From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #336 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Tuesday, May 2 2000 Volume 02 : Number 336 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 12:58:49 -0500 From: Larry Ball Subject: Re: Fw: No One Told Us What Happened to Elian's NEIGHBORS... (fwd) Good post, Bill. I, too, think this outrageous. Question: What can we do about it? Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com Bill Vance wrote: > On May 2, The McGehee Zone wrote: > > [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kort E Patterson > To: Intertel Top1 list ; Oregon Mensa email list > > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 8:08 AM > Subject: The Lessons of Miami > > Magicians have long known how useful it can be to distract the > attention of the audience away from what they're really doing. > Unfortunately, so have politicians and propagandists. The > magnitude of real crimes that the American public is willing to > overlook when distracted by a sordid sex scandal, or a soap opera > spun around a doe-eyed child, is simply amazing. > > One of the underappreciated aspects of the INS raid in Miami was > what happened to the residents of the house behind the one where > the targeted child was living. Claiming that the action was > needed to protect the assault team attacking the private > residence listed in their "arrest warrant", the agents first > "secured" an entirely separate residence. > > As has become standard practice in America today, the heavily > armed storm troopers broke down the doors before dawn and > "neutralized" those inside. They dragged the manacled residents > out of their home and onto the lawn, forcing the terrified > captives to publicly prostrate themselves before the black-hooded > symbols of state violence. > > Just what heinous crime justified depriving these individuals of > their fundamental rights as freemen? What had they done to > deserve having their property destroyed and their privacy > violated, as well as being subjected to physical assault and > public humiliation by the agents of the state? > > The citizens who were rousted from their beds and prostrated on > their lawn while masked agents of the state trashed their home > hadn't committed a crime, let alone demonstrated that they posed > a danger to the public. There was no due process, no proof of > guilt before a jury of their peers. Incredibly, their sole > "crime" was the suspicion that they might exercise their > constitutional rights and fulfill their duties as citizens of a > free nation. > > The official spokesman at the scene explained that this raid on a > private residence was simply a precautionary measure. The police > suspected the individuals in the house might own guns. The > agents were simply making sure that the suspected guns couldn't > be used to resist the primary mission targeting the adjoining > private residence. These citizens were violently "neutralized" > because someone in the vast "law enforcement" bureaucracy thought > they *might* be willing and able to resist outrageous acts by > government agents. The government spokesman and the news media > both treated this justification as being perfectly reasonable. > > Our Constitution protects the rights of the people to both keep > and bear arms. In other times, the membership of all able-bodied > citizens in the unorganized national militia was recognized as > extending the right to be armed into a duty to be armed. These > innocent individuals were assaulted specifically because > government agents suspected they might be exercising their > constitutional right to keep and bear arms. > > Many reasonable people are outraged at the actions of the > government agents in Miami - regardless of their views on what > should be done with the child who is being used to distract our > attention. Our Declaration of Independence clearly states that > it is the duty of freemen to resist outrageous abuses of power by > government agents. These individuals were pre-emptively > "neutralized" because the INS suspected they might, as free > citizens, be sufficiently offended by the violations of law and > court orders the INS was intending to perpetrate next door, to > rise to the defense of the intended victims. The suspicion that > these individuals might do their duty as citizens became the > justification for the violation of their fundamental rights. > > Even if the targets of this intentional violence had been guilty > of some crime, the state is obligated to treat the accused as > innocent until proven guilty. The building entry and suppression > tactics they employed were guaranteed to at least cause property > damage and substantial physical discomfort for any citizens they > find inside. That is if the assault troops didn't murder the > innocent citizens outright as so often happens in these kinds of > paramilitary operations. The victims of this state violence > hadn't been charged with a crime when government agents deprived > them of their fundamental rights and destroyed their private > property. There was never any intention of respecting the > innocence of the targets of this violence. The specific intent > of the government agents was to inflict harm on individuals they > knew to be entirely innocent. > > There has been a lot of noise in the press about the political > damage that will result from the "mishandling" of the Elian > controversy. But just as after Ruby Ridge and Waco, while