatic face-recognition software continuously scan the crowd for suspected terrorists. When the software finds one, it alerts the authorities, who swoop down and arrest the bastards. Voila, we're safe once again. Reality is a lot more complicated; it always is. Biometrics is an effective authentication tool, and I've written about it before. There are three basic kinds of authentication: something you know (password, PIN code, secret handshake), something you have (door key, physical ticket into a concert, signet ring), and something you are (biometrics). Good security uses at least two different authentication types: an ATM card and a PIN code, computer access using both a password and a fingerprint reader, a security badge that includes a picture that a guard looks at. Implemented properly, biometrics can be an effective part of an access control system. I think it would be a great addition to airport security: identifying airline and airport personnel such as pilots, maintenance workers, etc. That's a problem biometrics can help solve. Using biometrics to pick terrorists out of crowds is a different kettle of fish. In the first case (employee identification), the biometric system has a straightforward problem: does this biometric belong to the person it claims to belong to? In the latter case (picking terrorists out of crowds), the system needs to solve a much harder problem: does this biometric belong to anyone in this large database of people? The difficulty of the latter problem increases the complexity of the identification, and leads to identification failures. Setting up the system is different for the two applications. In the first case, you can unambiguously know the reference biometric belongs to the correct person. In the latter case, you need to continually worry about the integrity of the biometric database. What happens if someone is wrongfully included in the database? What kind of right of appeal does he have? Getting reference biometrics is different, too. In the first case, you can initialize the system with a known, good biometric. If the biometric is face recognition, you can take good pictures of new employees when they are hired and enter them into the system. Terrorists are unlikely to pose for photo shoots. You might have a grainy picture of a terrorist, taken five years ago from 1000 yards away when he had a beard. Not nearly as useful. But even if all these technical problems were magically solved, it's still very difficult to make this kind of system work. The hardest problem is the false alarms. To explain why, I'm going to have to digress into statistics and explain the base rate fallacy. Suppose this magically effective face-recognition software is 99.99 percent accurate. That is, if someone is a terrorist, there is a 99.99 percent chance that the software indicates "terrorist," and if someone is not a terrorist, there is a 99.99 percent chance that the software indicates "non-terrorist." Assume that one in ten million flyers, on average, is a terrorist. Is the software any good? No. The software will generate 1000 false alarms for every one real terrorist. And every false alarm still means that all the security people go through all of their security procedures. Because the population of non-terrorists is so much larger than the number of terrorists, the test is useless. This result is counterintuitive and surprising, but it is correct. The false alarms in this kind of system render it mostly useless. It's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" increased 1000-fold. I say mostly useless, because it would have some positive effect. Once in a while, the system would correctly finger a frequent-flyer terrorist. But it's a system that has enormous costs: money to install, manpower to run, inconvenience to the millions of people incorrectly identified, successful lawsuits by some of those people, and a continued erosion of our civil - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Fwd: CRYPTO-GRAM SPECIAL ISSUE, September 30, 2001 (2 of 3) Date: 03 Oct 2001 06:01:25 -0500 liberties. And all the false alarms will inevitably lead those managing the system to distrust its results, leading to sloppiness and potentially costly mistakes. Ubiquitous harvesting of biometrics might sound like a good idea, but I just don't think it's worth it. Phil Agre on face-recognition biometrics: My original essay on biometrics: Face recognition useless in airports: According to a DARPA study, to detect 90 per cent of terrorists we'd need to raise an alarm for one in every three people passing through the airport. A company that is pushing this idea: A version of this article was published here: ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* Diagnosing Intelligence Failures It's clear that U.S. intelligence failed to provide adequate warning of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and that the FBI failed to prevent the attacks. It's also clear that there were all sorts of indications that the attacks were going to happen, and that there were all sorts of things that we could have noticed but didn't. Some have claimed that this was a massive intelligence failure, and that we should have known about and prevented the attacks. I am not convinced. There's a world of difference between intelligence data and intelligence information. In what I am sure is the mother of all investigations, the CIA, NSA, and FBI have uncovered all sorts of data from their files, data that clearly indicates that an attack was being planned. Maybe it even clearly indicates the nature of the attack, or the date. I'm sure lots of information is there, in files, intercepts, computer memory. Armed with the clarity of hindsight, it's easy to look at all the data and point to what's important and relevant. It's even easy to take all that important and relevant data and turn it into information. And it's real easy to take that information and construct a picture of what's going on. It's a lot harder to do before the fact. Most data is irrelevant, and most leads are false ones. How does anyone know which is the important one, that effort should be spent on this specific threat and not the thousands of others? So much data is collected -- the NSA sucks up an almost unimaginable quantity of electronic communications, the FBI gets innumerable leads and tips, and our allies pass all sorts of information to us -- that we can't possibly analyze it all. Imagine terrorists are hiding plans for attacks in the text of books in a large university library; you have no idea how many plans there are or where they are, and the library expands faster than you can possibly read it. Deciding what to look at is an impossible task, so a lot of good intelligence goes unlearned. We also don't have any context to judge the intelligence effort. How many terrorist attempts have been thwarted in the past year? How many groups are being tracked? If the CIA, NSA, and FBI succeed, no one ever knows. It's only in failure that they get any recognition. And it was a failure. Over the past couple of decades, the U.S. has relied more and more on high-tech electronic eavesdropping (SIGINT and COMINT) and less and less on old fashioned human intelligence (HUMINT). This only makes the analysis problem worse: too much data to look at, and not enough real-world context. Look at the intelligence failures of the past few years: failing to predict India's nuclear test, or the attack on the USS Cole, or the bombing of the two American embassies in Africa; concentrating on Wen Ho Lee to the exclusion of the real spies, like Robert Hanssen. But whatever the reason, we failed to prevent this terrorist attack. In the post mortem, I'm sure there will be changes in the way we collect and (most importantly) analyze anti-terrorist data. But calling this a massive intelligence failure is a disservice to those who are working to keep our country secure. Intelligence failure is an overreliance on eavesdropping and not enough on human intelligence: Another view: Too much electronic eavesdropping only makes things harder: Israel alerted the U.S. about attacks: Mostly retracted: ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* Regulating Cryptography In the wake of the devastating attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Senator Judd Gregg and other high-ranking government officials quickly seized on the opportunity to resurrect limits on strong encryption and key escrow systems that ensure government access to encrypted messages. I think this is a bad move. It will do little to thwart terrorist activities, while at the same time significantly reducing the security of our own critical infrastructure. We've been through these arguments before, but legislators seem to have short memories. Here's why trying to limit cryptography is bad for Internet security. One, you can't limit the spread of cryptography. Cryptography is mathematics, and you can't ban mathematics. All you can ban is a set of products that use that mathematics, but that is something quite different. Years ago, during the cryptography debates, an international crypto survey was completed; it listed almost a thousand products with strong cryptography from over a hundred countries. You might be able to control cryptography products in a handful of industrial countries, but that won't prevent criminals from importing them. You'd have to ban them in every country, and even then it won't be enough. Any terrorist organization with a modicum of skill can write its own cryptography software. And besides, what terrorist is going to pay attention to a legal ban? Two, any controls on the spread of cryptography hurt more than they help. Cryptography is one of the best security tools we have to protect our electronic world from harm: eavesdropping, unauthorized access, meddling, denial of service. Sure, by controlling the spread of cryptography you might be able to prevent some terrorist groups from using cryptography, but you'll also prevent bankers, hospitals, and air-traffic controllers from using it. (And, remember, the terrorists can always get the stuff elsewhere: see my first point.) We've got a lot of electronic infrastructure to protect, and we need all the cryptography we can get our hands on. If anything, we need to make strong cryptography more prevalent if companies continue to put our planet's critical infrastructure online. Three, key escrow doesn't work. Short refresher: this is the notion that companies should be forced to implement back doors in crypto products such that law enforcement, and only law enforcement, can peek in and eavesdrop on encrypted messages. Terrorists and criminals won't use it. (Again, see my first point.) Key escrow also makes it harder for the good guys to secure the important stuff. All key-escrow systems require the existence of a highly sensitive and highly available secret key or collection of keys that must be maintained in a secure manner over an extended time period. These systems must make decryption information quickly accessible to law enforcement agencies without notice to the key owners. Does anyone really think that we can build this kind of system securely? It would be a security engineering task of unbelievable magnitude, and I don't think we have a prayer of getting it right. We can't build a secure operating system, let alone a secure computer and secure network. Stockpiling keys in one place is a huge risk just waiting for attack or abuse. Whose digital security do you trust absolutely and without question, to protect every major secret of the nation? Which operating system would you use? Which firewall? Which applications? As attractive as it may sound, building a workable key-escrow system is beyond the current capabilities of computer engineering. Years ago, a group of colleagues and I wrote a paper outlining why key escrow is a bad idea. The arguments in the paper still stand, and I urge everyone to read it. It's not a particularly technical paper, but it lays out all the problems with building a secure, effective, scalable key-escrow infrastructure. The events of September 11 have convinced a lot of people that we live in dangerous times, and that we need more security than ever before. They're right; security has been dangerously lax in many areas of our society, including cyberspace. As more and more of our nation's critical infrastructure goes digital, we need to recognize cryptography as part of the solution and not as part of the problem. My old "Risks of Key Recovery" paper: Articles on this topic: Al-Qaeda did not use encryption to plan these attacks: Poll indicates that 72 percent of Americans believe that anti-encryption laws would be "somewhat" or "very" helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. No indication of what percentage actually understood the question. ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* Terrorists and Steganography Guess what? Al-Qaeda may use steganography. According to nameless "U.S. officials and experts" and "U.S. and foreign officials," terrorist groups are "hiding maps and photographs of terrorist targets and posting instructions for terrorist activities on sports chat rooms, pornographic bulletin boards and other Web sites." I've written about steganography in the past, and I don't want to spend much time retracing old ground. Simply, steganography is the science of hiding messages in messages. Typically, a message (either plaintext or, more cleverly, ciphertext) is encoded as tiny changes to the color of the pixels of a digital photograph. Or in imperceptible noise in an audio file. To the uninitiated observer, it's just a picture. But to the sender and receiver, there's a message hiding in there. It doesn't surprise me that terrorists are using this trick. The very aspects of steganography that make it unsuitable for normal corporate use make it ideally suited for terrorist use. Most importantly, it can be used in an electronic dead drop. If you read the FBI affidavit against Robert Hanssen, you learn how Hanssen communicated with his Russian handlers. They never met, but would leave messages, money, and documents for one another in plastic bags under a bridge. Hanssen's handler would leave a signal in a public place -- a chalk mark on a mailbox -- to indicate a waiting package. Hanssen would later collect the package. That's a dead drop. It has many advantages over a face-to-face meeting. One, the two parties are never seen together. Two, the two parties don't have to coordinate a rendezvous. Three, and most importantly, one party doesn't even have to know who the other one is (a definite advantage if one of them is arrested). Dead drops can be used to facilitate completely anonymous, asynchronous communications. Using steganography to embed a message in a pornographic image and posting it to a Usenet newsgroup is the cyberspace equivalent of a dead drop. To everyone else, it's just a picture. But to the receiver, there's a message in there waiting to be extracted. To make it work in practice, the terrorists would need to set up some sort of code. Just as Hanssen knew to collect his package when he saw the chalk mark, a virtual terrorist will need to know to look for his message. (He can't be expected to search every picture.) There are lots of ways to communicate a signal: timestamp on the message, an uncommon word in the subject line, etc. Use your imagination here; the possibilities are limitless. The effect is that the sender can transmit a message without ever communicating directly with the receiver. There is no e-mail between them, no remote logins, no instant messages. All that exists is a picture posted to a public forum, and then downloaded by anyone sufficiently enticed by the subject line (both third parties and the intended receiver of the secret message). So, what's a counter-espionage agency to do? There are the standard ways of finding steganographic messages, most of which involve looking for changes in traffic patterns. If Bin Laden is using pornographic images to embed his secret messages, it is unlikely these pictures are being taken in Afghanistan. They're probably downloaded from the Web. If the NSA can keep a database of images (wouldn't that be something?), then they can find ones with subtle changes in the low-order bits. If Bin Laden uses the same image to transmit multiple messages, the NSA could notice that. Otherwise, there's probably nothing the NSA can do. Dead drops, both real and virtual, can't be prevented. Why can't businesses use this? The primary reason is that legitimate businesses don't need dead drops. I remember hearing one company talk about a corporation embedding a steganographic message to its salespeople in a photo on the corporate Web page. Why not just send an encrypted e-mail? Because someone might notice the e-mail and know that the salespeople all got an encrypted message. So send a message every day: a real message when you need to, and a dummy message otherwise. This is a traffic analysis problem, and there are other techniques to solve it. Steganography just doesn't apply here. Steganography is good way for terrorist cells to communicate, allowing communication without any group knowing the identity of the other. There are other ways to build a dead drop in cyberspace. A spy can sign up for a free, anonymous e-mail account, for example. Bin Laden probably uses those too. News articles: My old essay on steganography: Study claims no steganography on eBay: Detecting steganography on the Internet: A version of this essay appeared on ZDnet: ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* News - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Fwd: CRYPTO-GRAM SPECIAL ISSUE, September 30, 2001 (3 of 3) Date: 03 Oct 2001 06:01:30 -0500 I am not opposed to using force against the terrorists. I am not opposed to going to war -- for retribution, deterrence, and the restoration of the social contract -- assuming a suitable enemy can be identified. Occasionally, peace is something you have to fight for. But I think the use of force is far more complicated than most people realize. Our actions are important; messing this up will only make things worse. Written before September 11: A former CIA operative explains why the terrorist Usama bin Laden has little to fear from American intelligence. And a Russian soldier discusses why war in Afghanistan will be a nightmare. A British soldier explains the same: Lessons from Britain on fighting terrorism: 1998 Esquire interview with Bin Ladin: Phil Agre's comments on these issues: Why technology can't save us: Hactivism exacts revenge for terrorist attacks: FBI reminds everyone that it's illegal: Hackers face life imprisonment under anti-terrorism act: Especially scary are the "advice or assistance" components. A security consultant could face life imprisonment, without parole, if he discovered and publicized a security hole that was later exploited by someone else. After all, without his "advice" about what the hole was, the attacker never would have accomplished his hack. Companies fear cyberterrorism: They're investing in security: Upgrading government computers to fight terrorism: Risks of cyberterrorism attacks against our electronic infrastructure: Now the complaint is that Bin Laden is NOT using high-tech communications: Larry Ellison is willing to give away the software to implement a national ID card. Security problems include: inaccurate information, insiders issuing fake cards (this happens with state drivers' licenses), vulnerability of the large database, potential privacy abuses, etc. And, of course, no trans-national terrorists would be listed in such a system, because they wouldn't be U.S. citizens. What do you expect from a company whose origins are intertwined with the CIA? ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* Protecting Privacy and Liberty Appalled by the recent hijackings, many Americans have declared themselves willing to give up civil liberties in the name of security. They've declared it so loudly that this trade-off seems to be a fait accompli. Article after article talks about the balance between privacy and security, discussing whether various increases of security are worth the privacy and civil-liberty losses. Rarely do I see a discussion about whether this linkage is a valid one. Security and privacy are not two sides of a teeter-totter. This association is simplistic and largely fallacious. It's easy and fast, but less effective, to increase security by taking away liberty. However, the best ways to increase security are not at the expense of privacy and liberty. It's easy to refute the notion that all security comes at the expense of liberty. Arming pilots, reinforcing cockpit doors, and teaching flight attendants karate are all examples of security measures that have no effect on individual privacy or liberties. So are better authentication of airport maintenance workers, or dead-man switches that force planes to automatically land at the closest airport, or armed air marshals traveling on flights. Liberty-depriving security measures are most often found when system designers failed to take security into account from the beginning. They're Band-aids, and evidence of bad security planning. When security is designed into a system, it can work without forcing people to give up their freedoms. Here's an example: securing a room. Option one: convert the room into an impregnable vault. Option two: put locks on the door, bars on the windows, and alarm everything. Option three: don't bother securing the room; instead, post a guard in the room who records the ID of everyone entering and makes sure they should be allowed in. Option one is the best, but is unrealistic. Impregnable vaults just don't exist, getting close is prohibitively expensive, and turning a room into a vault greatly lessens its usefulness as a room. Option two is the realistic best; combine the strengths of prevention, detection, and response to achieve resilient security. Option three is the worst. It's far more expensive than option two, and the most invasive and easiest to defeat of all three options. It's also a sure sign of bad planning; designers built the room, and only then realized that they needed security. Rather then spend the effort installing door locks and alarms, they took the easy way out and invaded people's privacy. A more complex example is Internet security. Preventive countermeasures help significantly against script kiddies, but fail against smart attackers. For a couple of years I have advocated detection and response to provide security on the Internet. This works; my company catches attackers -- both outside hackers and insiders -- all the time. We do it by monitoring the audit logs of network products: firewalls, IDSs, routers, servers, and applications. We don't eavesdrop on legitimate users or read traffic. We don't invade privacy. We monitor data about data, and find abuse that way. No civil liberties are violated. It's not perfect, but nothing is. Still, combined with preventive security products it is more effective, and more cost-effective, than anything else. The parallels between Internet security and global security are strong. All criminal investigation looks at surveillance records. The lowest-tech version of this is questioning witnesses. In this current investigation, the FBI is looking at airport videotapes, airline passenger records, flight school class records, financial records, etc. And the better job they can do examining these records, the more effective their investigation will be. There are copycat criminals and terrorists, who do what they've seen done before. To a large extent, this is what the hastily implemented security measures have tried to prevent. And there are the clever attackers, who invent new ways to attack people. This is what we saw on September 11. It's expensive, but we can build security to protect against yesterday's attacks. But we can't guarantee protection against tomorrow's attacks: the hacker attack that hasn't been invented, or the terrorist attack yet to be conceived. Demands for even more surveillance miss the point. The problem is not obtaining data, it's deciding which data is worth analyzing and then interpreting it. Everyone already leaves a wide audit trail as we go through life, and law enforcement can already access those records with search warrants. The FBI quickly pieced together the terrorists' identities and the last few months of their lives, once they knew where to look. If they had thrown up their hands and said that they couldn't figure out who did it or how, they might have a case for needing more surveillance data. But they didn't, and they don't. More data can even be counterproductive. The NSA and the CIA have been criticized for relying too much on signals intelligence, and not enough on human intelligence. The East German police collected data on four million East Germans, roughly a quarter of their population. Yet they did not foresee the peaceful overthrow of the Communist government because they invested heavily in data collection instead of data interpretation. We need more intelligence agents squatting on the ground in the Middle East arguing the Koran, not sitting in Washington arguing about wiretapping laws. People are willing to give up liberties for vague promises of security because they think they have no choice. What they're not being told is that they can have both. It would require people to say no to the FBI's power grab. It would require us to discard the easy answers in favor of thoughtful answers. It would require structuring incentives to improve overall security rather than simply decreasing its costs. Designing security into systems from the beginning, instead of tacking it on at the