From: roc-owner@xmission.com To: roc-digest@xmission.com Subject: roc Digest V2 #17 Reply-To: roc@xmission.com Errors-To: roc-owner@xmission.com Precedence: roc Digest Wednesday, 3 July 1996 Volume 02 : Number 017 In this issue: FW: How to get info via Freedom of Info Act RE: Libertarians FW: What new world order? World Government Debate/Summit (fwd) Re: FW: What new world order? RE: Libertarians RE: Libertarians RE: Grant County, New Mexico (fwd) RE: Bonfire of the Checkbooks (fwd) RE: Libertarians Fwd: MOM release on Viper Arrests See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the roc or roc-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry A. Tate" Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 01:22:34 -0500 Subject: FW: How to get info via Freedom of Info Act On Monday, July 01, 1996 7:01 AM, David Barton[SMTP:dlb@severn.wash.inmet.com] wrote: >Sharon Zane writes: > > I confess that while I am curious about any files that the FBI may > have on me (I'm a Republican, NRA member, after all), I'm a little > bit nervous about making a FOIA request. Scuttlebut is, that if > one sends such a request, and the Feds DON'T have a file on you, > they will then START one figuring that if you're asking, you should > have one! > > Does anyone know if this is true? > >It is less ominous than that. The Gods of bureaucratic inevitably win >out over the Gods of oppression every time. > >If you submit an FOI request, the receiving agency is required to keep >that request on file so that compliance can be measured. If you don't >have a file, where do they keep it? Answer, they start a file. > >So, yes, if you didn't have a file before the FOI request, you will >afterwards. If that is the only ping, no agents will crawl over you >and start questioning your neighbors. They are too busy figuring out >their next forfeiture target to increase their funding. > I have spent lots of dollars to earn my NRA life pin. Even more dollars and time to convince myself personally that I had earned it. The same applies to my Texas State Rifle Association Life Membership Pin. I think that the FBI should also issue a Life Membership Pin. I would consider it a personal honor to have "passed muster" with the FBI. To have achieved the FBI life membership award and to remain alive and unmolested is truly an honor. It could be said that the reason I am alive is that I have not yet become ENOUGH of a threat to be eliminated. It could be said that the reason I am alive is that the "death squads" are too busy or too incompetent to have found me yet. As long as I remain alive and activ(ist), I have to believe in the system. In the era of Stalin's Russia, I would be dead. The bottom line is that I will continue to exercise my constitutional duties without regard to who's list I may become a part of. I, myself, am not going to become concerned with who considers me a threat. I will continue to apply my education of the history of this country along with an understanding of the principles that are our U.S. Constitution. I CAN find comfort in the fact that I am not so "radical" that I am considered a "religious fanatic" or an "opportunistic militia nut". This is not to say that I might not become so effective that I am labeled, and eliminated, as such. The point is that I am confident that what I am doing is right. My mother and my wife might remind me of the fact that there are those who would rather I not speak the truth. I cannot help but speak the truth. I think the fable about George Washington and the cherry tree did not intend to imply that Washington NEVER told a lie, but that he could not lie about those things that truly mattered. Small lies are one thing, but truth in one's philosophy is another. Funny how a stream of consciousness could lead to this, but... I just saw a CNN Crossfire episode in which a Democratic Pollster stated without hesitating that "yes, Bill Clinton does lie, so what? What matters is his stance on welfare, health care and the economy". Funny, I prefer the story about the cherry tree. - ---------------------------------------------- Larry Tate ltate@computek.net "Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave." - -- William Pitt, 1763 - ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: righter@aros.net Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:38:48 -0600 Subject: RE: Libertarians On Thu, 27 Jun 96, roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) wrote: >>Sarah made a comment (of which I agree) that brings a new subject: >> >> >>I'm going to go out on a limb here. There has been a lot of talk of fear of >>the "New World Order". Why do we fear a "New World Order"? Why do we fear >>a "United Nations"? I submit that it is not a "New World Order" we fear. >>What we DO fear is THE "New World Order" as envisioned by those who are >>currently shaping what that "New World Order" looks like. I agree that we shouldn't fear A "New World Order", but we certainly SHOULD fear the one being proposed. >>What about a "New World Order" that is based upon the liberty and responsibility >>that we are all seeking? What about a United Nations that adopts a Constitution >>based upon ours? What about a United Nations that enforced the Constitution as >>it was meant to be and not enforced as the "modern liberal" would like it to be? On what do you base your assumption that we are ALL seeking liberty and responsibility? Most of the people in THIS country don't want liberty and responsibility. The citizens of most of the socialist European countries certainly don't want it. They consider us savages with our guns and our insistence on individual liberty rather than "what's good for the masses". True libertarianism