|
AMERICA UNARMED / DISARMED compiled by Dee Finney |
| 7-9-04 - DREAM - I was living somewhere in the
northern part of the U.S. where there were forested high hills
everywhere.
We were told via the radio that the Russians were going to attack us and they would be coming at us through Canada. None of us had guns to protect ourselves with. The army was spread out all over the world - none of them were near us in the U.S. The only thing I could think of was suicide. I thought maybe the quickest way to go would be to dive into the swift flowing deep river off a nearby bridge. I'd drown before anyone could rescue me. I shuddered when I thought about how cold that would be to dive into the water before I died. Meanwhile, my husband was visited by a neighbor and while they stood talking to each other, I stood in the exhaust of the still running vehicle, hoping I would breathe enough carbon monoxide to die right there. Anything was better than dying at the hands of the Russian army. My husband saw what I was doing and grabbed me by the arm and pulled me out of the exhaust before I passed out. I hoped the men could figure out a way to defend ourselves and our families ... |
||||||
Article [II.]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. Article [IV.]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. |
||||||
| Disarmament. To ensure that they remain in
power the leaders must ultimately disarm the people so that they can not
resist and those that do are subject to the conditions of step three in
its full force.
A present day example of Step One; Guns are evil and kill children every day. This is the current theme of the mainstream media being disseminated to the public and the official stance of many government leaders including the White House. A present day example of Step Two; Do what we want or we will impose economic sanctions on you. This is the current stance of the federal and many state and local governments that have filed frivolous lawsuits on the gun manufactures. A present day example of Step Three; At the present time the White House has successfully purged almost all but the yes men in the officer ranks of the Military and federal law enforcement agencies. This in turn has lead to the killing and oppression of American Citizens by American Military and Federal Law Enforcement Agents throughout the nation. A present day example of Step four; This one started of innocently enough, voluntary turn-in of firearms, gun buyback programs, can't sell or buy these type of guns. Then it turned into tell us if your neighbor has a gun and we will pay you, tell us if your neighbor has a gun and we won't throw you in jail, if you own a gun you are considered a criminal and will be treated as such. Have you seen the billboard that says "To report an illegal gun call ….". There's one on I-35 in Austin, Texas. I was unaware that guns were illegal in this country, they are after all just a tool. How do I report an illegal car? FROM: AN UNARMED
AMERICA |
||||||
| GUN
CONTROL excerpted As for mis-perceptions about guns, one may ask why people believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is so dangerous? It is because they are inundated by a liberal media with stories of children being killed by guns. The media have a saying here: "If it bleeds, it leads" (meaning it becomes the lead story.) Our president, an ardent advocate of gun control, loves to say that 12 "kids" die each day from gun violence. What he doesn't mention is that 80% of those "kids" are between the ages of 15 and 19, nearly all of whom are involved in gangs, convenience-store hold-ups, and drug deals, etc. When confronted with that statistic, the socialists immediately leap to the argument that so many young children die from guns found in the home that errant fathers leave lying around. So lets look at that: Taking a typical year, say 1996, there were a total of 1,134 accidental firearm deaths in the entire U.S. Of that number, 42 were under the age of ten. That's less than one per state. In comparison, during the same period the same age group suffered 2,404 motor-vehicle deaths, 805 lost their lives drowning, and 738 were killed by fire and burns. (Source: National Center for Injury Prevention, Injury Mortality Statistics, (Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control, 1999)). Almost twice as many children drown in their own bathtubs each year than die from ALL types of firearm accidents. Should we license, register, and confiscate bathtubs? In fact, a lot more infants die from drowning in 5-gallon buckets. Lets ban buckets! Since we are getting silly here, lets look at the other side of cause-and-effect... If we banned bathtubs, a lot more kids (possibly thousands) would die from diseases because of uncleanliness. Cleanliness has been the #1 contributor to longer life-expectancy rates in the last century
|
||||||
FROM: http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/duffy63.html
|
||||||
|
