The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/giwer.matt/1995/giwer_debate_9505


 R_9505 
+++ r_950501 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1131)
To:      All                                    29 Apr 95 12:34:56
Subject: GOVERNMENT BUDGETS     01              

DK>  ...However, The Learning Channel carried a series on one of 
DK>  my topics of interest last Friday evening - Ancient Egypt, 
DK>  with such matters as the temple complex at Karnak, recent 
DK>  researches on Cleopatra and recent studies of Egyptian 
DK>  pyramids.  To be certain, PBS stations have carried such 
DK>  programs, but always from British sourcs...at least to my 
DK>  perception.
DK> 
DK>  ...The Learning Channel series, however, being latecomers, 
DK>  has to get its programs from other sources.  The result was 
DK>  that the hour on Karnak was from French sources, where one 
DK>  learns that the actual major work at Karnak is being done 
DK>  by French archaeologists.  Similarly, the hour on Cleopatra 
DK>  was from German sources, showing there is significant 
DK>  German research into Cleopatra.  But perhaps most telling 
DK>  was the program on Egypt's Age of Pyramids, from the 
DK>  Japanese source, NHK.  Never have I noticed a PBS program 
DK>  that bothered to do the translation work needed to bring us 
DK>  these programs from other nations.

     I would also point out TLC has never run a fund drive and 
has never subject anyone to the purple pedophile.  Yet here is 
the same sort of material of equal quality without the cost of 
translation.  

     For the sake of argument, translation costs are minimal.  
TLC is also first tier above basic.  For some reason PBS is 
basic, presumably the law requiring local stations to be carried 
in Basic.  Just happen to have this month's bill handy.  $8.18 
for 26 channels in that tier.  

     But there is a difference.  TLC has advertising.  But that 
is impossible.  PBS keeps telling us we can not get the kind of 
quality programming we get on commercial TV as they offer on 
public TV.  I am certainly glad to know it is impossible.

     In other words, PBS and its supporters have no idea what 
they are talking about.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Hell, I am almost always right 99.7% of the time.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1132)
To:      All                                    29 Apr 95 12:34:56
Subject: MCNAMARA, MCVEIGH & LBJ                

                    McNamara, McVeigh and LBJ
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <4/28>

     We have an interesting rogues' gallery.  Robert S.
McNamara, the self confessed following orders Secretary of
Defense who uselessly killed 58,000+ Americans.  McVeigh who has
probably killed 200+ people.  LBJ who is the mastermind of
58,000+ American deaths.
     Here we have three criminals, one begging forgiveness before
he dies, one giving his name, rank and serial number, and the
other escaped from public retribution by death.  It is easy to
understand why LBJ is not being lynched, he is dead.  McVeigh
avoids the lynch mob by being in a federal prison in the middle
of an Army camp.  McNamara tours the country promoting his book
without a bodyguard.
     Is there something wrong with this picture?  Are we not
giving out justice by the stature of the person rather than the
crime?  Are we not making determination of judgement based upon
the person rather than the crime?
     He was a government official and therefore what?  He is
immune from the approbrium anyone else doing the same thing would
deserve?  He was only doing his job?  That is a very strange job.
He was only following orders?  I think I have heard that one
before.
     As far as deaths are concerned I do not see any material
difference between McNamara following the orders of LBJ and
McVeigh claiming to follow the orders of voices, save that in our
system of justice McVeigh would be less culpable than McNamara.
     Is McNamara like OJ Simpson to be excused from the death
penalty by right of public prominence?  Had Robert Redfern shot
Lincoln would that have mattered?  Yes.  Redfern would be less
guilty because he is Redfern.
     Is McNamara less guilty because he is McNamara?  Yes.
     Is McVeigh less guilty because he is McVeigh.  Hell no.  He
is even more guilty because he is a nobody with no redeeming
ethnic, racial or sexual differences to inspire a spirited if
facetious defense.
     And LBJ, we now know without question he was ordering people
to fight a war he knew could not be won and that he was only
sending people to die.  And yet the LBJ library still standing
without a torch in sight.  Will McVeigh's grave survive
desecration?
     What is the difference?  McNamara/LBJ = 58,000+ Americans
only.  McVeigh = 200+.  Hanging where hanging is due.
     It is also remarkable timing that the ADMITTED, read that
again, ADMITTED, murderer of 58,000 can publish and be debated,
read that again, DEBATED, in the media while the accused murderer
of 200 is convicted in the same media.
     Of course there are those who worship "high public office"
as though it were something that imbues the troubles and wisdom
of Hamlet.  Guess what?  Hamlet and the hero myth is about people
thrust into such matters by things beyond their control.  Anyone
running for public office, anyone accepting public office does so
because they want it.  They are not forced into it despite
attempts by sympathetic biographers to cast them in that mold.
     LBJ was not thrust into the presidency, he accepted the Vice
Presidential nomination.  Certainly JFK was assassinated but he
ran for office, by personal choice, in 1964.  He was forced into
nothing.  He wanted to be in the position of president where in
fact he could start wars if he so choose.
     He also wanted to be in a position where he could have self
serving lackey order-takers like McNamara jump as high as he
ordered and kill on command.  And McNamara wanted to be in a
position to carry out orders without guilt.  We can imagine a
Goebbels in later life writing McNamara's book searching for
public forgiveness for following the orders of his LBJ.
     But then what are we do to with McVeigh?  What he did, if he
did it, is trivial in comparison to any rational person.  Could
McVeigh be forgiven if he had high public office much as Reno has
been forgiven for Waco?
     So where is it written that people who CHOOSE to make major
decisions for the country from political connections and for
personal reasons are in any way different from people acting on
their own?  What is it anyone can imagine about these people who
work their backsides off to get to such positions of power that
makes us think they are suddenly thrust into situations they did
not expect -- in fact did not want?
     McNamara, McVeigh, LBJ.  There is no discernable difference
among them in what they knowingly and wilfully did.  We can't
try LBJ.  Who is in favor of simultaneous trials for McNamara and
McVeigh?