is anathema to them. The various theocracies also do not want liberty and responsibility. And those who would impose a theocracy HERE ought to think about that! Many citizens of third world countries just want to survive, and don't have time or energy to think about models of government. The U.S. is a unique experiment. Our culture and priorities are DIFFERENT. We are the only country which guarantees our citizens the right to keep and bear arms, specifically to resist government tyranny. We have no more right to impose OUR values on the rest of the world than the U.N. has to impose ITS values on us. >>First we have to get our own house in order before we let the world in. I am >>talking about implementing a "New World Order" as WE (you and I who participate >>on this list) would have it. If you think that isolationism and protectionism >>is the only possibility, even given having it the way we want it, I would like to >>hear why. I stand here (in my asbestos suit) asking to be enlightened. The key is that we have to get our own house in order. If we do, we will have something that other countries will WANT to emulate, and no force will be required. I am opposed to isolationism and protectionism, and don't believe those are the only possibilities. But first we have to prove the experiment WORKS. >Recently in Turkey there were some good things decided about families. >Those working against the Clintonista agenda were asked, "How come you're >working against your Country?", and they replied, "Because our Country is >wrong.", and showed them where and how. I see no reason we should not be >involved in such undertakings..... Agreed. Isn't that the real reason we have the First Amendment? Sarah PS: Please respond privately, since I'm going on vacation and will be off-list for a while. Thanks! - -- Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 - fax & voice mail righter@aros.net Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties ------------------------------ From: "Larry A. Tate" Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 01:39:33 -0500 Subject: FW: What new world order? On Friday, June 28, 1996 12:04 PM, Jack@minerva.com wrote: > >There is an interesting book that relates very well to your thoughts. >It is called: The Origins of Order by Stuart Kauffman ISBN 0 19 505811 > >In particular with thousands of computer simulations it points out that order >rather than being difficult to obtain is an inherent goal of all structures. >Of significance to your post on New World Orders is that the more complicated >the structure the greater the inherent desire of order: that is to protect >the structure as a whole at the expense of its component parts. In other words >an international libertarianism is as unlikely as *FALLING UP*. Libertarian >goals / freedom are best and probably only found in the smallest structures: >maybe even only a single individual. The larger the structure the more likely >/ necessary the absolute control of a police state. > There is no doubt that anarchy is the ultimate in libertarianism. There is great doubt however about its practical viability. In all of recorded history there have been no examples of any anarchist (non-)society, let alone a viable one. Anarchy may be the ultimate in libertarianism but it would also be impossible to maintain. People will realize the advantages to the individual in pooling resources. As soon as you get a gang of two, anarchy is out the window. Pooling resources requires management of those resources. Management requires structure. Structure requires leadership. Leadership leads to politics and political struggles. This all leads to where we are now. Back to the grumbling and groping for answers. In order to force anarchy, you'd have to organize just to enforce the anarchy! I just don't see it working. I've yet to see a computer simulation successfully take into account human nature. I say, let's just resign ourselves that government is necessary. Let's work to make it what it should be... a tool for the support and the enhancement of the individual. We give power to the government only because we want the benefits that can be had from it. If the government starts to stray from that singular purpose, it must be corrected (since dismantling it is not a viable option). It really is very simple. Let's get the world moving in that direction also. - ---------------------------------------------- Larry Tate larryt@finsco.com (office) ltate@computek.net (residence) "Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave." - -- William Pitt, 1763 - ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:39:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: World Government Debate/Summit (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:36:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Biondi To: "undisclosed.recipients": ; Subject: World Government Debate/Summit Fellow OPS Members, I am in the process of organizing a debate/summit between proponents of world government and Patriots to be held sometime in September. The purpose of the summit is to foster understanding between the two factions and insure adequate understanding of the particular points of view on sovereignty, role of government, trade, environment, etc. that the two sides hold. I will create an interactive list service specifically for this purpose. I hope to get a plethora of proponents of world government on the net to defend their views--ie World Federalists and Atlantic Unionists. If any of you are interested in participating in a civil debate on the issue of world government with actual proponents, email me. This is a chance to truly understand the mind-set of the world government