Minuteman: April 2004
The Newsletter of the Patriot Movement
Editor: Irish JaegerApril 2004
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
Target a Plant: The Common Dandelion
by Irish Jaeger I trust that all of you know what a dandelion is and what it looks like. That annoying yellow flowering weed, that if you blow when its white, will send little seed pod paratroops all over your yard. Which means there'll be more of them next year. Very annoying!
Well, I would like to introduce you to the food aspect of the common dandelion, and show that its not only a weed, but a very tasty weed, indeed. So here we go.
Parts of Use: Leaves, Flowerbuds, Flowers, and Roots.
Young Leaves: Gather before the flowers appear. Put them in a salad, or, boil for 5-10min. I have found that if you use the leaves AFTER the flowers appear, they are kinda bitter in salad, but if you throw 'em in a pot with some spinach, and boil them for 5-10 min. Drain and serve plain or with butter, they taste pretty good. Flowerbuds: Gather the young flowerbuds when they are still tucked down in the rosette of leaves, and you can either boil them for several minutes and serve with butter. Or, break out your favorite pickling recipe and pickle them.
Flowers: Take the flowers and dip them in batter, then frie and you've got fritters. They also make nice bouquets for the kitchen table.
Now here is something I have not tried, but am planning to as soon as possible. Roots: Bake the roots at a low oven setting until brown and brittle, then grind them, and perk like commercial coffee. I have heard and read that it's a very good coffee-like drink, and who knows, with gas prices going up, coffee prices might go up too? or, you might not want to waste gas driving to get more coffee.
Dandelion season is coming, So I hope ya'll will try either one or all of these ways to turn a weed? into feed.
CONSPIRACY THEORIES: According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/M05/hst0309.pdf, the United States has troops in 135 countries. Here is the list: Afghanistan Albania Algeria Antigua Argentina Azerbaijan Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belgium Belize Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Bulgaria Burma Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chad Chile China Columbia Congo Costa Rica Cote D'lvoire Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Guatemala Guinea Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iraq Israel Italy Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Jamaica Japan Laos Latvia Lebanon Liberia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Mali Malaysia Malta Mexico Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Singapore Sierra Leone Slovenia Spain South Africa South Korea Sri Lanka Suriname Syria Sweden Switzerland Tanzania Thailand Togo Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe.
This means that the United States has troops in 70 percent of the world's countries. The average American could probably not locate half of these 135 countries on a map.
To this list could be added regions like the Indian Ocean territory of Diego Garcia, Gibraltar, and the Atlantic Ocean island of St. Helena, all still controlled by Great Britain, but not considered sovereign countries. Greenland is also home to U.S. troops, but is technically part of Denmark. Troops in two other regions, Kosovo and Hong Kong, might also be included here, but the DOD's "Personnel Strengths" document includes U.S. troops in Kosovo under Serbia and U.S. troops in Hong Kong under China.
Possessions of the United States like Guam, Johnston Atoll, Puerto Rico, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Virgin Islands are likewise home to U.S. troops. Guam has over 3,200.
Regular troop strength ranges from a low of 1 in Malawi to a high of 74,796 in Germany. At the time the most recent "Personnel Strengths" was released by the government (September 30, 2003), there were 183,002 troops deployed to Iraq, an unspecified number of which came from U.S. forces in Germany and Italy. The total number of troops deployed abroad as of that date was 252,764, not including U.S. troops in Iraq from the United States. Total military personnel on September 30, 2003, was 1,434,377. This means that 17.6 percent of U.S. military forces were deployed on foreign soil, and certainly over 25 percent if U.S. troops in Iraq from the United States were included. But regardless of how many troops we have in each country, having troops in 135 countries is 135 countries too many.
The U. S. global empire an empire that Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Genghis Khan, Suleiman the Magnificent, Justinian, and King George V would be proud of.
End of article.
So, let me ask you this. If you wanted to take over the CONUS and declare Marshall law, how would you do it?
If it was me, I think the biggest resistance would come from my own troops that would turn against me. It has been proven in history time and time again.
So, what I would do is spread them out as much as I could, and as far away as I could get them. I would also deploy most of the National Guard. Now all I have left to deal with is the sheeple and a hand for of inexperienced troops. I would also have to deal with some small bands of militia and civilians, but since they are unorganized, they should not be much of the problem.
Now, I am ready to enact my plan. First I bring UN troops in close for rapid deployment. (You know the ones that we always hear rumors about but nobody believes are there.)
Then I stage a major terrorist threat, something involving guns and that I could claim Militia involvement to discredit them and so I can declare martial law to protect the people.