the > villains put on a show of embarrassment over the trivial issues > that have distracted the public's attention, the major crimes > they committed against the fundamental principles of freedom go > unnoticed. > > Did any of the citizens in Miami actually believe that the Waco > mass murderers had learned the errors of their ways and abandoned > violence as a means of imposing their will? Or did the > unpunished mass murders at Waco succeed in intimidating the > citizens in Miami into passively allowing their rights to be > violated out of a well founded fear of indiscriminate mass murder > by government storm troopers? > > I've already heard disquieting statements in the mainstream media > that since Waco demonstrated government agents would simply kill > anyone who resisted, the defense of freedom was no longer a valid > justification for the right to bear arms. It has even been > claimed that since the mere suspicion citizens might be armed > triggers such aggressive violence by government agents, a > "citizen" was safer not exercising his constitutional rights. At > the cost of a little contrived sadness over the "self-inflicted" > deaths at Waco, the storm troopers gained a powerful > psychological weapon to use against the freedom of all citizens. > > Building on the lessons of Waco we now have the lessons of > Miami. While the focus of public attention was distracted into > thinking the controversy was about the welfare of a child, the > nation was being taught that the courts had no power to restrain > the violence of the storm troopers. When the courts refused to > rubber-stamp their demands, the storm troopers simply resorted to > violence in order to impose their will on those who dared to > oppose them. And just as expected, while the storm troopers used > brute force to create the reality the courts had denied them, the > courts shuffled their papers and demonstrated that the law was > nothing but an empty sham - a useful tool for attacking the > rights of freemen, but utterly worthless in defending those > rights. > > Perhaps the most disturbing lesson we were taught in Miami is the > redefinition of citizenship. The exercise of a free citizen's > rights and duties was once a respected badge of honor. In Miami > our rulers demonstrated that even the suspicion of being an > honorable citizen is now considered sufficient probable cause for > a predawn assault by armed and armored storm troopers. In the > land of the formerly free, the exercise of freedom has been > perverted into an excuse to violently subjegate those who still > value their freedom. An "accidental" death at the hands of black > hooded killers who will never be held accountable for their > crimes awaits those unwilling to be slaves. > > Once again, those who masquerade as the opposition have been > making a lot of noise about "investigating" trivial distractions > - while ignoring the massive crimes being committed against the > fundamental principles of freedom. Once again the media is > gearing up to force feed sensationalized drivel to the public > until the unthinking masses get bored and tune out, totally > oblivious to those few voices sounding the alarm amidst the > cacophony of overhyped trivia. Once again Americans have become > obsessed with meaningless trivia while refusing to notice that > their fundamental rights are being stolen. > > -- > Kort E Patterson > http://www.hevanet.com/kort > > [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:01:48 -0700 From: Jack Perrine Subject: Elian's Illegitimacy a Legal Problem for Juan Miguel: Coulter Elian's Illegitimacy a Legal Problem for Juan Miguel: Coulter http://64.29.200.227/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2000/5/1/134553 Nearly a month ago, NewsMax.com pointed out that when 6-year-old Cuban refugee Elian Gonzalez was born, his mother and father weren't even married. What's more, it's not as if his parents split up sometime after he was conceived. In fact, by the time Elian was born to Elisabeth Brotons-Rodriguez on December 6, 1993, she had been divorced from Juan Miguel Gonzalez for more than two and a half years. The couple split legally all the way back on May 13, 1991. Now, in her Town Hall.com column, impeachment superstar-lawyer Ann Coulter contends that the odd timing of Elian's birth could have a direct bearing on any legal claim Mr. Gonzalez might have over Elisabeth's son under U.S. law. "Elian was neither born nor conceived when Juan Miguel was married to his mother. Nor did the father ever rectify Elian's bastardy," Coulter notes. "Indeed, at common law, fathers had absolutely no rights with respect to any children they bore out of wedlock. Of course, we've come a long way since marriage was considered a consequential institution. But still: Even in the swinging, post-sexual revolution America, a father's legal rights to an illegitimate child remains a highly contentious, and prodigiously litigated, matter." Coulter points out that if Elian's case was treated like any other custody case, the Florida courts would decide "and Florida takes an especially dim view of the legal prerogatives of fathers who sire illegitimate children." Coulter doesn't even begin to explore some of the other odd details about Elian's birth, such as the fact that the birth certificate Juan Miguel showed U.S. immigration officials to establish paternity was issued in Havana on November 26, 1999 - just a day after he learned Elian's mother had drowned. (Miami