Correcting a mistated fact from a previous article.
I wanted to publicly apologize for an incorrect statement that I first made in a private email but then later published in "The other side of the "What Really Happens" story" (http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=45827&group=webcast).
"...What I did suggest is that Michael Rivero's posting of the militia's newsletters and his willingness to answer questions about them indicates on his part a sympathy for the movement and some, if not all, of its objectives. This idea is further reinforced by messages Michael Rivero posted on the Usenet many years ago advocating the purchase of T-shirts from the Arizona militia to provide the group financial support..."
As Michael was quick to point out that law enforcement officials, not the militia, sold the T-shirts. This is his actual message:
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rivero (rivero@netcom.com)
Subject: Kingman Arizona Charity T-shirts REVISED ZIP CODE
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
Date: 1995/06/14
PREVIOUS POST HAD THE WRONG ZIP CODE. SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!
POSTED AS A PUBLIC SERVICE
Following in the wake of the FBI's "visit" to Kingman, Arizona, the local Sherrif's department put together a T-shirt designed by one of their staff with the words," I survived the FBI invasion of Kingman, Arizona, April 1995".
Demand for the shirts has risen to the point where the sale of them has been moved from the poor, overstressed Tanya at the Sherrif's office directly to Sportsman's Enterprises.
The shirts are .00 plus .00 for shipping and handling. Out of that, .00 per shirt is forwararded to the fund for the families hurt by the Oklahoma bombing.
The shirts are in white and ash grey in adult sizes small through triple extra large (I suppose to fit over those bullet proof vests).
To order your own personal memento of this historic trashing of civil liberties, send .00 money order to
OK Assistance Fund FBI T-shirt
2525 Pasadena Street
Kingman Arizona 86401
Specify size and color and your return address. Anyone interested in quantities should direct the inquiry to Steve Wilson at the above address.
Michael F. Rivero - rivero@netcom.com - 16 years in the business
Award Winning Digital Effects for TV & Feature Films - 818-763-2800
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Michael+Rivero%22+militia&start=600&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=803096298%2413734%40mail.starpath.com&rnum=602&filter=0
------------------------------------------------------------------
I relied on my memory instead of double-checking the facts and for that I am truly sorry. I believe my confusion resulted from erroneously combining this information with another message wherein he mentions the Arizona Patriot Militia and purchasing a T-shirt in the same sentence:
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rivero (rivero@accessone.com)
Subject: Re: 1995 ADL: `The Militi
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Date: 1996/04/02
In article 7vn@zap.io.org>, frankenchrist hempster@zap.io.org> wrote:
>
>
>jeffr@netpath.net writes:
>
>j> A warm welcome at the San Diego Militia (50% are Jews). Or
>j> perhaps the Montgomery Co. Militia in Texas where both
>j> elected commanders have been Jews (and the militia has their
>j> Rabbi's full support).
>j>
>j> Yep, I can't think of any militia that would do anything
>j> other than welcome a Jew into their unit.
>
> There are two that I know of,Militia of Montana and the Arizona
>Patriot Militia,both founded by Aryan Nations.I've heard of
>others founded by Aryan Nations but can't remember their names
>right now.
>
Of course, I can't speak for the Militia of Montana, but while getting my kicks on (Historic) Route 66, I passed through Kingman Arizona (still have my "I survived the FBI" T-shirt) and met some members of the Arizona Patriot Militia. I hate to break the news to you but on their long (more than an hour) list of greivences, Jews just didn't make the cut. They weren't mentioned once.
------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I must unequivocally state that I do not apologize for giving the reader the impression that Michael Rivero agrees in part or in whole with the militia movement. As evidence, I submit the following messages he wrote almost eight years ago:
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rivero (rivero@netcom.com)
Subject: Re: Who protects us from Militias
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
Date: 1995/05/15
In article kb8@GRAPEVINE.LCS.MIT.EDU> rockcop35@aol.com (RockCop 35) writes:
>In government we have a system of checks and balances. While not totally
>fool proof it's better than the militias own notion that THEY interpurt
>laws and the consitution the way they want. What checks and balance do
>the militias have? Do we need to form our own militias to protect us from
>other militias?
YES! Now you get the idea, We The People. Not We The Sheeple plus a huge government.