Disarmed and Disenfranchised "Traditionally, when governments want to disenfranchise people, the first thing they do is disarm them," says Niger Innis. "That was the case in Nazi Germany, when the Jews were disarmed. That was the case in the American South, after slavery." Innis is correct, on both counts. On November 7, 1938, a 17-year-old Jewish refugee named Herschel Grynszpan shot and killed a German diplomat in Paris. The highly publicized shooting gave the Nazis the excuse they needed for a major crackdown. German newspapers whipped up hysteria over the threat of Jewish terrorism. Then, on November 11, the Nazi government ordered Jews to surrender all firearms, clubs and knives. Without weapons, the Jews were easily herded into concentration camps. "No slave shall go armed with a gun, or shall keep such weapons," declared an 1854 law of North Carolina. Violators received 39 lashes. After the Civil War, many white southerners feared that black freedmen would take bloody vengeance on their former masters. Fears of a black uprising were particularly intense in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina, where blacks outnumbered whites. White southerners responded by creating a race-based caste system – a U.S. version of apartheid. Gun control was crucial to making it work. Southern whites tried to maintain their antebellum monopoly over firearms. Many states barred African Americans from owning guns. Local police, state militias and Ku Klux Klansmen rode from house to house, demanding that blacks turn in their weapons. Once disarmed, they were helpless against lynch mobs. "Before these midnight marauders made attacks upon peaceful citizens," Representative Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts informed the U.S. Congress in 1871, "there were many instances in the South where the sheriff of the county had preceded them and taken away the arms of their victims." According to Stephen P Halbrook, the Fourteenth Amendment temporarily stymied the gun-control efforts of southern whites. It forbade the states from passing any law that would deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. In their fear of black unrest, white Americans had given birth to a Frankenstein's monster. The machinery of gun control set up in the 1960s is now being turned against its creators – a case of "the chickens coming home to roost," as Malcolm X would have put it. FROM: http://www.lewrockwell.com/poe/poe3.html
|
||||||
|
||||||
| National
police and disarmed citizens © 1997 WorldNetDaily.com As the federal government grabs citizens firearms and deploys a virtual standing army of national cops, America's balance of power is shifting from freedom to tyranny. This could only happen in a country where the people, thanks to a heavy dose of disinformation spread by the government-media complex and the government schools, have forgotten their history and constitutional heritage. Talk to the average gun-control fanatic and he or she will tell you the Second Amendment was only intended to protect the right to bear arms in the context of the need for defense of the state and nation. This argument could only be made by someone with complete disconnect from reality -- someone who chooses willingly and deliberately to ignore the massive amount of documentation to the contrary. What was the original intent of our founders with regard to firearms? Here's a sampling of their unambiguous opinions:
Many of these great men warned with equal passion against the government arming itself by creating what they feared would be a standing army or national police force. Consider the following:
When you consider the letter of our Constitution, and then consider its spirit through the words of the men responsible for authoring it, there is no question about the individual's right to bear arms. But there is grave reason to doubt the right of the federal government to authorize wielding them for any reason other than war. Thanks to Jim Eason of KSFO Radio in San Francisco for compiling these and many other similar quotes. FROM: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14319
|
||||||
| Terrorists
exploit America's gun phobia
By Dr. Michael S. Brown As the immediate shock of the September eleventh attacks transmutes into long-term anger, Americans are asking tough questions. Members of the gun rights community have their own views on airline security, probably not shared by mainstream society, but worth considering in light of the extraordinary challenges that face us. Under current rules, airline passengers are disarmed and pilots forbidden to carry guns on the theory that guns are dangerous and would only escalate a violent situation. As with other shortsighted anti-gun efforts, this one wrongly assumed that safety was assured if guns could be eliminated. The success of the terrorist attacks certainly made a mockery of that policy. Members of the gun rights community are wondering what would have happened if a passenger on one or more of the doomed jetliners had been armed with a simple handgun. No doubt some have, in their dreams, envisioned a little old lady with a revolver dispatching the suicide squad before they could overpower the unarmed aircrew. For decades, Americans have been taught from a very young age that it is not appropriate to resist criminals, especially if there is some risk involved in doing so. Instead we are told to call 911 and wait for helpful government employees to arrive. Heart-wrenching reports of doomed passengers dialing 911 in vain are an indicator of how successfully we have been disarmed and indoctrinated. Those who have not been paying attention to security issues seem surprised at how easy it was for a group of determined men to take over four jetliners. But we have already seen how easily one or two armed individuals can terrorize a school or office when all occupants have been disarmed by law. Arming pilots and making cockpit doors more secure seems like an obvious measure that everyone should agree with. However this still leaves passengers in the main cabin vulnerable to attackers with improvised or smuggled weapons and pilots open to psychological pressure resulting from threats against the passengers. So far, plans to improve airline safety involve expensive new security forces and more intrusive passenger searches. Travelers will now be stripped of even the smallest nail clippers or scissors. Long delays at airports are expected to discourage casual travel. Advocates of armed civilian defense believe they have a better idea. They point out that thousands of potential security guards are already