Twenty one years ago today an atrocity was carried out. The
so-called hostage rescue team of the FBI murdered most of the people in
the Branch Davidian residence outside of Waco, Texas. To this day none of the actual perpetrators have been held accountable in any way for this crime.
As
is my habit I will once again repost the links to an independent report
published on the Libernet mailing list after the incident.
Part One.
Part Two.
Part Three.
Part Four.
Part Five.
References.
At this time another massacre may have been avoided out in Nevada. But Senator Harry Reid of the party of death has dehumanized the potential victims as being domestic terrorists. But the fact is that he is the terrorist and murderer.
Showing posts with label Second Revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Revolution. Show all posts
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Sunday, November 3, 2013
NO COMPROMISE: Don't Tread on Me
This is a reprint from the first issue. More articles will be forthcoming:
NO COMPROMISE: Don't Tread on Me
by "Minuteman"
3 SFG(A)
As a soldier-historian I have been watching, with considerably more than passing interest, The very document I have sworn to defend against both foreign and domestic enemies, the Constitution of the United States, sink deeper and deeper into a socialist cesspool; a cesspool constantly fed by the sewer of compromise.
On 19 April 1775, a handful of men in Lexington Massachusetts took up arms in defense of their peers at Concord to oppose a force sent to confiscate their means to resist tyranny. This confiscatory force was not a foreign invader, nor an army of occupation; it was the army of their government. Our
ancestors resisted, and won.
Modern Americans are content to grovel at the feet of their government, compromising at every turn, whimpering insipid platitudes of subservient thanks when their Constitutional rights, assured by the original ten Amendments to the Constitution, are granted to them anew as privileges.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are limitations on government -- not the individual. Bear in mind that the original ten Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, were not the product of those who wrote the Constitution, the Federalists, but to those who opposed it, the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists recognized the potential for tyranny in the Constitution and insisted on guarantees of inalienable rights that could not be abrogated by the government. They recognized that all government is, by definition, tyrannical.
Socialists believe words are fuzzy, undefinable constructs that assume whatever meaning they want under whatever whim context they invent at the time. Socialists hate the 18th century language of the Constitution because the words used actually had specific meaning in the context in which they were used. Thus the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in full:
In context, the term "...regulated Militia," meant the whole citizenry, independently armed, practiced and drilled in the use of their arms, prepared to take up those arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
In context, the phrase "...free State," meant not only defense against foreign aggression, but more explicitly, defense against domestic tyranny.
Note the elegance and exclusivity of the closing to this keystone of the Bill of Rights, "...shall not be infringed." In context this means: No organization, government or non-government, by design, neglect or whim, through legislation or regulation, for reasons specific or implied, shall restrict this right in any way, form, or condition.
Socialists believe the Second Amendment refers only to State government, or even more terrifying, to the Federal Government. Their shopworn bromide that the term "...the people..." in the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard, Reserves, standing army, and police, but not to individuals, is a base lie.
"...(T)he people..." means all individuals. Period.
The National Guard is an instrument of force of a state government. The Reserves are an instrument of force of the Federal Government. Both organizations are, in 18th century terms, a Select Militia. It was in wise opposition to a government monopoly of armed force by a Select Militia in general and a standing army in particular, that the individual's right to keep and bear arms was guaranteed. No wonder our socialist government and their despicable altruist cheerleaders despise the Second Amendment.
Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment have affirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to individuals, not to armed gangs on federal or state payrolls. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right of individuals to bear arms appropriate to (select) Militia use is unquestioned. This means: If the National Guard, Reserves, standing army, and innumerable armed gangs of local, state, and unconstitutional Federal police have, for example, M-16 rifles, it is not only the right of individuals to possess and openly bear the same weapons, it is contrary to the preservation of their liberty not to.
Political socialists in the U.S. Congress, as well as police state socialists in the unconstitutional Justice and Treasury Departments are using the typical stalking horses of government tyranny, public safety, and some undefined mob of irrelevancies called "the children," to creep up on and abolish the sole guaranty of personal liberty in the Constitution, the Second Amendment.
By "public safety" the Federal government means greatly expanding the powers of their own armed gangs of badge wielding thugs. By those amorphous abstractions they call "children" they are referring to 15 - 24 year-old minority street garbage killing each other over drug and extortion turf.
