From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #107 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, April 8 1998 Volume 02 : Number 107 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 13:07:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Fwd: America's Grand Deception (fwd) From: Seekernospam@whitehouse.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: America's Grand Deception Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 16:38:01 GMT =09In 1983, two independent researchers, David Dodge and Tom Dunn, while looking for evidence of political corruption in a library=20 in Belfast Maine, stumbled across an 1825 copy of the Maine Civil Code.=20 In this document, as I believe is customary, the Constitution of the=20 U.S. was printed. They noticed that Article Thirteen of the amendments=20 was not the same Article Thirteen which is now enumerated in the=20 Constitution. This Article Thirteen, which is known as the "Titles of Nobility" amendment, (TON) reads as follows: Article XIII If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, re- ceive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them. The post went on to say that the researchers had carried on a written communication with Sen. George Mitchell (D. Maine) and as I recall, someone named Hargrave from the National Archives in Washington DC. It appears that the original position of Mitchell and Hargrave was that this was simply a printing error and that it had been im- mediately corrected upon discovery. This does not appear to be the case. Dodge and Dunn went on to find, at last count, 24 different state legislatures which printed this amendment as Article Thirteen, in 77 separate editions of their respective Civil Codes. This occurred over a period from 1818 until 1876. It has also been found in school text books and other publications from that period. At first I was very skeptical, but now I have seen 2nd generation photo copies of all of these documents. Almost every document carries a stamp from the library where it was found. In some cases where the document was hand written I have only seen a typed version, but after speaking with the researchers at length, I am sure that these typed reproductions are faithful. In total, they present compelling evidence that the original Article Thirteen was wrongfully removed from the Constitution. Gradually the position of Senator Mitchell and others at the National Archive changed. (Paraphrased from the letters between Dodge and Mitchell). One such position was that the article in question had been proposed in the 11th congress, 2nd session in 1810 and subse- quently ratified by only 12 states before the close of 1812. As there were 17 states at the time that the Amendment was proposed it required that 13 states ratify, and this did not happen. Dodge and Dunn continued their research. They found a circular letter, dated 7, Jan. 1818, commissioned bythe House of Representatives for President James Monroe and written by then Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams. It was sent to only 3 states, of the original 17, that had not yet responded, as to their disposition on the proposed Thirteenth Article. Virginia was one of those states. Dodge and Dunn now went to the Library of Congress and were allowed access to the rare book room. There they found an un-cataloged book entitled "The Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia", 1819. The amendment was there, listed as the Thirteenth Article of the U.S. Constitution. This, of course, indicated that a 13th state had indeed ratified the amendment, constituting a 3/4 majority of the states of the Union at the time the amendment was proposed... and now, the Senator's posi- tion changes once again. They responded to Dodge by saying that since there were 21 states by the time that Virginia ratified in 1818 or 1819, 13 was no longer enough to bring the amendment into law. They contended that It would have then required 16 votes to ratify, not 13. This appears to be the current position of Senator Mitchell and the National Archives, although the Archives legal department has not yet formally responded to the question. The Constitution is **silent** on what is to be done concerning the addition of new states during the ratification process. Furthermore, the four new states (Louisi- ana, Indiana, Mississippi and Illinois) who, Senator Mitchell and the archivists, claim should have been considered in this process, all, **without exception**, carried the "Titles of Nobility" amendment on their U.S. Constitutions for at least several years after 1818 or 1819. It would appear that those state's own legislatures considered this to be the law of the land. There are some documents which have been uncovered that are not included in the current edition of the report. Brian March did a thorough search of the archives in the four states that were added during the ratification process. No evidence was found to indicate that the Secretary of State polled them as too their response on the amendment. !!!THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED!!! and as I said earlier, all four states have been shown to have published the TON amendment. The letters from those state archives are among the documents not inclu- ded in