The University of Kansas Student Auxiliary


V.V.A.R.: Leading the student revolt on campus against speech codes, political correctness, multiculturalism, gender feminism, dormitory re-education, lying about Vietnam, and other instruments of academic oppression.


Leonard Magruder - Founder/President

Former professor of psychology - Suffolk College, N.Y.

Director of Counseling and Research – University of N.D.

Member: National Association of Scholars


CONTACT: - Phone: 785-312-9303


(Vietnam vet contact: General Carl Schneider (ret.) Korea, Vietnam, 480-595-7668)



Newt Gingrich, in a speech in New Hampshire, said:


“I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack, is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement. Rules which make very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism.


“This is a very sober topic, and I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we lose a city, which could literally happen.


“We are now at war with a culture that wants, not to take over our land, but to kill us.”


 And former Secretary of State, George Shultz, recently said:


“Can we as a country stand in a purely defensive posture and absorb the blows dealt by terrorists? I think not. A purely passive defense does not provide enough of a deterrent to terrorism and the states that sponsor it. It is time to think long, hard, and seriously about a more active means of defense.”



Just Sitting Here, Waiting

by Leonard Magruder

March 9, 2007


In his new book, Unconquerable Nation: Knowing Our Enemy, Strengthening Ourselves, Brian Michael Jenkins draws on 40 years of research on terrorism, most of it conducted at the prestigious RAND Corporation. It was he who first recommended to RAND that it undertake a study of international terrorism as a potential threat to national security, his ideas still central to RAND’s terrorism research activities. Following are excerpts from his work that are especially relevant to the connection between Islam and terrorism, and later his views on deterrence:


“bin Laden’s most ardent listeners are not sophisticated religious scholars; they are angry and impatient young men already stirred up by radical imams, men who have probably seen circulating versions of the Koran that elevate jihad and define it in purely military terms.


“‘The instructors gave me a Koran to which they had added pages,’” said one recruit. He may have been referring to Interpretation of the Meaning of the Noble Koran, in which the authors add footnotes to the Koran, inciting hatred of Jews, elevating jihad, which they describe exclusively as armed struggle, and exalting martyrdom.”


In other words, the numerous verses in the Koran advocating violence against Jews, Christians, and non-Muslims apparently has made it easy to transform it into a terrorist manual and recruiting tool, the Mein Kampf of Islamic jihad. Friendly networks should get a copy of this version of the Koran and show the American people how the terrorist movement can be seen to flow logically from these verses in the Koran, whether this is the correct interpretation or not. For the best scholarly defense of a less militant or more “moderate” meaning of these verses, see, Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition: Essays by Western Muslim Scholars, by Joseph Lumbard.


But there is no question but what the Koran can be used as the inspiration behind international terrorism. This has now been scientifically quantified by linguist Tina Magaard of Denmark, who has concluded that Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far greater degree than the original texts of other religions. She has a Ph.D. in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten major religions. Says Magaard:


“The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact we need to deal with. If it is correct that many Muslims view the Koran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence. Consequently, it must be reasonable to ask Muslims (as the Pope has done) how they relate to the text, if they read it as it is.”


One solution to the threat posed by Islam is proposed by Shmuel Bar in his article, The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism. Bar is Director of Studies at the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzliya, Israel.


“In order to comprehend the motivation for these acts and to draw up an effective strategy for a war against terrorism, it is necessary to understand the religious-ideological factors — which are deeply embedded in Islam... as religious establishments in most of the Arabian peninsula, in Iran, and in much of Egypt and North Africa are concerned, the radical ideology does not represent a marginal and extremist perversion of Islam but rather a genuine and increasingly mainstream interpretation. Even after 9-11, the sermons broadcast from Mecca cannot be easily distinguished from those of al Qaeda..


“Is it possible…to implement a comprehensive strategy to combat Islamic terrorism at its ideological roots? …Only an Islamic [cultural struggle] can redraw the boundaries between radical and moderate in favor of the latter. Such a struggle must be based on an in-depth understanding of the religious sources for justification of Islamist terrorism and a plan for the creation of a legitimate moderate counterbalance to the radical narrative in Islam...its proponents should be Islamic scholars and leaders with wide legitimacy and accepted credentials.