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * You only get six fouls per game.  Make them count.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1133)
To:      All                                    29 Apr 95 12:34:58
Subject: NEW LEGISLATION                        

     At a planning meeting today 4/27, Thursday, Janet Reno said 
that nothing in any of the proposed legislation would have done 
anything to prevent the OKC bombing.

     Does anyone have any idea why it is being considered? other 
than the obvious vote getting politics that is.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If a man does not work, neither let him eat.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1134)
To:      All                                    29 Apr 95 12:35:00
Subject: OJ & MCVEIGH                           

                          OJ & McVeigh
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <4/27>

     Lets reverse some roles here.  McVeigh has been in the
public spotlight being accused of murdering his ex-wife and her
friend.  OJ has been arrested and charged with bombing the
Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
     McVeigh has the "dream team" of defense lawyers.  OJ has a
public defender trying to opt out of the job.  Or would it be the
other way around?
    Whatever McVeigh defense counsel, people would be on the
streets shouting "mother killer" or would they line the streets
to show they believe he is innocent?
     Could the OJ defense be talking a racist conspiracy by the
federal government and talking about them planting a gun on him?
catching him in a speed trap? trying to show the trooper who
stopped him is a racist?
     Yet what is the difference in the two crimes?  Only numbers.
Certainly children died but then who would expect a day care
center in a federal building?
     Is a bomb really any different than a knife to the throat?
Perhaps a crime scene of an ordinary house is different than that
of a half missing building?
    It is clear what is different.  The alleged murderer of
Nicole Simpson and friend is the great OJ Simpson.  He is so
famous, so well loved, that the prosecution does not dare ask for
the death penalty for two cold blooded, wanton and very bloody
murders.  On the other had the president has promised, despite
his inability to deliver, a speedy trial and execution for a
person who does not have an illustrious sports career behind him.
     On one hand we have a black man on trial and at risk of life
in prison not death and there can be serious charges of racism
against his accusers.  On the other hand we have a white man who
will be on trial for his life for having INCIDENTALLY murdered
around two hundred people while destroying federal property.
Keep firmly in mind, the primary charge is not murder, it is
destroying federal property.
     Would if make a difference if Nicole Simpson's Social
Security card had been destroyed in the process?
     There is a very clear message here that we all know and it
is about time we talk about it publically.  It it not the act
that is punished but the person who commits the act.
     OJ can walk because of racial feelings on the jury.  OJ
escaped the death penalty because of his performance on the
football field.  The OJ trial gets the most fatuous public
attention solely because he is a sports hero.
     McVeigh isn't going to get squat.  The best he might get is
an insanity defense and a room next to Hinckley, if he has rich
parents.
     We do NOT have impartial justice in this country.  It is
about time we admit it.  Just let anyone suggest some kind of
conspiracy theory against McVeigh and they will be accused of
supporting defending a right wing extremist.  It is just as clear
anyone defending OJ Simpson defending the right of blacks to
murder white women because they are sports heroes.
     Nothing excuses emotion in place of thought and that applies
in both these cases.  There is no overwhelming provocation unless
by some chance you are personally involved, such as Carroll
O'Connor talking like Archie Bunker when the suicide of his son
is concerned.  It is not acceptable to abjure reason when reason
is required.
     But doing so is a long human tradition.  We do not give
justice based upon the crime.  We give justice based upon the
perception of the person committing the crime.
     Acceptable opinions regarding a crime are determined by the
perception of the person committing the crime.  Even down to the
innocent until proven guilty.
     Consider McVeigh on this date.  There are a few bits of
information given to the press and not only does the public have
him convicted but is looking for who "drove him to it."  For OJ
anyone can still point out, absent the DNA evidence, the evidence
points more toward Kato Kaetlin than OJ.  And just what drove OJ
to it?  How can such a question be asked?  The evidence is still
not before the jury.
     Let me ask you, if Hinckley was insane for shooting at
Reagan (which many liberals applaud although they claim it is a
joke) does that make a person believing in long laughed at ideas
such as a New World Order sane?  And if the man is insane then
who can be at fault?  Jodi Foster?
     Partly what we have in the bombing case is public discussion
in the absence of anything serious to discuss.  But in that
absence comes speculation run wild; personal imagination in place
of fact; exactly as happened in the aftermath of the OJ arrest.
     We see ourselves in what we do to fill in the blanks in the
absence of knowledge.  A rational person says he does not know
until the evidence is in and speculates upon what is known and
only what is known.
     But our justice is not rational.  We should admit it.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Catapult testing condemned by ASPCA.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950503 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1276)
To:      All                                     1 May 95 14:45:16
Subject: SNAKE BITES                            