the report. I have seen copies of all the documents. These guys have done some tremendous research and documented everything very well. Another "report to the President" of Feb 3, 1818, a time when the four states had already been admitted, also lists specifically the states that were involved in the ratification and !!!AGAIN, THE NEW STATES ARE NOT CONSIDERED!!! Again, this report was not available when they went to press. If you ask Brian to include some of the new material I feel certain that he will. To summarize: * The current position of those in the government is that there may have been a 13th state (Virginia) ratify the amendment. However, at the time that such ratification took place, new states had entered the union. The required 3/4 majority was not met as determined by the addition of the new states. * Dodge, Dunn and March contend and provide documentation that supports the claim that at that time the new states were not considered in the process of ratification. - The circular letter of Jan. 7, 1818 - The report to the president of feb. 3 1818 - Published civil codes of the four new states which clearly show that those states considered the amend- ment law even though they had not been asked to vote on it. * Consider the fact that the Constitution is silent on the matter of new states entering the Union during the ratif- ication process. * Consider the fact that the Constitution is silent on the matter of time limits on the ratification process itself. Today, time limits on an amendments ratification must be stipulated at the time of the acceptance of the proposal. This was not done in the case of TON, so there was/is no time limit in effect. * I know of no legal way for an amendment to be removed from the Constitution other than congressional repeal, which requires the passage of a contrary amendment. Does anyone know of another way with precedent? Will Morris William_Morris@ccm.jf.intel.com P.S: If you would like to read the report for yourself you need to get one from Brian March. They do not want it posted electron- ically. In all fairness I completely understand this. They have been working on this since 83' and they sure don't get any coverage from the main stream press. They are on their own trying to inform people that !!! SOMEONE HAS BEEN SCREWING WITH OUR CONSTITUTION !!! The book also includes several excellent essays on Banking that were published anonymously in "The Spirit of 76'" newspaper. It is suspected that Jefferson wrote these. It is curious that he would feel compelled to do so anonymously. Send $25.00 for 1st class delivery or $30.00 for 2 day express To: Brian March c/o P.O. Box 26512 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87125/TDC - -- ******************************************************************** "The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear of resistance." --Thomas Paine ******************************************************************** timr@efn.org (503) 895-4681 (FAX) (503) 895-4417 (VOICE) To review the entire text showing the historical background and implications of this information visit this site: http://www3.l0pht.com/pub/blackcrwl/patriot/missing_13th_amend.txt - ------------------------------------------------ Combining this knowledge with the fraudulent taxation of Americans by the corporate IRS, the pyramid scheme of the Social Security System, and the corruption of the banking and judicial systems, is it any wonder that Senator George Mitchell retired early from the Senate and why other politicians are leaving Washington like Simpson of Wyoming, Pat Schroeder of Colorado, Susan Molinari and Bill Paxon of New York. Could be that these politicians see the handwriting on the wall and understand that the grand era of deception is coming to an end at last. Better get out while the getting is good I guess !! - ---- End Forwarded Message - --=20 John_Johnson TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com =A9 1998 All rights reserved - -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.= net with the word help in the message body. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 98 01:24:15 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: rkba-list: the REAL danger of gun control - ENSLAVEMENT (fwd) On Apr 8, EdgarSuter wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Arms, Violence, and the State A Historical Perspective by Jeremy Black Copyright, Chronicles, January 1998, pp.19-21. pull quote: "Crime and insecurity are both aspects of the crisis of Western society a= t the=0Aclose of the millennium. This sense of helplessness, itself fuele= d by the=0Agovernment's monopolization of the means of force, is then use= d by the central=0Astate to justify suppressing still more personal liber= ties and the right to=0Aself-defense." Jeremy Black is a professor of history at the University of Durham, Engla= nd. Governments today seek to monopolize violence and to control the ability = of=0Apeople to defend themselves, their families, and their communities. = In doing=0Aso, governments present themselves not only as representatives= and protectors=0Aof their people, but also as the necessary end of the h= istorical process.