Socialists are constantly calling for compromise on Second Amendment issues which they themselves fabricate. Compromise, as any intelligent person knows, is unmitigated evil. Only the inept, irrational, and intellectually corrupt ask for compromise and only they win when compromise is conceded by the able, rational, and intelligent out of some fear of being labeled "extremist."
Socialists revile those who stand on principle, those who distinguish right from wrong, and those who can differentiate between truth and lies. Whenever socialists fling accusations of extremism you can rest assured that their opponents have the truth of their side. Simply put, in any compromise between poison and food, only death wins.
Regarding the Second Amendment, the victor in the compromise between the right to keep and bear arms equivalent to those of the Select Militia, and government legislation against them, is slavery. The men who stood armed against their government at Lexington knew that their only choice was liberty or serfdom. They did not compromise.
Two-hundred years ago Randy Weaver and David Koresh would have been heroes for resisting government whimsy. Today they are vilified for having defended their liberty by force of arms. The unconstitutional Federal police, as always, demonstrated groveling cowardice in their investigation, execution, and cover-up of these outrages. The media, as always, whined, simpered, and adopted the greasy socialist party line like the practiced second handers they are.
Adopting the bald eagle as the national symbol was a mistake. It should have been the rattlesnake. Philosophically, the only flag in our history that reflects the cause of the American Revolution, resistance to government tyranny, is the coiled rattlesnake over the words: "DON'T TREAD ON ME." No one can look upon that flag and misunderstand its meaning.
Under the Constitution the only Federal crime is treason. Subverting the Constitution can only be construed as such. Those in government, Federal state, or local, who by action or inaction would legislate away the only individual guaranty against tyrannical government, the right to keep and bear
arms, and those who support such legislation, are traitors to the Constitution.
As a soldier of the standing army I am sworn to defend the Constitution against these domestic enemies of the Constitution. I will, and I am not alone.
by "Minuteman"
3 SFG(A)
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
--Patrick Henry
As a soldier-historian I have been watching, with considerably more than passing interest, The very document I have sworn to defend against both foreign and domestic enemies, the Constitution of the United States, sink deeper and deeper into a socialist cesspool; a cesspool constantly fed by the sewer of compromise.
On 19 April 1775, a handful of men in Lexington Massachusetts took up arms in defense of their peers at Concord to oppose a force sent to confiscate their means to resist tyranny. This confiscatory force was not a foreign invader, nor an army of occupation; it was the army of their government. Our
ancestors resisted, and won.
Modern Americans are content to grovel at the feet of their government, compromising at every turn, whimpering insipid platitudes of subservient thanks when their Constitutional rights, assured by the original ten Amendments to the Constitution, are granted to them anew as privileges.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are limitations on government -- not the individual. Bear in mind that the original ten Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, were not the product of those who wrote the Constitution, the Federalists, but to those who opposed it, the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists recognized the potential for tyranny in the Constitution and insisted on guarantees of inalienable rights that could not be abrogated by the government. They recognized that all government is, by definition, tyrannical.
Socialists believe words are fuzzy, undefinable constructs that assume whatever meaning they want under whatever whim context they invent at the time. Socialists hate the 18th century language of the Constitution because the words used actually had specific meaning in the context in which they were used. Thus the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in full:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In context, the term "...regulated Militia," meant the whole citizenry, independently armed, practiced and drilled in the use of their arms, prepared to take up those arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
In context, the phrase "...free State," meant not only defense against foreign aggression, but more explicitly, defense against domestic tyranny.
Note the elegance and exclusivity of the closing to this keystone of the Bill of Rights, "...shall not be infringed." In context this means: No organization, government or non-government, by design, neglect or whim, through legislation or regulation, for reasons specific or implied, shall restrict this right in any way, form, or condition.
Socialists believe the Second Amendment refers only to State government, or even more terrifying, to the Federal Government. Their shopworn bromide that the term "...the people..." in the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard, Reserves, standing army, and police, but not to individuals, is a base lie.
"...(T)he people..." means all individuals. Period.
The National Guard is an instrument of force of a state government. The Reserves are an instrument of force of the Federal Government. Both organizations are, in 18th century terms, a Select Militia. It was in wise opposition to a government monopoly of armed force by a Select Militia in general and a standing army in particular, that the individual's right to keep and bear arms was guaranteed. No wonder our socialist government and their despicable altruist cheerleaders despise the Second Amendment.
Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment have affirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to individuals, not to armed gangs on federal or state payrolls. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right of individuals to bear arms appropriate to (select) Militia use is unquestioned. This means: If the National Guard, Reserves, standing army, and innumerable armed gangs of local, state, and unconstitutional Federal police have, for example, M-16 rifles, it is not only the right of individuals to possess and openly bear the same weapons, it is contrary to the preservation of their liberty not to.
Political socialists in the U.S. Congress, as well as police state socialists in the unconstitutional Justice and Treasury Departments are using the typical stalking horses of government tyranny, public safety, and some undefined mob of irrelevancies called "the children," to creep up on and abolish the sole guaranty of personal liberty in the Constitution, the Second Amendment.
By "public safety" the Federal government means greatly expanding the powers of their own armed gangs of badge wielding thugs. By those amorphous abstractions they call "children" they are referring to 15 - 24 year-old minority street garbage killing each other over drug and extortion turf.
Socialists are constantly calling for compromise on Second Amendment issues which they themselves fabricate. Compromise, as any intelligent person knows, is unmitigated evil. Only the inept, irrational, and intellectually corrupt ask for compromise and only they win when compromise is conceded by the able, rational, and intelligent out of some fear of being labeled "extremist."
Socialists revile those who stand on principle, those who distinguish right from wrong, and those who can differentiate between truth and lies. Whenever socialists fling accusations of extremism you can rest assured that their opponents have the truth of their side. Simply put, in any compromise between poison and food, only death wins.
Regarding the Second Amendment, the victor in the compromise between the right to keep and bear arms equivalent to those of the Select Militia, and government legislation against them, is slavery. The men who stood armed against their government at Lexington knew that their only choice was liberty or serfdom. They did not compromise.
Two-hundred years ago Randy Weaver and David Koresh would have been heroes for resisting government whimsy. Today they are vilified for having defended their liberty by force of arms. The unconstitutional Federal police, as always, demonstrated groveling cowardice in their investigation, execution, and cover-up of these outrages. The media, as always, whined, simpered, and adopted the greasy socialist party line like the practiced second handers they are.
Adopting the bald eagle as the national symbol was a mistake. It should have been the rattlesnake. Philosophically, the only flag in our history that reflects the cause of the American Revolution, resistance to government tyranny, is the coiled rattlesnake over the words: "DON'T TREAD ON ME." No one can look upon that flag and misunderstand its meaning.
Under the Constitution the only Federal crime is treason. Subverting the Constitution can only be construed as such. Those in government, Federal state, or local, who by action or inaction would legislate away the only individual guaranty against tyrannical government, the right to keep and bear
arms, and those who support such legislation, are traitors to the Constitution.
As a soldier of the standing army I am sworn to defend the Constitution against these domestic enemies of the Constitution. I will, and I am not alone.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Definition of the Day
From the New Devil's Dictionary (One of my other projects):
Gun Control: The theory that the solution to the problem of firearms usage by violent criminals is to attack, imprison, and kill innocent people who own firearms.
While hardly a word has been heard from the present gang of elected looters, given their basic beliefs they will, sooner or later, have to disarm us, their victims.
There are, of course, several motivations (I won't say reasons) for the effort to disarm the lawful citizens of a nation. For those who believe in the Primacy of the Parasite, the private ownership of firearms is an obstacle to the attainment of the power that they need to live as parasites on the productive population.
Then there are the moral parasites, who are mainly moral narcissists who don't care about, or flat out deny, the actual effects of the enforcement of their whims as long as they can strut about as superior beings and feel good about themselves.
A favorite, and thoroughly reprehensible, tactic of the Gun Control Mafia is the exploitation of surviving relatives of the victims of violent crimes. For example, John Crozier of Dunblane, Scotland, who publicly said:
There's a reason people like this are called peasants.
Let us consider the inherent contradiction in this particular mouth dropping.
A firearm is a tool. Properly used it is a instrument of the human will. It is an instrumental means of sustaining and protecting the life of a human being. To say that a human being does not have a right to own and properly operate a firearm is in practical effect to say that a human being does not have the right to live. And because a right is a concept that is universally applicable to all persons, Goodman Crozier has just denied his own daughter's right to live.
What can I say? What an (expletive redacted) idiot!
The above quoted mouth dropping was brought to my attention about ten years ago by that stalwart partisan of the Progressive cause, Derrick Z. Jackson, a columnist for the Boston Globe. (Seriously, I would really hate to be the poor clerk-typist who has to translate Comrade Jackson's crayon scrawls into usable text.)(And no, I won't apologize to evil, so don't ask.)