     And the people came to speak against Yahweh and Moses 
saying, "Why did you bring us out of Egypt to die and the desert? 
For there is neither food nor water here and this Manna Ready to 
Eat isn't fit for an Arab to eat."

     At this Yahweh sent fiery serpents among the people and 
their bite brought death to many in Israel.  And the people came 
to Moses and begged, "Intercede for us with Yahweh to save us 
from these serpents."

     And Moses interceded and Yahweh spoke,  "Nothing doing.  The 
snake bites continue until morale improves."



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Jesus is coming!  Everybody preach something.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950504 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1312)
To:      All                                     1 May 95 19:18:46
Subject: LEFTIST'S COOKBOOK                     

                     The Leftist's Cookbook
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <5/1>

     A little history lesson is in order for the liberals in the
this country.  You are hearing and reading a lot about
publications such as the Anarchist's Cookbook these days as tools
of the trade for "right wing" terrorists.  Let us review the
bidding.
     The Anarchist's Cookbook is one that I would recommend to
every terrorist.  Fully one third of the recipes do not work.
Another one third will kill the person trying to follow its
recipes -- I would be the last to call them formulas or
formulations.  And of the less than one third that remains
further research is advised to make them work.
     I presume this "dreadful" book is a good enough example. So
when did it become popular and with who?  It was first published
in the 1960s and was popular with anti-Vietnam War protestors
such as our current President.
     Now this is not to suggest that either terrorism nor the
tools of terrorism first started in the Vietnam war protestors.
Vietnam era terrorism was the post WW II explosion, so to speak,
of domestic terrorism.  The first real era was started by the
union movement in this country.  They were the stereotypical bomb
throwing bolsheviks.
     And that of course continues to this day as recently as the
Greyhound strike of the last decade when there was random rifle
fire into buses with passengers.  At least there was a cause to
deny guns to union members but that was not the liberal agenda at
the time.
     Terrorism in this country is nothing new and it did not
start from the right.  The current wave was started by the left.
That it has spread like any other "craze" in this country is
something better left to sociometrists without an agenda to
explain.
     But I will point out, when the strikers were shooting into
Greyhound buses intent upon killing people the liberals were
saying, "There is no excuse for it but ..." and then going on to
explain "legitimate" grievances that would drive a person to such
an attempt at indiscriminate murder.
     To some extent Clinton might be right. But he would make a
much more compelling case were he to discuss his youthful
interest in such things as the Anarchist's Cookbook and how he
grew beyond his action oriented youth.  Of course I do not know
that he had an interest in that specific book but it was popular
in his anti-war sub-culture.
     From spiking trees to bombing this particular federal
building there is no difference.  In the last thirty years this
is not the first federal building to be bombed, it is only the
first to be connected with the right rather than the left.  That
the left was less effective in fulfilling their intentions is a
separate discussion.
     And in these past three decades those who "understood" the
motivations of the leftist bombers were in political ascendency
and they in fact protected them.  It did not matter to them that
leftist groups had been identified and in fact convicted of
bombing, they in fact prevented the FBI from infiltrating left
wing groups for the purpose of preventing further terrorist acts.
     That is history and not refutable save by those who will not
present facts.  This is not to say that infiltration will do any
good as the Attorney General has stated that infiltration would
have done nothing to prevent this bombing.  So again we are
dancing around the head of a pin with the angels.
     The issue is not left or right.  This issue is that we can
do nothing to prevent nutcases from from doing what they want
regardless of any safeguards.  It is well known the place with
the most rules against deadly weapons is a prison and also that a
prison has the highest percentage of deadly weapons of any
population in the country.
     Even making the country a prison can not prevent terrorism.
Terrorism is too simple.  The only way to stop terrorism is to
disinvent the human mind and the first place to start is outlaw
fire and all later discoveries.
     The existence of terrorism under whatever guise or name is
but one part of the political fabric of every country in the
world.  And that all political parties in those countries are
willing to both "abhor" and "use" it to their advantage at the
same time is not in question.
     It is hard to imagine anyone singling out Oklahoma City as
something exceptional unless they believe body count is what
makes a tragedy.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "I kick ass for the Lord."  Father MacTavish
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950506 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1275)
To:      All                                     4 May 95 17:58:52
Subject: COMMON EXPLOSIVES                      