available. Millions of citizens across the country possess concealed weapon permits. This group has proven to be the most law-abiding segment of our society, even more so than police officers. A smaller subset of permit holders has acquired a high level of firearms training at numerous schools across the country. Some of the techniques they learn are borrowed from counter-terrorist experts. In many cases, the training exceeds that of ordinary policemen. The size of this group is unknown, but it must number in the tens of thousands. Most of these men and women have adopted self-defense shooting as a sport and some have developed an amazing level of skill. It's a safe bet that thousands of these individuals would volunteer to be unpaid security officers when they are flying anyway for business or personal reasons. This group is exquisitely aware of the special circumstances involved in using guns on aircraft and would gladly take additional specialized training. They would expect to obey certain restrictions on the type of guns and ammunition used. For example, special ammunition is available that will not penetrate the skin of an aircraft. By placing armed and trained civilians on flights at random, terrorist planning would be enormously complicated. It would not be possible for attackers to identify the armed guard before the attack, since he or she would look like an ordinary passenger. There might be more than one and very few would fit the profile of a hard-eyed, crew cut Federal Marshal. The cost would be miniscule compared to that of assigning a paid law enforcement officer to each flight, current metal detector based searches would be adequate, and it would guarantee an immediate end to hijackings. Unfortunately, America has not yet recovered from its gun phobia enough to explore this cheap and effective solution. While we are perfectly comfortable having our soldiers shoot as many terrorists as possible, there is an illogical knee-jerk reaction to the idea of citizens participating in their own defense. The anti-gun lobby and other advocates of a disarmed and helpless public must bear some responsibility for the shamefully vulnerable position we now occupy. Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws. FROM: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0901/0901gunphobia.htm
|
||||||
|
Suddenly,
America Realizes Guns Can Come in Handy Americans
are answering their president’s call to arms by buying guns. Exclusive
to American Free Press By
Mike Blair Now
that American soil has become the battleground of international
terrorism many are finding that the private ownership of firearms is a
good idea. The American Airline Pilots
Association is appealing to Federal officials to allow those who fly
America’s airlines to carry side arms. As the blasts reverberated across the
nation, citizens by the droves flocked to gun shops to purchase
firearms and to make certain that they had sufficient ammunition to
fight on their own soil what their president was calling “a war.” While Americans are protected by the
Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms,” the British are
not so fortunate, as Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged full support
for America’s war . Readers of American Free Press
may recall that after taking office one of Blair’s first major
efforts was to make certain that virtually every British citizen was
disarmed. As a result, while Americans still
have the means, despite an avalanche of anti-gun efforts, to protect
themselves, the British have been forced—at least those who can
afford it—to build special rooms in their homes where they can lock
themselves away from criminals and terrorists. A half century ago as war clouds
enveloped Europe, another British leader, Prime Minister Winston
Churchill, was concerned that the British people did not have enough
guns. News photos and newsreels of British farmers taking to the
fields with their shotguns, even pitchforks if they didn’t have
firearms, to capture downed German bomber pilots, appeared on both
sides of the Atlantic. Churchill, in fact, had to appeal to
America for fire arms to arm Britain’s citizenry, a fact apparently
lost by the Establishment media on both sides of the Atlantic today as
the British people go to war again, disarmed by their current prime
minister. In Washington those who are calling
for more gun control legislation have fallen silent for the moment.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had been leading the rabid anti-gun
attack dogs, has found other things are of more concern to his
constituents—such as protecting themselves from terrorists. As the National Rifle Association
(NRA) warns, the threat of more gun control in America is not gone. For example, Kmart, one of
America’s largest department store chains, decided in the wake of
the attacks to stop selling rifles, shotguns and ammunition because of
“concerns over safety.” However, Kmart suffered financially
as thousands of customers flocked to their stores to stock up for
America’s new war only to be turned away. So guns and ammo were
quickly returned to Kmart shelves. Actually, America’s gun grabbers
have not fallen totally silent. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) used the
attacks to launch an attack on the “gun lobby” in an op-ed column
in the Sept. 19 Washington Post. “In the days and weeks to come,”
the NRA warns, “Congress will consider many proposals that seek to
ensure America’s safety from terrorists” and Americans must
“stand vigilant to ensure that the Second Amendment does not become
yet another victim of the attacks of Sept. 11. “Unfortunately, we can expect the anti-gun community to become far more brazen in its efforts to capitalize on a national tragedy and push its gun-ban agenda,” the NRA said.
