The Potowmack Institute

Potowmack Institute
as amicus curiae in
US v Emerson (1999)

The National Rifle Association
What does the NRA really want?

The National Rifle Association
Charlton Heston Speaks:
National Press Club, 9/97
Free Congress, 12/97
The Founders and the AK47
Sue Wimmershoff-Caplan:
The NRA's "armed citizen guerrillas" "outflank", Wash. Post 7/6/89
Getting Commitment from Congress
The blood on their doorstep
The Libertarian Fantasy on the Supreme Court
Thomas and Scalia
Joyce Lee Malcolm
Ayn Rand, Blackstone
Joseph Story's
"Palladium of the Liberties"
The Second Amendment in Court

John Kenneth Rowland
Lawrence Cress
Jerry Cooper
Leon Friedman
Saul Cornell
Don Higginbotham
Garry Wills
Gary Hart
LaPierre's List and the Law Reviews

FLASH: November 6, 2001


Militia leader killed, deputy wounded during attemped arrest
Associated Press/The Arizona Republic Nov. 06, 2001 122000

EAGAR - A national leader of the militia movement has been killed and an Apache County sheriff's deputy wounded in a shootout, authorities said.

William Milton Cooper, 58, of Eager, had hosted a talk show broadcast on the Worldwide Christian Radio out of Nashville, which receives it via phone from his home in St. Johns. He had millions of listeners worldwide, including Timothy McVeigh.

The story:

William Cooper web page Hour of the Time "There is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." -- Jesus Book of John, Chapter 8 Verse 44

More News:

Militia Figure Killed After Shooting, 11/06/01

PHOENIX (AP) - A wanted militia figure who vowed that he would never be taken alive was killed by a law enforcement officer after he shot a sheriff's deputy trying to arrest him, authorities said Tuesday. The deputies drew the man out of his house Monday by posing as civilians parked near his house in Eagar, about 165 miles northeast of Phoenix. William Milton Cooper, 58, had confronted people who stopped near his home with a handgun in July and September, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Steve Volden. The deputies were serving an arrest warrant on those incidents.

Cooper turned and fled when the deputies identified themselves. He opened fire with a handgun as two deputies closed in, wounding an officer in the head, Volden said. The other officer shot Cooper. The wounded deputy remained hospitalized Tuesday; his condition was not released.

Mark Potok, a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks militias, said Cooper was known within the movement for his short-wave radio show and a book called "Behold a Pale Horse," in which he wrote about global conspiracies, some involving aliens.

Federal authorities said Cooper, who was always known to be armed, had spent years trying to avoid capture on a 1998 arrest warrant for tax evasion. "He had vowed that he would not be taken alive," said Tom McCombs, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshal's Service in Phoenix.

Search "william cooper" on Google for all the news
Sort by date.

Originally posted January, 1997

William Cooper is author of Behold a Pale Horse, 1992.
See: Neal Knox and William Cooper,
He is mentioned in Kenneth Stern's A Force Upon the Plain. See [Resources]:

Stern writes (pp. 148-9):

The ubiquitous accusation here is socialism. In rightwing ideology anything that infringes on individual sovereignty is socialism.
At 10:08 AM 1/16/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>From: Phoenix Publications < >
>>To: Harvest Trust < >
>>Subject: Re: Your sedition is showing
>>Date: Thursday, January 16, 1997 8:14 AM
>>At 10:39 AM 1/15/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>>We know who you are and we saw what you did.

Just don't take away my God-given, unalienable rights to self-defense and sedition when you become my oppressor.

>I would never become anyone's "oppressor"...

On that I have your word of honor.

>Were you aware that Herr Hitler was a socialist just like you?

>William Cooper

Certainly. More accurately a Communist. When Hitler outlawed the Communist Party in Feb 1933 the Communist Party's Red Front Fighters' League went over and joined the Nazi Party's Stormtroopers. See Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom. You certainly know that Hitler was a statist, the opposite of an anarchist. His enemy which he successfully outflanked with his militia was constitutional government what in German is known as the Rechtstaat. His weapons were conspiracy theories and the radio.

I am a constitutional republican and support the concept that armed force is legitimate only when it is authorized by law, law that I consent to be governed by and have opportunity to participate in making. I depend on this government to protect me from private armies whether Stormtroopers, the Fighters' League, the NRA's "armed citizen guerrillas," citizen militias, or any other capacity to exercise arbitrary armed force. If this government fails its obligation to me then it is not a government and we live in the state of anarchy the NRA finds so appealing. Please give a convincing justification why anyone needs to be armed outside of the laws of this country that I can put in the FPJ. Please include an explanation of the differences between statism, anarchy, and the rule law under constitutional republicanism. Hayek above has a chapter on the Rule of Law which you need to come to terms with. The world awaits your response. The letters below might also be useful in your exposition. They were censored from public enlightenment by that publication which is the NRA's best friend and strongest ally, the Washington Post. They have not yet been loaded to the website.


GO TO: Washington Post

>what are you... a conspiracy theorist? Watch out the boogie man might get you.

Not a big time conspiracy theorist, but I did read your book. All of it. It takes one to know one. If there is a conspiracy I am convinced that it is at the Washington Post to censor, or what the newsmedia euphemistically call "filter," the truth from the public.

>And besides...according to your own writings you have no unalienable
>rights to self defense... certainly not with firearms anyway.