“In essence, the radical narrative, which promises paradise to those who perpetrate acts of terrorism, must be met by an equally legitimate religious force which guarantees hellfire for the same acts. Some elements of such rulings should be:


·    A call for renewal of ijtihad as the basis to reform Islamic dogmas and to relegate old dogmas to historic contexts.

·    That there exists no state of jihad between Islam and the rest of the world (hence, jihad is not a personal duty).

·    That the violation of the physical safety of a non-Muslim in a Muslim country is prohibited (haram).

·    That suicide bombings are clear acts of suicide, and therefore, their perpetrators are condemned to eternal hellfire.

·    That moral or financial support of acts of terrorism is also haram.

·    That a legal ruling claiming jihad is a duty derived from the roots of Islam is a falsification of the roots of Islam, and therefore, those who make such statements have performed acts of heresy.”


This proposal is similar to the Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding currently before the European Parliament, which will, “enable Muslims from all strands of belief to make it plain that they reject those extremist interpretations of their religious texts that promote or excuse violence and bring Islam into conflict with the world.” Authored by Sam Solomon, a converted terrorist leader and Islamic law expert, the Charter calls upon Muslims to:


·    Respect non-Muslim religions and issue a fatwa (an Islamic religious decree) prohibiting the use of force, violence or threats to their followers.

·    Respect all civilizations, cultures and traditions and promote understanding of the precedence of national laws over Sharia law.

·    Respect Western freedoms, especially of belief and expression and prohibit violent reaction against people who make use of these freedoms.

·    Prohibit the issuing of any fatwa that would result in violence or threat against individuals or institutions.

·    Request Islamic institutions to revise and issue new interpretations of Qur'anic verses calling for Jihad and violence against non-Muslims.


Just the perceived need to issue such a proposal shows that there is a problem.


This same Solomon once said that as a former recruiter for terrorism, he had the responsibility of  “…brainwashing people in the Koran…the most important stage in creating a suicide bomber is conforming them to the (Muslim) ideology…the rest is easy.” He has memorized large portions of the Koran and told Cal Thomas, : “There is not a single verse in the Koran talking about peace with a non-Muslim, with the Jews and Christians…[The Koran] incites violence.”


Asked whether the Koran commands the killing of or violence against all nonbelievers, Ali Khan, national director of the Chicago-based American Muslim Council replied:  “No. [That's] far from the truth. There's nothing in the Koran, no verse that I'm aware of, that advocates the killing of nonbelievers.”


Writes Thomas, “Terrorists and those who preach from mosques throughout the Middle East must be reading a different version, because virtually all of the sermons I’ve read claim their God wants them to kill ‘infidels.’” And he added, “…our failure to act now against this clear and present danger…will lead to a disaster.”


Unknown to most Americans, the U.S. government behind the scenes has adopted a policy similar to Bar’s recommendation, abandoning the official mantra that “Islam is peaceful.” David E. Kaplan in U.S. News and World Report says that earlier arguments over the nature of the enemy have been resolved:


“America's highest officials widely agree that the country's ‘greatest ideological foe is a highly politicized form of radical Islam and that Washington and its allies cannot afford to stand by’ as it gains in strength...Washington recognizes it has a security interest not just within the Muslim world but within Islam. Therefore, it must engage in shaping the very religion of Islam. Washington has focused on the root causes of terrorism – not poverty or U.S. foreign policy, but a compelling political ideology. The goal is to influence not only Muslim societies but Islam itself…[T]he U.S. role is less to offer its own views than to help those Muslims with compatible views, especially on such issues as relations with non-Muslims, modernization, and the rights of women and minorities.”