|
||||||
| http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcode.pl?frame=right2&type=srchres&case=/data/uscode/t21t25/2289.htm
(This is Title 22 USC 2552 (a). Here you will find Public Law 87-297 which calls for the United States to eliminate its armed forces. This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions. The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms. (This is Title 22 USC section 2551) Here you will find the definition of what the government means by "disarmament." The disarmament calls for the elimination of our armed forces. It also calls for the elimination of weapons of all kinds. (This is Title 22 USC 2552 (a). Here you will find it stated as item (a) "control, reduction and elimination of armed forces..." and as Item (d)" ...Elimination of armed forces...." What you need to know is that your armed forces are being eliminated and relinquished from national control which, in turn, wipes out our sovereignty as a nation. In two stages, we will have no more army, no more navy, no more air force. In the third stage, we shall have a "zero" military. Before Stage I closes, all citizen owned guns are to be banned. (This is Title 22 USC Section 2571 (a). Public Law 87-297 is further explained in the State Department Document called Publication 7277. Your librarian can also furnish you a copy. Also ask the librarian to get you a copy of "The Blue Print for the Peace Race." It is a 35-page booklet printed by the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as Publication No. 4 - General Series 3 - Released May of 1962. Publication No. 4 is the unabridged version of State Department Document 7277. Both of these booklets explain how our military is to be reduced to 2.1 million men. China and the Soviets are to be reduced to that level also. At this point, we are at Stage I at which time we are to transfer (on a permanent basis) one-half of our armed forces to be merged with the Russian and Chinese armies. In Stage II, the remaining one-half of our armed forces is then turned over to this same Security Council of the United Nations. The person in charge of the merged armies must, by agreement, always be a Russian. The world's smaller nations turn 100% of their armies over to the same under-secretary of the Security, Council in Stage II. President George Bush and Admiral Wm. J. Crowe [have referred] to this process as being "in transition." TURN TO PAGE 655. On this page in Volume 9 of the United States Code, read "Policy Formation." The directives there (written in 1963 to pacify objectors) are supposedly to restrain anyone from disarmament, reducing or limiting our armaments, or taking guns away from the people unless it is pursuant to the treaty-making power of the president, or if it is authorized by further legislation by the Congress. (This is title 22, Section 2573.) Every couple of years the House of Representatives votes to appropriate funds for this on-going program. Since P.L. 87-297 was first passed into law in 961, there have been 18 updates to it - all bad - with no deletions of these issues I lay before you now. The Congress knows that the plan includes the policing of the United States by foreign troops. (The world army they are forming in Europe.) The Congress is allowing our military bases to be closed down, except for those that will be used by the world army. You will find that plan in Publication 7277 and in "The Blueprint for the Peace Race." If the president and Congress can promote a "Constitutional Convention" you will find yourself with two new constitutions (communist in structure) which in one states in Article VIII, Section 12: "No person shall bear arms or possess lethal weapons except the police and members of the armed forces...." The Congress has praised these documents and is on record in Senate hearings seeking ways to install these constitutions. Ask your librarian for "Revision of the United Nations Charter - Hearings Before a Subcommittee (Foreign Relations) Feb. 2-20, 1950 U.S.Government Printing Office." Nothing has changed since. They are still viable. The ultimate goal to be reached in Stage III of the disarmament process is to "proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force...." FROM: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/un/do.htm
|
||||||
U.N.