Herald - Jan. 14, 2000) Not to mention questions about why Juan Miguel decided he wanted to have children with a woman whom he'd not only divorced long ago, but who had suffered seven previous miscarriages over the course of their relationship. Juan Miguel's story, and apparently he's sticking to it, is that he and his ex-wife decided to try one more time for kids while he was "in between relationships" with other women, according to an early Newsweek report. He and Elisabeth went to a fertility clinic in Havana and, voila, Elian was conceived. Despite the successful birth, the couple did not remarry. No one has asked Mr. Gonzalez how he was able to afford expensive fertility treatments for his ex-wife on his hotel doorman's salary of $8.00 a month. Or does impoverished Cuba encourage unmarried parents to usher yet more hungry mouths into the world by providing such services for free? Could Castro really be offering free fertility treatments when Cuba's health care system requires surgical patients to supply their own bedsheets, according to at least one reporter who strayed from the official tour of Elian's hometown. No wonder the Clinton administration didn't want to wait for the courts to begin their fact-finding process in the case of little Elian Gonzalez. Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 _________________| 1175 N Altadena Dr | ____________ Jack@Minerva.com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-398-8620 - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 14:29:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: The U.S. Press Sells Out (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:57:50 -0700 From: Jack Perrine To: "Distribution List Suppressed (E-mail)" Subject: The U.S. Press Sells Out The U.S. Press Sells Out by Thomas Lipscomb Thursday, April 27, 2000 http://intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue369/item9165.asp It's official. With the Elian Gonzalez case the formerly free press of the United States has finally become a full-time propaganda agent of the Clinton administration. Only a month ago, the press chose to ignore an assault by Secret Service agents on 10 members of the press presuming to ask Senate candidate Hillary Clinton questions during the St. Patrick's Day Parade. Newsday columnist and editorial board member Marie Cocco attacked an Internet reporter for simply repeating an account by a WABC cameraman present. This week Newsday's parent, The Los Angeles Times, carried a puff piece on the Secret Service headlined "Candidates and Their Protectors" and omitted the incident entirely. If the press is willing to ignore attacks by Clinton's police on its own members these days, why should we expect them to care about their federal assaults on ordinary citizens? Lone voices in the wilderness As the Elian Gonzalez case heated up, press sympathy for President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno totally overwhelmed news judgment. Diane Sawyer ran an "ABC Good Morning America" interview with Elian where she carefully left out the most newsworthy part -- his appeal to stay in the United States. Then NBC's "Today Show" decided to run as news the amateur-night psychic ramblings of a Hillary Clinton mediflunky. The New York Times buried one of the most remarkable news photos of the past half-century: Associated Press photographer Alan Diaz's picture of a screaming INS agent in full SWAT armor pointing a loaded submachine gun toward Elian Gonzalez and his rescuer, fisherman Donato Dalrymple. It ran a smaller black-and-white version on page 16. Its front page carried a full-color picture of a happy face reunion provided by Clinton and Castro's shyster Gregory Craig next to a fan-magazine article about Janet Reno's "Difficult Call." One can imagine what a real newsman like Ben Hecht or Murray Kempton would have made of Reno's latest "save the children" foray. Janet Reno's concern for her "tired" Fed hordes besieging the Branch Davidian families at Waco led to a massacre and the incineration of 30 children. This time she got tired herself while lying all night and only kidnapped one child with a fraudulent search-and-seizure warrant --- so it is good news. A Washington Post Easter editorial stated happily that "[t]he government did the right thing" and The Chicago Tribune cheered: "Well done, Ms. Reno," while its columnist Eric Zorn stated that Clinton's gestapo action "made me proud." In short, the U.S. press now accepts the classic Marxist principle that the end justifies the means -- as long as it agrees with the end. There were a few sour notes from cantankerous columnists. George Will stated: "The climate for this excessive use of force was set by a drumbeat from this administration echoed by disgraceful journalism." The irascible Christopher Hitchens pointed out the real danger under Clinton: "the transformation of the American democracy, the American republic, into a banana republic." Looking the other way But the degree of complicity of the vast majority of the American press in supporting the Clinton regime is clear from their wide acceptance of The Nation's Bruce Shapiro's lie: "And when Lazaro Gonzalez's Miami handlers published that alarming photo, Juan Miguel Gonzalez responded within hours with photos of Elian reunited with his family, a smile on his face." In this classic agit-prop job, a press photo released by America's most respected news service suddenly becomes a PR manipulation, while a reunion shot