In a June 19, 2006, article in the New York Sun, titled “America and Islam: Collision Inevitable?”, Youssef Ibrahim said this on the need to change Islam:


“Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the world has learned a great deal about politicized Islam...and it has become clear that Islam needs a serious self-examination. The rejection of others - which is a basic foundation of Islam that is built into Islamic texts and practices - makes it impossible to divorce the religion from the violent impulses it inspires. [The Koran] is full of references to those who are not Muslims as ‘infidels.’ The Koran speaks in incredible detail of the need to do battle with infidels…”


“That concept should absolutely be revisited and revised by Muslim scholars if we are to believe they want peace…The aggressive demarcation of Muslims and infidels runs through all Islamic religious texts and speeches communicated to the faithful in millions of mosques across the globe…[spreading] the seeds of menace… Islam as practiced today in virtually all Muslim countries does not fashion itself merely as a spiritual value, but as a conquering force with a need to dominate…”


The truth is, whether it is Bar’s proposal, Solomon’s proposal, the government’s efforts, or the call for “serious self-examination,” all would seem to ask that Islam change into something it cannot be. The world’s dream of an effective “moderate” countermovement is probably a fantasy. For the simple reason that the Islam of “jihad” can always trump moderates with quotes direct from the Koran. Contextual reinterpretation is not acceptable to the vast majority of Islamic scholars, who also hold to the principle of “abrogation,” the rule that says the more violent verses of the later Koran of the bloody Medina period nullify the more peaceful verses of the earlier Meccan period. For that reason, the argument is strong that terrorism in the final analysis has its roots in the Koran, which comes straight from the being of God, and allows of no reinterpretation. Although it is reluctant to admit it, the world at present is at war with Islam. To the degree that this is true, what must we do to stop this movement?

That leads to the concept of deterrence, a concept we have been writing about and expounding on since our first article on the subject in July 31, 2003, but to little avail. (see Articles on Islam.)


Here is what Jenkins says about the current threat:


“Several national commissions were convened in the 1990s to examine the new dangers. One after another, they issued sober findings. In 1999 the Duetch Commission warned of the diversion of weapons of mass destruction from Russia, possession of weapons of mass destruction by unfriendly states, clandestine delivery of a nuclear weapon, and terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction in the United States. The following year the Bremer Commission warned of large scale terrorism in the United States, including chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. The Gilmore Panel warned of attacks in the United States with weapons of mass destruction, terrorist attacks on U.S. agriculture, and cyber terrorism. All three commissions agreed that the United States had to prepare for catastrophe.”


Here are some threats from terrorists that hint of such catastrophe:


·      TIME magazine – “A key al-Qaeda operative seized in Pakistan recently offered an alarming account of the group’s plans to target the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction, senior U.S. security officials tell TIME. Sharif al-Masri told his interrogators of ‘al-Qaeda’s interest in moving nuclear materials from Europe to either the U.S. or Mexico,’ according to a report circulating among U.S. government officials.”


·      Taliban leader Omar, in an interview on BBC World Service Radio in November 2001 stated that the nuclear destruction of the United states was well underway. “The plan is going ahead, and God willing, it is being implemented. But it is a huge undertaking, which is beyond the will and comprehension of human beings. If God’s will is with us, this will happen within a short period of time.”


·      al Qaeda, in a statement claiming credit for the Madrid bombing, March 11, 2004: “We announce the good news for Muslims in the world that the strike of the black wind of death, the expected strike against America, is now in its final stages - 90 percent ready- and it is coming soon.”


·      Associated Press, November 16, 2003: “Surrounded by five masked men carrying missiles Aba Salma Al-Hijazi, an al-Qaeda commander, said, ‘a huge and very courageous strike’ will take place…and that the number of ‘infidels’ expected to be killed in the attack exceeds 100,000. He stated that the attacks will be carried out in a way that will ‘amaze the world’ and turn al-Qaeda into an organization that ‘horrifies the world until the law of Allah (Sharia) is implemented.’


·      London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat reported bin Laden has vowed to launch a “back-breaking” attack on the United States, confirming an earlier message by the militant group network. “The attack will change the order of things. Americans should prepare their coffins, hospitals, and graves.”


·      60 Minutes, November 14, 2004: “Osama bin Laden now has religious approval to use a nuclear device against Americans,” Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA unit charged with tracking down the Saudi terrorist, told Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes. “Even if bin Laden had a nuclear weapon, he wouldn’t have used it for a lack of proper religious authority, authority he now has.” The approval found that bin Laden was perfectly within his rights to use them, to kill up to four million Americans, two million of them children.”