=0AThese views can be contested, not only by appealing = to empirical and=0Aphilosophical aspects of the modem situation but also = by looking at the march=0Aof time. Both involve challenging the arrogant = claims of the state to power=0Aand legitimacy. =09History reveals the degree to which states increasingly became the exp= ression=0Aof organized violence. This owed much to the ambition of govern= ments to=0Amonopolize the use of such violence, at the expense of a range= of groups, from=0Aprivate individuals to stateless pirates and mercenari= es. Indeed, the=0Amonopolization of violence became a definition of state= hood, as a functional=0Aunderstanding of rulership replaced the tradition= al legitimist understanding=0Ain the 19th and 20th centuries. Governments= today prefer to rely on other=0Adefinitions, especially those summed up = in the term "democracy," but part of=0Athe brutal truth is that states an= d governments are defined by power, the=0Aquest for power, and the denial= of power to others. =09Yet this monopolization of violence is relatively recent, and in no wa= y an=0Ainevitable aspect of state organization. In the 19th century, mili= tary=0Aentrepreneurship=97mercenary activity=97 became less frequent in E= urope, and this=0Ainfluenced relations between states, and between states= and nonstate bodies. Recruiting via intermediaries was replaced by direct recruiting, especial= ly=0Asystems of conscription. The Crimean War (185356) was the last war i= n which=0Athe British government recruited units of European foreign merc= enaries for war=0Aservice. =09Authorized nonstate violence was also eliminated in a piecemeal fashio= n,=0Amostly in the 19th century. This hit privateers, such as the governm= ent-=0Asupported and supporting Barbary corsairs of North Africa, and mer= cantile=0Acompanies with territorial power and their own armed forces, su= ch as the=0ABritish East India Company. The elimination of such practices= owed something=0Ato their ability to provoke interstate conflicts by bei= ng outside full state=0Acontrol. Their elimination also reflected a sense= that such practices were=0Aanachronistic as well as antagonistic to gove= rnments that sought power,=0Aemphasized reform, and placed a premium on r= ationality, conceived of in terms=0Aof a clearly defined organization wit= h explicit rules of conduct and state-=0Adirected systems. The territoria= l and military roles of the companies came to=0Aan end, that of the Briti= sh East India Company after the Indian Mutiny. At a=0Amore mundane level,= in 1882 the Italian government took over the coaling base=0Aestablished = by the Rubattino Steamship Company at Assab near the mouth of the=0ARed S= ea. It seemed inappropriate for private companies to control territory,= =0Aalthough there was scant sign that entities such as the Hudson Bay Com= pany=0Awere abusive. =09There were exceptions, but they became more uncommon. One latter-day= =0Aadventurer, James Brooke (1803-68), helped suppress a rebellion in Sar= awak; in=0Anorthern Borneo, and was rewarded by the Prince of Brunei with= its=0Agovernorship (1841). That became the basis of a territorial positi= on that led=0Ato him, and to the nephew and grandnephew who succeeded him= , be ing termed the "white rajahs" of Sarawak. Under the nephew, Sir Charles= =0AAnthony Johnson, the territory expanded, and in 1888 Sarawak was conve= rted=0Ainto a British protectorate. The last rajah did not cede Sarawak t= o the=0ABritish crown until 1946 his position had been destabilized by th= e effects of=0AJapanese occupation during World War II. =09Despite the success of the Brookes, opportunities for such activity be= came=0Aless common. They had flourished beyond the frontiers of empire, a= world=0Abrilliantly captured in George MacDonald Fraser's recent Flashma= n novels.=0AThus, in India, the willingness of the locals to turn to Euro= pean weaponry and=0Amilitary methods had provided careers for a number of= European soldiers. The=0Amost spectacular was George Thomas, an Irishman= who deserted the British new=0Ain 1781 and rose, through military comman= d in Indian armies, to independent=0Acontrol of a substantial region betw= een Delhi and the Punjab by 1799. =09Such opportunities disappeared as the regularity of 19th-century gover= nment=0Aswept across much of the world. In addition to authorized nonstat= e violence,=0Aunauthorized nonstate violence, particularly piracy and pri= vately organized=0Aexpeditions designed to seize territory, was also in l= arge part stamped out in=0Athe 19th century. This both demonstrated and e= nhanced the ability of states to=0Amonopolize power, and the European pow= ers, especially Britain, devoted much=0Aeffort to suppressing piracy, esp= ecially off China, in the East Indies, off=0ABritish Columbia, in the Pac= ific, and in the Persian Gulf. =09The banning of the slave trade and the subsequent measures taken to ex= tend=0Aand enforce the bans were also important examples of moves designe= d to end=0Aauthorized, and then unauthorized, nonstate violence. The Brit= ish navy was=0Aespecially active in employing violence against the slave = trade, particularly=0Afrom Africa to the Middle East. The European powers= sought to monopolize=0Amilitary force, both within their European territ= ories and in their colonies,=0Aon land and at sea. An important example o= f a state