Wants Global Gun Ban
NewsMax.comThe U.N. is after Americans' Second Amendment gun rights – it wants gun ownership banned in the U.S., and it's not going to stop until it gets its way. That’s the warning from the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, who reveals that "for the first time in the history of the world, a United Nations conference has set its sights on global disarmament – disarming citizens worldwide – including you and me." At an 11-day meeting beginning July 9 at U.N. headquarters in New York, every extremist anti-gun group in the world will show up at a summit on "small arms," where the delegates will attempt to create a global standard of gun control, banning civilian fire arms ownership worldwide. Their aim, LaPierre warns, is "to bring the nightmare of England, Australia and Canada into our country and our homes." Those nations, along with South Africa and others, have caved in to international pressure and severely restricted civilian gun ownership. Canada has gone so far as to make handgun ownership a felony. As a result, crime rates in England and Australia have skyrocketed since the gun limits went into effect, once again proving the truth of the old saying that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. While the U.N. has no power to force the U.S. to ban gun ownership, it can, with the enthusiastic help of the foreign and domestic anti-self-defense media, create a powerful international movement to shame the U.S. into junking the Second Amendment rights of private gun ownership. "You and I won’t go one day without hearing that the rest of the world is banning guns and it’s time for the U.S. to get in line and do the same," LaPierre wrote. As a prelude to this frightening gathering of anti-self-defense fanatics, a number of proposals have already been advanced at various U.N. forums. Among them: Strategies to reduce the number of guns in private hands that include mandating a maximum one-gun-per-person rule;
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: |
||||||
The Ethical Spectacle, May 1995, http://www.spectacle.org
Kent State, May 4, 1970: America Kills Its ChildrenTwenty-five years ago this month, students came out on the Kent State campus and scores of others to protest the bombing of Cambodia-- a decision of President Nixon's that appeared to expand the Vietnam War. Some rocks were thrown, some windows were broken, and an attempt was made to burn the ROTC building. Governor James Rhodes sent in the National Guard.The units that responded were ill-trained and came right from riot duty elsewhere; they hadn't had much sleep. The first day, there was some brutality; the Guard bayoneted two men, one a disabled veteran, who had cursed or yelled at them from cars. The following day, May 4th, the Guard, commanded with an amazing lack of military judgment, marched down a hill, to a field in the middle of angry demonstrators, then back up again. Seconds before they would have passed around the corner of a large building, and out of sight of the crowd, many of the Guardsmen wheeled and fired directly into the students, hitting thirteen, killing four of them, pulling the trigger over and over, for thirteen seconds. (Count out loud--one Mississippi, two Mississippi, to see how long this is.) Guardsmen--none of whom were later punished, civilly, administratively, or criminally--admitted firing at specific unarmed targets; one man shot a demonstrator who was giving him the finger. The closest student shot was fully sixty feet away; all but one were more than 100 feet away; all but two were more than 200 feet away. One of the dead was 255 feet away; the rest were 300 to 400 feet away. The most distant student shot was more than 700 feet from the Guardsmen. Some rocks had been thrown, and some tear gas canisters fired by the Guard had been hurled back, but (though some of the Guardsmen certainly must know the truth) no-one has ever been able to establish why the Guard fired when they were seconds away from safety around the corner of the building. None had been injured worse than a minor bruise, no demonstrators were armed, there was simply nothing threatening them that justified an armed and murderous response. In addition to the demonstrators, none of whom was closer than sixty feet, the campus was full of onlookers and students on their way to class; two of the four dead fell in this category. Most Guardsmen later testified that they turned and fired because everyone else was. There was an attempt to blame a mysterious sniper, of whom no trace was ever found; there was no evidence, on the ground, on still photographs or a film, of a shot fired by anyone but the Guardsmen. One officer is seen in many of the photographs, out in front, pointing a pistol; one possibility is that he fired first, causing the others, ahead of him, to turn and fire. Or (as some witnesses testified) he or another officer may have given an order to fire. It is indisputable that the Guardsmen were not in any immediate physical danger when they fired; the crowd was not pursuing them; they were seconds away from being out of sight of the demonstration. There was also an undercover FBI informant, Terry Norman, carrying a gun on the field that day. Though he later turned his gun into the police, who