What the parasites and moral narcissists who push gun control refuse to see is that to totally disarm the citizens of a free nation requires the deliberate exercise of deadly force against individuals who rightfully refuse to surrender their arms and who in no way have violated the life, liberty, or property of any other person. The end of civil disarmament cannot be brought about without the murder of people who in objective reality are innocent of any wrongful act.
Those who would disarm us are nothing less than mortal enemies of all rational human beings. As far as I am concerned such depraved persons should be dealt with as wolves are.
It would take a Progressive mentality like Comrade Jackson to believe that the total confiscation of arms, which requires lethal force against the innocent, will somehow prevent further bloodshed. In fact an attempt to carry out a program of total confiscation will create a bloody mess, and will be just cause for a civil war that will be far more costly in human lives than our first American Civil War.
What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_
Gun Control: The theory that the solution to the problem of firearms usage by violent criminals is to attack, imprison, and kill innocent people who own firearms.
While hardly a word has been heard from the present gang of elected looters, given their basic beliefs they will, sooner or later, have to disarm us, their victims.
There are, of course, several motivations (I won't say reasons) for the effort to disarm the lawful citizens of a nation. For those who believe in the Primacy of the Parasite, the private ownership of firearms is an obstacle to the attainment of the power that they need to live as parasites on the productive population.
Then there are the moral parasites, who are mainly moral narcissists who don't care about, or flat out deny, the actual effects of the enforcement of their whims as long as they can strut about as superior beings and feel good about themselves.
A favorite, and thoroughly reprehensible, tactic of the Gun Control Mafia is the exploitation of surviving relatives of the victims of violent crimes. For example, John Crozier of Dunblane, Scotland, who publicly said:
My daughter's right to live is more important than anybody's right to shoot a gun.
There's a reason people like this are called peasants.
Let us consider the inherent contradiction in this particular mouth dropping.
A firearm is a tool. Properly used it is a instrument of the human will. It is an instrumental means of sustaining and protecting the life of a human being. To say that a human being does not have a right to own and properly operate a firearm is in practical effect to say that a human being does not have the right to live. And because a right is a concept that is universally applicable to all persons, Goodman Crozier has just denied his own daughter's right to live.
What can I say? What an (expletive redacted) idiot!
The above quoted mouth dropping was brought to my attention about ten years ago by that stalwart partisan of the Progressive cause, Derrick Z. Jackson, a columnist for the Boston Globe. (Seriously, I would really hate to be the poor clerk-typist who has to translate Comrade Jackson's crayon scrawls into usable text.)(And no, I won't apologize to evil, so don't ask.)
What the parasites and moral narcissists who push gun control refuse to see is that to totally disarm the citizens of a free nation requires the deliberate exercise of deadly force against individuals who rightfully refuse to surrender their arms and who in no way have violated the life, liberty, or property of any other person. The end of civil disarmament cannot be brought about without the murder of people who in objective reality are innocent of any wrongful act.
Those who would disarm us are nothing less than mortal enemies of all rational human beings. As far as I am concerned such depraved persons should be dealt with as wolves are.
It would take a Progressive mentality like Comrade Jackson to believe that the total confiscation of arms, which requires lethal force against the innocent, will somehow prevent further bloodshed. In fact an attempt to carry out a program of total confiscation will create a bloody mess, and will be just cause for a civil war that will be far more costly in human lives than our first American Civil War.
What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_
Sunday, November 16, 2008
LET'S MAKE A DEAL?
The following was submitted to the editor of the original edition of THE RESISTER and subsequently rejected. It was originally written during the Clinton Administration and is published here as is.
And the offer still stands for the Obama Administration:
LET'S MAKE A DEAL?
After months (or more likely years) of fighting, the beltway brigands declare that they are seeking a negotiated settlement to the Second Civil War.
After they make the usual noises about "power sharing" arrangements, etc., etc., the head of our delegation answers thus:
In effect, the enemy is offered conditional amnesty.
The point in favor of such a deal is that we cut our own losses in blood and treasure.
The points against are, firstly, while the deal is expedient, it is fundamentally unjust. The individuals responsible for the subjugation and slaughter of American citizens (the Waco massacre, etc.) are basically getting away scot-free.