You might just find, if you look closely at the MIlitias, that they all agree on one thing, the U.S. Constitution. Anyone who believes in that document has clearly LESS to worry about from the Militias than from Bill (I'm going to find a way around it) Clinton and Janet (I'm going to help) Reno.
In recent weeks, as I have become exposed to more militia people around Los Angeles, I have found them to be rather nice people, with the few extremists acting so crazy it's fairly obvious they are agents provocatuers(there's going to be one hell of a tar-and-feathers party in the near future). The militia men and women are polite and respectful, which is possibly due to the fact that everyone has a gun, but I prefer that mutually armed politeness to the arrogance of a Federal government towards a disarmed population.
Michael F. Rivero - rivero@netcom.com - 16 years in the business
Award Winning Digital Effects for TV & Feature Films - 818-763-2800
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Michael+Rivero%22+militia&start=640&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=3p845q%24ne1%40GRAPEVINE.LCS.MIT.EDU&rnum=645&filter=0
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rivero (rivero@netcom.com)
Subject: Re: Militias and Low IQ's: the untold story
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
Date: 1995/05/16
In article svp@GRAPEVINE.LCS.MIT.EDU> stevech@netcom.com (Steve) writes:
>Excuse me Eric but is there ANY FREEDOM AT ALL that you hold dear enough
>to fight and possibly die for if your government ever tryed to take
>it away? Or would you just bend over and take it like the wussy you
>seem to be? If there is nothing you would fight for then may you die
>the death of every soldier that died for, among other things, your
>right to make a jerk out of yourself in front of the world.
>
>Militias do attract some crazy bozos that just want to blow shit up
>for the sake of blowing shit up. Hell, the US Military has that problem.
>Take Mr. McVeigh for example... But the Michigan Militia rejected him
>which is more than can be said for Big Brothers army.
>
>I think you need to sit at a Civil War cemetary and think for a while.
>See, many militia members simply beleive that there are freedoms that
>we have that are worth fighting for should it ever become necissary.
>
>---Steve
>
>
Allow me to add that the "crazies" in the militias are more often than not informers and agents provocatuers from the FBI whose mission is to MAKE the militia look crazy.
Also, as a MENSA member, allow me to also correct the misperception that militias cater to the lower I.Q.s. Quite the contrary, the mean I.Q. in the militias, taken as a whole, is above the average for the general population. It takes a certain smarts to recognize how and when one is being swindled by the government.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Michael+Rivero%22+militia&start=630&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=3p99bh%24mg2%40GRAPEVINE.LCS.MIT.EDU&rnum=636&filter=0
------------------------------------------------------------------
For the benefit of those readers who have not followed Michael Rivero's Internet campaign, protection of the Second Amendment is perhaps his most impassioned, and longest running argument. It's an issue that touches him as a citizen and as a gun-owner, and it threads together important emotional experiences in his life:
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (rivero@mdcbbs.com)
Subject: Re: THE DAY AFTER
Newsgroups: soc.women, alt.activism
Date: 1992-06-08 14:16:00 PST
scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>
> > Never before has a fundamental right been granted
> > and subsequently taken away
>
> Actually, that is not true. Lots of gun control legislation has done
> exactly that. I don't suppose these people will ever protest damage
> done to the second amendment.
>
> Allen
> --
>
> Allen, the second amendment is about a state's right to have a
> militia. Nowhere does it say an individual person has a right to own
> a gun. And, what does this have to do with abortion?
Section 10, United States Code defines the state militia as all able bodied men over the age of 24. That's US!
And what it has to do with abortion is simple. One person's fundimental right is another's oppression. I feel that uncontested access to abortion by my ex wife deprived me of my fundimental rights as a husband and father (not to
mention the fundimental civil rights of the child). I will not support any abortion legislation which ignores the rights of fathers and husbands.
Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator
Graduate of the Belinda Crawford School of Flaming!!!