     Fertilizer control.  If anyone is curious as to how common 
the ammonium nitrate identified in the OKC bombing is, nitrates 
are the fertilizer component that contributes to the leafy 
component of plants.  

     That sounds a touch technical but it means that it is used 
for plants that are all leaf, as in your lawn.  It is that 
common.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If OJ had destroyed federal property while killing ...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1276)
To:      All                                     4 May 95 17:58:52
Subject: CONSERVATIVES AT FAULT?                

AH>  When Susan Smith drowned her children, Newt Gingrich (among 
AH>  others) blamed liberal ideals for her action.  Will Newt 
AH>  blame the action of the Oklahoma City Federal Building 
AH>  bombers on conservative ideals, as conservatives 
AH>  consisently verbally attack the federal government?

     Given this is one of your shotgun blasts I will respond 
accordingly.  

     I do not have a transcript of his words.  But I remember his 
comments as being along the lines of acceptance of her "not 
responsible" excuse being the subject of his comments.

     Can you provide the context or the exact statement?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               Ban Assault Fertilizer now!
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1277)
To:      Bob Klahn                               4 May 95 17:58:52
Subject: GOVERNMENT BUDGETS                     

BK>  MG>  is impossible.  PBS keeps telling us we can not get the 
BK>  MG>  kind of quality programming we get on commercial TV as they 
BK>  MG>  offer on public TV.  I am certainly glad to know it is 
BK>  MG>  impossible.

BK>   A lot of people can't get it, as a lot of people don't 
BK>   have cable.  Relatively few do not have access to broadcast 
BK>   public television.  And the commercial networks do not come 
BK>   close to what PBS offers.  Unless you consider the Might 
BK>   Morphin Power Rangers the equivalent of Sesame Street, or 
BK>   Reading Rainbow.

     And a lot of people do not have PBS.  So?  Or are you 
suggesting TLC runs the Power Rangers?
     
     Will you give examples of the quality of PBS beyond the 
Purple Pedophile?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Do you expect the poor to hire you?
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1278)
To:      Lester Garrett                          4 May 95 17:58:54
Subject: INVSITGATE WHO?                        

LG>  MG>  Let us keep in mind one thing above all.  The reason the 
LG>  MG>  FBI can not investigate groups that might be interested in 
LG>  MG>  bombing buildings.
LG>  MG> 
LG>  MG>  Those restrictions were introduced to prevent the FBI from 
LG>  MG>  investigating groups that Billie Jeff Clinton was a member 
LG>  MG>  of.    .  .  .