establishing a monopoly of=0Aviolence was the effort to bring t= he Cossacks of both Ukraine and South and=0ASoutheast European Russia und= er state control, which ultimately left them=0Avulnerable to the Stalinis= t tyranny. The redshirted volunteer force with which=0AGiuseppi Garibaldi= conquered Sicily and Naples in 1860 was absorbed into the=0AItalian army= , and in 1862, when he subsequently formed a private army to=0Acapture Ro= me, then an independent papal state, it was defeated by the Italian=0Aarm= y. Monopolization of violence was linked to state control of societies, whic= h was=0Aa gradual but insistent process. European states first sought to = prevent the=0Ause by partisan groups of organized violence for the pursui= t of domestic=0Apolitical objectives. They also took steps against feuds.= At the personal=0Alevel, the activity of the state was initially less in= sistent, but measures=0Awere nevertheless taken to abolish=97or at least = to limit=97dueling, and to=0Arestrict the ownership of firearms. =09Moves to restrict the ownership of arms were pursued in the 19th centu= ry, at=0Athe very time when there was an increasing emphasis on conscript= ion and the=0Aavailability of military reserves. Governments were determi= ned to control both=0Athe practice of mass recruitment and its consequenc= es. Force was used as never=0Abefore, but it was force by and for governm= ents. =09governments were particularly determined to monopolize arms that had a= =0Abattlefield capability. This was true both of artillery, from its init= ial=0Adevelopment, and of flintlock musket in the 18th century. Furthermo= re, by the=0A16th century, most sophisticated fortifications were under c= entral government=0Acontrol, and, by the 18th, they all were. Even though= personal weapons were of=0Ascant value against the increasingly powerful= armies of the state, European=0Astates sought to control their ownership= . =09Gun control fused the regulatory ambitions of government and the=0Aant= idemocratic nature of ancien regime Europe. Thus only those trusted by=0A= government were allowed to possess firearms. Thanks to hunting, this had= =0Adirect economic consequences. For example, in Normandy, in order to pr= otect=0Athe monopoly of hunting by the nobility, the peasantry was prohib= ited from=0Apossessing arms. Under a regulation of 1766, a simple denunci= ation by a noble=0Acould lead to a peasant's house being searched and the= culprit jailed for=0Athree months without recourse to the ordinary court= s. In Poland the right to=0Awear a sword in public was restricted to the = nobility. Hierarchy and the=0Acontrol of the countryside was reflected in= the limitations of rights to=0Ahunting by the English Game Acts of 1485 = and 1604. Freeholders lost ancient=0Arights to hunt on their own land, th= anks to the greater property=0Aqualifications introduced by the second ac= t. Thus, the American claim to the=0Aright to bear arms was as much a dec= laration of social emancipation as of=0Apolitical freedom. =09Force in the 19th century was increasingly concentrated at the disposa= l of=0Aauthority, especially the authority of the state. Thus, in the 186= 0's, a large=0Aarmy and the use of terror subdued peasant opposition to t= he government in=0Asouthern Italy. Professional police forces increased s= tate power. In Britain,=0Aa professional police force replaced the yeoman= ry and the sometimes=0Aincompetent constables. Peel's Metropolitan Police= Act (1829) created a=0Auniformed and paid force for London. This trend w= as extended by acts in 1835=0Aand 1839, and the County and Borough Police= Act (1856) made the formation of=0Apaid forces obligatory. The new polic= e largely replaced individuals as=0Aprosecutors in cases of criminal just= ice in England and Ireland. In most of=0AEurope, policing was brought und= er the control of central governments. =09This process of increased state control over violence was seen even in= the=0AUnited States, where traditions of individualism were strong and the ownership of personal weapons widespread. Neverthele= ss,=0Aever since the North's victory in the civil War, the central govern= ment has=0Aincreasingly viewed political opponents and nonconformists as = lawless rogues=0Awho needed to be controlled if not suppressed. This deve= lopment was especially=0Aevident in the severe suppression of personal li= berties during World War 1, in=0Athe "Red Scare" and Palmer Raids of 1919= - -20, as well as in regional conflicts=0Asuch as California's "Little Civi= l War' over water rights in 1924, when=0Aranchers in the Owens Valley ble= w up the aqueduct to Los Angeles and seized=0Athe aqueduct's principal di= version works. Three years later, when the bombing=0Aof the aqueduct was = resumed, the city of Los Angeles sent trainloads of guards=0Aarmed with s= ubmachine guns, and this show of force proved effective. =09While the ancien r=E9gime had distinguished between social groups in d= eciding=0Awho could bear arms, the totalizing democracies of the modern w= orld have=0Aproved reluctant to vary their power to control. In Britain, = as a result of=0Athe Firearms Control Act of 1920 (and its revision, the = Firearms Act of 1968),=0Ait is necessary to show "good reason" to own a g= un=97and defense against crime=0Ais not just cause. In 1997, the use of h= andguns was banned as a consequence of the killing of children by a deranged gunm= an in=0ADunblane, Scotland: by that logic, the motorcar should have long = been banned.