By definition unalienable rights are rights I cannot alienate. Everyone has an unalienable right to self-defense. That right is recognized in the Ancient Constitution of the Anglo-Saxons, the common law, and the constitutional doctrine of the United States. What is important is that to secure unalienable rights in the language of the Declaration of Independence "...governments are instituted among men..." In the State of Nature we are on our own to secure our own rights which means as Thomas Hobbes put it, in the single most famous line in all of political theory, "...the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." My security as a gun owner is to create legal categories of gun ownership that effectively disarm the lawless and the disloyal. The disloyal include the NRA's "armed citizen guerrillas" (see ...potowmack/ak47.html) who would outflank this government which I depend on to secure my unalienable rights. To create legal categories of gun ownership I have to accommodate to public authority and consent to be governed.

>And since your God is the state you know it will never give
>you any rights... unalienable or otherwise.

I thank whatever gods may be for my unconquerable soul.

>States can only grant privileges.

I await your full exposition on this.

>I might also remind you that your sedition is a serious crime...

So is everyone else's including yours.

>and you socialists ARE engaged in sedition. And don't even try to
>tell me you are not a Marxist socialist...
>I have done my homework.

I support the socialism of the 40 hour work week, proposed by the Socialist Party, bitterly opposed by capitalists for decades, signed into law by Franklin Roosevelt and enforce by this government ever since. On other matters, I look forward to your learned exposition so I can know what it means to be a Marxist socialist. I don't want to identify myself incorrectly.

>I find it thrilling to see you Marxists who spout the sacrifice of the
>individual for the betterment of the many run to "unalienable rights" for

I run to the judicial branch of this government for protection of my unalienable rights. When the judge says, how do you plea, guilty or not guilty? I say, I plea not guilty, your honor, on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional. If the judge agrees, ultimately I have on my side a fleet of M1 tanks, napalm airstrikes, a division of soldiers, and a few atomic bombs. Fortunately, the government of the United States is not a pussy. If the judge does not agree, I am on my own to protect my unalienable rights as I define them, but you can be sure I won't be calling on the NRA's "armed citizen guerrillas" for assistance. I would rather bear those tyrannies I have than fly to others I know not of. We institute government not only to secure unalienable rights but to have some mechanism to determine what those rights are. Otherwise we define our own unalienable rights and are at war with those who define them differently. That is what citizenship and the consent to be governed are all about: a nonviolent resolution of differences.

>when you know full well that if socialism ever reigns supreme
>there will be no "unalienable rights" for anyone except for the state.
>Don't you find it silly that a creation of man can become the creator's
>God... especially when the creation exists only in the abstract on paper
>and in the mind? Man must reign over anything he creates... the opposite,
>socialism, and communism where the rights or life of the individuals who
>created the state are meaningless in the grand scheme of things... is
>absolutely absurd.

I am kind of dense and I am getting confused. I hope you can explain this better for the rest of us in your promised exposition so we can rally to your points.

>As for the rest of your perverted statements... I look forward to finding
>the time to respond responsibly and correctly... and will do it as soon as
>I can find the time. Just from a cursory reading you may be surprised to
>find that I agree with most of the first letter[?]...

Perverted? I hope you are not getting personal. I look forward to your responsible, correct response when you find the time. I am very please that you agree with most of my first letter. Please do a follow up to the irresponsible cowards at the Washington Post. We, the people, desperately need to enrich the poverty of public discourse.

>didn't get a chance to read beyond.
>You might find it refreshing to learn to use your own brain when dealing
>with us "white supremacist, racist, fundamentalist, terrorist, Christian
>fundamentalist, anti-government, hate-mongering, neo-nazi, anti-semitic,"
>and pardon me... I seem to have forgotten the other ravings... the plethora
>of lies that you feed upon... refresh my memory please. What else am I?

When I feed on lies I take my instructions from G. Gordon Liddy and wrench them out, but you can be anything you want as long as you consent to be governed under the rule of law established by the Constitution of the United States and I don't have to have any of the abominations you list patrolling my neighborhood acting out the NRA's "armed citizen guerrillas" fantasy and proclaiming a constitutional right to outflank this government which I depend on to protect me from those same "armed citizen guerrillas."

>Also your assertion that Hitler was communist because communists joined his
>ranks won't fly...

Actually, I was being rather rhetorical. The statement however is true.

>Hitler was a socialist plain, clear, and simple...

He could have been a libertarian.

>and so are you. Left wing is control... right wing is anarchy... both are
>terribly bad in my opinion. Somewhere in the middle our Founding Fathers
>placed this Constitutional Republic and that is where I stand. Pisses you
>off doesn't it.

The only things that piss me off are the foolishness that comes out of Handgun Control and the Clinton Administration and the dereliction and cowardice of the Washington Post, but I await your full exposition on differences between Marxists, communists, socialists, anarchists, statists, constitutional republicans, libertarians and the Founding Fathers. I want to be sure I fit in somewhere in the middle.

>Your address denotes a relationship with the "Mysteries"... do you fully
>understand the meaning of "Phoenix"?
>William Cooper
Probably not and I am not interested in trying to. The Phoenix is taken from the crest of one of my family names. I kind of liked it, but I am afraid now you really are getting personal.


[PotowmackForum], interactive posting
[US v. Emerson PAGE]
[NRA v. Reno (July, 2000)]
[Printz and Mack PAGE]
[US v. Lopez PAGE]
[ARCHIVE]. Potowmack Institute Files
[RESOURCES]. Newspaper, magazine, journal articles, books, links

© Potowmack Institute