announced it had not been fired, later ballistic tests by the FBI showed that it had been fired since it was last cleaned-- but by then it was too late to determine whether it had been fired before or on May 4th. It would be too charitable to say that the investigation was botched; there was no investigation. Even the New York City police, who are themselves prone to brutality and corruption, do a better job. Every time an officer discharges his weapon, it is taken from him, and there is an investigation. Here--to the fatal detriment of the federal criminal trial which followed--it was never conclusively established which Guardsmen had fired, or which of them had shot the wounded and the dead. Since all were wearing gas masks, it is impossible to identify them in pictures (many had also removed or covered their name tags, a classic ploy of law enforcement officers about to commit brutality in the '60's and '70's), and though many confessed to having fired their weapons, none admitted to being in the first row and therefore, among the first to fire. The ballistic evidence could have helped here, but none was taken. One rumor has it that the Guardsmen were told the same night that they would never be prosecuted by the state of Ohio. And they never were. The Nixon administration stalled for years, announcing "investigations" that led nowhere; White House tapes subsequently released show that Nixon thought demonstrators were bums, asked the Secret Service to go beat them up, and apparently felt that the Kent State victims had it coming. As did most of the country; William Gordon calls the killings "the most popular murders ever committed in the United States." The history of the next few years is very sad. A federal prosecution was finally brought, but the presiding judge is said to have signaled his preference for the defendants, guiding their attorney's conduct of the case to help them avoid legal errors. He dismissed all charges at the close of the prosecution's case, avoiding the need for a defense and taking the case away from the jury. Among his reasons: a failure to prove specific intent to deprive the victims of their civil rights; due to the lack of any investigation, it was almost impossible at this late date to show which Guardsmen shot which victim. In the New York City police force, which is far from perfect, officers who have killed or injured someone under questionable circumstances are often dismissed from the force even though there is not enough evidence for a criminal conviction; the standard of proof is not the same for an administrative action as for a criminal case. You don't want an unstable, sadistic person on the force, even though there may not be enough evidence for a criminal conviction. But the Guardsmen--even the one who confessed to shooting an unarmed demonstrator giving him the finger--were not deemed unfit to serve the State, even though they had fired indiscriminately into a crowd containing many passersby and students on their way to classes. A civil suit brought by the wounded students and the parents of the dead ones deteriorated among infighting by the plaintiffs' lawyers. Unable to agree on a single theory of the case, they contradicted each other. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. This verdict was overturned on appeal--the main ground was that the judge did not take seriously enough the attempted coercion of a juror who was assaulted by a stranger demanding an unspecified verdict--and a retrial was scheduled. On the eve of it, the exhausted plaintiffs settled with the state for $675,000.00, which was divided 13 ways. Half of it went to Dean Kahler, the most seriously wounded survivor, and only $15,000 apiece went to the families of each of the slain students, a pathetically small verdict in a day when lives are accounted to be worth in the many millions of dollars. The state issued a statement of "regret" which stopped short of an apology for the events of May 4th, nine years before. I write this just a week after the Kansas city bombing that appears to have taken 200 lives (the rescuers are still searching the wreckage) and the theme today is the same as 25 years ago. Hate was in the air then, as it is today. Admittedly, the First Amendment protects hate speech, whether it comes from the most marginal extremist or the highest public official. Demonizing someone else for their beliefs or their race, or even calling for their immediate assassination, is legal in America today and was twenty-five years ago. But the fact that something is legal to do does not make it right to do, or relieve the speaker of any moral responsibility for the consequences. President Nixon created a public atmosphere in which students who opposed the war were fair game for those who supported the government. In the week following Kent State, construction workers rioted on Wall Street, attacking antiwar demonstrators and sending many to the hospital, some permanently crippled. It was reported at the time that, a day or two after the deaths, President Nixon called the parents of the only slain student known to be a bystander--he was a member of ROTC--to express condolences. The phone never rang in the other parents' houses. The message couldn't have been clearer: they had it coming. I was