proponent through an intellectual and logical lense. Richard R. Biondi OPS P.S. Tell me if you are interested in participating in a planning phase to develope the issues and topics. ------------------------------ From: boydk Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: FW: What new world order? I've re-wrapped this text from Larry, my comments are in seperate paragraphs starting with "bk-" > There is no doubt that anarchy is the ultimate in libertarianism. bk- Hmm, well my initial reaction is shock, but then I ease into agreement. I have not doubt about this because I so completely disagree with it. As I understand Libertarianism it is individualism with (-only-) voluntary community. Nothing could be more an enemy to the sort of disorder called anarchy then that, actually (IMHO) nothing would create stronger communities then that though I'm sure that seems perverse from the modern framework of what community is. There is great doubt however about its practical viability. In all of recorded history there have been no examples of any anarchist (non-)society, let alone a viable one. Anarchy may be the ultimate in libertarianism but it would also be impossible to maintain. bk- Indeed! This is why I'm used to hearing this equation of Libertarianism with anarchism from people who dislike Libertarianism. We have been so thoroughly inculcated with the notion that "Order" must be imposed on us by "Authority" that it's normal to think that people wanting to change the nature of "Authority" (de centralize it to the individuals it comes from) also want to eliminate the "Order" that we are taught only authority brings. Normal, and as bizarre and illogical as a trip through the looking glass. People will realize the advantages to the individual in pooling resources. As soon as you get a gang of two, anarchy is out the window. Pooling resources requires management of those resources. Management requires structure. bk- Exactly! Glad we're in agreement. And I'm sure that you'll agree that structure is best (stronger) when supported by all it's elements voluntarily then when some of those elements are forcibly coerced. -This- is a Libertarian society to me. Those structures wich cannot attract enough voluntary cooperation to survive collapse, as very well they should! Those wich are universally recognized as necessary grow and are - -stronger- for being made of strong individuals who give their authority freely. What a tremendous future this could be, a vision of unity shaped by the automatic removal of systems that are coercive or not generally thought of as beneficial (rather organic dont you think?) and the strengthening of those things that individuals do best working together. Individuals, as you say "pool resources" voluntarily all of the time, it's practically a natural state. What Libertarians want to eliminate is the gun point "cooperation" coerced out of people by the likes of the IRS. Structure requires leadership. Leadership leads to politics and political struggles. bk-You are too used to political systems that absorb power like sponges, why would leaders struggle to control systems that are only minimally powerfull? They wouldnt. The problem is that people don't remember back to when government did only what had to be done through government. In such a system public -service- was truly service and while honorable didnt have the siren song of today's all powerfull all coercive IRS backed government. It worked in this country for a while, I think it can work again. This all leads to where we are now. Back to the grumbling and groping for answers. In order to force anarchy, you'd have to organize just to enforce the anarchy! bk-Indeed, yet another reason that Libertarianism is not anarchy. I just don't see it working. I've yet to see a computer simulation successfully take into account human nature. I say, let's just resign ourselves that government is necessary. Let's work to make it what it should be... a tool for the support and the enhancement of the individual. We give power to the government only because we want the benefits that can be had from it. bk- We give power to the government only to do the things individuals can't do alone. Power is best in the most decentralized location possible. If we give power to the government only because we want the benefits that can be had from it we end up with medicare, with CDA like laws and with welfare. If we insist on voting ourselves the "benefits" of big government, we will -fail- and deserve it. Wasnt it Trench Coxe who over 100 years ago warned about democracies voting themselves largess from the public purse? It's far less complicated (and probably more efficient) to rob your neighbors -yourself-. If the government starts to stray from that singular purpose, it must be corrected (since dismantling it is not a viable option). It really is very simple. Let's get the world moving in that direction also. > > - ---------------------------------------------- > Larry Tate > I think you and I are generally going in the same direction but have different words for our destination. Libertarianism is not anarchy. (the opinions I express are mine alone) boydk@wrq.com PGP fingerprint; D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B Key at BAL's AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 ------------------------------ From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 09:54:30 PST Subject: RE: Libertarians In <199607020638.AAA09995@terra.aros.net>, on Jul 2, righter@aros.net wrote: >On Thu, 27 Jun 96, roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) wrote: [ NWO sized snip ] :-) >>Recently in Turkey there were some good things decided about families. >>Those