LG>  It is really pathetic to see the same people who 20 years 
LG>  ago were demanding the current restrictions be placed on 
LG>  the FBI because of its abuse of power in dealing with 
LG>  radicals on the left are now asking that the Bureau have 
LG>  those powers restored in order to deal with the radicals on 
LG>  the right.  Do these idiots genuinely believe that once 
LG>  they have it, it won't be too long before the FBI and other 
LG>  agencies start abusing it again?

     Or the "conservatives" who objected it now seeing the 
pendulum swing.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Gun Control:  Hope over experience.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1279)
To:      Bob Wright                              4 May 95 17:58:54
Subject: KEEP THE INITIATIVE                    

BW>  MG>       Over thirty years ago, November 1963 to be exact, a 
BW>  MG>  mediocre president was transformed.  Over a year before the 
BW>  MG>  election he

BW>  etc., etc., etc.  Wish you would send me a paper copy of 
BW>  this so I could have the pleasure of wiping my ass with 
BW>  it.

     It is not guaranteed to be non-toxic.  But after wiping your 
ass you could consider eating the certified biodegradable 
product. 

     If this is the best you can do to provide a rational 
commentary then you are not qualified to be in this conference.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Beware the low profit."  Giwer 1:1
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1280)
To:      Lester Garrett                          4 May 95 17:58:54
Subject: KEEP THE INITIATIVE                    

LG>  Not a bad essay, Matt.  Though your 3rd from last paragraph 
LG>  could have used some work.  Still, well done.

     Much appreciated and when you win the lottery you will have 
that honor.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Child abuse experts do not reproduce.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1281)
To:      Scott Nudds                             4 May 95 17:58:54
Subject: MCNAMARA, MCVEIGH &              

SN>  Matt >  McNamara, McVeigh, LBJ. There is no discernable
SN>  Matt > difference among them in what they knowingly and wilfully
SN>  Matt > did. We can't try LBJ. Who is in favor of simultaneous
SN>  Matt > trials for McNamara and McVeigh?

SN>  Planning on bombing any more buildings Matt?

     Planning on learning to think some day?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Born in 1945; the replacement for WW II.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950508 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1052)
To:      All                                     5 May 95 16:42:44
Subject: CITIZEN MILITIAS                       

     It is time to repost this one. 

                        Forming Militias
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <10/4>

     Anyone paying attention knows that militias are forming all
over the country primarily in response to the excesses of the
government particularly at Waco.  A rational federal government
would throw a few of their own to the wolves in hopes of stopping
the preparations for revolution.  This is not a rational
government.
     As to the justification for the citizen formation of the
militia there are many justifications.  As the citizens of the
state delegated to their cities the formation and control of the
police so to did they delegate to their states the formation and
control of the militia.  Should the city disband the police the
citizens have the right even the duty to form a citizen police
force.
     Similarly, as so many states have abandoned their delegated
power to train the militia and appoint officers the citizen have
a similar duty to create the militia.  Citizen delegation of a
power to the government is based solely upon the determination
that the government is the best executor of that power.  Should
that power not be executed then the power devolves back to the
citizens by default.
     As the citizens have the ultimate power to form a militia
there can be no objection to such militias save all the reasons
that the state can better form militias.  The failure of the
state to do what it can do best is an indictment of the state
rather than of the people forming militias.  That they may be
unruly, undisciplined and lacking a proper officer corp is a
failing of the state to exercise the delegation the members of
the militia had originally chosen.
     The formation of militias in themselves is also considered
by those who are afraid of them to be a risk to society as a
whole.  This disregards the members of such militias.  Granted
there will always be some horrible examples but by and large
their members are ex-military at the least a likely veterans of
some war or other.
     It appears obvious by inspection those who have taken an
oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
of America are to be trusted to be members of the militia.  If
that is not sufficient then what is sufficient?  If that is not
sufficient for trust of the militia why is the US army which has
taken the same oath trusted?
     The argument that a militia is not needed as there is no
risk of invasion rings hollow in that there is less a reason for
there to be a US Army now that the Cold War is over.  To claim
there is no risk of insurrection flies in the face of the
professed concern over citizen militias.  Invasion and
insurrection are the only two matters addressed at the Federal
level for the militia.  The state constitutions may have other
uses for the militias but the failure of the state to exercise
its reserved powers as discussed by Hamilton in Federalist Paper
29 is the very reason for a citizen militia.
     Can a state have a state militia as does Ohio and Texas and
a few others and by so doing preclude a citizen militia?  This is
a stickier question.  To answer it one has to go back to the
original intent of the militia.
     The original concept was that the whole of the people was
the militia; the concept that the community was responsible for
its own defense.  The original laws only bound males between 18
and 45 to become trained members.  That a state should constitute
a paid militia vice a citizen militia is contrary to this concept
of a militia.  That the requirement for payment and providing
uniforms and such vice establishing minimum criteria for
volunteers is considered and exclusionary criteria is not the
intent of the original citizen delegation of the power to the
state.
     Thus the people have a right and a duty to pursue the
original intention despite the actions of the state when that
state fails to require by law a minimum level of participation
and equipment.
     One can go back to the earlier failure of the militia and
citizen soldier first identified by President Theodore Roosevelt
citing the uselessness of the militia as a pool from which to
create an army when needed.  That was a matter of state failure
and advancing technology.  That was a determination based upon
national preparation for foreign wars only.  It had nothing to do
with dissolving the militia.
     That is the crucial point.  That the states do not maintain
a citizen militia does not take away from the citizens the power
to constitute a militia.  Nonfeasance does not mean nullification
of a power.
     That the people delegate to the state and the state does not
perform does not mean the people have lost the power.  The power
in the past, now, and forever resides in the hands of the people.
The only blame on the people is not forcing the state to comply
with the delegation or to rescind the delegation.  In the
meantime the citizens retain the power to constitute a militia.
     It takes a bit of consideration and construction but in the
final analysis, the citizens are the defense of the community of
citizens.  The citizens are the final authority upon the
constitution of that defense.  That it is called the militia
means only it is the whole of the people.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