British authorities say they have foiled eight to ten such plots, and President Bush said in a speech in 2006 that ten terrorists attacks had been prevented, including several in the United States. In his last annual national security assessment to the Senate Armed Services Committee, George Tenet said,” Attacks have been prevented that otherwise would have taken place. The main enemy remains the U.S. We have time and again uncovered plots that are chilling. A spectacular attack against the U.S. remains the top goal and acquiring chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons remains a ‘religious obligation’ in the eyes of Osama bin Laden.”


Why a “religious obligation”? Again, all this has little to do with “social injustices.” That is befuddled academic thinking. This is a religious phenomenon.


Tenet refers to plots uncovered that are “chilling.” He did not elaborate. Robert Mueller, head of the FBI, on Larry King Live on June 22, 2006, also referred to plots that have been uncovered, without elaborating. But we can assume from what both say that the danger is very close, and very deadly.


Jenkins in the Appendix to Unconquerable Nation gives two interesting lists:


·      Chronology of Selected Jihadist Attacks Since September 11, 2001 (33 attacks)

·      Failed Terrorist Plots: What Were They Thinking About Doing? (46 failed plots) :


“Had the terrorists carried out every plot, 12 to 14 more commercial airliners would have been hijacked and crashed into various targets; another 15 would have been sabotaged or shot down with missiles. Several more ships would have been attacked. Many additional bombings would have occurred. Attacks involving lethal chemicals, botulinum toxin, and ricin would have occurred in Europe and Jordan. Killing as many as possible seems to have been the paramount criterion in most of the plans. Had all of these plans succeeded, thousands would have died.”


On deterrence Jenkins writes:


“[C]ontagious diseases or a nuclear explosion…could vault direct casualties into a realm two or three orders of magnitude greater than that of the 9/11 attacks—to the tens of thousands, hundred of thousands, or possibly even millions of fatalities…Either a bioterrorist attack or a nuclear attack would produce unpredictable societal, economic, and political effects…Either type of attack would unleash unprecedented fury and would fuel a demand for all-out warfare, with relatively few constraints against any group or government known or perhaps even suspected of being responsible. Everyone, including our adversaries, should understand that…


“All governments should understand that any attack involving a nuclear weapon will demand responses governed by completely new rules and against which considerations of sovereignty will provide little protection. A terrorist cutout will offer no cover. Any government found to have provided the material, aided in the attack, or provided asylum to the terrorist attackers will bear the same consequences as the attackers themselves. Because governments have national territory, infrastructures, and populations to protect, they are much more vulnerable to retaliation…


“Potential foes…might be informed that in the unimaginable aftermath of a terrorist nuclear attack, the United States may not feel obliged to wait for proof of a particular country’s involvement, but may instead choose to strike on suspicion alone...The objective of such a policy would be to expand uncertainty. The threat would not be specific, and methods need not be specified, but it would make the point that in the wake of a devastating terrorist-initiated pandemic or terrorist nuclear attack, a post-apocalypse world would be unpredictable. Massive retaliation, preemptive attacks, actions by other states that feel threatened, even actions by independent groups bent upon revenge are all possible, perhaps inevitable.”


The ambiguous element in these comments reminds us of an important summary of this subject by Joseph Farrah of WorldNetDaily on December 1, 2004:


“What would be the U.S. response to [a nuclear] attack? Now is the time to think about the unthinkable. Contingency plans need to be made. And those plans…need to be known to the whole world to serve as a deterrent against such an attack…We cannot afford to put off this discussion until it happens. It will be too late.


“We don’t need to be specific about which major cities and installations will be vaporized. But it needs to be clear that the response will be overwhelming…By having this national debate now and putting the world on notice, we can give the terrorists something to think about. Do they really want to see their cities vaporized? Do they really want to see their religious centers destroyed? Do they really want to see adherents to their ideology and their faith killed in massive numbers as a direct result of their actions?”


Ambiguity may be the best way to approach this. The U.S. government periodically issues an official list of nations seen by the U.S. as harboring or aiding terrorists. The President could announce to the world that there are further lists that outline areas in these nations, unspecified, that have been preselected as targets for their high concentration of terrorist activity. Any attack on America and an unspecified number of these areas, he could warn, will be instantly destroyed by nuclear or conventional bombs.