provided by a Clinton- Castro lawyer that no member of the press witnessed is treated as authoritative. Not surprisingly, after his most recent stay in the Clinton's Lincoln rent-a-bedroom a few weeks ago, big donor Rick Kaplan, the head of CNN's news division, chose to treat the Diaz photo as just a "public relations problem" for the administration that had nothing to do with constitutional guarantees against unlawful search and seizure. CNN's Judy Woodruff went further and passed on dark hints about "guns" from Reno and her assistant attorney general Eric Holder, asserting "a group of armed men" were in the house right next door to the Gonzalez residence. Finally Woodruff stopped, after she was confronted on air by a reporter who pointed out that none of the dozens of journalists on the scene had seen any sign of so much as a pea shooter. During the attack on the Gonzalez household, the Federal goon squad hit an NBC soundman in the head with a gun and kicked a NBC cameraman in the stomach to prevent them from recording the scene and this, too, the press treated with almost total indifference. The most outrageous federal government violation of the rights of private citizens since Waco received the unconditional support of America's giant media companies from Time-Warner to The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and the networks. After the fact, they chose to run cosmetic handouts from government agencies on what actually happened in Miami rather than do any reporting of their own. The media again passed on the lie about "guns" and found combat police operations experts to compliment the government raid, when the real issue was whether the raid itself was appropriate. The Washington Post's David Vise disgraced himself in his account of Reno's "sensitivity" to First amendment issues in allowing press coverage while her goons beat up an NBC TV crew and she shredded the Fourth amendment. Media companies have already grown used to practicing a little constructive censorship on their own behalf. Why not protect an administration that has delivered them billions in free bandwidth confiscated from America's citizens, and protected them from competing low-power stations? Media critic Steve Brill, and the publisher of the for-profit Brill's Content, recently warned that the press's problem with credibility is growing as news divisions slant coverage to protect the mega- conglomerates' bottom lines. As an example, he cited a Disney/ABC 20/20 story about problems at a Disney theme park that never aired. But, as usual, Brill chose not to see the larger issue when it might embarrass his buddies in the Clinton junta. Who are these guys anyway? The larger issue could not be more clear. Consider that CNN's Atlanta headquarters became a training ground for Defense Department spy-war operatives; or look at ABC's disgraceful Leonardo DeCaprio "interview" of Clinton for Earth Day; or re- read Salon's Daniel Forbes' exposure of NBC and Fox writing anti-drug scripts of top entertainment shows for the approval of White House Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey in exchange for millions of classic payola ad revenue kickbacks (print news organizations like US News World Report, Parade, and USA Today's Weekend and even The Sporting News were doing exactly the same thing with news features). What does it matter anyway? As former MTV celebrity suck-up Tabitha Soren put it peevishly in a New York Times op-ed: "[F] ighting to keep the distinction between news and entertainment is, after all, pretty self-serving for journalists." If few journalists seem to be interested any more in a little thing like the distinction between news and entertainment, why worry about pure government propaganda? During the impeachment hearings the press kept repeating the Clinton line that lying about sex did not matter. One of Clinton's former law students, Judge Susan Webber Wright, disagreed and nailed him publicly for perjury in a contempt- of-court decision that may eventually disbar him. Now Florida's respected Democratic Sen. Bob Graham -- a "short- list" candidate as Al Gore's running mate -- states unequivocally that Clinton lied to him in promising to avoid a midnight raid. Old Reno friend and Clinton supporter Aaron Podhurst tells us Reno lied to him, when he was negotiating with Elian's Miami relatives, stringing him along on the phone while her Gestapo broke the family's door down. And on Easter, Reno's deputy Eric Holder got caught on camera lying to NBC's Tim Russert during a previous appearance on "Meet the Press" as he denied that there would be a raid. But even after Clinton's outrageous lies about the "nerve gas factory" in the Sudan and the fake "genocide" in Kosovo, the U.S. media still prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the lies of the most corrupt and power-abusing administration in American history, rather than clear statements by decent Democrats like Bob Thomas and Aaron Podhurst In the Gonzalez affair Clinton and Reno ran roughshod over their constitutional commitments while loudly proclaiming, "It is the law." But for the first time in history, this year the justices of the Supreme Court, who know something about the law, failed to attend a State of the Union message. Still, at the spring dinner of Radio and Television Journalists in Washington, America's first impeached president received a standing ovation from an adoring crowd supposedly dedicated to the truth, if not the law. We