                  [note new address and phone]



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               Ban Assault Fertilizer now!
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1053)
To:      Frank Palmer                            5 May 95 16:42:46
Subject: NAZI ECONOMICS                         

FP>      Generally, however, people aren't going to the library 
FP>  to deal with the issues which fascinate _you_.

     That is their problem, is it not?  I only have to deal with 
those who refuse to investigate an issue and then presume simple 
negation is argumentation.  (Note Monty Python phrasing.)


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Any answer over three words is no.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1054)
To:      All                                     5 May 95 16:42:46
Subject: OKC, WHY?                              

     Some one has to be the first to start this line of 
questioning and the only answers can be speculation at this 
point.

     We have a supposed interest in Waco, apparently the event 
used by whoever did it to psyche themselves up to the bombing, 
and that is used to explain the date of the bombing.  However, 
had it been middle east terrorists it would have been a good day 
to pick in hoping to divert attention while they escaped.

     But if in fact Waco was the focus of the event as it now 
appears due to government press releases, why Oklahoma City?  
Waco has a federal building.  San Antonio (the city of the trial 
of the Davidians) has a federal building.  Janet Reno works in a 
federal building.  A bomb this size could have flattened the 
White House if set off in front.

     So far there is no hint anyone even remotely connected to 
this had any reason to target OKC.  This was planned long in 
advance; simply getting together that quantity of any material 
takes time.  More "symbolic" targets such as the Department of 
Justice Building or the BATF headquarters building are only two 
leisurely days away from Oklahoma City.  Waco and San Antonio, 
half a day's drive.  

     So why Oklahoma City?  Does anyone have any idea why that 
city rather than any other?  For example is such a large federal 
building unusual?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               Ban Assault Fertilizer now!
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950511 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1139)
To:      All                                     9 May 95 05:24:46
Subject: HOW WAS IT REALLY?                     