The second point against it is that it is contrary to the nature of the beast we are facing. Although the deal allows the enemy to take their loot with them, plunder (on the part of the leadership) was not their primary goal, unrestrained power over us is. The apparent governing principle of (to name an example) Clinton's behavior in public office is L'Etat cest Moi, literally; "The State, that's Me". The leader is held to be synonymous with the state, opposition to malfeasance on the part of the leader is treated as anti-government hatred, in effect as nothing less than treason. Clinton's consistent answer to criticism of his actions has been to defame his victim's and his critics, and to demand silence and obedience regardless of the consequences to his subjects.
The statist leader refuses to be subject to any legal restraints, nor does he pay heed to any superior authority. His victims, those persons who are to be subjected to his whims must be silenced and disarmed. This is nothing new, the military arm, be it a sword, a pike or a firearm, is the symbol and instrument of political authority. The citizens of a free nation, armed and ready to defend their lives and liberties, have a commanding voice, which a politician may ignore only at his peril. Augustus Caesar understood this when he depoliticized the citizen body of the Roman Republic by replacing the citizen militia based army of the republic with a mercenary force loyal to himself.
If presented with a "take the money and run" deal, a power addict would very likely refuse to accept. I would not be surprised if Bill Clinton, following the example of such statist trash as Adolph Hitler and Salvador Allende, ultimately ends up taking the final exit while cowering in a final redoubt.
As much as each of us may prefer otherwise, the coming struggle is certain to be a long, bloody, fight to the death.
-- R. Hemmerding
And the offer still stands for the Obama Administration:
LET'S MAKE A DEAL?
After months (or more likely years) of fighting, the beltway brigands declare that they are seeking a negotiated settlement to the Second Civil War.
After they make the usual noises about "power sharing" arrangements, etc., etc., the head of our delegation answers thus:
What we want from you Bill is this; You and your underlings will formally resign from office , you will surrender all claims of authority over the citizens and territory of the United States, you will go into exile, and under no circumstances will you establish or support the establishment of a quote, government in exile, close quote.
You and your followers will take your offshore bank ATM cards and go. And please take the First Bitch with you.
In effect, the enemy is offered conditional amnesty.
The point in favor of such a deal is that we cut our own losses in blood and treasure.
The points against are, firstly, while the deal is expedient, it is fundamentally unjust. The individuals responsible for the subjugation and slaughter of American citizens (the Waco massacre, etc.) are basically getting away scot-free.
The second point against it is that it is contrary to the nature of the beast we are facing. Although the deal allows the enemy to take their loot with them, plunder (on the part of the leadership) was not their primary goal, unrestrained power over us is. The apparent governing principle of (to name an example) Clinton's behavior in public office is L'Etat cest Moi, literally; "The State, that's Me". The leader is held to be synonymous with the state, opposition to malfeasance on the part of the leader is treated as anti-government hatred, in effect as nothing less than treason. Clinton's consistent answer to criticism of his actions has been to defame his victim's and his critics, and to demand silence and obedience regardless of the consequences to his subjects.
The statist leader refuses to be subject to any legal restraints, nor does he pay heed to any superior authority. His victims, those persons who are to be subjected to his whims must be silenced and disarmed. This is nothing new, the military arm, be it a sword, a pike or a firearm, is the symbol and instrument of political authority. The citizens of a free nation, armed and ready to defend their lives and liberties, have a commanding voice, which a politician may ignore only at his peril. Augustus Caesar understood this when he depoliticized the citizen body of the Roman Republic by replacing the citizen militia based army of the republic with a mercenary force loyal to himself.
If presented with a "take the money and run" deal, a power addict would very likely refuse to accept. I would not be surprised if Bill Clinton, following the example of such statist trash as Adolph Hitler and Salvador Allende, ultimately ends up taking the final exit while cowering in a final redoubt.
As much as each of us may prefer otherwise, the coming struggle is certain to be a long, bloody, fight to the death.
-- R. Hemmerding
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Introduction
My name is Leslie Bates, and I have a story to tell.
Once upon a time ago, while innocent people were being gassed and incinerated by the Clinton Administration, a member of the Third Special Forces Group named Steven Michael Barry decided that enough was enough. He, with a small circle of associates, created the Special Forces Underground. This initial cell within the United States Army dedicated themselves to the task of restoring the Federal government to full compliance with the Constitution.
Steve Barry was an expert propagandist. He apparently wanted to get the word out in a deniable fashion, to this end he created a prototype of a propaganda newsletter, THE RESISTER. He gave a copy of the prototype issue of THE RESISTER to a reporter for Soldier Of Fortune magazine. The reporter in turn faxed it to his editor and publisher the retired special forces officer Robert K. Brown.