fifteen that year, raised in a very comfortable middle class environment and very naive. Kent State was my political education. What I discovered that week, and that year, was that America in those times was perfectly willing to harass, beat and kill its own children if they disagreed with government policy. The step from being a member of the protected American mainstream to being a marginalized outsider, not entitled to the protection of law enforcement and fair prey to any violent, flag-waving bully who happened to pass, was to stand up and say you did not believe the Vietnam war was right. I am not sure that anyone too young to remember those times can really appreciate what it was like. We know today the extent to which the FBI was involved in dirty tricks, illegal wiretapping and burglaries against even moderate antiwar organizations. Prior to Kent State, I had joined an organization called Student Mobilization Against the War. One day, their offices were burglarized and their membership lists stolen. We had no doubt at the time that it was the government, and we were right. I led demonstrations that week outside my high school protesting the Kent State killings and, afterwards, the principal summoned me and my father to his office and threatened to have me expelled as a trouble-maker. My father--I am very proud of him, as he was not an ideological man and his opposition to the war was very muted--replied that if I was expelled, he would fight it "all the way to the Supreme Court." I had done nothing else than exercise my First Amendment right of protest. We heard nothing more about expulsion, but a close friend of mine, who didn't have an assertive parent to stand up for him, was thrown out of school. That week, people came out of the woodwork--wearing black leather, chains wrapped around their fists, waving American flags--people we had never before seen in our neighborhoods. These patriots set up a counterdemonstration across the street from ours. For hours, a rumor was rampant that they would attack us and that the police would not intervene--exactly what had happened on Wall Street a day or so before. Their cursing and chain-rattling became uglier until finally they summoned their courage and charged. Someone shouted "Link arms!" and five or six teenagers, me among them, joined to interpose our bodies between the attackers and demonstrators. The Brooklyn police, unlike those on Wall Street, or the National Guard in Kent days earlier, did not seek or condone the killing of children. They ran in and forced the attackers back. I was fifteen then and am forty now, but I have never had a finer moment in my life. It was the only moment in my life that I came close to living up to Gandhi's statement that "we must be the change we wish to see in the world." Here are the names of those who died at Kent State, so that they may not be forgotten: ALISON KRAUSEJEFFREY MILLERSANDRA SCHEUERWILLIAM SCHROEDERMy source for many of the details in this essay is William A. Gordon, Four Dead in Ohio (North Ridge Books, 1995.) FROM: http://www.spectacle.org/595/kent.html |
||||||
|
ANOTHER TYPE OF ATTACK ON AMERICA
From the July 09, 2004 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0709/p09s03-coop.html |
||||||
| The
Silencing of America
Russia Warns America and Israel Away From Iraq World
News Links Militia
Groups ON
THE BEACH - IT'S JUST A MOVIE - RIGHT? NEW
WORLD ORDER CONSPIRACIES Should
we Know More About Project Megiddo? HOW
THE GOVERNMENT BLEW UP MANHATTAN - 9-11-2001 THE
LADY IN GREY - DEATH IN THE OFFICE!!!! THE
NEW WORLD ORDER -WHAT IS IT? GREATDREAMS
- EARTHCHANGES - NEWS OF TERRORISM NEW
YORK DREAMS STRUGGLING
WITH 11:11 SURVIVAL
AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY LINKS PROPHECIES
ABOUT THE NEW MILLENIUM RUSSIAN
PROPHECY BY DEE DEES
DREAMS AND VISIONS - JULY, 1999 DREAMS
OF BOMBS THE
DOGS OF WAR - BLOWBACK AND THE MARBLE GAME TERRORISM
- WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - PAGE 3 MCVEIGH
-THE PATSY THE
FEDERALIST PAPERS - THE WAR OF 1812 - CONSTITUTIONAL ... THE
PUPPETMASTER THE
UNITED NATIONS - A VISION AND THE REALITY HEZBOLLAH BOMBING
OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - DAY 5 BOMBING
OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - DAY 4 FREE
IDAHO - WHERE DO YOUR RIGHTS AND THE SOCIETY LAW MEET? The
Changing of the Guard Part Four: Secrets of Skolnick CONCENTRATION
CAMPS IN THE US? KENT
STATE - PROTEST - A DREAM NATIONAL
SECURITY - HOLIDAY TERRORISM WHAT
IS PATRIOTISM? ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE - JAIR FARM THOMAS
JEFFERSON - THE DREAM AND THE REALITY BOMBING
OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - PAGE 8 TERRORISM
- WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - PAGE 10 BOMBING
OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - PAGE 7 DIASPORA
and RACE RIOTS WASHINGTON'S
PICNIC TERRORISM
- WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - MILITARY PAGE 2 TERRORISM
- WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - PAGE 9 PAKISTAN
HISTORY AND PROPHECY POPULATION
EXPLOSION - A PROBLEM TO SURVIVAL OF HUMAN EXISTENCE JOHN
JOE #2 - WHO IS HE? TERRORISM
- WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - MILITARY PAGE DREAMS OF THE GREAT EARTHCHANGES - MAIN INDEX
|
||||||