The American people have apparently not forgotten the terrorist threats mentioned above. A recent Gallup poll reported that “four in five think terrorists are prepared to launch a major attack anytime.”


In other words, in the absence of any stated policy of deterrence, the American people are just sitting here, waiting for disaster to strike. Therefore, it is imperative that the government give the American people some plan now to assure them that at least something is being done to protect them. Just sitting here, waiting, is a strategic nightmare, actually a strategic failure, that is wearing the nation out with apprehension.


As Jenkins writes in Unconquerable Nation, “Our obsession with new terrorist threats affect us. The inevitable by-product is public dread. Free-floating anxiety in an individual can lead to depression, irrational fears, edginess, the inability to think clearly...”


It is also slowly sapping our competitive energy, our faith in the future, and our national will.


The anxiety is greater than during the Cold War era. The nation got some reassurance from the policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which protected the nation for forty years or more. Our current government has not, however, given the people any kind of reassurance, either through deterrence, or threat of retaliation. Closing borders and checking containers, while helpful, are very limited and long-term solutions. The most logical thing to do, and immediately, is to issue some warning of retaliation. The failure to do so is a great failure on the part of the government.


This is the most fateful convergence in the history of mankind, an unparalleled murderous religious crusade with weapons capable of unimaginable mass extinction of life. No scenario can be discounted as “too radical” if there is a chance it can stop an evil like this.


With the nuclear bomb, we have entered the Age of the Irrational. It is totally irrational that one individual with such a weapon can destroy a whole city and all its inhabitants. Unless mankind can eliminate this threat, it has no future, as there are thousands of terrorists ready to give their lives to accomplish just such a catastrophe. It is going to take the whole free world, cooperating in the equivalent of many Marshall Plans combined with many Manhattan Projects, to solve the problem.


And if the Holocaust raised almost inconceivable theological problems, wait until the people of two or three American cities disappear in one day. The Jewish Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel said about seeing the Nazis burning children at Auschwitz, “Henceforth we can only speak theologically if it makes sense in the presence of burning children.” What can people say about meaning if whole cities of children disappear? A world where one man can destroy a city is totally irrational, has no meaning whatsoever. It would be clear there is no one in charge, no one watching over the sparrows. It will be the end of all theology and religion. Man is alone, and existence is absurd - will be the message.


No nation can tolerate threats such as this nation has received from Islamics, especially those to its children, without attempting to deter through a warning of retaliation. The goal of retaliation would be to demoralize the Muslim people involved in this movement into abandoning their insane, senseless, dream of “jihad.” If they strike at us, retaliation must be instantaneous and catastrophic, many times the force directed at us. Terrorists strike in the name of expanding Islam. If they are told beforehand that any attack by them will result in catastrophic retaliation, possibly destruction of, or a part of, any Muslim nation, possibly along with all major symbols of Islam such as Mecca and Medina, this would deny them their objective. Instead of expanding Islam, this would radically diminish its influence.


Unfortunately, there are new ideas emerging that may seriously complicate matters. From The Weekly Standard:


“Some nuclear states are less interested in deterrence than in using nuclear weapons to annihilate their enemies. Iran’s leadership has spoken of its willingness - in their words – to ‘martyr’ the entire Iranian nation, and it has even expressed the desirability of doing so as the way to accelerate an inevitable, apocalyptic collision between Islam and the West that will result in Islam’s final worldwide triumph. Wiping Israel off the map - one of Iran’s frequently expressed strategic objectives, - even if it results in an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran, may be viewed as an acceptable trade-off. Ideological actors of this kind may be very different from today’s nuclear powers who employ nuclear weapons as a deterrent to annihilation. Some of the new actors may seek to annihilate others and be annihilated, gloriously, in return.”


This is the suicide-bomber mentality projected to cosmic levels. What will constitute deterrence in this world? We have no idea how to deter ideological actors who may even welcome their own annihilation. We do not know what they hold dear enough to be deterred by the threat of its destruction. Mecca? Maybe. Otherwise the only thing that would deter this development would be to prove that the transcendental world does not exist, or that the 72 virgins are figments of imagination. Who can prove things like that? This, then, may be the world Iran is dragging us into. A nuclear no-man’s land.