Lieutenant Colonel Brown thought that prototype issue of THE RESISTER was so neat that he offered to give a free copy to anyone who sent a self addressed and stamped business size envelope to the SOF office.
This is where I come into the picture.
I received a copy. Unfortunately so did Timothy McVeigh.
I thought that THE RESISTER was so truly neat that I typed up a complete (apart from a book review that was **AHEM** borrowed from the Second Renaissance Books catalog) ASCII text file of the initial issue and posted it on a libertarian mailing list, some USENET discussion groups, and the local Objectivist BBS.
McVeigh on the other hand went on to act out the Aryan Martyrdom fantasy that was laid out in his favorite book, THE TURNER DIARIES*. Except that no one in the media ever reported the fact that his copy of THE RESISTER was found in his car when he was arrested.
To continue my story. I sent a letter requesting further issues and a twenty dollar bill to cover printing and mailing to the Post Office Box listed as the drop in the initial issue. I subsequently received an e-mail from Steve Barry began a continuing correspondence with him.
One day I sent Steve an idea for an article for THE RESISTER. He thought it was a great idea and made me a regular contributor. I also recruited the operator of the local Objectivist BBS as a columnist.
Steven Michael Barry was a good friend and a mentor. But nothing lasts forever. After the election of George W. Bush as Presidient, THE RESISTER died and Steve Barry dropped off the face of the Earth.
My goal in establishing this weblog is nothing less than the reestablishment of a government that is fully compliant with the actual text of the United States Constitution. The actions necessary to this task will take us over the dead bodies of persons who are not fit to lick the excrement off of my combat boots. Unfortunately some of us are not going to see that day.
That's all I have to say for today.
*Short note: Reading THE TURNER DIARIES was the intellectual equivalent of taking a swim through raw sewage.
Once upon a time ago, while innocent people were being gassed and incinerated by the Clinton Administration, a member of the Third Special Forces Group named Steven Michael Barry decided that enough was enough. He, with a small circle of associates, created the Special Forces Underground. This initial cell within the United States Army dedicated themselves to the task of restoring the Federal government to full compliance with the Constitution.
Steve Barry was an expert propagandist. He apparently wanted to get the word out in a deniable fashion, to this end he created a prototype of a propaganda newsletter, THE RESISTER. He gave a copy of the prototype issue of THE RESISTER to a reporter for Soldier Of Fortune magazine. The reporter in turn faxed it to his editor and publisher the retired special forces officer Robert K. Brown.
Lieutenant Colonel Brown thought that prototype issue of THE RESISTER was so neat that he offered to give a free copy to anyone who sent a self addressed and stamped business size envelope to the SOF office.
This is where I come into the picture.
I received a copy. Unfortunately so did Timothy McVeigh.
I thought that THE RESISTER was so truly neat that I typed up a complete (apart from a book review that was **AHEM** borrowed from the Second Renaissance Books catalog) ASCII text file of the initial issue and posted it on a libertarian mailing list, some USENET discussion groups, and the local Objectivist BBS.
McVeigh on the other hand went on to act out the Aryan Martyrdom fantasy that was laid out in his favorite book, THE TURNER DIARIES*. Except that no one in the media ever reported the fact that his copy of THE RESISTER was found in his car when he was arrested.
To continue my story. I sent a letter requesting further issues and a twenty dollar bill to cover printing and mailing to the Post Office Box listed as the drop in the initial issue. I subsequently received an e-mail from Steve Barry began a continuing correspondence with him.
One day I sent Steve an idea for an article for THE RESISTER. He thought it was a great idea and made me a regular contributor. I also recruited the operator of the local Objectivist BBS as a columnist.
Steven Michael Barry was a good friend and a mentor. But nothing lasts forever. After the election of George W. Bush as Presidient, THE RESISTER died and Steve Barry dropped off the face of the Earth.
My goal in establishing this weblog is nothing less than the reestablishment of a government that is fully compliant with the actual text of the United States Constitution. The actions necessary to this task will take us over the dead bodies of persons who are not fit to lick the excrement off of my combat boots. Unfortunately some of us are not going to see that day.
That's all I have to say for today.
*Short note: Reading THE TURNER DIARIES was the intellectual equivalent of taking a swim through raw sewage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)