A visitor to this page has found the original 14-page memoranda that was
delivered to the United States by the Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.
And can be found here:

Several years ago, I spent a week in Hawaii with a former lover who was from Vietnam.
We had been in a relationship for several years at the time, and we decided to take a trip to Hawaii for a week. More on what happened later in this section, but first:

She and her family had lost everything in the final days before Saigon fell. I learned a lot
from her. Since she shared things with me that she wanted held in confidence, I will
not list her name here other than her family was from North Vietnam. From the
village of Nam Dinh. They owned their own farm, along with hired help.

Ho Chi Minh gained the influence and trust of the Vietnamese. The French had
colonized Vietnam before WWII ever happened. In fact, I remember in the early days of
High School in 1963 that our geography text books referred to Vietnam as "French
Indochina". Vietnam??  Where was that ??

The Michelin Corp was big in Vietnam prior to WWII harvesting rubber trees for tires.
Japan invaded Vietnam in WWII. One of the first things that was done was to destroy
the local food supply so that the local population was dependant on the Japanese.
Thousands died, many of starvation. There was not sufficient means to resist the
Japanese. Japan wanted the resources of the area.

After WWII ended, an agreement was reached between the Government Administrations of France and the United States to again allow France to regain its
influence in Vietnam. The spoils of war to be divided  up amongst the victors.

Ho Chi Minh rallied the support of the people under the banner of ending all foreign
influence in Vietnam and vowed to drive the French out of Vietnam, and to gain
independence for the region. Later,  he showed his true colors and turned Communist
and sacked any foes in his military organization.

As the North turned Communist, my friend's family lost their farm due to "Nationalization" of all private land-holdings. It was now to belong to the Government,
and they were to be subsistence farmers on their own farm.

She and her family fled to the South and eventually later helped U.S. Forces in their struggle against the Communist North Vietnamese as, by then, she was college educated in Saigon. She could aid the effort as she knew the subtle differences in
Vietnamese  dialect used in North Vietnam.

She assisted our U.S. Army's Psyops program with radio broadcasts to the North in an attempt to win over the people of the North. General MacArthur said it best during WWII
in that we should never fight a land-war in Asia.

The other side was determined with the fervor to have all outside influence out of their country. They dug tunnels.  They  infiltrated the countryside. There was no clear
Forward Edge of Battle Area (FEBA), and no way to really determine the foe from
the friendly. Free-fire zones were established. Anyone found in a free-fire zone was
to be presumed enemy and shot by U.S. and South Vietnamese forces. The famous
phrase ensued... "Kill 'em all, and let God sort'em out",

30 years later Senator Bob Kerrey gets raked over the coals for his participation in the
conflict, at at time when Operation Phoenix was in progress. Hell, he was doing the best
he could do with the best  intel he had available.

Since my brother decided to write me and  respond to my statements regarding
Bob Kerrey, I will adopt the position that, like tracer rounds, the "Mighty Wurlitzer"
works both ways... So here is  a statement on the Kerrey matter via the
Revolutionary Communist Party's point of view.

Even had our Government and our people at home  fully supported the effort, it was
still doomed to failure. The South Vietnamese Government leaders were corrupt,
Diem was assassinated...The writing was on the wall...

Her family fled to the coast and was evacuated,  by the U.S. Army, three days before
 the  famous take-over of Saigon in 1975 by Communist Viet Forces. Her harrowing
story was that it was so much effort to make it to the coast that they abandoned most
of their belongings on the road-side.

The Material Possessions simply did not matter at that  point. Her memorable statement to me was none of it mattered except survival. That none of it mattered since
 neither the North nor the South was any better for their own people.

The odd thing was that after re-settling in the U.S. with Government assistance, we
visited other Vietnamese that resettled here. Some were from the South, and some
were from the North. Many wanted to forget. We even visited a couple of families where
One husband had passed away and we went to his funeral. It turns out he was a North
Vietnamese Army Officer. Another family we had visited was gracious. The
husband looked vaguely familiar to me.  I asked her later who this person was.
She said that he had been a North Vietnamese General. And here he is living in
the San Francisco Bay Area. Many in the house after the services were from the North.
It was, after all, a Civil War. Like our own war between the States, members of the
same families fought against one another on both sides.


Remembering this during our vacation trip to Hawaii, we at one point decided to
visit Pearl Harbor. Take a cruise around the harbor, and also take the Navy Launch
to visit the USS Arizona, famous for going down with most of it's crew during the attack
on Pearl Harbor. It lays at the bottom of the Harbor still leaking oil and an occasional
air bubble that bursts to the surface...

There is a human side to this story in that many on the motor launch and on the harbor cruise were obviously Japanese. Many were old, and many old enough to have served
in WWII.

I  walked around in the launch, looking for those who were obviously elderly by this
time, I not knowing Japanese, and they not knowing English either. To several of them
I approached and offered my hand and shook theirs. No words were needed.

I simply kept eye contact with them. There was a nod. And recognition of what I
was saying to them,  and from more than a couple, there were tears from these grown
men. They may have been fighting our own soldiers. They may have been relatives and
parents of Japanese flyers that lost their lives.