working against the Clintonista agenda were asked, "How come you're >>working against your Country?", and they replied, "Because our Country is >>wrong.", and showed them where and how. I see no reason we should not be >>involved in such undertakings..... > Agreed. Isn't that the real reason we have the First Amendment? > >Sarah > >PS: Please respond privately, since I'm going on vacation and will be off-list >for a while. Thanks! Not to mention the Right to travel where we will etc. Access to UN functions are sometimes pretty limited though. Unfortunately I don't know what procedures/protocols etc., are involved. It's definitely something requiring a higher level approach than I'm used to dealling with. Anybody know what goes on there? - -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------ From: thomas@solbrn.dseg.ti.com (Kenneth T Emanuelson ii) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 13:14:56 CDT Subject: RE: Libertarians > Not to mention the Right to travel where we will etc. Access to UN > functions are sometimes pretty limited though. Unfortunately I don't know > what procedures/protocols etc., are involved. It's definitely something > requiring a higher level approach than I'm used to dealling with. Anybody > know what goes on there? I think just about anyone can attend their conferences, but you have to "tow the party line" in order to get any sort of platform from which to speak. At present, the "party line" is authoritarianism and coercion. I feel about the UN the same way I feel about the ACLU. It's just way too full of squishy, busybody socialists and other assorted authoritarians to be reformed in the near future. What we need is a counter-organization that connects with our fellow anti-nanny state crusaders around the world, whether they are in power or not. -Thomas ------------------------------ From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 19:33:26 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: Grant County, New Mexico (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 19:30:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Donna J. Logan To: snetnews@alterzone.com, liberty-and-justice@pobox.com, act@efn.org Subject: RE: Grant County, New Mexico (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:09:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Citizen Dei Gratia To: Multiple recipients of list patriots Subject: Re: Grant County, New Mexico At 08:34 PM 7/1/96 +0000, you wrote: >I'll try again because this is really important. Can anyone verify >the rumors that FEMA has planned a trial evacuation of Grant County, >New Mexico, later this month? I heard that everyone in the county had >to leave, turn off their burglar alarms and leave their doors >unlocked. My understanding is that this county is adjacent to the >German Luftwaffe Base we now have on American soil. Don't just tell >us you heard the same thing. Can anyone document it? My >understanding is that it was in the local papers and the locals are >furious. My associate, Tarheel, and I traveled thru Grant County, New Mexico, last Saturday 6/29/96, on the way to Catron County. While in Luna, we picked up a local newspaper, The Courier, which I have in front of me now. Headline story, dated 6/27/96 read: "No Militia Required; FEMA Concerns in Membres Valley Wane as Fires Peter Out (For Now)" A meeting was held by 4 FED, State & local agencies to discuss emergency evacuation in case of forest fires (yeh, right). The basic story from the locals was this: word got out from a Emergency Management manager that FEMA wanted to run trial evacuations, but it was supposed to be a secret. Once word got out over a phone & FAX network, the manager (who gets 1/2 of his salary paid for by FEMA) quickly denied any such plans. (yeh, right) The locals WERE furious. For more info, check out the Courier's Web page at: www.zianet.com/wblase/courier or Email to: courier@zianet.com - ------------------------------------------------- Citizen Dei Gratia Sovereign Citizen Resource Center MIRRORED WEB SITES: http://www.cogent.net/scrc http://www.caprica.com/~scrc scrc@cogent.net ------------------------------ From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:42:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: Bonfire of the Checkbooks (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message: > Bonfire of the Checkbooks > A Facetious Look at the Turn of the Century > by P.J. Del, June 28, 1994 > > There are some nasty surprises waiting for us at the end of this century, > although the Second Coming probably won't be one of them. > > Purists may argue that the first year of the twenty-first century will be > 2001, not 2000. There was no year zero, so the first century included the > years 1 to 100, the second century > included the years 101 to 200, and so on. But that's not the point. The > real turning point for us will be when the year 1999 turns into the year > 2000. That's when we'll be making huge > bonfires of obsolete checkbooks. > > Every check and every other blank form with the date "19__" will become > obsolete and will have to be disposed of. Back in 1899 it wasn't so bad. > Life was simpler, and very few > people even had checking accounts. But bureaucracy and paperwork--aided > by that quintessential twentieth-century invention, the copying > machine--have proliferated and will continue > to proliferate for the rest of this century. > > The sudden obsolescence of nearly all paper forms will overwhelm the > capacity of recycling plants and landfills. Loaded barges will go from > port to port, searching in vain for approved > dumping places. We'll have no choice but to burn the forms, releasing > enormous amounts of smoke, ash and carbon dioxide. > > It will be especially bad in the paperwork centers of the world--Tokyo, > Paris, London, New York and Young America, Minnesota, which is the source > of all rebate checks. The pall > over Washington, D.C. may not dissipate for years. > > We now know that all this smoke will block most of the sunlight for many > months and bring an unseasonable chill to the earth's surface. The winter > of 2000, at least in the Northern > Hemisphere, will last well into the following spring and summer. The > Southern Hemisphere will skip its summer entirely. The much-dreaded > Nuclear Winter will turn out to be > non-nuclear. > > When the smoke finally clears, the carbon dioxide released by burning > forms will begin to trap solar radiation, bringing widespread climate > changes and melting the polar ice caps, > causing the sea to rise and inundate coastal areas. The Greenhouse Effect > will be coming much sooner than even the worst pessimists have dared to > predict. > > Electronic transactions will come to a virtual halt, as dumb computers, > programmed earlier in the twentieth century, mistake "01/01/00" for > January 1, 1900, and reject such transactions > as outdated. Bad software won't check the date, and good software will > use four-digit year dates by then. It's only the mediocre software that > will start bouncing transactions all over the > place. Guess what kind of software runs the world? > > The financial paralysis will propagate around the time zones of the > world, following in the wake of New Year's Eve celebrations. It'll be > very much like the dreaded Electromagnetic > Pulse that nuclear weapons generate and that was supposed to put all of > our computers out of commission. This disaster, too, will turn out to be > non-nuclear. > > And besides being the turn of the century, the year 2000 will be the dawn > of a new millennium, a fact that has great significance to millennarian > fanatics. > > There's no reason to suppose that Christ will return amid all this chaos. > The best scholars agree that He probably wasn't born in the year 1 A.D. > Our calendar is off by a few years > because of mistakes made in antiquity. Even the fact that a new > millennium will dawn in the year 2000 is purely an artifact of our > numbering system. If we had eight fingers, instead of ten, > the year 2000 (octal) would have arrived early in the Middle Ages (the > year we call 1024). There's no reason to think God has ten fingers, or > that He uses the decimal number system. > (Base seven would be on better theological grounds.) > > But don't think this will discourage the millennarians. Some of them > think God really does have ten fingers (also a beard). There are decimal > numbers in the Bible. And when the sky > darkens, the weather turns frigid, and disaster strikes the financial > centers, many will be convinced that it's God's wrath (or the Devil's). > > Even if agriculture isn't rendered impossible by the smoke from burning > checkbooks, famine will descend upon the world, as farmers refuse to > plant crops that they think won't be > harvested before the end of the world. > > The nit-picking question about which year--2000 or 2001--is the first > year of the next millennium will degenerate into a religious war of > devastating proportions. Religious disputes are > most acrid when the differences are slight, as history shows. There were > wars over a single letter--the Greek iota--in ancient Christian creeds. > There will be wars between the > checkbook burners (2000) and the year counters (2001), although they > probably will not use those names to describe themselves. > > The administrative chaos won't end after that first, terrible year. > Ambiguity in dates of a sort that we haven't seen since 1931 will plague > us for years to come. Does 01 JAN 03 mean > January 1, 2003 or January 3, 2001? Don't answer too quickly. The form > with the year first is often used in data processing because it makes > sorting by dates much easier. It will take a > long time to find and correct all the errors of this kind written into > existing software. > > But don't despair! There's still time to repent! The disaster can be > averted if we take a few simple steps in the next few years. > > Starting now, all checkbooks and forms with the notorious "19__" must be > replaced by forms in which the date is left completely blank. I call them > century-free forms. If we start now, > old checkbooks and forms can be phased out without overburdening our > recycling facilities. The ink used to write the numbers "19" will be > balanced by the ink saved by not printing > them. > > All computer software must use four-digit year dates. The best software > already does, but old software, especially operating systems, must be > rewritten. The extra two digits will strain > our storage facilities, but only slightly. We can certainly afford it. We > have over five years to go. That should be enough time, if computers keep > getting faster. > > The use of two-digit year dates must be extirpated. Forget racism, > sexism, ageism, whateverism--all these things can wait. With centuryism, > the clock is running on us. > > Nothing can be done about religious millennarianism--at least nothing > that I can think of. But without the man-made disasters, it can be kept > to a fairly harmless level. After all, nothing > much happened in the year 1000, even though people were more religious > then. That was because there were no computers, no printed forms, and > only a few monks keeping written > records. The man-made damage was completely insufficient to inflame the > fanatics of the time. > > With a little luck and a lot of