more suspicious, KTF would not divulgerntlic warrant (as of early April). I’hat is,rnthcv wouldn’t allow the press or anyrneiilian to see the arrest warrant, whichrnis supposed to be a public, court-issuedrndocument open to all. Did thev realKrnhave a warrant prior to the attack?rnCompare this mess to the situationrnsix cars ago when a similar charge wasrnmade against Koresh. Then, the eountvrnsheriff called him in for questioning,rnasking him to bring his guns with him.rnKoresh complied peacefully, was exonerated,rnand went back home. End ofrnstory. That’s the wa’to handle it. Usernthe least amount of persuasion necessar-,rnnot the most amount of force available.rnThis is a hard lesson for povcrmadrnfederal bureaucrats to learn, butrnthe FBI—to its credit—did learn it atrnWounded Knee (‘Indian uprising”) 20rn cars ago. ATF has never learned it andrnshows no inclination to do so.rnReeenth’, I was the guest on a nationalhrnbroadcast radio talk show aboutrnthe Waco .situation. One irate caller wasrna woman in law enforcement, who saidrnthat .she was “sick and tired of civiliansrntelling law enforcers what to do.” Thernlad was apparcnth serious. In the UnitedrnStates, with our Constitution and ourrntraditions of freedom, civilians arc al-rnMciYS in control of law enforcement,rnfrom local police all the wav up to militaryrndefense forces. That’s the Americanrnwa, thank God.rnUnfortunately, her attitude is typicalrnof nian police, who increasingly feelrnthat ‘ou and I are their enemies, withrna war existing between them and us.rnThus, their purpose is not to protect usrnand do our bidding, but to fight us atrnecr- turn. In their mind, if wc wouldrnjust let them do what thev want, they’drnclear up lawlessness in short order, althoughrnthey admit it would be bloody.rnNo kidding—that’s exactly what thernNazis did in Cermanv, and what therncommunists did in the Soviet Union.rnAnd many police (not all of them) wantrnto do the same thing here in the LhiitedrnStates. Thev lust after unbridled power,rnstarting with flak jackets and fully automaticrnweapons that thev don’t wantrnus—mere civilians—to own. After all,rnwe might shoot back at them if thcv attackrnus.rnAnd that’s what happened in Waco.rnKoresh and his followers shot back. Yes,rnhe’s paranoid. Yes, he’s convinced thatrnArmageddon is near. Yes, he and hisrngroup were fully armed and willing torndie to defend their screwball way of life.rnBut should the federates try to wipernthem out simply because they’re nonmainstream?rnShould our governmentrnsuppress religious and political dissentrnthrough force of arms? Should thernConstitution be ignored?rnThat’s what’s happening, more andrnmore often. Ibll me: How bad does itrnhave to get before the American publicrnsmartens up and throws tlic bums outrnon election day? Must we wait until thernstorm troopers come marching downrnMain Street? Until the dreaded knockrnon the door at 3 A.M.?rnDon’t laugh. It could happen to you.rnEspeciallv if you own guns.rn—Andre MarrournA s PRO-LIFERS now face a monolithicallyrnpro-abortion federal government,rnit might be useful for them tornlook at last ear’s Supreme Court decisionrnabout Guam. Despite robust oppositionrnfrom Justice Anthony Scalia,rnthe Court refused to hear Guam’s abortionrncase, which means the ruling of arnCalifornia court striking down all ofrnGuam’s restrictions on abortion as “unconstitutional”rnstill stands.rnAlmost as abhorrent as the decisionrnitself was Charles Krauthammer’s incrediblerninterpretation of it: “The moralrnof the story is that democracy works. Inrna democracy the law comes to reflectrnthe people’s basic mores.” Abortion willrnremain unrestricted in Guam becausernan American court over four thousandrnmiles awa- from the Pacific island hasrnoverruled the locally elected government’srnlegislation. Krauthammer callsrnthis democracy at work.rnIn a sense, of course, this is nothingrnnew. Pro-abortionists have always pretendedrnopposition to abortion camernfrom a minority wishing to control therncountry. In actual fact, the SupremernCourt’s 1973 decision was a classicrnease of judieiarchv—of the federal courtrnoutlaw nig the democratic process ofrnthe state legislatures. What makesrnKrauthammer’s interpretation unit|uc isrnhis amazing ability to stretch these proabortionrnpopulist pretensions into whatrnis cssentialK a foreign country.rnGuam is the largest and southernmostrnof the Mariana Islands, located inrnthe west-central Pacific. As an unincorporatedrnterritory, Guam is not even extendedrnthe full range of constitutionalrnprotections the ^0 states enjow Residentsrnof Guam were not granted Americanrncitizenship until 1950, when supervisionrnof the island was transferred fromrnthe Navy to the Department of the Interior.rnIJntil 1970, the governor of thernterritory was appointed bv the Presidentrnof the United States. Though Guamrncan now send an elected delegate to thernU.S. House of Representatives, it is notrnallowed direct representation in Congress.rnF’urthcrmore, the acquisition ofrnGuam b) the United States was accomplishedrnnot through discovery or colonization,rnbut solely through militaryrnconquest. Originally part of the SpanishrnEmpire, like the Philippines and a numberrnof other Pacific territories, the islandrnwas ceded to the United States after thernSpanish-American W;ir. It is now usedrnby the United States as a major navalrnstaging area.rnlb make matters worse, Guam has almostrnnothing in common—culturallvrnor dcmographically—with America. Afterrnthree centuries of Spanish missionaryrnwork among the natives, the majority ofrnits indigenous population is solidly RomanrnCatholic and culturally Hispanic.rnAmong its 130,000 inhabitants, Guamrnhas a 90 percent literacv rate due primarilyrnto a system of parochial schoolsrnthat undergirds taxpayer-subsidizedrnpublic education. Despite the availabilityrnof jobs provided by the militaryrnbase, Guam has several expanding industriesrnof its own, including tourismrnand fishing.rnYet Krauthammer calls the decisionrnof a California court to overrule Guam’srngovernment an example of democracyrnat work. Invoking the Guam ease andrnthe election of Clinton as well as of severalrnother pro-abortion candidates, hernopines: “It is important for Republicansrnto recognize that the battle is over.rnYears ago. Republicans suicidally carriedrnon against the New Deal long after itrnhad been accepted b most citizens asrnpart of the fabric of American politicalrnlife. Republicans had better not do thernsame with legal abortion, now, for betterrnor worse also part of the fabric of Americanrnlife.”rnSo what are pro-lifers to do? Krauthammerrnsavs w’c should concentrate onrnchanging minds, not laws. lb a certainrnextent, he is no doubt correct. But ifrnpro-lifers restrict their activity to proselytization,rnthey probably face a losingrnbattle. For one thing, the anti-abortionrnposition isn’t based simplv on a moral-rnJUNE 1993/7rnrnrn