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=1992Jun8.170220.1%40mdcbbs.com&rnum=673&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522Michael%2BRivero%2522%2Bmilitia%26start%3D670%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3D1992Jun8.170220.1%2540mdcbbs.com%26rnum%3D673%26filter%3D0
------------------------------------------------------------------
All of which (and more) he has internalized into an outlook that might be best described as Libertarian. As of yet I don't believe Michael Rivero has made any public declaration, but this very early message comes close:
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com (rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com)
Subject: Re: Libertarian party
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 1991-11-16 02:22:24 PST
...There is much about the Libertarian party that needs examining, but your particular arguments all sound like more reasons to increase the size and scope of government, and that is something I think the majority of people wish to avoid.
It's important to recall that here in the United States, there was no strong Federal Government prior to the Civil War. Read the Constitution, the Federal authority existed solely to mediate dispute between the states. The federal government had no authority to levy national taxes and was forbidden to keep a standing army in peacetime; the defense of the States lieing with their second amendment protected Militia.
That all changed with the Civil War. When Lincoln came to power, he inherited a new Federal Government with the powers to levy taxes and to create national armies, which had formed as a result of the Confederacy having created the same system. Only through the use of the strong Federal powers was Lincoln able to keep all the union states together for the duration of the war. Once the war was over, Lincoln intended to return power back to the states, restoring the pre-war version of the Federal government as defined in the original Constitution. He had much opposition, especially from the national military and political leaders whoes newly found power was greatly threatened by Lincolns plans. Those scholars who discard the "booth as lone crazed assasin" theory suggest that this was the motive behind lincoln's assasination. Certainly, Lincoln's plan to transfer power back to the states died with him.
When debating the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson himself argued against strong central government, insisting that it would always tend to increase it's power and control at the expense of the citizenry, and always with the best of stated intentions while doing so. This threat, Jefferson insisted, was to be avoided at all costs, if their experiment in true Democracy was to succeed.
From what I have read so far (and I will admit, I have much more to read before I start voting), Libertarianism does not mean an end to all government. It means a return to government primarily at state and county levels, represented by legislators that the individual person may talk to. Libertarianism means a reduction in direct control of our lives by people we mostly wouldn't recognize, working capitals so distant that most citizens never visit. It means moving away from a government so centralized, that it makes the job actually easier for PAC's and special interest groups, who do NOT work in the best public interests.
I have traveled throughout much of the world. But I have yet to actually visit Washington D.C., where so much of my personal life is being decided every day. And despite being a regular sender of letters to my elected representatives, all replies I have gotten are computer generated, as if I am being solicited to buy yet another magazine subscription.
It would be easier to believe that I had a voice in government, if that government were in the same time zone with me.
I think what best sums up what Libertarianism means is to recall the name of our nation. The United States of America. Not "The Nation of Washington D.C.", but a nation of allied states. That's what was intended. I think that maybe it's a good idea whoes time has come.
Michael Rivero rivero@dev8.mdcbbs.com "The Born Again Bachelor"
"The endangered species are laughing at you!"
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&th=bb51e391474f85be&seekm=cd6MRFu00VIDEFq0Zm%40andrew.cmu.edu#link110
------------------------------------------------------------------
What I find disingenuous about whatreallyhappened.com is the pretense that the site doesn't function as a de facto mouthpiece for the Libertarian party. Now supporting Libertarian politics hardly is cause for secrecy, and by all indications Michael Rivero seems to be proud of of their ideals in general. Furthermore, from the responses I have received, the readers of WRH seem genuinely disinterested in the leanings of the site and its principal editor. Simply put, as a courtesy to his readers there is nothing for Michael to be ashamed of and nothing to lose by declaring his editorial stance. Who knows, he may even win a few over for his cause.
-S. Boyle
P.S. This was the only response to Michael’s comments about the Arizona Patriot Militia to which he did not reply:
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark T Pitcavage (mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Subject: Re: 1995 ADL: `The Militi
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Date: 1996/04/02
> Of course, I can't speak for the Militia of Montana, but while
>getting my kicks on (Historic) Route 66, I passed through Kingman
>Arizona (still have my "I survived the FBI" T-shirt) and met some
>members of the Arizona Patriot Militia. I hate to break the news to you but
>on their long (more than an hour) list of greivences, Jews just didn't make
>the cut. They weren't mentioned once.
I hate to break the news to you, but an hour long conversation with the Arizona Patriots doesn't exactly equal their many comments over the past ten years on the subject. They have been quite openly anti-Semitic.
dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=46177&group=webcast
Original: To Michael: An apology of sorts