                       How was it really?
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <5/8>

     Here we are with our President squaring off against militia
types who have only said if the federal government attacks the
people they are ready to defend the people.  The President these
people have no right to say they love their country and despise
their government.  It is an interesting proposition despite the
1st amendment.
     While I have not had the direct pleasure of reading first
hand British texts on the Colonial Revolt of 1776 I can make some
obvious surmises from that point of view.  Consider the colonists
would not submit to a tax imposed by the King.  
     Certainly that was unheard of be it on tea or not.  Rather
the colonial considered themselves British subjects but refused
to involve themselves in the British / French conflict that was
their national heritage for centuries and was continuing in the
New World.  Where was their loyalty?
     And were they demanding change faster than possible?
Parliament was gaining a majority on the side of the colonists.
The king was ready to accede to their demands?  What were those
crazy conspiracy minded people doing declaring independence before
the government had time to declare justice?
     Obviously in the name of peace the King had to discourage
dissent among the colonists.  Keeping the peace was his duty.
And those colonists refused to accept that duty and confine their
talk to petitions to the crown.  Rather they did the absurd thing
and petitioned the people.
     Worse yet, they refuse to accept internal reform and
insisted that the people had the right to establish a government
rather than leaving government to people who had been doing it
for centuries.  That may strike us as strange today but in a day
still involved with hereditary rule appealing to those unlettered
in government was even more strange.
     But more to the point, those inflammatory fools who spoke
against established government.  They were considered as strange
as those seeing black helicopters today.  Seriously, the average
British colonial governor cared not in the least to both "his"
people if they were peaceful.
     Simply the natural human inclination to "do no work" that is
unnecessary would establish that.  Oppression was not their
intention as is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.
They were simply enforcing existing laws and policies.  It was
the colonials who were misinterpreting meaning and intention in
order to foment revolution.
     Given the small percentage of radicals initially in favor of
revolution what was the justification for the few hotheads at
Concord firing "the shot heard 'round the world"?  In the view of
history, the British Empire went on for 150 more years to become
the largest and greatest in world history while the ex-colonies
in North America struggled to become a force in the world in that
same century and a half.
     In other words, if the colonies had not been lead by
hotheads, militia paranoids in this week's commentary, the
colonies would have been part of that great empire.  They would
not have languished for 150 years in the backwater of the world
fighting a lone fight against Latin America.  They would have
avoided their civil war by the outlawing of slavery in the 1830s.
They would have been major players in  WW I rather than suckered
in late comers.  The colonies would be a major force in the
empire this day as it would not have fallen after WW II.
     I have to ask how is our perspective of government today
different from the perspective a militias today?  There was no
cause for revolution from the British perspective and there is no
cause for revolution from the perspective of our current
government.  But then cause is in the eye of the beholder as well
as it is in the eye of who writes the history.
     It is certain that at the time of the US revolution there
was the equivalent of the "black helicopters" circulating about
British troops.  To this day there are stories of British
atrocities taken as fact that the British records report as
accidents.  (The Fort Trumbull massacre/accident for the history
buffs, as an example.)
     The temper of the times is that our most fiery speakers are
on the front line and if by some quirk of fate they become the
victors in the coming revolution then rest assured black
helicopters like improper taxes will be taught to school children
for generations before it is questioned.  It would not matter at
this point if either Ronald Reagan or George Washington were to
come down on a militia movement if the militia movement won.  The
winner will write the history as much as if Shea had captured and
hung Washington.
     To bring this into focus in the last lines, President
Clinton is drawing battle lines between us and them when the us
and the them is only a matter of point of view.  No matter how
"right" the government feels it is, a sufficient number of people
rejecting it as wrong regardless of the justification can
prevail.
     Drawing lines is the problem.  We now have lines.  Perhaps
it will not be some damn fool thing in Waco but rather some damn
fool thing in the White House which is as detached from reality
as was the King of England some two hundred years ago.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If OJ had destroyed federal property while killing ...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950527 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (898)
To:      All                                    25 May 95 02:50:16
Subject: LEFTIST'S COOKBOOK                     

PB>  JB>  I'm just worried that innocent children will be harmed.  
PB>  JB>  That's all.

PB>  The information is out there.  You can't put the djinn back 
PB>  into the bottle.  True, that some innocent child may be 
PB>  harmed by trying to put together an infernal device with 
PB>  insufficient instructions, but any kid old enough to 
PB>  acquire the stuff to make an infernal device, and is 
PB>  attempting to do so, is not quite that innocent...

     Local story, Tampa, FL, 5/21/95

     A teenager was arrested for making and setting off a bomb in 
his backyard.  An interview with a friend indicates there was no 
harm intended.  Where did he learn how to make this bomb?  His 
high school chemistry class.

     Had it been the Anarchist's Cookbook, there would have been 
outrage, calls for banning, even if it had been ANFO which all 
the networks have carried programs where how to make it explode 
has been mentioned.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The Whisper of the President is louder than the shouting mob
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 259/99 270/101 280/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (899)
To:      All                                    25 May 95 02:50:18
Subject: SEARH WARRANT DECISION                 

     5/22/95

     Today the Supreme Court held that Waco style raids are in 
violation of the constitution.  Following the lead of the Florida 
Supreme Court warrants must be served by knocking on the door or 
its equivalent.