might well ask ourselves, as Butch Cassidy put it: "Who are those guys, anyway?" The Orlando Sentinel's Peter Brown has just completed a thoughtful study of today's journalists. He found that they have become less and less like normal middle-class Americans. The evidence of just how out of touch they are with America in their taste, lifestyle, opinions and even net worth is shocking. But while the media favor the federal government's long-form census for the rest of us, somehow no one has ever gotten around to a long-form census of just who makes up the press today. The price of distortion Now that Clinton's media allies are completing their outrageously distorted coverage of the Elian Gonzalez case, their polling reveals that the majority of Americans agree with Clinton's action. That certainly wouldn't surprise one master politician who understood how to move the public as well as anyone today: In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.-- Abraham Lincoln It is time we learn a lot more about who "molds public sentiment" today. Thomas H. Lipscomb is the director of the Center for the Digital Future in New York. An an editor and publisher for many years, most recently as head of Times Books, he is also the founder of two public companies in digital technology. He is also a regular commentator for IntellectualCapital.com. His email address is tom@digitalfuture.org. Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 _________________| 1175 N Altadena Dr | ____________ Jack@Minerva.com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-398-8620 - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 15:01:18 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Officers leave Army, cite defective and disloyal leadership.. (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 13:08:56 -0700 From: Joe Horn To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@theriver.com Subject: Officers leave Army, cite defective and disloyal leadership.. Younger officers bail out of Army Complaints over leadership prompt sharp internal debate By Thomas E. Ricks WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON, April 17 - Dissatisfied younger Army officers are leaving the service in droves, worrying the service's leadership and provoking intense debates about the problem at military bases across the nation. 'Senior leaders will throw subordinates under the bus in a heartbeat to protect or advance their careers.' - SUMMARY OF OFFICERS' COMMENTS TO UNDERSTAND WHY so many captains, in particular, are bailing out after five to 10 years in the military, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki recently commissioned a survey of 760 Army officers studying at the service's mid-career Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. The resulting reports, which have not been made public, are startling in their denunciations of the Army's current leadership. "Top-down loyalty doesn't exist," says a summary of the officers' comments. "Senior leaders will throw subordinates under the bus in a heartbeat to protect or advance their careers." Many of the surveyed officers, mainly majors and a few lieutenant colonels, were upset by what they see as the Army leadership's exaggeration of the combat readiness of the service. "Readiness reporting - absolute lies!" says the summary, which for the last 10 days has been rocketing around the U.S. military by e-mail. "Young officers are getting out because they feel out of touch with leadership," the Fort Leavenworth study concludes. "Many believe there needs to be a clean sweep of senior leadership" - a powerful recommendation in any organization, but especially in one as hierarchical as the military. "They are pretty stark," said a Pentagon official who has reviewed 16 of the 64 reports written by instructors at Fort Leavenworth summarizing the views of their students after discussions in study groups of a dozen to 15 officers. "The overriding theme is that there is no trust in the senior leadership." TOP OFFICERS SLAM SERVICE The intensity of opinions is striking because those selected by the Army for study at the Command and General Staff College are considered to be the top 50 percent of their "class" of officers. The alienation of younger officers has become so worrisome that the Army plans to announce today that it is forming two blue-ribbon panels to study the problem. "The leadership is taking it seriously," said Brig. Gen. John R. Wood, deputy commandant of the Command and General Staff College, who is assembling the panels. "I have a very clear charter to go after the issues in a constructive way and take them seriously." It isn't just grumbling that troubles the Army. Junior officers are voting with their feet. In 1989, at the end of the Cold War, 6.7 percent of Army captains left the service voluntarily. In 1999, that number had climbed to 10.6 percent - a 58 percent increase. When asked about their intentions, about as many lieutenants and captains now say they intend to leave the service as to stay, a huge difference from 10 years ago, when only 22 percent intended to leave and 52 percent planned to make a career in the service. The attrition rate among captains is particularly significant because that rank often comes with the first command of a company, and it is usually considered one of the most enjoyable in any military career - the sort of key job done by the Tom Hanks character in the movie "Saving Private Ryan." There are 16,000 captains