=0AThe Dunblane killings were in fact the product of the fail= ure of the=0Aregulatory system, not of the private ownership of guns. Kil= lings by licensed=0Agunowners were rare, and the change in the law only m= ade unlicensed ownership=0Amore likely, thus leading in all likelihood to= calls for more and more police=0Asurveillance. Thus, unlike in the Unite= d States, the British people are more=0Adependent on the police in order = to protect themselves, and this, of course,=0Athe police are unable to do= . Criminals know this, and they know that their=0Avictims will be unarmed= . =09Crime and insecurity are both aspects of the crisis of Western society= at the=0Aclose of the millennium. This sense of helplessness, itself fue= led by the=0Agovernment's monopolization of the means of force, is then u= sed by the central=0Astate to justify suppressing still more personal lib= erties and the right to=0Aself-defense. The state presents this process a= s natural and logical, as the=0Aonly solution to the problems that plague= us. But it is nothing of the sort.=0AIt is simply government doing what = government does best: monopolizing power. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 98 01:25:05 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: rkba-list: The REAL danger of Assault Weapons in homes - FREEDOM (fwd) On Apr 8, EdgarSuter wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Switzerland and It's Armed Citizenry by Stephen P. Halbrook Copyright Chronicles, January 1998, pp. 38-40 Since the origins of the Swiss Confederation in 1291, it has been the dut= y of=0Aevery male Swiss citizen to be armed and to serve in the militia. = Today, that=0Aarm is an "assault rifle," which is issued to every Swiss m= ale and which must=0Abe kept in the home. During Germany's Third Reich (1= 933-1945), that arm was a=0Abolt-action repeating rifle, which was highly= effective in the hands of=0ASwitzerland's many sharpshooters. Americans = of the wartime generation were=0Afamiliar with the fact that brave and ar= med little Switzerland stood up to=0AHitler and made him blink. As a map = of Europe in 1942 shows, the Nazis had=0Aswallowed up most of everything = on the continent but this tiny speck that=0AHitler called 'a pimple Oil t= he face of Europe." The F=FChrer boasted that he=0Awould be "the butcher = of the Swiss," but the Wehrmacht was dissuaded by a=0Afully armed populac= e in the Alpine terrain. As I point out in my forthcoming=0Abook, Target = Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War 11,=0ASwitzerland's hist= ory illustrates the will and ability of an armed citizenry=0Ato resist ty= ranny to the death. =09The Swiss federal shooting festival, which remains the largest rifle= =0Acompetition in the world, was held in Luzern in June 1939. Hitler's ta= keover=0Aof Austria and Czechoslovakia was complete, both countries had b= een=0Asurrendered by tiny political elites who guaranteed that there woul= d be no=0Aresistance. Swiss President Philipp Etter spoke at the festival= , stressing=0Athat something far more serious than sport was the purpose = of their activity.=0AHis comments demonstrated the connection between nat= ional defense and the=0Aarmed citizen: There is probably no other country that, like Switzerland, gives the sold= ier=0Ahis weapon to keep in the home. The Swiss always has his rifle at h= and. It=0Abelongs to the furnishings of his home.... That corresponds to = ancient Swiss=0Atradition. As the citizen with his sword steps into the r= ing in the cantons=0Awhich have the Landsgemeinde so the Swiss soldier li= ves in constant=0Acompanionship with his rifle. He knows what that means.= With this rifle, he is=0Aliable every hour, if the country calls, to def= end his hearth, his home, his=0Afamily, his birthplace. The weapon is to = him a pledge and sign of honor and=0Afreedom. The Swiss does not part wit= h his rifle. =09On September 1, 1939, Hitler launched World War II by attacking Poland= .=0AWithin a day or two, Switzerland had about half a million militiamen = mobilized=0Aout of a population of just over four million. General Henri = Cuisan, commander=0Ain chief of the Swiss militia, responded with Operati= ons Order No. 2 At the border and between the border and army position, the border hoops = and=0Aadvance guard persistently delay the advance of the enemy. The garr= isons at=0Athe border and between the border and the works and positions = making up the=0Adefensive front continue resistance up to the last cartri= dge, even if they=0Afind themselves completely alone. This astonishing order was the opposite of the policies of the other Euro= pean=0Acountries, which either surrendered to Hitler without a fight or s= urrendered=0Aafter a brief resistance. For example, in April 1940, Denmar= k's king=0Asurrendered the country after a meeting with the Nazis and ins= tructed his=0Aforces not to resist. Norway resisted, although=97unlike Sw= itzerland=97it had no=0Aarmed populace and was ill prepared for combat. =09In response to the invasions of small neutral