Now, I bring in the UN troops to collect everyone's guns, (to protect them) and start rounding up those that are most likely to start a resistance. We just claim they are associated with the terrorist and the sheeple think everything is OK.
When our military troops find out and want to rebel, we simply tell them to do what they are told or we will kill their family that we now hold hostage. If that doesn't work, we just shoot them. So now I not only have the most powerful military based around the world but I control the CONUS.
How's that for a New World Order and I am in control. Oh yeah, then I tell all my US troops that they are now UN troops. I also start the draft again to keep up my world superiority and tell the other countries of the world that they have to supply me with troops also or I'll destroy them.
How am I doing so far?
I think I have just about got all the pieces in place. I should be able to pull this off before November. Then I won't have to have an election.
How would you do it?
Warrantless searches OK'd, sometimes
Baton Rouge Advocate
In a ruling two judges dubbed "the road to hell," a federal appeals court opened the door for police officers in three states to search homes and buildings for evidence without a warrant.
The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Thursday in a Baton Rouge case that authorities don't need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a swift sweep of private property to ensure their own safety.
Any evidence discovered during that search now is admissible in court as long as the search is a "cursory inspection," and if police entered the site for a legitimate law-enforcement purpose and believed it may be dangerous.
The ruling -- which stands in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi -- replaces a standard set in 1994, when the 5th Circuit held that police can make a so-called protective sweep only if officers are there to arrest someone. In the majority opinion, Judge William Lockhart Garwood wrote that any in-home encounter poses a risk to police officers -- even if it's simply to interview someone.
"Although arrest may be highly relevant, particularly as tending to show the requisite potential of danger to the officers," Garwood wrote, "that danger may also be established by other circumstances."
Judges Carolyn Dineen King, Patrick E. Higginbotham, W. Eugene Davis, Edith H. Jones, Rhesa H. Barksdale, Emilio M. Garza, Fortunato P. Benavides, James L. Dennis, Edward Charles Prado and Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., sided with the majority opinion. Dissenting were Judges E. Grady Jolly, Jerry Smith, Carl E. Stewart, and Harold DeMoss Jr.
In their opinion, the justices noted that other federal appellate courts have issued similar findings -- including the 1st, 6th, 9th and Washington, D.C., circuits.
The decision came in the case of Kelly Donald Gould, a Denham Springs man who was arrested in October 2000 on federal gun charges after allegedly threatening to kill unidentified judges and police officers.
Deputies went to Gould's trailer after getting a call from a co-worker that the previously convicted felon was planning to kill two unnamed Baton Rouge state judges over their decision to award custody of his daughter to another family member.
The deputies had no search or arrest warrant, but were invited into the trailer by another resident, who told them Gould was asleep in the bedroom. Because of the threats and Gould's criminal history, the deputies said they looked for him under the bed and in two closets, where they found three rifles. They later found Gould hiding in the woods and seized the weapons after they got him to sign a permission for the search.
U.S. District Judge James Brady ruled that the three guns could not be used as evidence in a federal trial because they were obtained illegally. A 5th Circuit three-judge panel upheld that decision, but encouraged prosecutors to request an en banc -- or full court -- hearing to reconsider the legal precedent on which it was based.
"Gould was not in his bed asleep ? nor was Gould otherwise visible," Garwood wrote. "So the danger and imminence of ambush then dramatically increased, justifying the few seconds 'sweep' looking under the bed and opening the two bedroom closet doors."
Dissenting justices argue the ruling creates another exception to constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure. Some of them contend the officers created the dangerous situation by entering the mobile home, and should have approached Gould as he left.
"I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed they were acting reasonably and with good intentions," DeMoss and Stewart wrote.
"But the old adage warns us that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' In my judgment, that is precisely where the majority opinion wants to put us by unhooking the 'protective sweep' from its connection with the execution of an arrest warrant in a home," DeMoss and Stewart wrote.
U.S. Attorney David Dugas of Baton Rouge said the case illustrates the "difficult situations" law-enforcement officers often face.
"They're expected to make split-second decisions in potentially dangerous situations," he said, "involving constitutional issues that the courts and legal scholars can spend years debating."
But Mike Walsh, a defense attorney, said the 5th Circuit decision "grossly expands" the definition of lawful searches.
Said Walsh: "In my opinion, this is a further erosion of everyone's -- not just criminals' -- constitutional rights to be free from intrusive and unlawful searches."
Defense attorney Jim Boren said the ruling still limits police to searches in certain circumstances, but still represents a "scary trend."