War is tragic for both sides and yes "They" started it, and yes, "We" ended it. But it is
still war, and it is tragic for all concerned.

In WWII there was a clear enemy and the U.S. "fought the good war".

The same happened at the local Veterans Day Parade in San Jose California a few
years ago. Carla and I had our comvan in the parade as part of our Military Vehicle
Collector's Club. A parade after all is in honor of those who served their country.

This parade was different in that I would scan the crowd of people along the parade
route, looking for the older ones, the quiet ones, the ones with the look that they had
been "through it". I would hop out of our M37 and walk over to such that I could identify
in the crowd, and extend my hand as theirs met mine. Keeping eye contact with them,
I would simply say " I thank you for serving, and keeping us free. This parade is for
You, after all, and not for me".

Some would look startled, and again a few burst into tears... War is hell, and when
does it end, I think to myself....

All I can say  is that this is a True Story ... 
 

An example is that I believe in Gay and Lesbian Rights as not being "Special" Rights
but Civil Rights, the same as the rights of any other group. Others in society would
never consider the idea that a Lesbian could be conservative and vote Republican, or
feel that protecting this country, and supporting the rest of our individual freedoms could
possibly be embraced by someone who prefers a relationship with someone else of the
same gender.

The silent hypocrisy of this view is the familiar tradition in a workplace for members to celebrate the marriage of a co-worker, or their anniversary, or the birth of their
first child, yet  feel that someone in a same-gender relationship would  be
"wearing it on their sleeve" to discuss their own relationships in the workplace. 

It seems to not matter what the subject matter is, but lines are constantly being
drawn in the sand. Hunters vs Enviro-nazi's; "Gun Control Advocates, vs
"The Gun Lobby"; (note the loaded terms in the media in this case)..

What is currently amazing is the reaction by HCI to our new Attorney General's
position with regard of a Citizen's right to bear arms. Specifically, John Ashcroft
supports the historical view that the Second Amendment's meaning of
"The People", recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Specifically:

"Ashcroft's letter to the NRA was critical of this view [that the 2nd Amendment
supported an Individual right-PG]: "While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise."

In Emerson, a federal judge endorsed the "individual rights" view and dismissed an indictment against Timothy Joe Emerson of Texas, who had, while under a domestic violence restraining order, illegally possessed two 9mm pistols, a semi-automatic M-1 carbine, a semi-automatic SKS assault rifle with a bayonet, and a semi-automatic M-14 assault rifle. He also had brandished a gun in front of his estranged wife and young child. The Emerson ruling was the first time a federal judge had struck down a gun control law under the Second Amendment since a 1938 decision that later was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)."

The issue of the right to bear arms is so fraught with emotion, that the parody pages
are an interesting aside. Note that going to some of these pages can have
graphic images. "Viewer Discretion is Advised" here...

In a more serious vein, there are other sites on the 'net with additional facts and
figures. Public Policy dot org's  National Center for Policy Analysis also has additional statistics which support the arguments against the current media frenzy for gun-control,
now re-worded in the double-speak of "Sensible Gun Ownership" .

Found recently is another page on the internet that is pro-gun ownership, and
cites some interesting statistics.

It is similar to the "Right-to-Life Advocates" vs the "Abortionists", or if you prefer,
the "Pro-Choice Movement", vs the "Pro-Life Movement" which exists in several
places on the 'Net.  In my own mind, those that prefer not to have an abortion don't
have to have one, it's that simple.

The propaganda, especially on the net, will even lead people to pages that seem
to indicate one position by their web-page name, yet actually espouse an opposite
view...and, the same page will be listed differently as "pro-choice dot com" in a
search engine that will still take the viewer to the exact same site.

It just depends your own point of view as to which direction is loaded. The other way around is "Pro-Choice Lobby", vs the "Right-to-life Advocates".

Media bias can be subtle... perhaps "Good Media Bias" is the type that is subtle to the
point of invisibility,  yet effectively influences public opinion.

The Intelligence Community refers to control of the media as "Making use of the Mighty
Wurlitzer". Although It is really unknown to what extent our own Government may actively
influence public opinion within our own country, there are documented cases of such
activity being done in other countries.

Occasional stories have leaked out in the media of CIA "Gray-ops" in this country,
mainly due to planted news articles via the foreign wire services that then echo back
into our own news desks here.

Another part of the "Clustering of Society" is that perhaps there is some innate behavior within homo sapiens that we have a need to form small tribes and each tribe groups
around their own self defense, and a corresponding need to define an "US" vs  "THEM"
mentality.

Our differences as individuals and cultures need to be respected and accommodated
in a way that doesn't mean we become the bland homogeneous melting pot of the
pre-1960's, yet also not go to war with one another either. The problem is with the
definition of a rational middle-ground.

The Inherent Right of the Individual to Self Defense:

Prior to the "Gun Control Act of 1968", it was a common belief to most citizens of the United States that an individual had the right to defend themselves from harm by another person. This right extended to the use of lethal force if necessary.