countries, Switzerland i= ssued=0Aits "directions concerning the conduct of the soldiers not under = arms in event=0Aof attack." Intended as a warning to Germany, it was past= ed on walls all over=0Athe country. It prescribed the reaction against su= rprise attack and against=0Athe fifth column as follows: All soldiers and those with therm are to attack with ruthlessness=0Aparac= hutists, airborne infantry and saboteurs. Where no officers and=0Anoncomm= issioned officers are present, each soldier acts under exertion of all=0A= powers of his own initiative. This command for the individual to act on his own initiative was an ancie= nt=0ASwiss tradition which reflected the political and military leadershi= p's=0Astaunch confidence in the ordinary man. This command was possible, = of course,=0Aonly in a society where every man had his rifle at home. =09Under no condition, the order continued would any surrender be forthco= ming,=0Aand any pretense of a surrender must be ignored: If by radio, leaflets or other media any information is transmitted doubt= ing=0Athe will of the Federal Council or of the Army High Command to resi= st an=0Aattacker this information must be regarded =09lies of enemy propaganda. Our country will resist aggression with all means in its power and to the Switzerland, in other words, possessed the most democratic system of nati= onal=0Adefense in Europe. The Nazis were well aware that invasion meant f= ighting on=0Aevery inch of ground (much of it vertical), in every city an= d village, in=0Aevery pasture and mountainside, right down to every man w= ith a rifle. There=0Awould be no easy surrender made by a ruler, as elsew= here. =09The Swiss policy of total resistance is further illustrated by the cre= ation=0Aof the Ortswehren (local defense). It was based on the dictum tha= t "only a=0Atotal defense can oppose total war." By allowing boys and old= men to be sworn=0Ain as members of the armed forces and issuing them an = armband, it permitted=0Athe entire male population to fight and still be = recognized as soldiers under=0Ainternational law. Armed civilians not so = recognized would, if captured, be=0Atreated as Franktireure (lone snipers= ) and shot on the spot. Ortswehr members=0Aarmed themselves either with t= heir own rifles or with rifles received from the=0Amilitary. =09The Ortswehren consisted of former soldiers no longer required to serv= e, the=0AJungschutzen (young shooters), accurate marksmen who were not ca= pable of=0Amilitary service, those with emergency service duties and othe= rs who had been=0Aexempt from the military, and women in the medical serv= ice and fire brigades.=0ABy 1941, its membership totaled 127,563, one-fif= th of the size of the army.=0AHad the Germans invaded, the Ortswehren wou= ld have provided armed civilian=0Aresistance in every locality of Switzer= land, no matter how populous or remote. =09In May 1940, the Nazis attacked Belgium and the Netherlands. After a f= ew days=0Aof fighting, political leaders surrendered, ordering the soldie= rs to lay down=0Atheir arms and discontinue resistance. There was no civi= lian resistance,=0Athanks in part to preexisting firearms prohibitions in= those countries. =09Within days, the Wehnnacht routed the French at Sedan and were expecte= d to=0Aattack Switzerland. General Guisan issued yet another remarkable c= ommand to=0Athe militia. The latest war news, he declared, demonstrated t= hat the French=0Asoldiers could have stopped hostile advances. Instead, d= efections allowed the=0Aenemy to penetrate through gaps, which quickly wi= dened. In contrast, Cuisan=0Arecalled the high duty of the soldier to res= ist: Everywhere, where the order is to hold, it is the duty of conscience of e= ach=0Afighter, even if he depends on himself alone, to fight at his assig= ned=0Aposition. The riflemen, if overtaken or surrounded, fight in their = position=0Auntil no more ammunition exists. Then cold steel is next.... T= he machine=0Agunners, the cannoneers of heavy weapons, the artillerymen, = if in the bunker=0Aor on the field, do not abandon or destroy their weapo= ns, or allow the enemy=0Ato seize them. Then the crews fight further like= riflemen. As long as a man=0Ahas another cartridge or hand weapons to us= e, he does not yield. Cold steel. Never surrender if any weapon is available. This was the trad= ition=0Aof the fierce medieval Swiss soldiers who defeated many times the= ir numbers=0Aand spread terror in the hearts of their enemies. What would= have been the=0Afate of Europe had the countries that fell to Hider embr= aced such a warrior=0Acode? =09France collapsed in June 1940 after only a few weeks of fighting. Pari= s was=0Ataken without a shot being fired. The Nazis promptly proclaimed t= he death=0Apenalty for possession of firearms in France and other occupie= d countries. =09Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe by bluffing central authorit= ies=0Ainto capitulation. In some cases, after a few meetings and threats,= Nazi=0Ahenchmen convinced the political leaders of an entire nation to s= urrender and=0Ato direct the armed forces not to resist. In other cases, = the surrender would=0Acome after a brief fight, for which the armies were= unprepared. There was no=0Aneed to order the people not to resist, becau= se they were unarmed. =09In contrast, Switzerland hardly had a central government, and it had a= =0Amilitia instead of a standing army. Power was decentralized. The first= unit of=0Apower was the individual and the family, with its household an= d its rifle.