Israel, however, could announce that if it is going down, it will take with it more than Tehran. It will take with it every capital of the Muslim world, thereby hoping to get these nations to rebel against Iran’s ideas of self-immolation. And we may reasonably hope that there will be millions of ordinary citizens in Iran who will complain loudly about what their leadership is volunteering them for. All we can suggest is that until such ideas of martyrdom become more solid; however, we should proceed with the idea that a threat of massive catastrophic retaliation can serve as deterrence.



1)      American bombers will take off continuously, night and day, headed for unspecified Muslim nations, loaded with conventional and nuclear bombs. If nothing happens in the U.S., they then turn around at a designated point and return to their base. This is the old “fail- safe” strategy of the Cold War era. Or bombers on alert on warships close offshore Muslim lands could be used.


If there is a terrorist attack on America, it could range from a shopping mall to an entire city. The Pentagon will already have mapped out numerous equivalent targets in those Muslim nations that harbor terrorists and the bombers will rain destruction on a selected target which will be equivalent to ten times the destruction in the U.S. This rule of ten insures that the terrorists must know in advance that their attacks will be responded to with massive overkill.


2)      The second part of the plan is for the free world to expose the truth about Islam. That is, every day, using all forms of communication, TV, lectures, radio, documentaries, etc., show the verses of the Koran advocating violence, point out the hypocrisy, tell of the dark history of Islam, the oppression of women, and the current goals of Islamic jihad, that is, to dominate the world either by conversion or slaughter. And suggest to Muslims there is another way to get to heaven besides murdering your fellow man.


One way to bring the terror to an end is by forcing Islam to face its contradictions. No religion of the world is more vulnerable to rational and moral criticism. The difficulty is that its followers will kill you for this. Killing in the name of God has long been associated with Islam, and is what separates this religion from the rest of humanity. As Vernon Richards wrote in Islam Undressed (and Solomon said), ”Grooming killers to first dehumanize their victims in their minds is the important prerequisite. The indoctrination in sacred scripture creates the belief that Americans, Jews, Hindus, and other non-Muslims are not human beings in the same sense as Muslims, and can be and should be slaughtered with impunity.” You can see this clearly in these posters widely displayed at a recent Muslin demonstration in London. (Associated Press):


·         Behead those who insult Islam

·         Europe, your extermination is on the way

·         Islam will dominate the world

·         Butcher those who mock Islam

·         Freedom go to hell

·         Europe - take some lessons from 9/11


First, and immediately, we throw up a shield of nuclear menace against their insanity. Then, one by one, we challenge the morality of their doctrines, until it all collapses under the weight of world disgust. Or reverts to what Muslim scholars claim is the “true” or more moderate Islam.


So the message of deterrence is—just don’t try it. This is a conditional plan, of the nature, “If you do that–we will do this.” Nothing need actually happen. If it does, they will be responsible—for the destruction of their own people. We must be prepared to use our power to end this threat to the world now, or live with it for decades to come during which time there will be successes by the terrorists. They will get through on occasion and destroy our cities one by one. After their first success, the loss of our first city to a nuclear device, there will be a terrible outcry for retaliation and millions could die in a spasm of unplanned nuclear response. Why not think this out and put a threat of retaliation in place now, in hopes of averting even that first attack?


Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform has fought in many campaigns over the years. The mission we face now is the biggest, trying to actualize a plan for the protection of the nation. To begin this campaign we are going to give away hundreds of T-shirts and bumper stickers that read, Deterrence Now! -, on them. These will be given out free downtown, people being able to get more information on the issue by going to our website.


We urge everyone receiving this article, especially the dozens of Vietnam vet groups that have worked with us in the past, to do the same in their town. Distribute this article, print up and hand out the bumper sticker, put together panels to discuss this on local radio-TV, write letters to the editor. Let me know of anything you are able to accomplish and I will put it all together in a report to the people. Time is running out.



This article may be reproduced in any form. Copy this article, distribute, add us as a link.


Leonard Magruder

Founder/President, V.V.A.R.

Phone: 785-312-9303


Return to Magruder Articles Index



Website design and management courtesy of Annette R. Hall. Hosted by


Top of Page