"After the king signed the Magna Carta and granted power back to the people, he woke up, said, 'I made a mistake and need to get it back,' " Boren said. "And the government's been trying to do that ever since. We had a bright-line rule that said no searches without an arrest warrant. Now we have one that says sort of, maybe."
Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants
The New Orleans Channel | March 28 2004
NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.
Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.
The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."
The ruiling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000.
New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.
"We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.
But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray has big problems with the ruling.
"I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety -- a subjective condition.
Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans, but if there are, they will be handled.
"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.
Las Vegas Review Journal | March 29 2004
Some U.S. Supreme Court justices Monday appeared to scoff at a Nevada man's claim that he should not be required to give his name to police.
"I cannot imagine any responsible citizen objecting to giving his name," said law-and-order Justice Antonin Scalia.
"The exercise of a constitutional right should not be incriminating," replied Robert Dolan, a deputy state public defender from Winnemucca.
In 2000, Northern Nevada cattle rancher Larry Hiibel, standing beside his parked truck, was approached by a Humboldt County deputy. The officer asked Mr. Hiibel for proof of identification 11 separate times; in each instance Mr. Hiibel refused, saying he'd done nothing wrong. Finally, Mr. Hiibel was arrested and convicted of resisting and obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties.
By a 4-3 vote, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected Mr. Hiibel's appeal, ruling any privacy right guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is "outweighed by the benefits to officers and community safety" by allowing police to force people to provide ID, anywhere.
But under that logic, what right could not be trumped by "police convenience"? Using his patrol car computer terminal, the modern American police officer can learn more about a citizen from today's government-issued photo ID than was contained in the infamous "travel papers" required of any citizen of the Third Reich.
Mr. Hiibel was not even in his motor vehicle. He was jailed for no more than stubbornness and silence. If police can demand our ID by the side of a public road, what about in our backyards ... or in our bedrooms?
Commissioned or Non?
Over the years this question has been debated. Some militia men say that commissioned ranks continue the traditional militia of our forefathers, a practice since the Revolution. Others protest that commissions can only come from a Governor and therefore are seemingly unattainable, and if you have a commissioned rank it is not real.
To answer the question or rank, we must first ask ourselves why? Why do we need ranks at all in the militia? Most units are small, and the members have either known each other for many years or are family. Ranks are not really needed because everyone knows who is in command and authority is not questioned. What would happen though in the event of a militia call up, a time when all militia units will be swamped with volunteers? No more can you simply rely on everyone respecting the commander because he is an older brother or uncle. This is where rank comes in to play. If rank had already been instated the new recruits would know who was in command and who to follow on the battlefield. Unfortunately this brings us to another problem. Respect. If your commander has fought several battles and in a way earned his rank, most likely your new recruits will follow him without question. If your new recruits view your leader as a couch commando then you will have problems.
Many people have a problem with calling a man Major Smith or Captain Jones when the unit he commands only amounts to a squad. Perhaps we have come full circle and answered our question. Real commissions come from the Governor; they can not be issued by private citizens. So if we can not really be Commissioned officers, but we need some type or rank structure, then what can we turn to? Non-Commissioned Ranks. The pros of using non commissioned ranks are that they are more realistic. If you command a squad you should only have the rank befitting a squad commander. Also non commissioned ranks of Sergeant and Corporal would be better viewed in the eyes of the public, who usually scorn our Commissioned ranks.
When/If the militia is called up, we may have a likely enough excuse for commissioned ranks, but until then we must be careful of our public image. Phony ranks can only be detrimental to our cause, while non commissioned ranks would cause more people to believe we are the real deal.
RECIPE of the MONTH:
3lb. Beef or venison, chopped
1 ½ lb. Beef suet, chopped
6 lb. Apples, chopped
3 lb. Raisins
2 lb. Currants
1 lb. Citron, chopped fine
grated rind of ½ lemon and ½ orange
2 Tbl. Ground cinnamon
1 Tbl. Ground cloves
1 Tbl. Ground nutmeg
3 lb. Brown suger
1 qt. Boiled cider
1 qt. Molasses
salt to taste
Cook all together slowly for 2 hours and seal in sterilized glass jars.
JOKE OF THE MONTH:
One day as President Clinton was getting off the helicopter in front of the White House, he had a baby pig under each arm. The Marine guard snapped to attention, salutes, and said: "Nice pigs, sir."
The President replied, "These are not pigs, these are authentic Arkansas Razorback Hogs. I got one for Hillary, and I got one for Chelsea."
The Marine again snapped to attention, saluted, and replied, "Nice trade, sir."