     About damn time.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Armies = barracks.  Militias = homes.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 259/99 270/101 280/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (900)
To:      All                                    25 May 95 02:50:18
Subject: THIS IS THE MILITIA                    

                       This is the Militia
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <5/22>

     There are many people who want to know what the militia
movement is.  The media is creating a caricature of them with
its piecemeal and hatemongering representation of them.  Let me
tell you what the militia is.
     The militia is thousands of people who feel they are being
unjustly treated by the federal government.  They are people who
feel they have no way to obtain redress of that injustice.  They
are people who know they are too few in their particular
injustice to ever use the ballot box.
     These are people who know they politicians and the media
portray them as in some manner evil, wanting to destroy the
environment, wanting to go on a killing rampage, wanting the have
the honor of killing the last bald eagle.  These are people who
know they are regular people, with regular jobs just like
everyone else save they are in some manner not the mainstream.
     In this feeling of injustice they have found a common
thread, simple injustice.  And in that common thread all feelings
of injustice motivate participation and none are rejected as long
as there is the one oath, to uphold and defend the constitution
of the United States.
     And of course these people have some ideas that are more
common among them than in general population as to other groups.
They are concerned about black helicopters.  There are other
groups that believe corporations are trying to enslave the
working man.  There are groups that believe there are people
trying to turn the poor out into the streets.  To everyone his
personal paranoia.
     The majority of these people really do not charge around in
the woods on weekends.  There are more than enough ex-military
among them to know that is a joke.  Nor are they rationally
expecting to face down the US Army and win.
     Rather they are people, as the head of the Texas Militia
said, "if the BATF tries another Waco in Texas they will have a
small war on their hands."  They are in fact a tripwire for the
excesses of the Federal Government.  And in that regard the only
question is how tightly that tripwire is set.
     As their common issue is injustice that can not be redressed
they have a legitimate position.  The issue becomes what degree
of perception and type of injustice will trigger them to react.
     Take for example, there is another Waco.  This is hard for
most people but let us go back to the first few days and review
the perceptions of the time.  The BATF was making obviously false
and impossible claims.  It refused (sealed the warrant) to make
public the cause for the raid, and was clearly stating it had
authority to attack because of polygamy and child abuse.
     Those claims were clearly unjust then and they would be
clearly unjust today.  Were Waco to be repeated today these
tripwire militias would likely act against the BATF on the
grounds that it was an unwarranted and violent exercise of
federal power out of control.  The justification would be obvious
lies and no authority to act.  And they would be correct in those
determinations.
     In that case a group like the BATF would be faced with a
poorly trained (if trained at all) group but it would have
superior numbers and firepower.  At the point of such a
confrontation it would be a violation of federal law to call in
the Army and it would be up to the state to use the state
National Guard against the militia.  Were the Guard to be
nationalized it would become the Army and illegal to use.
     And thus we would be presented with a de facto confrontation
between the citizens of a state against the federal government.
Where events would go from there is anyone's guess.  This
scenario is merely one of the tripwire functions of the citizen
militia.  It certainly could rout the BATF and the government
would certainly have to make some response.  And from there on it
is a matter of who flinches first as to the future course of US
history.
     If the president were to order the Army to deal with them
then everyone from the President on down would have violated the
law and therefore their oaths of office and be not fit for
office.  Should the government retreat it will certainly be taken
by many to be retreat and thus a loss of political standing which
is equally unpleasant as it will lose voluntary the voluntary
compliance with laws upon which the country rests.
     If the militia uses excessive force rather than simply saying
stop it will be viewed in the same light as the BATF.  If is uses
any force, dispersing before there is an agreement with the
government to absolve them means they can be arrested
individually at home so that is not viable.
     The militia is a new factor in the civil life of America.
It is a force that stands against the injustice imposed by
partisan politics as a matter of policy.  It is hoped their sense
of injustice can be addressed before it results in a
confrontation that gives neither side a means of retreat.
     The militia will not go away and it never should have gone
away.  It is the balance of justice that has been missing for
decades in our partisan system of injustice.  It should be
welcomed. back.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

     To save long distance calls.  One time permission to
reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions.
     1) You send a proof copy if possible to the address below or
email what you have done if possible.
     2)   The byline and address below is included.
     3)   These conditions are included.
     4) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling
and grammar corrections.
     5) There is no significant profit expected to be derived
directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to
recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of
judgement proof people.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Justice investigated Waco.Like Liddy investigating Watergate
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 259/99 270/101 280/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 3615/50 51





Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.