in the Army, compared to about 300 generals. "Captains are not only critical in and of themselves, but because they are numerically dominant in the officer corps," said retired Army Col. Joseph J. Collins, now a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Small increases in attrition are related to large numbers of officers." LONG LINE OF TROUBLES The spike in officer losses is only the latest personnel problem to befall the Army. It comes on top of a lingering recruiting crisis. This year the Army expects to fall about 5,000 short of its recruiting goal, a spokesman said Friday. In recent years, the Army has sought to bandage this problem by persuading more people already in the service to stay on. But the increase in attrition and low morale of students at Fort Leavenworth suggest that this option is eroding. Also, specialists in military personnel issues say that historically, officers have expressed greater satisfaction than enlisted troops, raising the question of whether enlisted satisfaction - and so retention - may be heading for a drop. Junior officers are voting with their feet. The Army in recent years has tended to blame many of its personnel problems on the hot American economy. While the Fort Leavenworth officers agreed that the strong job market accounts for part of the problem, they also pointed to internal issues. "Many leave because the Army is 'no fun' any more," says one of the reports. This may have something to do with the Army's new missions in the post-Cold War world. "Peacekeeping - Not why we joined the Army!" one Fort Leavenworth study group said emphatically. But the survey also found dissatisfaction with the way the Army has handled such missions, particularly its emphasis on minimizing casualties. One group of Fort Leavenworth majors said that in Bosnia, "a real difference could have been made by soldiers out in the streets meeting and influencing the populace, rather than sitting on a base hunkered behind sandbags." OFFICERS: STOP BLAMING CLINTON The survey also indicates that some younger officers are tired of hearing generals blame the Army's troubles on the Clinton administration's interventionist policies in the Balkans and Haiti. "Leaders need to stop blaming the NCA [National Command Authority] for our deployments and adjust what they can control," the summary says. The administration also came in for criticism. One group complained that the "perceived lack of respect of the Administration for the military is debilitating." But the dominant theme of the reports is lack of faith in the Army's top generals. "No one thinks a service chief would have the guts to take a stand, much less resign, on a matter of principle," says one report. Unusually, one study group took aim at a specific general - Henry H. Shelton, the top officer in the U.S. military. "Some students wondered if the CJCS [Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff] has gone from being a war-fighter to a yes-man?" the report says. Many of the surveyed officers, mainly majors and a few lieutenant colonels, were upset by what they see as the Army leadership' s exaggeration of the combat readiness of the service. Asked for comment, Shelton's spokesman, Navy Capt. Steve Pietropali, said, "I think that anyone who knows Shelton . . . wouldn't ever ask that question. I don't think you can point to a single instance and say, 'Here's the chairman caving to the administration.'" The teachers at Leavenworth who conducted the discussions and wrote the reports occasionally seemed shocked by the intensity of the responses. "The forum quickly broke down to a quite negative, verbal free-for-all," one wrote. Another teacher said of the 13 Army officers in his study group: "Virtually every officer was negative." But the results rang true with officers at other bases who were asked about them. One captain said he wasn't familiar with the Fort Leavenworth survey but was painfully aware of the problem of good officers leaving the Army. He noted that two of the best captains he knows at his base have recently decided to get out - one a Special Forces officer qualified as a Ranger, the other a West Point graduate who serves in the armored cavalry. "A lot of it has to do with personal reasons, like dissatisfied spouses," he said. "Also, I think a lot of it has to do with the perception, right or wrong, that the Army has turned into a politically correct social organization, instead of a war-fighting organization." Asked to explain that analysis, he said that, "Because of gender integration and homosexuals in the military, there is the feeling that being a soldier is becoming less macho, less soldierly. Indeed, one of the Leavenworth reports specifically complains that, "Political correctness reigns; there are too many programs that appear to be in response to media scrutiny," such as, it said, training to be sensitive to gay men and lesbians. In addition, the survey reported that young officers are getting out because their spouses are unhappy with Army life. Many of the Leavenworth majors said that the Army has failed to adjust to the two-career marriage as the norm in American life. Today's Army spouses dislike moving every couple of years, sometimes to isolated posts where job opportunities are limited, while their soldier spouses frequently are absent on peacekeeping deployments. "Professional satisfaction is a huge problem," said Collins, who last year conducted an extensive survey of military attitudes. "On