Over the years, this clear right has been eroded, mainly because there have been few legal cases which actually have made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The application of law is defined by legal precedent.

Remember studying the U.S. Constitution when in Elementary, Junior High School, or in High School ? Remember the term "Bill of Rights" .. With some thought, it will be
remembered that the first ten amendments to our U.S. Constitution were specifically
written to "Secure the inherent rights of the People from usurpation by Government".

In this specific sense, "The People" refers to you and I as individuals.
"The People", means that the Bill of Rights applies to each an every person as an individual, and not "The people" in the collective sense.

There is a difference here in that when you hear of an indictment brought against a wrong-doer, the person is charged  with  wrong-doing against "The people",
as in " The People of the State of California, versus John Smith". In a legal sense, the courts that enforce the law are applying law as written by members of the legislature to the circumstances of an individual act, and since the laws were enacted by representatives of "The People", Courts then view "The People" in a collective sense.

The "Militia", in its original sense meant the residents of our country,  acting in their own
defense of their  Community, their State, or the Nation. "Officers" were appointed by the State Government, in that time meaning the individual colonies, and these
Commissioned officers were empowered to train the residents of the community,
so that when a need may present itself, could be called to arms in an organized
and trained manner.

It was also an un-stated position in society at the time, partly because it was taken for granted, that the individual asserted their right to keep and bear arms
both in their individual defense, the defense of their own homes and property,
and when called upon by their colony to repel and put down insurrection or repel
invasion by a foreign power.

Many have not heard of a collection of writings of the founders of our Country which were referred to as "The Federalist Papers". Clicking this link will take you to the complete text of the Federalist papers. There is also a numerical Index of each of the sections of the Federalist Papers in order to find certain specific themes.

There was great debate in the forming of our Republic that States were autonomous. Powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government of the United States, were reserved to the individual States of our Union, or to the people. Again, this means to reserved to you and I as individuals.

Some discussion about the Militia can be found in the writings of Alexander Hamilton, especially in section 29, in that the original intent that the people, as individuals, be armed. His writing is linked to a separate page, available on my own site, due the length of the document, and its obvious importance. 

Quoting Madison:

"The militia would not long, if at all, submit to be dragged from their occupations
and families to perform that most disagreeable duty in times of profound peace.
And if they could be prevailed upon or compelled to do it, the increased expense
of a frequent rotation of service, and the loss of labor and disconcertion of the
industrious pursuits of individuals, would form conclusive objections to the scheme. It would be as burdensome and injurious to the public as ruinous to
private citizens. The latter resource of permanent corps in the pay of the government amounts to a standing army in time of peace; a small one, indeed, but not the less real for being small. Here is a simple view of the subject, that shows us at once the impropriety of a constitutional interdiction of such establishments, and the necessity of leaving the matter to the discretion and prudence of the legislature."

Quoting Alexander Hamilton from section 29:

"There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

End of Quote;  Section 29, in its entirety,  can be found here.

Next, consider the Second Amendment of our U.S. Constitution. It is easy to recognize that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights consisting of Amendments 1 through 10. In all other parts of the Bill of Rights, it is quite easy to read "The people" as us as individuals, however over the years, there has been a history in our country of trying to limit the freedom of some segments of our society over other segments. Traditionally this was the Black population of our Country, and after Slavery was abolished in our Country, many of those in the established (read this as White-majority) Society were afraid of Blacks in our society being armed like "the rest of us", The inherent right of Black people to vote was not recognized and protected until the 20th Century in this country.

In fact the right of women to vote (Women's suffrage)  was finally recognized far earlier in our history than the right of those of color to vote. Adoption of both of these amendments to our Constitution  was better than in the founding of our country where the right to vote was reserved only to those who owned Real Estate, i.e. "Landed Persons".

At the time of the founding of the Colonies of the United States, there was no standing army that was supported by the people. Rather, the "people", as in our individual members of society contributed to our common defense. This was termed the "Militia". "Militia" has become a loaded term in recent years and has been re-interpreted at about the same time as members of the National Rifle Association have been defined through our mass media as "Extremists". Again,
see the references above by Alexander Hamilton, and other portions of the
Federalist Papers, for the true intentions of the Founders of our Country.

What is scary in recent years is the greater frequency of members of Congress
and the mass-media to refer to our Constitution as "Outdated" and that the
Constitution needs to be a "Living Document  that would be Interpreted in
contemporary terms". Note that it is up to the courts to "Interpret", and it is
the responsibility of our Legislative branch to create Bills, subject to
ratification by both Houses of the U.S. Congress, and signed into Law by
the Executive Branch of our Government (Our President).

To Amend the U.S. Constitution also takes an additional step, and that is that 3/4ths of
 the States of our Union have to ratify any change to our Constitution.

The result is that there has to be an overwhelming support, by those elected by the
people,  for change to our Constitution, and this is important. Three Quarters of all
of the States of our Union must ratify any change to the Constitution.

As this will be a continuing work... more to follow....

Patricia Gibbons - WA6UBE ..