end, would give us the security we need, while preserving the civil liberties we hold dear. Some broad surveillance, in limited circumstances, might be warranted as a temporary measure. But we need to be careful that it remain temporary, and that we do not design surveillance into our electronic infrastructure. Thomas Jefferson once said: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Historically, liberties have always been a casualty of war, but a temporary casualty. This war -- a war without a clear enemy or end condition -- has the potential to turn into a permanent state of society. We need to design our security accordingly. The events of September 11th demonstrated the need for America to redesign our public infrastructures for security. Ignoring this need would be an additional tragedy. Quotes from U.S. government officials on the need to preserve liberty during this crisis: Quotes from editorial pages on the same need: Selected editorials: Schneier's comments in the UK: War and liberties: More on Ashcroft's anti-privacy initiatives: Editorial cartoon: Terrorists leave a broad electronic trail: National Review article from 1998: "Know nothings: U.S. intelligence failures stem from too much information, not enough understanding" A previous version of this essay appeared in the San Jose Mercury News: ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* How to Help How can you help? Speak about the issues. Write to your elected officials. Contribute to organizations working on these issues. This week the United States Congress will act on the most sweeping proposal to extend the surveillance authority of the government since the end of the Cold War. If you value privacy, there are three steps you should take before you open your next email message: 1. Urge your representatives in Congress to protect privacy. - Call the White House switchboard at 202-224-3121. - Ask to be connected to the office of your Congressional representative. - When you are put through, say "May I please speak to the staff member who is working on the anti-terrorism legislation?" If that person is not available to speak with you, say "May I please leave a message?" - Briefly explain that you appreciate the efforts of your representative to address the challenges brought about by the September 11th tragedy, but it is your view that it would be a mistake to make any changes in the federal wiretap statute that do not respond to "the immediate threat of investigating or preventing terrorist acts." 2. Go to the In Defense of Freedom web site and endorse the statement: 3. Forward this message to at least five other people. We have less than 100 hours before Congress acts on legislation that will (a) significantly expand the use of Carnivore, (b) make computer hacking a form of terrorism, (c) expand electronic surveillance in routine criminal investigations, and (d) reduce government accountability. Please act now. More generally, I expect to see many pieces of legislation that will address these matters. Visit the following Web sites for up-to-date information on what is happening and what you can do to help. The Electronic Privacy Information Center: The Center for Democracy and Technology: The American Civil Liberties Union: ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* CRYPTO-GRAM is a free monthly newsletter providing summaries, analyses, insights, and commentaries on computer security and cryptography. Back issues are available on . To subscribe, visit or send a blank message to crypto-gram-subscribe@chaparraltree.com. To unsubscribe, visit . Please feel free to forward CRYPTO-GRAM to colleagues and friends who will find it valuable. Permission is granted to reprint CRYPTO-GRAM, as long as it is reprinted in its entirety. CRYPTO-GRAM is written by Bruce Schneier. Schneier is founder and CTO of Counterpane Internet Security Inc., the author of "Secrets and Lies" and "Applied Cryptography," and an inventor of the Blowfish, Twofish, and Yarrow algorithms. He is a member of the Advisory Board of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). He is a frequent writer and lecturer on computer security and cryptography. Counterpane Internet Security, Inc. is the world leader in Managed Security Monitoring. Counterpane's expert security analysts protect networks for Fortune 1000 companies world-wide. Copyright (c) 2001 by Counterpane Internet Security, Inc. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: anti-terrorist spray (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 2001 23:18:23 -0700 Re: Don't fear terrorists! Send them to Hell! Dear Editor, My friend's idea for an anti-terrorist spray containing pork and vodka which, if sprayed on a terrorist, makes them believe in their own mind they will be damned to hell for eternity, is actually a very good idea. I would like to see his idea published as a letter to the editor as wide and far as possible. Who says we need nuclear weapons to fight muslim fanatic terrorism?! submitted for reprinting by Ms. Dagny Sharon, Tustin, California. Letter to the Editor: >Have your travel plans been dampened by terrorist attacks? >Step right up, folks! >Get your bottle of WILLYSTAR (tm) brand Anti-Terrorist Spray! > >Made from all natural and organic products, this low-tech spray will protect >you from a host of moslem fundamentalist terrorists. Though less effective >on the following, it also has a repellent effect on buddhist, hindu and >jewish radicals, and even militant vegans and animal rights activists! > >Our product is made with pure 100% bacon grease, diluted with vodka (an >added sin to moslems) to keep it in a sprayable liquid state. When sprayed >on the face or body of a terrorist, it renders them UNCLEAN and if they die >in such a state they will NOT go to Paradise but be condemned to Hell for >all eternity! Safe and effective, with the mouth-watering aroma of fried >bacon. Mm-mmm! > >The convenient pump-spray bottle can be carried in pocket or purse. It's >not a weapon, it's a cookwear coating! At $4.95 (plus shipping and >handling), It makes a lovely and thoughtful gift for friends or loved ones >departing on vacation or honeymoon. > >WILLYSTAR ANTI-TERRORIST SPRAY.... Don't leave home without it! Willy Star Marshall willystarman@hotmail.com -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: THOUGHT4 (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 2001 16:32:53 -0700 William's THOUGHT FOR TODAY At the Rose Bowl, security officials were searching the handbags of grandmothers. There's always the risk that one of them will try to knit an Afghan..... -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kenneth Mitchell" Subject: FW: DISARMED Date: 04 Oct 2001 20:39:36 -0700 Interesting.... Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA ken@creativemindssacramento.com 916-955-9152 (voice) 916-729-0966 (fax) ----------------http://www.creativemindssacramento.com------------- In March 1984, three Palestinians opened fire with machine guns at a crowded cafe in Jerusalem. Their intention was to go round a succession of crowded places, killing and then escaping before the authorities could arrive. They killed one person. Nearly everyone at the cafe was armed. Only one of the attackers survived to be arrested. That's why they use suicide bombs now. The Heroes of United Flight 93 Jeremy Glick told his wife to have a good life, and to take care of their baby. Thomas Burnett, who made replacement heart valves, called his wife to tell her that he loved her. Mark Bingham, a publicist, was on his way home to San Francisco. Lou Nacke was a toy-company manager on his way to Sacramento for a day trip. Todd Beamer used the AirPhone to report the hijacking, and then called "Let's roll!" as these five heroes attacked the hijackers who were on their way to..... an empty field in Pennsylvania. They were the first five heroes of the war. Let their names live in honor! http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp > -----Original Message----- > From: National Review D.C. [mailto:nrdc@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 7:58 AM > To: WashingtonBulletin@topica.com > Subject: DISARMED > > > Washington Bulletin: National Review's Internet Update for > October 4, 2001 > http://www.nationalreview.com > > > DISARMED > [A gun-hating historian comes under heavy fire.] > > > Our colleague Melissa Seckora had the misfortune of seeing the most > important article she’s ever written debut on the National Review > website on the morning of September 11. Her story exposing the phony > sources behind Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, an > award-winning book critical of U.S. gun culture by Emory University > historian Michael Bellesiles, normally would have attracted a great deal > of attention. Yet it was featured online for only a few hours and then > archived--available only to people who knew where to search for it--as > we all came to grips with the horror of mass terrorism. > > Now there’s been a stunning new development in the Bellesiles case: The > head of Emory’s history department is demanding that Bellesiles write a > detailed defense of his book. “What is important is that he defend > himself and the integrity of his scholarship immediately,” said James > Melton, according to yesterday’s Boston Globe, which also printed a > September 11 story on Bellesiles airing charges similar to Seckora’s. > “Depending upon his response, the university will respond > appropriately.” > > That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of a colleague. And it gets > worse: “If there is prima facie evidence of scholarly misconduct, the > university has to conduct a thorough investigation. Whether it be a > purely internal inquiry, or the university brings in distinguished > scholars in the field, will depend on how Michael responds,” said > Melton. > > Seckora, in fact, interviewed some of the “distinguished scholars” any > such effort is likely to involve--including a few recommended to her by > Bellesiles. Let’s just say he doesn’t fare well in their estimation. But > how could he? As Seckora shows, key sources for his claim that guns were > a much less important part of early American culture than is commonly > believed simply don’t exist. Many of those he cites, in fact, were > destroyed in San Francisco’s 1906 earthquake. There’s not a historian > alive who’s seen them. > > Bellesiles now must explain how they wound up in his footnotes--and he > told the Globe he’ll do it in a future newsletter published by the > Organization of American Historians. > > He has his work cut out for him, thanks in part to the intrepid > reporting of Seckora, whose article may be read here: > < http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/seckora101501.shtml >, or in the > October 15, 2001, issue of National Review. > > ==^================================================================ > EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrCJX.bVhn8p > Or send an email To: WashingtonBulletin-unsubscribe@topica.com > This email was sent to: ken@creativemindssacramento.com > > T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! > http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register > ==^================================================================ > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: On the Positive Side (fwd) Date: 05 Oct 2001 18:17:37 -0500 At 05:06 AM 10/3/2001 -0600, roc-digest wrote: >Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 02:02:38 -0700 >From: Bill Vance >Subject: On the Positive Side (fwd) > >From: "Huck" >Subject: Fw: On the Positive Side >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 22:08:40 -0400 > >- ----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Berry" >Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 10:01 PM >Subject: On the Positive Side > > > > The Pentagon - > > > Some 23,000 people were the target of a third plane aimed at the > > Pentagon. Chances are pretty good that the Pentagon was not the original target. More likely the Capital or the White House. Draw a line perpendicular to the face of the Pentagon that was hit and it goes very near the White House. The plane was observed to pass the Pentagon once, then make a circle just north of the White House then just east of the capital. A pilot not experienced in that particular aircraft could easily loose a bit more altitude "going around", and then be unable to regain it. IMHO, he then picked the Pentagon as a target of opportunity. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. --Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! Molon Labe! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kenneth Mitchell" Subject: RE: On the Positive Side (fwd) Date: 05 Oct 2001 17:16:26 -0700 > > Chances are pretty good that the Pentagon was not the original > target. More > likely the Capital or the White House. Draw a line perpendicular to the > face of the Pentagon that was hit and it goes very near the White House. > The plane was observed to pass the Pentagon once, then make a circle just > north of the White House then just east of the capital. A pilot not > experienced in that particular aircraft could easily loose a bit more > altitude "going around", and then be unable to regain it. IMHO, he then > picked the Pentagon as a target of opportunity. > I was in DC during the attacks, and on Thursday I walked up to the Washington Monument. The Monument is on a small hill (I'd never realized how hilly DC was!) and looked north toward the White House. As a private pilot myself, I'm inclined to believe that the White House would be a difficult target for a kamikaze airliner. It's in a depression; not really a "valley", but a little lower than the surrounding terain. It's only three or four stories, and it's surrounded by trees. It was hard to see the White House from the Monument, which is on a small rise. It would be difficult to crash an airliner into it without hitting the trees first. All the buildings around it are just as tall or taller. Remember that the airliners are "fly by wire"; I'm not certain that the computers would allow a steep enough dive at low altitude to hit a small target, especially with an inexperienced pilot. The WTC towers were a cinch; they stuck right up there, and so a kamikaze pilot just had to drive into it straight & level, no real flying skills required. The Capitol would have been easier; taller, on higher ground, with a long clear corridor (the Mall) for a straight approach. That may have been United 93's target. And the airliner didn't HIT the Pentagon; most accounts say that it hit the helipad a few dozen yards short of the Pentagon and bounced into it. Which fits nicely with your "inexperienced pilot loses control" theory. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA ken@creativemindssacramento.com 916-955-9152 (voice) 916-729-0966 (fax) ----------------http://www.creativemindssacramento.com------------- In March 1984, three Palestinians opened fire with machine guns at a crowded cafe in Jerusalem. Their intention was to go round a succession of crowded places, killing and then escaping before the authorities could arrive. They killed one person. Nearly everyone at the cafe was armed. Only one of the attackers survived to be arrested. That's why they use suicide bombs now. The Heroes of United Flight 93 Jeremy Glick told his wife to have a good life, and to take care of their baby. Thomas Burnett, who made replacement heart valves, called his wife to tell her that he loved her. Mark Bingham, a publicist, was on his way home to San Francisco. Lou Nacke was a toy-company manager on his way to Sacramento for a day trip. Todd Beamer used the AirPhone to report the hijacking, and then called "Let's roll!" as these five heroes attacked the hijackers who were on their way to..... an empty field in Pennsylvania. They were the first five heroes of the war. Let their names live in honor! http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kenneth Mitchell" Subject: RE: On the Positive Side (fwd) Date: 05 Oct 2001 17:16:26 -0700 > > Chances are pretty good that the Pentagon was not the original > target. More > likely the Capital or the White House. Draw a line perpendicular to the > face of the Pentagon that was hit and it goes very near the White House. > The plane was observed to pass the Pentagon once, then make a circle just > north of the White House then just east of the capital. A pilot not > experienced in that particular aircraft could easily loose a bit more > altitude "going around", and then be unable to regain it. IMHO, he then > picked the Pentagon as a target of opportunity. > I was in DC during the attacks, and on Thursday I walked up to the Washington Monument. The Monument is on a small hill (I'd never realized how hilly DC was!) and looked north toward the White House. As a private pilot myself, I'm inclined to believe that the White House would be a difficult target for a kamikaze airliner. It's in a depression; not really a "valley", but a little lower than the surrounding terain. It's only three or four stories, and it's surrounded by trees. It was hard to see the White House from the Monument, which is on a small rise. It would be difficult to crash an airliner into it without hitting the trees first. All the buildings around it are just as tall or taller. Remember that the airliners are "fly by wire"; I'm not certain that the computers would allow a steep enough dive at low altitude to hit a small target, especially with an inexperienced pilot. The WTC towers were a cinch; they stuck right up there, and so a kamikaze pilot just had to drive into it straight & level, no real flying skills required. The Capitol would have been easier; taller, on higher ground, with a long clear corridor (the Mall) for a straight approach. That may have been United 93's target. And the airliner didn't HIT the Pentagon; most accounts say that it hit the helipad a few dozen yards short of the Pentagon and bounced into it. Which fits nicely with your "inexperienced pilot loses control" theory. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA ken@creativemindssacramento.com 916-955-9152 (voice) 916-729-0966 (fax) ----------------http://www.creativemindssacramento.com------------- In March 1984, three Palestinians opened fire with machine guns at a crowded cafe in Jerusalem. Their intention was to go round a succession of crowded places, killing and then escaping before the authorities could arrive. They killed one person. Nearly everyone at the cafe was armed. Only one of the attackers survived to be arrested. That's why they use suicide bombs now. The Heroes of United Flight 93 Jeremy Glick told his wife to have a good life, and to take care of their baby. Thomas Burnett, who made replacement heart valves, called his wife to tell her that he loved her. Mark Bingham, a publicist, was on his way home to San Francisco. Lou Nacke was a toy-company manager on his way to Sacramento for a day trip. Todd Beamer used the AirPhone to report the hijacking, and then called "Let's roll!" as these five heroes attacked the hijackers who were on their way to..... an empty field in Pennsylvania. They were the first five heroes of the war. Let their names live in honor! http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: "I'm a Bad American' by Ted Nugent (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 2001 20:47:29 -0700 Plucked from another list (wrestling is FAKE????LOL) "I'm a Bad American' by Ted Nugent Written by Ted Nugent, the rock singer and hunter/naturalist, upon hearing that California Senators B. Boxer and D. Feinstein denounced him for being a "gun owner" and a "Rock Star." This was his response after telling the senators about his past contributions to children's charities and scholarship foundations which have totaled more than $13.7 million in the last 5 years!! I'm a Bad American - this pretty much sums it up for me. I like big trucks, big boats, big houses, and naturally, pretty women. I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid-level governmental functionary with a bad comb-over who wants to give it away to crack addicts squirting out babies. I don't care about appearing compassionate. I think playing with toy guns doesn't make you a killer. I believe ignoring your kids and giving them Prozac might. I think I'm doing better than the homeless. I don't think being a minority makes you noble or victimized. I have the right not to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird or make me mad. This is my life to live, and not necessarily up to others expectations. I know what SEX is and there are not varying degrees of it. I don't celebrate Kwanzaa. But if you want to that's fine; I just don't feel like everyone else should have to. I believe that if you are selling me a Dairy Queen shake, a pack of cigarettes, or hotel room you do it in English. As of matter of fact, if you are an American citizen you should speak English. My uncles and forefathers shouldn't have had to die in vain so you can leave the countries you were born in to come disrespect ours, and make us bend to your will. Get over it. I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry butt if you're running from them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the word 'freeze' or 'stop' in English, see the previous line. I don't use the excuse "it's for the children" as a shield for unpopular opinions or actions. I know how to count votes and I feel much safer letting a machine with no political affiliation do a recount when needed. I know what the definition of lying is, and it isn't based on the word "is" - ever. I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you qualify for any special loan programs, gov't sponsored bank loans, etc., so you can open a hotel, 7-Eleven, trinket shop, or any thing else, while the indigenous peoples can't get past a high school education because they can't afford it. I didn't take the initiative in inventing the Internet. I thought the Taco Bell dog was funny. I want them to bring back safe and sane fireworks. I believe no one ever died because of something Ozzy Osbourne, Ice-T or Marilyn Manson sang, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to that crap from someone else's car when I'm stopped at a red light. But I respect your right to. I think that being a student doesn't give you any more enlightenment than working at Blockbuster or Jack In The Box. I don't want to eat or drink anything with the words light, lite or fat-free on the package. Our soldiers did not go to some foreign country and risk their lives in vain and defend our Constitution so that decades later you can tell me it's a living document ever changing and is open to interpretation. The guys who wrote it were light years ahead of anyone today, and they meant what they said - now leave the document alone, or there's going to be trouble. I don't hate the rich. I help the poor. I know wrestling is fake. I've never owned, or was a slave, and a large percentage of our forefathers weren't wealthy enough to own one either. Please stop blaming me because some prior white people were idiots - and remember, tons of white, Indian, Chinese, and other races have been enslaved too - it was wrong for every one of them. I believe a self-righteous liberal Democrat with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude. I want to know exactly which church is it where the "Reverend" Jessie Jackson preaches; and, what exactly is his job function. I own a gun, you can own a gun, and any red blooded American should be allowed to own a gun, but if you use it in a crime, then you will serve the time. I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it makes you mad, then invent the next operating system that's better and put your name on the building. Ask your buddy that invented the Internet to help you. I don't believe in hate crime legislation. Even suggesting it makes me mad. You're telling me that someone who is a minority, gay, disabled, another nationality, or otherwise different from the mainstream of this country has more value as a human being than I do as a white male. If someone kills anyone, I'd say that it's a hate crime. We don't need more laws! Let's enforce the ones we already have. I think turkey bacon, turkey beef, turkey fake anything sucks. I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child... it takes a parent with the guts to stand up to the kid and spank his butt and say "NO!" when it's necessary to do so. I'll admit that the only movie that ever made me cry was Ole Yeller. I didn't realize Dr. Seuss was a genius until I had a kid. I will not be frowned upon or be looked down upon or be made to keep silent because I have these beliefs and opinions. I thought this country allowed me that right. I will not conform or compromise just to keep from hurting somebody's feelings. I'm neither angry nor disenfranchised, no matter how desperately the mainstream media would like the world to believe otherwise. Yes, I guess by some people's definition, I may be a bad American. But that's tough. Ted Nugent -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: Osama calls up Bush on the phone... (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 2001 22:28:50 -0700 Seen on another list... Osama Bin Laden phoned President George W. Bush. "Well, O-sama, did you call me up to turn yerself in?" says President Bush. "Dog of an infidel! I have called you to tell you I had a dream, a dream of prophecy about your decadant United States", says Bin Laden. "I could see the whole country, and over every home, every mosque, every building and home was a banner", he boasts. "Well, that's interesting. What was on the banner?" asked Mr. Bush. "ALLAH BE