=0AThen came the village or city, then the canton, and finall= y the federal=0Aparliament. It was power from the bottom up. =09A 1940 Newsweek article characterized Switzerland as the world's oldes= t and=0Apurest democracy where, in three cantons, government was still co= nducted by a=0Ashow of hands in public squares at the Landsgemeinden. The militia had no officer higher than a colonel in= =0Apeacetime. "Even when there is no European war on, every member of thi= s=0Amilitia army of some 500,000 keeps his gun, ammunition, and equipment= at home=97=0Amaking the Swiss Government the only one in Europe which tr= usts such a large=0Aproportion of citizens with arms." =09What this meant to the Nazis was that they would have to conquer Switz= erland=0Aright down to the last man. And many of these men would be snipi= ng=97from steep,=0Ahidden Alpine positions=97at German troops with rifles= which were accurate at=0Along ranges. There would be no surrender. =09The April 1944 issue of American Mercury included an intriguing articl= e by=0AEdward Byng entitled "If Switzerland is Invaded." In that event, w= arned Byng=0Ademolition would begin in seconds "Terrific explosions [woul= d] rend the air=0Aall along the Swiss frontiers, as if hundreds of avalan= ches were thundering=0Adown the mountain slopes of the land." All bridges= over the Rhine would=0Acollapse, and mines would await invaders who trie= d to cross by rafts or=0Aamphibious tanks. The Simplon and the St. Gottha= rd tunnels would be destroyed.=0ARoads, railways, bridges, power stations= and air fields would be blown up.=0ACamouflaged tank traps and electrifi= ed barbed-wire fences would stop many=0Apanzers and infantry. =09Both World War I and Hitler's blitzkrieg attacks demonstrated to the S= wiss=0AGeneral Staff the need for a lightning mobilization. If the order = were=0Abroadcast, every soldier on or off duty would grab his rifle and r= eport to a=0Anearby post. Byng continued: Switzerland has only a citizen mili tia.... It is the pride of the country that every citizen is allowed to = keep=0Ahis army rifle and ammunition in his house. So orderly and ethical= ly advanced=0Ais the population of this model country that there is rarel= y a case where this=0Aofficially sanctioned and encouraged custom leads t= o violence. With her main=0Ainaccessible mountains, her passionately libe= rty-loving population famed for=0Amarksmanship, Switzerland is a classic = background for guerrilla warfare. The Alps were "honeycombed with bomb and gas-proof shelters, . . . pillbo= xes=0Aand perfectly concealed nests for snipers, advance machine gun and = flame-=0Athrower units." Just as they had done at Morgarten in 1315, when= they launched=0Aboulders down the mountainsides to crush the Austrian in= vaders, the Swiss=0Acould create landslides and avalanches that no infant= ry or armored divisions=0Acould survive. "The world's model democracy, Sw= itzerland, is thus on the=0Aalert, in trigger readiness to teach the Nazi= s a costly lesson should=0Adesperation or arrogance tempt them to attack.= " There was no holocaust on=0ASwiss soil. Swiss Jews served in the militi= a side by side with their fellow=0Acitizens, and kept rifles in their hom= es just like everyone else. It is hard=0Ato believe that there could have= been a holocaust had the Jews of Germany,=0APoland, and France had the s= ame privilege Indeed, just bare recognition of a=0Aright to keep arms wou= ld have saved lives. The heroic Warsaw ghetto uprising=0Aof 1943, after a= ll, began when Jewish resisters acquired just ten handguns. =09Swiss-bashing has become fashionable in the American media in the past= two=0Ayears, but Senator Alfonse D'Amato, who has done more than any to = stir up the=0Afrenzy, just does not have the same credibility as Winston = Churchill, who=0Awrote in December 1944: I put this down for the record. Of all the neutrals Switzerland has the= =0Agreatest right to distinction. She has been the sole international for= ce=0Alinking the hideously sundered nations and ourselves. What does it m= atter=0Awhether she has been able to give us the commercial advantages we= desire or=0Ahas given too many to the Germans, to keep herself alive? Sh= e has been a democratic State, standing for freedom in self defence among her mountain= s,=0Aand in thought, in spite of race, largely on our side. Stephen P. Halbrook is an attorney in Fairfax, Virginia. His latest book,= =0ATarget Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II, will be pu= blished=0Athis spring by Sarpedon. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 98 05:50:49 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: [Fwd: 1997 Ratings Now Available] (fwd) On Apr 8, Donald Walker wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] - ---------- > From: Charles H. Cunningham > To: chuckc@cc.org > Subject: [Fwd: 1997 Ratings Now Available] > Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:31 PM > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 15:58:28 -0400 From: American.Conservative.Union@townhall.com Subject: 1997 Ratings Now Available Apparently-To: chuckc@cc.org NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 7, 1998 105TH CONGRESS MORE LIBERAL THAN 104TH, SAYS ACU'S KEENE; CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISTS ARE RIGHT TO GRIPE WASHINGTON, DC -- "The current Congress is significantly more liberal than the last Congress. Complaints by outside conservative interest groups with the Republican leadership aren't just based on perceptions -- they're grounded in reality," said American Conservative Union chairman David A. Keene today in releasing the ACU's 1997 Rating of Congress at a Washington, D.C. press conference. "Conservative scores are down across the board in both the House and the Senate. The numbers don't lie." The ACU ratings, compiled annually since 1971, assign each Member of the House and Senate a numerical score on a 0-to-100 scale according to their support for the conservative or liberal position on actual House and Senate votes. The ACU scorecard uses votes on economic and budget matters, social and cultural issues, defense and foreign policy concerns, and institutional reform issues to create a balanced picture of an individual Member of Congress' ideological predisposition. ACU's annual ratings are available on the Internet at www.conservative.org in an interactive format, which lets users "vote" on the same issues faced by Members of the House and Senate so as to compare their own positions with those of their elected representatives. The impact of President Clinton's 1996 reelection, the maturing of the GOP leadership, and a reduced GOP majority in the House is clearly reflected in the scores, Mr. Keene noted. "Republicans held on to the House with a smaller margin than they held before, after having learned the hard way that you can't run the government from Capitol Hill. It shows up in both the overall scores and in the type of legislation that's been coming to the floor," he said. "The average House Republican score has moved from a 90 in the last session of the 104th Congress to an 84 in the first session of the 105th Congress. So not only are there fewer Republican Congressmen, but the ones who are there are voting less conservatively than they did previously. "House Democrats, perhaps finally realizing that their hopes to recapture control of the House rest on their ability to redefine themselves and move back to the political center, have taken steps to do just that," Mr. Keene continued. "The average House Democrat score went from a 13 in the final session of the 104th Congress to a 20 in the first session of the 105th." "But a different dynamic is evident in the Senate vote ratings," said Mr. Keene. "There, despite a net gain of two Republican seats, the average Senate Republican moved even further left than did his House counterparts -- from an average score of 88 in the second session of the 104th Congress to a mere 78 in the first session of the 105th. Senate Democrats, unlike their House counterparts, haven't moved to the center in similar fashion; instead, they've moved even further left: the average Senate Democrat scored a 13 in the second session of the 104th Congress, but only an 8 in the first session of the 105th. "Many conservative activists have complained that the GOP leadership, which owes its position to millions of grass-roots conservative activists all over this nation, has failed to implement a conservative agenda," Mr. Keene noted. "The 1997 ACU vote rating demonstrates that they've got a point. Conservative scores are down across the board, with Senate Republicans leading the move to the left. "Majority Leader Trent Lott, for instance, moved from a perfect 100 percent rating in the second session of the 104th Congress to a 72 in the first session of the 105th. That's a 28-point shift left in just one year. No wonder conservatives are complaining," Mr. Keene continued. Mr. Keene suggested that in this election year, voters can do themselves a favor by using the ACU ratings to compare rhetoric with action. "Americans in most respects are fundamentally conservative," he said. "They continue to favor smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, a hard line on crime, more choice in education, and they generally support traditional social values. But as our ratings have shown time and time again, many politicians skillfully exploit those themes on the campaign trail until they get into office -- at which time they vote for liberal policies. Our ratings are one way voters can learn to separate the phonies from the real McCoys and make sure they don't get stuck with closet liberals masquerading as bona fide conservatives." The American Conservative Union, established in 1964, is the country's oldest conservative grass-roots lobbying organization. On behalf of its nearly one million members and supporters nationwide, it lobbies on a wide range of issues before the Congress. To schedule an interview, please contact Tom Katina at (703) 836-8602. - ---------------------- All inquiries regarding this message should be directed to acu@conservative.org The American Conservative Union's Web page is located at http://www.conservative.org [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #107 *************************