effort, we can move Western Civilization > past this crisis. Of course, the whole thing will come back--ten times > harder--in the year 10,000. Let's hope our > descendants will be using a different calendar by then. > > > > P.J. Del (Philip J. Erdelsky) is a computer programmer in San Diego, > California who worries about little software bugs that cause big > problems. He may be contacted at > 75746.3411@compuserve.com. > > Copyright 1994 Philip Erdelsky > > This essay may be reprinted or distributed freely, without permission or > payment of royalties, provided the entire unaltered work, including the > copyright notice, is included. And don't > forget the subtitle! Someone might take me seriously! > ------------------------------ From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 08:19:26 PST Subject: RE: Libertarians In <9607021814.AA22096@solbrn>, on Jul 2, Kenneth T Emanuelson ii wrote: >> Not to mention the Right to travel where we will etc. Access to UN >> functions are sometimes pretty limited though. Unfortunately I don't know >> what procedures/protocols etc., are involved. It's definitely something >> requiring a higher level approach than I'm used to dealling with. Anybody >> know what goes on there? > > I think just about anyone can attend their conferences, but > you have to "tow the party line" in order to get any sort of > platform from which to speak. At present, the "party line" > is authoritarianism and coercion. > > I feel about the UN the same way I feel about the ACLU. It's > just way too full of squishy, busybody socialists and other > assorted authoritarians to be reformed in the near future. > What we need is a counter-organization that connects with our > fellow anti-nanny state crusaders around the world, whether > they are in power or not. I just had a further thougt. If what you say is true, perhaps it's time to introduce them to lobbying Washington DC style. The right vote equals bucks in the pocket. A lot of those third world types would probably be willing to go for pretty cheap, comparatively speaking. Nothing like a little guerilla capitalism, eh? :-) - -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------ From: Liberty or Death Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 09:26:14 -0700 Subject: Fwd: MOM release on Viper Arrests >You should be skeptical of the reports being issued by the federal >government about the people they arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, on bomb and >weapons charges. Information now coming out indicates that the accused may >have been set up by federal agents provocateur, in much the way Robert Starr >and James McCranie were set up by government agents in Macon, Georgia. > >We are in a constitutional crisis when federal agents arrest and prosecute >their most effedtive critics on fabricated charges and planted evidence. >More and more Americans are coming to realize that if the government wants >us to believe something, it is probably a lie. > >--Jon Roland >1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825, 916-927-4935 >=========================================================================== > >>From Barefoot Bob: >--- >MILITIA OF MONTANA > >P.O. Box 1486, Noxon, MT 59853 >406-847-2735, or, 2246 v/fax > >June 2, 1996 > >WHO IS VIPER? > >In a press release by Janet Napolitano, United States Attorney for the >District of Arizona, she states that the 12 individuals arrested in Arizona >were members of a "self-styled Arizona 'Viper' Militia." > >Fact: Thc Viper organization refers to itself as "Viper Team," not "Viper >Militia." > >Fact: Viper Team is not a militia organization. It is a motorcycle and >rocket club. > >Fact: Viper Team is composed mainly of older men who are Viet Nam veterans. > >Fact: Members of Viper Team were approached 2 - 3 months ago by two >government agent provocatuers (or was it actually Booz-Allen Corp >infiltrators fulfilling government contracts) to target buildings for >extermination. > >Fact: The members of Viper Team told these agents "to go to he..!" > >Fact: One Viper Team member contacted a mutual friend of M.O.M.'s >approximately three weeks ago, voicing his concern that his organization was >about to be "set up like the guys in Georgia." (This is in reference to Bob >Starr and other Americans who were set up by the BATF in Georgia. One ATF >agent has testified on the stand that Mr. Starr had no knowledge of any >explosives which werc buried on his land.) > >Sources close to the situation have informed us that one of the provocateurs >was an individual named Jose Walls. We are working on identifying the >second agent. We do have our suspicions at this time who this is, however, >without substantial proof we are not at liberty to publicly announce his >name. We believe he was also involved in coordinating the bombs in Oklahoma >City. > >It is the irresponsibility of people like Ms. Napolitano when referring to >Viper as a "militia," when in fact they are not, which causes further >alienation of American citizens from their public servants. > >Militia of Montana - - Monte - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Psalm 33 * - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- O- ------------------------------ End of roc Digest V2 #17 ************************ To subscribe to roc Digest, send the command: subscribe roc-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@xmission.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-roc": subscribe roc-digest local-roc@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "roc-digest" in the commands above with "roc". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in pub/lists/roc/archive. These are organized by date.