PRAISED, LONG LIVE OSAMA!" bellows the terrorist. "Well, y'know, it's a mighty handy thang that you called me up, O-sama", says Bush, "because y'see I too had a dream just last night, and it might be prophetic. Now, in my dream, I saw Afghanistan and it was more beautiful than ever; it was totally restored to peaceful glory. There were fertile farms, and fruit groves, and every town had a beautiful park where the children were playing. There were schools, and libraries, people going about there business without fear, and over every building and home there was this real big, beautiful banner", the President goes on. "And just what did this banner say?" asks Osama. "Well, heck, O-sama, I don't know", answers President Bush. "Hah! Deceitful, cowardly infidel of a decadent country, you cannot READ?" interrupts the terrorist, "It is to laugh! Hah! Hah! Hah!" "Oh, shucks, O-sama, I read English just fine, and Spanish tolerable well, but y'know I never did get around to learnin' how to read Hebrew"... -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: SCOTUS: Mike New (fwd) Date: 11 Oct 2001 11:14:26 -0700 Associate Press gets it completely wrong in case of Spc. Michael New by Daniel New The Associated Press (AP) broke a story today about a Supreme Court ruling, and went far beyond their normal capacity for getting a story wrong. They missed the entire nature of the question before the court. The Supreme Court rejected a "petition for certiorari" which was a request that the court review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), which dealt only with the question of whether or not a soldier has the right to present evidence in his own defense. There was nothing in this ruling that had anything to do with President Clinton, with the United Nations, or with Macedonia. Incidentally, the Supreme Court appears to have violated their own rules for procedure today, being in such a hurry to deny justice that they did not even wait until the deadline for amicus curiae (friend of the court)petitions to be filed by other parties. The deadline for those petitions to be submitted is tomorrow. At least two amicus petitions are at the printer today, in preparation for submission tomorrow. The question of why the Supreme Court does not bother to follow its own rules should be of interest to the Associated Press, but it won't be. Finally, after five years, we have apparently now "exhausted the military remedy," and New's attorneys are now free to bring the real, constitutional issues before an Article III court in Washington, D.C. Dr. Herb Titus, of Chesapeake, Virginia, and LTC Henry Hamilton (U.S. Army, Ret.), of Columbia, South Carolina will be conferring immediately on how and when to bring that about. In the meantime, Spc. New is living a private life as a civilian, working in the field of information technology, and avoiding publicity. He has successfully dealt with an addiction to prescription drugs which resulted from three excruciating knee operations in 1997. He lives with the legal problems created by that all-too-common addiction on another level, as have many other celebrities, such as Betty Ford, many of whom have been treated by the press as heroes. But AP is not interested in the facts. Daniel New Project Manager Michael New Defense Fund P.O. Box 100 Iredell, Texas 76649 Below is the news release from the Associated Press Supreme court refuses to review President Clinton's use of troops for peacekeeping By GINA HOLLAND The Associated Press 10/9/01 10:56 AM WASHINGTON (AP) -- With a backdrop of American troop deployments, the Supreme Court refused Tuesday to review the legality of sending U.S. soldiers on peacekeeping missions. The court declined to take an appeal from a soldier who received a bad-conduct discharge for refusing to dress in the United Nations uniform in 1995 when his unit was being sent to the former Yugoslavia. "The order in this case did not come in a time of war, nor at a time requiring prompt action, but it came in a time of peace, distanced in both time and place from a combat area," former Army medic Michael New told the Supreme Court. New contends that then-President Clinton should have gotten congressional approval for the deployment. The case came up just a few days after President Bush ordered a military campaign aimed at terrorist and military targets in Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In preparation for the campaign, more than 25,000 reservists were called to active duty. In the New case, a seven-member military jury had deliberated for just 20 minutes before convicting him of disobeying an order. His sentence was a bad-conduct discharge. He wanted to be transferred to a new unit or honorably discharged. His appeal said that he could not be forced to obey an illegal order. "The mission lives and dies by the soldier following an order," the government's attorney had argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The appeals court ruled against New, who appealed to the Supreme Court. New, a native of Conroe, Texas, was stationed in Germany when his infantry unit was assigned to duty in Macedonia, one of six republics of former Yugoslavia, to guard against the spread of unrest from other areas torn by ethnic turmoil because of Yugoslavia's dismemberment. New refused to wear the insignia and blue beret of the United Nations, saying he would not serve a foreign power. Part of his appeal involves whether U.S. soldiers should be required to wear U.N. apparel. He questioned the practice of "turning American soldiers over to U.N. command and control -- to foreign officers who neither report to nor take orders from the president." New set up a Web page and his father documented his case in a book. He had joined the Army in 1993 and served in Kuwait. His attorney said he received an achievement medal for treating a badly injured soldier. Since the case started, he was convicted of forging prescriptions. The case is New v. U.S., 01-425. ------ On the Net: Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov New supporters: http://www.mikenew.com/ PIML is for news and & info only. If you would like to send a reply to this post or engage in list discussion about it, please join our companion discussion list by sending a blank email to mailto:pdml-subscribe@yahoogroups.com -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: Never gain Unarmed; sign the pledge (fwd) Date: 13 Oct 2001 20:58:16 -0700 ArmedPassengers.Com decentralized security the only solution We, the undersigned, pledge not to patronize US domestic airline companies until the airlines, in conjunction with the FAA, relent on the insidious firearm ban for pilots, crew and passengers. Based on sound statistics, armed citizens substantially reduce the potential for criminals to act and carry out criminal activity when confronted by armed vigilance. It is despicable that the US government, in response to the acts of September 11, has a virtual "black-out" on the idea of armed citizens' complementing the country's newest security measures. We will resume flying once sensible measures have been instituted whereby airline crew and passengers are allowed to protect themselves as they see fit. Sign the Pledge - This pledge was initiated October 9, 2001 http://www.armedpassengers.com/pledge.asp (Note: you may have to "full screen" the pop up window after you sign to get the "submit" button to appear ========================================================== Mary Lou Seymour Liberty Activists http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1797 Liberty Books http://www.libertymls.com/la.htm Self Reliance Books http://www.libertymls.com/book1.html Think the info in the Liberty Activist news is worth 2 cents? http://two-cents-worth.com/?104799&libertymls@yahoo.com Gulchers guide http://www.libertymls.com/gulch/ ===================================== Free State Project http://www.freestateproject.com/ ==================================== "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." L.Neil Smith, http://www.smith2004.org/ -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: HR 3076 - the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (fwd) Date: 13 Oct 2001 22:32:00 -0700 Subj: [lp7] RE: Ron Paul Bill Reply-to: lp7@yahoogroups.com Thought this was interesting, since Ron Paul, now a Republican from Texas, ran several times as a Libertarian. This is from a news wire. -- from Jeanette Clink WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 11, 2001--Congress has allocated billions of dollars toward America's effort against terrorists, but Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) says there is still more Congress can do to fulfill its constitutional obligation of providing common defense to our nation. Yesterday, Congressman Paul presented Congress with the H.R. 3076 -- September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. If passed, the legislation would give President Bush a surgical and precise weapon that can help capture or kill Osama bin Laden and the other persons responsible for the September 11 attacks upon the United States. "The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face," says Paul. "When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government." The weapon our country's founders crafted in the Constitution to defend our nation against terrorism on the high seas were for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This gives Congress the power to offer a bounty and appoint stealth warriors, private companies and individuals, in this case empowered to seize Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists as well as their property. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 would allow the president to appoint such forces. Then the appointees could be coordinated with current government attacks, and have access to U.S. intelligence to augment their own well-established networks. "This would not preclude the president's other efforts to resolve the crisis, but supply him with an additional weapon," says Paul. "Once current law is extended beyond the high seas to the skies, then Congress can take the next step, granting letters of marque and reprisal to guide and limit the utilization of non-government armed forces against the current terrorist threats." Paul says American citizens can speed up the capture of bin Laden by telling their elected representatives to get this legislation moving now. For more information on the bill log on to http://www.thelibertycommittee.org. -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: THIS GUY DEFINITELY HAS A POINT... (fwd) Date: 19 Oct 2001 09:41:33 -0700 You worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend anymore. I notice you, and it worries me. "I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, and professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate but I know nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks. On Sept. 11, nineteen Arab-Muslims hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants and children's mothers. So I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to differentiate between you. How do I differentiate between the true Arab-Muslim-Americans and the Arab-Muslims in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, ... [edited for brevity]... while they plot the next attack that will slaughter those very same good neighbors and children? The answer to my own questions that it is past the time for me to try to determine this. The events of Sept. 11th changed the answer. It is time for every Arab-Muslim in this country to determine it for me. I want to know, I demand to know, if you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation, that He will protect and prosper it? Are you thankful for the freedom that only this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots? Are you willing to preserve this freedom with the spilling of your own blood? Do you love America? and if this is your commitment, then I need you to start letting me know about it. Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and religion to protect the United States of America. Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the "innocent" (I worry who you regard as "innocent") and condemnation of "unprovoked" attacks (I worry what is "unprovoked" to you.) I am not interested in anymore sympathy, I am interested only in action. What will you do for America-- the country -- at this time of crisis, at this time of war? I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting "Allah Bless America." I want to see Arab-Muslim young men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money and time and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole. The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize in Muslim communities.You know them. You know where they are. Deliver them up, now. But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from reprisal. The few Arab-Muslim representatives that have appeared on the media are defensive and equivocating. They seem more concerned with making sure the U.S. prove who is responsible before they act, and protecting their own people from any violence directed toward them, here in the U.S. and abroad. If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. Because even if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true, it matters little if large numbers of current Islamic practitioners interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. I want to know where every Arab-Muslim in this country stands and I think it is within my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters. I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here; as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no "gray" areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance and it is up to you to show me where you stand. Until then...you worry me. (signed) Kevin Daly, Beltsville -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: THIS GUY DEFINITELY HAS A POINT... (fwd) Date: 19 Oct 2001 10:27:16 US/Pacific Yeah, but if he wears a hat no one will notice buh dump bah!. But seriously folks, this is wrong. Of the patriots -I- know, the most sincere and active have dark skin. More then one has a surname beginning "Achm..." this is simply BS and the painful part is I can't call it what it is without sounding Politically Correct and I -hate- that. And I'm also "worried" by the notion that anyone thinks they have a right to be protected from "worry". If - you- have "worries" about strangers that you see because they look middle eastern then please take some time away from reading the net to sit and think. Because that person you see may be an official of the NRA. They may be members of your states national guard home from a tour. They may be an honors grad of an Ivy league school helping to keep our nation on the cutting edge of high energy physics from the office of a defense contractor. (thinking specific examples I know) And it may be that the "worry" problem is not in the faces you're looking at but in how you're doing the looking. I do support profiling (and most of those folks I know do) to some degree. But if you as an individual really are "worried" by individual middle eastern people that you see around you in the United States then you have lost your perspective. Should I have to prove myself to you (as if that were even possible) because I've volunteered at a mosque after numerous assaults happened there? Along with other NRA friends, we are some of the scary sounding "armed guards" you type of. Would it matter if I'm a fat middle aged white guy? If you don't see muslim americans out waving flags, supporting investigations and flooding local media (KVI in Seattle has had numerous good folks on) you aren't paying attention. All IMO. Boyd (perspective people, please) Kneeland > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:08:10 -0400 > From: kurt > Subject: THIS GUY DEFINITELY HAS A POINT... > > You worry me. I wish you didn't. > > I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, > that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human > landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend anymore. I > notice you, and it worries me. > > "I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your > homelands, and professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and > killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years > now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate but I know > nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks. > > On Sept. 11, nineteen Arab-Muslims hijacked four jetliners in my > country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and > brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes > and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, > loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, > favorite coaches, fearless public servants and children's mothers. > > So I notice you now. > > I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same > rage and hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these > terrorists. But I need your help. > > As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an > irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to differentiate between > you. How do I differentiate between the true Arab-Muslim-Americans > and the Arab-Muslims in our communities who are attending our > schools, enjoying our parks, ... [edited for brevity]... while they > plot the next attack that will slaughter those very same good > neighbors and children? > > The answer to my own questions that it is past the time for me to try > to determine this. The events of Sept. 11th changed the answer. It > is time for every Arab-Muslim in this country to determine it for me. > > I want to know, I demand to know, if you love America. Do you pledge > allegiance to its flag? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that > Allah will bless this nation, that He will protect and prosper it? > Are you thankful for the freedom that only this nation affords? A > freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of > patriots? Are you willing to preserve this freedom with the spilling > of your own blood? Do you love America? and if this is your > commitment, then I need you to start letting me know about it. > > Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at > this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you > are taking as a community and religion to protect the United States > of America. Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death > of the "innocent" (I worry who you regard as "innocent") and > condemnation of "unprovoked" attacks (I worry what is "unprovoked" to > you.) I am not interested in anymore sympathy, I am interested only > in action. What will you do for America-- the country -- at this time > of crisis, at this time of war? > > I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the flag in the streets. I want to > hear you chanting "Allah Bless America." I want to see Arab-Muslim > young men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of > money and time and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to > this nation as a whole. > > The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding > the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize in Muslim > communities.You know them. You know where they are. Deliver them up, > now. > > But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead > I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even > tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed > security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You > have screamed for protection from reprisal. > > The few Arab-Muslim representatives that have appeared on the media > are defensive and equivocating. They seem more concerned with making > sure the U.S. prove who is responsible before they act, and > protecting their own people from any violence directed toward them, > here in the U.S. and abroad. > > If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love > for all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and > statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. > > Because even if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and > true, it matters little if large numbers of current Islamic > practitioners interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and > adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. > > I want to know where every Arab-Muslim in this country stands and I > think it is within my right and the right of every true citizen of > this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands > of my brothers and sisters. > > I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here; as my > brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there > can be no "gray" areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance and > it is up to you to show me where you stand. > > Until then...you worry me. > > (signed) Kevin Daly, Beltsville > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no > weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his > hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a > on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > > Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: RE: THIS GUY DEFINITELY HAS A POINT... (fwd) Date: 19 Oct 2001 11:48:09 -0700 The terrorism and the consequences the fault of the citizens of the US: We have allowed our government to assume powers not authorized by the Constitution. We have become an Empire. True a modern version of an Empire, controlling indirectly via foreign and military aid and alliances (and outright military action or threats), rather than by appointing governors of the provences. Nevertheless, very serious injustices are being done, that we are directly or indirectly responsible for. Every Empire has a terrorism problem, directly linked to the injustices. We citizens of the USA allowed our government to do these unjust things. The terroristic result has been widely discussed, and continuing escalation predicted by many people. (These guys are still not nearly serious about effective terrorism, although they are doing much better than standard liberal-arts bomb throwers.) We citizens of the USA allowed our government to disarm us, to attempt to create another 'weapons-free safety zone' that became a larger killing zone. The WTC is a very direct result of the extra-Constitutional actions of the US Federal government. There is one fix for these problems, and our government, of course, is heading in the opposite direction. The 20th century is a history of ever-larger responses to crises created by the last government fix. You ain't seen nothing yet. Lew -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Bill Vance Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 9:42 AM You worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend anymore. I notice you, and it worries me. "I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, and professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate but I know nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks. On Sept. 11, nineteen Arab-Muslims hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants and children's mothers. So I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to differentiate between you. How do I differentiate between the true Arab-Muslim-Americans and the Arab-Muslims in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, ... [edited for brevity]... while they plot the next attack that will slaughter those very same good neighbors and children? The answer to my own questions that it is past the time for me to try to determine this. The events of Sept. 11th changed the answer. It is time for every Arab-Muslim in this country to determine it for me. I want to know, I demand to know, if you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation, that He will protect and prosper it? Are you thankful for the freedom that only this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots? Are you willing to preserve this freedom with the spilling of your own blood? Do you love America? and if this is your commitment, then I need you to start letting me know about it. Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and religion to protect the United States of America. Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the "innocent" (I worry who you regard as "innocent") and condemnation of "unprovoked" attacks (I worry what is "unprovoked" to you.) I am not interested in anymore sympathy, I am interested only in action. What will you do for America-- the country -- at this time of crisis, at this time of war? I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting "Allah Bless America." I want to see Arab-Muslim young men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money and time and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole. The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize in Muslim communities.You know them. You know where they are. Deliver them up, now. But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from reprisal. The few Arab-Muslim representatives that have appeared on the media are defensive and equivocating. They seem more concerned with making sure the U.S. prove who is responsible before they act, and protecting their own people from any violence directed toward them, here in the U.S. and abroad. If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. Because even if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true, it matters little if large numbers of current Islamic practitioners interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. I want to know where every Arab-Muslim in this country stands and I think it is within my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters. I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here; as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no "gray" areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance and it is up to you to show me where you stand. Until then...you worry me. (signed) Kevin Daly, Beltsville -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: SRA - Dr Mike: "Why Attacks Changed Gun Attitudes". (fwd) Date: 19 Oct 2001 13:20:14 -0700 FYI Reply-To: rkba2001@home.com Friends, Here is my latest op-ed column. I hope you find it worth reading. Feel free to use it in any of your publications without charge. Like all of my op-ed articles, it is in the public domain. Take Care, Mike Brown Vancouver, WA *************************************** Why Attacks Changed Gun Attitudes The way that Americans feel about guns has undergone a sudden and unexpected change since the attacks of 9-11. Regulatory agencies, gun retailers, and safety instructors all report a sharp increase in activity. Many purchasers are women, first-time buyers, and those who previously held anti-gun views. Societal issues normally undergo gradual, pendulum-like swings, but this one is changing with astounding speed. It took roughly forty years for the gun control movement to convince a large portion of the population that guns caused violence and were too dangerous for ordinary citizens to possess. It has taken less than one year for the tide to change. The most obvious reasons for this rapid transformation are directly related to the terrorist attacks. For example, the almost unanimous call for military action makes it seem hypocritical to label guns as evil instruments when we are asking our military to wield them on our behalf. The fact that the attacks were carried out without a single gun was a wake-up call to even the most ardent anti-gun activists. While they were concentrating on the dangers of guns, they ignored the reality that people with evil intent are the real threat. Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore, in the process of finishing an anti- gun documentary, made this dramatic statement that probably expresses the feelings of many at his end of the political spectrum: "This started out as a documentary on gun violence in America, but the largest mass murder in our history was just committed - without the use of a single gun! Not a single bullet fired!... I can't stop thinking about this. A thousand gun control laws would not have prevented this massacre. What am I doing?" I believe this widespread attitude adjustment would have been impossible if not for the results of the last presidential election. Political analysts declared that support for tougher gun control laws lost the election for Al Gore. Although this is probably an exaggeration, Democratic politicians fled from the issue as if it were the kiss of death. Liberal voters were free to rethink their position on guns without feeling disloyal to their party. They began to notice the failure of gun control laws and "gun free zones" in other countries, as well as in various states and cities. They started reading articles by Prof. John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime." Doubts developed about the politically correct view of gun ownership. These doubts suddenly fit in with the new picture created on 9-11. As soon as details of the boxcutter hijackings became public, millions of people shared a single thought. These attacks never would have succeeded if a single person with a handgun and a cool head had been in the right place at the right time. The ease with which terrorists eluded our security measures made us all aware of how vulnerable we are. Terrorists have the luxury of striking at a time and place of their choosing, while we must defend all possible targets at all times. The next attack could easily disable large sections of the electric power grid, resulting in extended blackouts and a breakdown in social order. Today's neophyte gun buyers are probably less concerned with fighting terrorists than with a scenario similar to the last round of riots in Los Angeles during which police abandoned large areas of the city. In the resulting rush to local gun stores, many were dismayed at the long waiting period required before they could take delivery of a firearm that would allow them to protect their families. The anti-gun lobby would like us to believe that new gun buyers are acting out of blind fear, but most are undergoing a sober and thoughtful re-evaluation that began prior to the attacks. Before 9-11, many people were still in denial about their own vulnerability to danger. It was easy to believe that we could always dial 911 and instantly summon armed officers to our rescue. The lesson that many Americans have taken from this experience is that we should each take more responsibility for our own safety. Seeing so many innocent lives snuffed out without warning has injected a harsh dose of reality and relieved us of some of our idealistic innocence. Dr. Michael S. Brown is a member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, www.dsgl.org. He may be reached at rkba2000@yahoo.com. References: Michael Moore quote - http://michaelmoore.com/2001_0922.html -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: Anthrax etc., cure (fwd) Date: 19 Oct 2001 13:21:03 -0700 Just in from: http://enterprisemission.com/anthrax.htm Inexpensive Anthrax Breakthrough? ?This is the start of the post-genomics therapeutic revolution ? We have developed non-toxic nanoemulsions that penetrate and kill infectious microbes from flu viruses to anthrax spores ? The possibilities are truly limitless.? This statement by Dr. James R. Baker, inventor of the revolutionary disinfection protocol described above, and director of the new Center for Biologic Nanotechnolgy at the University of Michigan, is welcomed by those now concerned with the rash of ?anthrax mail attacks? around the Nation. Dr. Baker has described this breakthrough as ?nanobomb technology? -- an allusion to the extremely small (nanometer) size of the aerosol of disinfectant agents that mechanically seek out and kill a wide spectrum of infectious microorganisms, without deleterious side effects to living tissue. The technique has been described by others as ?the biological equivalent of a laser-guided bomb for microorganisms.? The full details of the University of Michigan breakthrough, and its successful testing by the U.S. Army, can be found at the Center for Biologic Nanotechnology website. http://nano.med.umich.edu However, all is not good news. Though developed with the direct support of the U.S. Department of Defense, Dr. Baker?s radical technique for fighting anthrax and a wide array of other possible bioterrorism threats, for some reason, is NOT receiving wide discussion or high priority funding in Washington at present. One major impediment to immediate wide spread public use is Food and Drug Administration clinical trials and certification. Responsibility for directing the FDA to carry out such ?accelerated trials,? in this current National emergency, rests at the Cabinet level of the Administration: in part, with the Office of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Enterprise Mission has discovered that one of it?s long-time close associates is also extremely good friends with ?Tommy? Thompson, President Bush?s Cabinet Secretary in charge of Health and Human Services. The full details of this University of Michigan breakthrough in the war on bioterrorism has, at our instigation, been communicated in the last few days directly with Secretary Thompson. It is our strong recommendation that all those reading this review immediately communicate their own serious concerns to the Secretary, and demand that immediate FDA trials of Dr. Baker?s protocol be carried out. And, to facilitate this, we have identified Secretary?s Thompson?s official Washington HSS fax number: 202-690-7203 -- HHS Cabinet Secretary ?Tommy? Thompson?s Fax Number Capitol Hill 202-224-3132 (Ask for Senators Fax Number) White House 202-456-2461 John McCain 202-228-2862 Email: Senator_McCain@mccain.senate.gov President George W. Bush president@whitehouse.gov As with the previously immensely successful NASA campaigns that Enterprise has organized in Washington in past years, we strongly recommend that you fax this crucial information immediately. That you use this official government fax number for Secretary Thompson freely. It is NOT Secretary Thomson?s home fax number, but is an official number in his Washington HHS office. Do not send e-mail (in government, it is deleted). Do send this announcement to your family, friends and neighbors, so that they can send their faxes. You can also send faxes to the Whitehouse and congress: In addition, we strongly recommend that you simultaneously send a copy of the fax you send to Secretary Thompson to members of the national media and press corp. Here are a few of their representative fax numbers: ABC FAX (Ted Koppel) 202-222-7976 BACKUP ABC FAX: 202-222-7680 CNN 404-681-3578 One special note: you cannot send a copy of your fax to some news media, but you can send them e-mail. One such example is Bill O?Reilly, at Fox News. As an aggressive investigative reporter, who has been on top of the September 11th story from day one, Bill does NOT delete e-mail, so immediately send him a copy of your Thompson fax -- as an e-mail -- at: oreilly@foxnews.com Other media that have only e-mails are the folks at NBC, where the first network ?anthrax attack? occurred: Tom Brokaw, the direct object of the attack at NBC Nightly News, should be especially interested in this breakthrough. His e-mail is: Nightly@nbc.com The Today Show e-mail is: today@nbc.com Meet the Press - Tim Russert Hardball with Chris Matthews The News with Brian Williams CBS Evening News with Dan Rather - evening@cbsnews.com This is by no means a complete list. Use your own initiative and find additional fax numbers/e-mail addresses for both national and local media. This problem affects us ALL! Finally, in this vein, don?t forget to send your ?Thompson fax? to the one member of Congress we know will act: Senator John McCain. He?s acted on our behalf before, and as a veteran he?ll certainly want to know about this remarkable technology to fight the new bioterrorism threats. Here?s his Washington Fax number: John McCain 202-228-2862 Email: Senator_McCain@mccain.senate.gov Only if YOU act, will the immense inertia of the Washington bureaucracy -- even in this time of National emergency -- be overcome. So, fax and e-mail NOW. -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: roc-digest V2 #472 Date: 20 Oct 2001 00:09:00 -0500 At 02:06 PM 10/19/2001 -0600, roc-digest wrote: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 22:28:50 -0700 >From: Bill Vance >Subject: Osama calls up Bush on the phone... (fwd) > >Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:59:48 -0600 (MDT) >From: Nosy >Subject: Osama calls up Bush on the phone... In the same vien I heard a good one today: OBL goes to a fortuneteller and asks if the soothsayer can see the date of his death. The fortunteller says, "yes I can, you will die on an American holiday". OBL says, "Well what day will it be", and the soothsayer replies "Whatever day you die will be an American holiday". Then there was this shorty I heard on the radio: "Do you know what OBL is going to be for Halloween? (Scross down for answer) Dead! Dennis J. Sylvester Captain USAFR(ret) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: Re: roc-digest V2 #472 Date: 19 Oct 2001 23:20:21 -0700 Along with that, I heard a new name for him today: @$$-hole-ah Bent Hardon.....:-) On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 12:09:00AM -0500, Joe Sylvester wrote: >From: Joe Sylvester >Subject: Re: roc-digest V2 #472 > >At 02:06 PM 10/19/2001 -0600, roc-digest wrote: >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 22:28:50 -0700 >>From: Bill Vance >>Subject: Osama calls up Bush on the phone... (fwd) >> >>Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:59:48 -0600 (MDT) >>From: Nosy >>Subject: Osama calls up Bush on the phone... > > > >In the same vien I heard a good one today: > >OBL goes to a fortuneteller and asks if the soothsayer can see the date of >his death. The fortunteller says, "yes I can, you will die on an American >holiday". OBL says, "Well what day will it be", and the soothsayer replies >"Whatever day you die will be an American holiday". > >Then there was this shorty I heard on the radio: > >"Do you know what OBL is going to be for Halloween? > >(Scross down for answer) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Dead! > > >Dennis J. Sylvester >Captain USAFR(ret) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: Senate to SCREW THE PUBLIC (fwd) Date: 19 Oct 2001 23:31:19 -0700 Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:41 PM ********************************* Dear e-Citizen, As the old saying goes: The power to tax is the power to destroy. With that in mind, Congress is poised to destroy the Internet as you and I know it. On Sunday, October 21, 2001, a moratorium which prohibits government from taxing the Internet will expire. Originally imposed in 1998, reports the Associated Press, the moratorium "prohibits taxes on Internet access and bans any tax that singles out the Internet." If the moratorium expires, the barn door to Internet taxation will be thrown WIDE open to politicians who see a honey-pot of new tax revenue they just won't be able to resist dipping their paws into. "Internet taxes are simply a way for incompetent governors to swell their budgets with the hard-earned dollars of taxpayers outside of their districts," says Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "The practice is tantamount to taxation without representation, is unconstitutional, and is a fraud widely recognized by Americans all across the country." On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled House passed H.R. 1552, an extension of the ban for an additional two years, and sent the bill over to the Senate. On Thursday, the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to pass the extension before adjourning for the weekend. That means the moratorium will indeed expire on Sunday. "Starting Monday, there's an opportunity for considerable mischief," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Indeed there is. Especially under the current economic conditions, with governments at all levels scrambling to find new money to fund new programs rather than set spending priorities and cut wasteful spending. But that's an argument for another day. The Senate is scheduled to reconvene on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 to wrap up lingering business before adjourning for the year. If the Senate fails to reconsider its position, you're going to see the biggest camel's tax-nose under you're e-tent since Al Gore invented the Internet. There's no time to waste. Please contact your two U.S. senators IMMEDIATELY by signing the "Permanent Ban on Internet Taxes" petition at http://www.libertypetitions.com urging them to vote in favor of S. 777 to "extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act." Then get everyone on your e-mail list to do the same. Final Note: Many of you will recall an e-mail that has been circulating for a long time falsely claiming that Congress was prepared to pass bill 602(P) to impose taxes on the Internet. It was a hoax (congressional bills aren't even numbered that way). But it fooled a LOT of people. This one, folks, is NOT a hoax. It's a real threat. But don't take my word for it. Go to the official congressional web site at http://thomas.loc.gov and look up S. 777 for yourself. Then immediately go to our web site and fire off this petition to your senators before they go home. There's no time to lose! e-Sincerely yours, Chuck Muth Liberty Petitions To sign this petition, go to: http://www.libertypetitions.com # # # Chuck Muth GOP News & Views Editor/Publisher 3659 Scotwood Street Las Vegas, NV 89121 Phone: (702) 454-0350 Fax: (702) 454-7798 E-mail: chuckmuth@earthlink.net -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: CDC at it again! Date: 20 Oct 2001 21:26:31 -0700 The fascists at Harvard "School for Public Health" have been given millions of dollars of tax money to continue their anti-gun agenda. The "Center for Disease Control" was slapped down a few years ago by Congress for funding anti-gun propaganda, I guess it's time to get Congress to do it again. Contact Information: Robin Herman Harvard School of Public Health 677 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 Phone: (617) 432-4752 www.hsph.harvard.edu Harvard Injury Control Research Center Receives Major CDC Funding for Five-Year Continuation of Center Boston, MA (AScribe News) - Through a major grant from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard School of Public Health will continue national efforts to reduce injuries in vulnerable populations. The CDC awarded the Center $4.6 million over five years to continue and expand studies that examine alcohol-related injuries, injuries among the elderly, violence against women, suicide and interpersonal violence among urban youth, and evaluation of firearms policies in the United States based on hospital and death statistics. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: SRA - Report From Russia: US Militia. DV. (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 2001 19:10:03 -0700 FYI - Curious report from a Bill White... its worth remembering that US made AR-15's (banned here) are civilian available in Russia with ironically hi-caps... A Russian speaks about the US Militia. The agenda of this author (Russian) is unclear, but the information is a MUST READ. VERY important points contained within that do not normally get printed in mainstream media here. Typical Pravda propaganda but they slam everyone. Some points are very true, some funny. Long but interesting. Brad/Rich/Ken. GUN GROUPS SEE STEADY BLEED INTO MILITIAS; DOMESTIC UNREST STILL GROWING IN UNITED STATES 10/18/2001 http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/10/18/18529.html When agents of America's US Marshals surrounded the Indiana BaptistTemple, accusing the church and its parishioners of violating US tax laws by refusing to pay social security taxes on non-clergical employees, they didn't charge in with guns blazing, as they did at Waco. Concern about bad publicity was there, but there was a more serious concern just under the surface - the Southern Indiana Regional Militia, a 250-man "unorganized" citizen's militia unit, had pledged to defend the church - and their threats were taken seriously. "Steps have been taken and we are ready to respond if something does happen," Roger Stalcup, elected commander of the militia, told Indiana's Hoosier Times, "It's my opinion that if you've got people in that church and the U.S. marshals go in, anything can happen" His statements were taken seriously, and his unit, which marches under the slogan "God Bless The Republic - Death to the New World Order", was listed in a press release by the US Marshals as a major reason they chose to negotiate, rather than raid, the dissident religious group's headquarters. The Southern Indiana Regional Militia had been trained in small-unit tactics by former US military personnel, several of whom hold officer ranks in the citizen's group, and their ability to take on the US govern- ment in a fire fight could not only have been difficult for the federal police forces - it could have been disastrous. The Southern Indiana Regional Militia is not an isolated phenomena - it is one of hundreds of similar units which have been growing in size and influence across the country since the announcement by George the First of his plans for a "New World Order" - a New World Order that many Americans believe is planning to destroy the US Constitution and enact dictatorial martial law in the name of the United Nations and the international corporate-socialism. [[ It's not a matter of "believing". The legislation and Executive Orders are available for ALL to see. It is rather a matter of ACKNOWLEDGING that this IS what is taking place.]] Origins In America's Gun Activist Community There are three issues that motivate America's militia movement - support of gun rights, opposition to taxation, and opposition to the United Nations and the loss of America's sovereignty to global corporate rule - a system the militias see as socialism and anti- globalists label capitalism, and which is really a blend of the worst elements of the two. Among these issues, the most important, the one that seems most immediately threatening, and which has been the prime motivation for the existence of the militia movement, has been the possibility of nation-wide confiscation of firearms by the US Federal government. In America, the people know that the foundation of their liberty is their ability to use firearms to resist government police and military personnel, and it is widely believed that an attempt to confiscate their arms will be the first step in imposing a dictatorship on US citizens. Daily this has seemed more real, [[And how!]] and thus there has been a steady bleed of activists out of mainstream groups like the National Rifle Association, and into more confrontational activist groups, like Gun Owners of America and the Tyranny Response Team, and eventually into militias and other armed non-governmental formations. [["Confrontational"? How about "More committed to the Constitution"?]] The NRA recently reported in the last election, with voters faced with the threat of anti-gun Al Gore winning the presidency, that its membership surged from under three million to over four million. Some say that number is slowly edging closer to five. In a nation of 280 million people, nearly 1.5% of the population - one person out of sixty six - is a member of the country's largest gun lobby. It is from these membership figures, and from the ability to mobilize large numbers of activists at the local level and bring them out to work polls and fill campaign offices for pro-gun politicians, that the NRA has always derived its power. While there is no doubt of the NRA's monetary power, it's opponents, often funded by billionaires like Andrew J. McKelvey, can usually match or exceed it in that arena. What the NRA has that anti-gun groups don't is the ability to bring out tens of thousands of Americans each election cycle to hand out literature, plant road signs, fold mailings, and engage in the community activism needed to fight anti-gun legislation. But its in this arena that upstart groups have offered the most competition. Gun Owners of America, headed by Larry Pratt, is a radically pro-gun ((what's that again? Brad)) organization that, in contrast to the NRA, has called for the elimination of all regulations on firearms purchases and ownership, including mandatory background checks, and which has taken a hard line against the United Nations. Pratt is a radical Constitutionalist [[Radical? What is so damned radical about the Constitution the way it was written?]] and Christian who openly mixes his religious beliefs with his politics, and has been accused of sharing the stage with even more extreme leaders - including members of the Aryan Nations and the Ku Klux Klan (though he has not been accused of sharing their views). [[I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.. "shares the stage but not their views"??]] In 1996, that accusation forced Pratt out as an aid to the Buchanan campaign. In 1998, according to anti-gun researcher Kenneth Stern, Pratt's organization had 100,000 members. Now, similar anti-gun researchers estimate his group has grown to as many as 150,000 - 200,000 in size, and there is no question that the core of his strength is NRA grassroots activists who are leaving the NRA to be involved in more militant forms of activism. [[How about "No Compromise"]] Another group that has worked with Pratt's, and which forms an even more confrontational front of its own, is the Tyranny Response Team, a network of pro-gun "minute men", based on the minute men militias of the American Revolution, who go out to anti-gun events and to speeches by anti-gun politicians to confront and challenge the often skewed and distorted presentation of gun politics. The TRT, founded by Jewish gun store owner Bob Glass, has also gone beyond gun activism, holding regular 500-man protests against the Internal Revenue Service and the United Nations conference on small arms. While the TRT declined to give out membership information, it has branches in approximately 33 states, and most branches have 50 to 100 regular active members, meaning the group comprises at least 1500 regular activists nationwide - with an unknown number of less- active "supporting" members. -------------------------- Any other views expressed herein, are my own, not bought or sponsored in any shape or form, by or for any organization, currently existing or not. It should be noted: the URL posted is very likely to suddenly expire & if the reader wants to read the full article, they should should visit the copyright holders listed site very promptly. References & partial texts are given for EDUCATIONAL & INFORMATIONAL purposes only as per the "Fair Use" as described in Title-17, Sect 107 below. ---------------------------------------------------------------- **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research & educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml] ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! -