leadership, everywhere we went we heard complaints about 'doing more with less,' micromanagement and zero defects mentality," he said. Responses to the survey in the rest of the Army were mixed. "I don't want to minimize it, but I don't know if there is that much new there," said Col. Edwin F. Veiga, an Army spokesman. "I've been in the Army 25 years, and I've heard this sort of thing before." But a colonel who commands an Army brigade disagreed. "There's some whining in it, but there's also a lot of truth," he said. This colonel, who asked not to be identified, noted that in the last week he had received four copies of the Leavenworth survey by e-mail from peers in the Army, and that his subordinate officers had seen it, too. "I told my captains that the first thing you have to do to make the organization recover is to get out of denial," he said. "I think that's what we're doing here. I see this as the first step in getting healthy." =A9 2000 The Washington Post Company - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 14:07:32 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: RE: Fw: No One Told Us What Happened to Elian's NEIGHBORS... (fwd) Some serious lawyer like Larry Clayman needs to get involved. For this, he will need contributions, real serious $. Anyone know Klayman? Lew > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Larry Ball > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 10:59 AM > To: roc@lists.xmission.com > Cc: roc%xmission.com@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: Fw: No One Told Us What Happened to Elian's NEIGHBORS... > (fwd) > > > Good post, Bill. I, too, think this outrageous. Question: What > can we do about > it? > > Larry Ball > lball@inetnebr.com > > Bill Vance wrote: > > > On May 2, The McGehee Zone wrote: > > > > [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows > --------------------] > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Kort E Patterson > > To: Intertel Top1 list ; Oregon Mensa email list > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 8:08 AM > > Subject: The Lessons of Miami > > > > Magicians have long known how useful it can be to distract the > > attention of the audience away from what they're really doing. > > Unfortunately, so have politicians and propagandists. The > > magnitude of real crimes that the American public is willing to > > overlook when distracted by a sordid sex scandal, or a soap opera > > spun around a doe-eyed child, is simply amazing. > > > > One of the underappreciated aspects of the INS raid in Miami was > > what happened to the residents of the house behind the one where > > the targeted child was living. Claiming that the action was > > needed to protect the assault team attacking the private > > residence listed in their "arrest warrant", the agents first > > "secured" an entirely separate residence. > > > > As has become standard practice in America today, the heavily > > armed storm troopers broke down the doors before dawn and > > "neutralized" those inside. They dragged the manacled residents > > out of their home and onto the lawn, forcing the terrified > > captives to publicly prostrate themselves before the black-hooded > > symbols of state violence. > > > > Just what heinous crime justified depriving these individuals of > > their fundamental rights as freemen? What had they done to > > deserve having their property destroyed and their privacy > > violated, as well as being subjected to physical assault and > > public humiliation by the agents of the state? > > > > The citizens who were rousted from their beds and prostrated on > > their lawn while masked agents of the state trashed their home > > hadn't committed a crime, let alone demonstrated that they posed > > a danger to the public. There was no due process, no proof of > > guilt before a jury of their peers. Incredibly, their sole > > "crime" was the suspicion that they might exercise their > > constitutional rights and fulfill their duties as citizens of a > > free nation. > > > > The official spokesman at the scene explained that this raid on a > > private residence was simply a precautionary measure. The police > > suspected the individuals in the house might own guns. The > > agents were simply making sure that the suspected guns couldn't > > be used to resist the primary mission targeting the adjoining > > private residence. These citizens were violently "neutralized" > > because someone in the vast "law enforcement" bureaucracy thought > > they *might* be willing and able to resist outrageous acts by > > government agents. The government spokesman and the news media > > both treated this justification as being perfectly reasonable. > > > > Our Constitution protects the rights of the people to both keep > > and bear arms. In other times, the membership of all able-bodied > > citizens in the unorganized national militia was recognized as > > extending the right to be armed into a duty to be armed. These > > innocent individuals were assaulted specifically because > > government agents suspected they might be exercising their > > constitutional right to keep and bear arms. > > > > Many reasonable people are outraged at the actions of the > > government agents in Miami - regardless of their views on what > > should be done with the child who is being used to distract our > > attention. Our Declaration of Independence clearly states that > > it is the duty of freemen to resist outrageous abuses of power by > > government