From the Radio Free Michigan archives

ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot

If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu.
------------------------------------------------

From Press Release May 15, 1994 at 10:24 A.M. EDT Statement at
National Police Officers Memorial Service:

THE PRESIDENT: "If we pass it [the crime bill], as we should, it will
put another 100,000 police officers on the street in community
policing settings, not only working to catch criminals, but to work
with each other to make policing safer and to reduce crime before it
occurs."

"reduce crime before it occurs." hmmm. We've heard that before in the
early stages of the Chicago "plan."

Is that just by officer presence and community relations? I think
not--considering the program the Administration has already tried to
unsuccessfully initiate in Chicago. Weapons sweeps of homes without
consent or warrants. Initially ruled unconstitutional by a federal
court or they would be doing it right now. Their compromise: to seek
consent on the rental/lease agreements.

But now he attempts to initiate the same policies with 100,000 police
officers nationwide. Some of these jurisdictions will not have public
housing--many residences will be owned by private parties. What then?
The govern-ment can't seek consent on a rental agreement. The only
alternative to enacting a Chicago plan nationwide is a restriction on
constitutional rights, a suspension or revocation of the 2nd and 4th
amendments by the federal government.

Let's consider what the President said on April 19, 1994 in an MTV
interview (condensed for brevity):

Discussing his plan to sweep for weapons and contraband:

"My own view is that you can't go to the extreme in either direction.
And when this country was organized as a country and we wrote a fairly
radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical
amount of individual freedom...it was assumed that the Americans who
had the freedom would use it responsibly....So if you read the
Constitution, it's rooted in the desire to limit the ability of
government's ability to mess with you...."

"What's happened in America today is,...there's a lot of
irresponsibility...There's too much personal freedom. When personal
freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."

Does anyone have any doubt as to the President's intentions. Our
forefathers have lived with at least the current Constitutional Rights
for over 200 years, yet the President, during his presidency, seeks to
suspend, perhaps even revoke, some of these rights? Read the
President's words again: "you have to move to limit [Constitutional
Rights]."

Before we accept this let's consider whether this is a radical
departure from our American Heritage; whether the current
Administration has a radical interpretation; and, above all, whether
his goal to revoke constitutional rights is in the best interest of
the American people.

But first let's consider the President's motivations and deeper
thoughts.

From the Washington Post May 15, 1994, by David S. Broder,

"A year ago this week, President Bill Clinton gave us an interview...
that sheds light on what has happened to him and the nation in the
last 12 months...."

"At the end of the interview, he...recited [presumably from memory] to
us a passage from Machiavelli's "The Prince."

"In a hoarse voice, he said, 'Listen to this: "It must be considered
that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more dangerous
to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies...and only lukewarm defenders." He must confront what
Machiavelli called the incredulity of mankind who do not truly believe
in anything new until the experience it.'"

So the President desires to establish a "new order" of things; which
includes the suspension or perhaps revoc-ation of Constitutional
Rights? His ostensible justification being that you and I as Americans
have not lived up to his idea of our responsibility. Oh, do not doubt
that even if you and I have behaved responsibly, our rights as well as
those of the poor shall be revoked. The courts will not allow these
essential rights to be revoked for only certain classes of people. If
the residents in gang areas lose their rights, so will the residents
of the suburbs.

And he plans to establish this nationwide. Is this action, this
revocation of rights, just a prelude to the "new order?" Is the plan
to place health care under government control providing each citizen
with a national ID card required to obtain health care benefits
another part of that "new order?" Is the enactment of the Brady Bill
and subsequent weapons ban another step toward that "new order?" And
what significance is the fact that Mr. Clinton recites from "The
Prince" from memory? Does that play any part in his vacillating
politics and his "new order?"

Or is it as many suspect, that all of these pieces offer a glimpse
into the Clinton mindset, his plan, the "new order," and the
long-range goals of this administration? What does Mr. Clinton hope
that mankind will eventually experience under his "new order?" Can
mankind blindly place its trust in his ethics, morals, and character?

Consider not just the alleged crimes and immoral acts of this man, but
consider where he is leading us; and then consider the words of
perhaps one of this country's strongest defenders of individual
rights, an individual who was politically active some 100 years after
those radical framers of the Constitution the President
mentions--consider what this man claims regarding the absolute rights
of the people as opposed to what Mr. Clinton has said about the powers
of the federal government to revoke the rights of the people:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
inhabit it. Whenever, they shall grow weary of the existing
government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending
it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

"If by mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of
any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point
of view, justify revolution--certainly would if such a right were a
vital one." Abraham Lincoln (1861)

Wait a minute, a hundred years after the constitution was enacted and
true patriots like President Lincoln still felt that the people
absolutely controlled the government? Astounding! And he did not limit
it to just those that behaved the way the President desired. In
addition, Lincoln felt that if a right was a vital one, no one--not
even the majority--could seek to revoke or suspend it, without
providing the minority with a moral justification for revolution.

Perhaps, if Mr Lincoln's words are any indication and he was to speak
of todays problems, he would suggest that only those who have been
convicted of criminally being irresponsible should have their rights
revoked. To be effective that, however, would require actually being
tough on crime.

It is further interesting that an APwire poll (I believe) was released
two days ago indicating that in excess of eighty percent of Americans
thought violent crime was at an all time high, but that actual
statistics revealed that violent crime was nine points lower than it
was in 1981. This false belief clearly makes it easier to convince the
public that measures like Mr. Clinton proposes are necessary.

Are search and seizure protections, protections from governmental
intrusions, vital constitutional rights? Second Amendment rights?
Clearly, Clinton's "new order" and Lincoln's view of the duties and
responsibilities of American Government are widely apart. I, for one,
prefer to place my faith with a proven patriot, President Lincoln, and
with the words he and others have left to us.

Your views are desired.

rHr | If a nation expects to be ignorant and | free...it expects what
never was and rhryan@delphi.com | never will be. Thomas Jefferson
(1816)
====================================================================
Clinton/Gore---the BEVIS & BUTTHEAD of International Politics.......


------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan site by the archive maintainer.

 All files are ZIP archives for fast download.

 E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)