Hello fellow Patriots,
For those of you that live in the South Florida region, training for us can be hard because of land, time, money, and last but not least. The Sheeple... sorry I mean people. There are people in the Dade-Broward County Area that view us as Gun Nuts, Terrorists, and just plain creepy. But fear not, for we do have some hope. I have an idea (that right there is a scary thought).
We must meet together and share our ideas. Share our information on training locations and training styles. But right there, we have a problem. There aren't many of us, or is there? I believe that if we start banding together that we can create a network of fellow minded patriots, so the patriots of south Florida don't have the land to train on. Well, if the network gets off the ground. It could greatly help out our cause. Field Training Exercises would be secluded in advanced. Land would become available and we wouldn't have to train as lone wolf or two manned squad units. And if the network gets off the ground in Florida, then maybe it could start in other states. And lets say that if all of the states have a working network, then we would have a nation wide network of patriots.
Ok. We get the network up and running, what then? We train, we could train for CQB (Close Quarter Battle) and Urban Combat. Also survival skills could be greatly improved because of the wealth of information that some patriots must have. If you don't know how to start a fire, don't worry. If you don't know how to collect water, don't worry. And if you don't know how to hunt or look for food, don't worry. You will learn. Sure I have some skills, but I can always learn more.
We also most show the people that we aren't terrorist or racist, or hate groups. We have to change our image. How can we do that? Help out the community if there is a flood or hurricane. Start a citizen crime patrol. Not that neighborhood crime watch, that doesn't work. I mean fellow citizen going around the neighborhood and actually patrolling the area. Just like the police used to do. Also many people have a fear of firearms. Well, if we show and teach them how to use one safely. Then we just did them a favor. We could start safety classes and show people the proper way of handling a firearm. And if people start to understand on how to handle a firearm, they will also start to understand that they can defend themselves and their families.
But none of this could happen unless we start banning together. I'm only one person, and so are you. But together, we can make a difference.
You can email me at SKS_CARBINE@HOTMAIL.COM
I'm not a master in anything and I sure can still learn a lot. But I'll try to answer any question, and if I can't I'm terribly sorry.
(Editors note: Everything SKS says is also relevent for the rest of us as well. Not just the South Florida region. --Irish)
Assaultweb Bulletin board: http://www.assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
A Well Regulated Militia: http://www.awrm.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
Liberty Quest and Freedom Board: http://pub16.ezboard.com/blibertyquestandfreedomboard
Texas Minutemen.org: http://www.texasminutemen.org/forum/index.php?s=
Southern Alliance: http://tsaboard.proboards18.com/index.cgi?action=login2
Militia and Patriot Sites:
Patriot War College: http://www.colddeadhands.addr.com/
Michigan Militia: http://www.michiganmilitia.com/
Ranch Rescue: http://www.ranchrescue.com/
Virginia Citizen's Militia: http://www.virginiamilitia.org/
Survivalism Online Reference Library: http://www.logicsouth.com/~lcoble/password/survival.html
Survival Textfiles: http://www.textfiles.com/survival/
Nuclear Survival Skills: http://www.oism.org/nwss/
HK USA Branch: http://www.hk-usa.com/
History Sites worth looking at for a Patriot:
WW2 British Resistance: http://www.btinternet.com/~david.waller/contents.htm
WW2 Battles of the Winter War: http://www.winterwar.com/mainpage.htm
WW2 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/warsaw-uprising.html
CIA Guerilla Manual: http://25thaviation.org/history/id541.htm
Modern Military Websites with info for the cause:
Israeli Special Forces: http://www.isayeret.com/main/guide.htm
U.S. Special Operations.com: http://www.specialoperations.com/usspecops.html
Right to Extreme Right Talk show:
Michael Savage, The Savage Nation: http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
Alex Jones infowars: http://www.infowars.com/
Letter from the Editor: Comments and Critique are solicited. Also I would like to suggest that you print off some copy's and distribute them at work, to friends who are not on the boards, and in this way we can extend our potential. If you would like to submit material, for use in the newsletter, email the article ('s) to either: Irishjaeger@Hotmail.com or firstname.lastname@example.org Make sure in the subject line it says "Patriot Newsletter". Here are the rules for submitting material: 1. No cussing. 2. Its gotta be clean, everything must be readable by ladies and kids. 3. Nothing Illegal. Websites that ya'll think should be added to our website list, had better not have any pornography. Thems the rules. I hope you enjoy this, the first issue of "The Minuteman". Irish Jaeger
|HOME| |LINKS| |MILITIA SKILLS|