agents. These individuals were pre-emptively > > "neutralized" because the INS suspected they might, as free > > citizens, be sufficiently offended by the violations of law and > > court orders the INS was intending to perpetrate next door, to > > rise to the defense of the intended victims. The suspicion that > > these individuals might do their duty as citizens became the > > justification for the violation of their fundamental rights. > > > > Even if the targets of this intentional violence had been guilty > > of some crime, the state is obligated to treat the accused as > > innocent until proven guilty. The building entry and suppression > > tactics they employed were guaranteed to at least cause property > > damage and substantial physical discomfort for any citizens they > > find inside. That is if the assault troops didn't murder the > > innocent citizens outright as so often happens in these kinds of > > paramilitary operations. The victims of this state violence > > hadn't been charged with a crime when government agents deprived > > them of their fundamental rights and destroyed their private > > property. There was never any intention of respecting the > > innocence of the targets of this violence. The specific intent > > of the government agents was to inflict harm on individuals they > > knew to be entirely innocent. > > > > There has been a lot of noise in the press about the political > > damage that will result from the "mishandling" of the Elian > > controversy. But just as after Ruby Ridge and Waco, while the > > villains put on a show of embarrassment over the trivial issues > > that have distracted the public's attention, the major crimes > > they committed against the fundamental principles of freedom go > > unnoticed. > > > > Did any of the citizens in Miami actually believe that the Waco > > mass murderers had learned the errors of their ways and abandoned > > violence as a means of imposing their will? Or did the > > unpunished mass murders at Waco succeed in intimidating the > > citizens in Miami into passively allowing their rights to be > > violated out of a well founded fear of indiscriminate mass murder > > by government storm troopers? > > > > I've already heard disquieting statements in the mainstream media > > that since Waco demonstrated government agents would simply kill > > anyone who resisted, the defense of freedom was no longer a valid > > justification for the right to bear arms. It has even been > > claimed that since the mere suspicion citizens might be armed > > triggers such aggressive violence by government agents, a > > "citizen" was safer not exercising his constitutional rights. At > > the cost of a little contrived sadness over the "self-inflicted" > > deaths at Waco, the storm troopers gained a powerful > > psychological weapon to use against the freedom of all citizens. > > > > Building on the lessons of Waco we now have the lessons of > > Miami. While the focus of public attention was distracted into > > thinking the controversy was about the welfare of a child, the > > nation was being taught that the courts had no power to restrain > > the violence of the storm troopers. When the courts refused to > > rubber-stamp their demands, the storm troopers simply resorted to > > violence in order to impose their will on those who dared to > > oppose them. And just as expected, while the storm troopers used > > brute force to create the reality the courts had denied them, the > > courts shuffled their papers and demonstrated that the law was > > nothing but an empty sham - a useful tool for attacking the > > rights of freemen, but utterly worthless in defending those > > rights. > > > > Perhaps the most disturbing lesson we were taught in Miami is the > > redefinition of citizenship. The exercise of a free citizen's > > rights and duties was once a respected badge of honor. In Miami > > our rulers demonstrated that even the suspicion of being an > > honorable citizen is now considered sufficient probable cause for > > a predawn assault by armed and armored storm troopers. In the > > land of the formerly free, the exercise of freedom has been > > perverted into an excuse to violently subjegate those who still > > value their freedom. An "accidental" death at the hands of black > > hooded killers who will never be held accountable for their > > crimes awaits those unwilling to be slaves. > > > > Once again, those who masquerade as the opposition have been > > making a lot of noise about "investigating" trivial distractions > > - while ignoring the massive crimes being committed against the > > fundamental principles of freedom. Once again the media is > > gearing up to force feed sensationalized drivel to the public > > until the unthinking masses get bored and tune out, totally > > oblivious to those few voices sounding the alarm amidst the > > cacophony of overhyped trivia. Once again Americans have become > > obsessed with meaningless trivia while refusing to notice that > > their fundamental rights are being stolen. > > > > -- > > Kort E Patterson > > http://www.hevanet.com/kort > > > > [------------------------- end of forwarded message > ------------------------] > > > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > 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 > > > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+----------- > ---------- > > > > - > > > - > - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #336 *************************